|
Link color codes:
Britannica Wikipedia Project Gutenberg Questia The Teaching Company FindArticles News: The Economist Depesjer Sploid Music chart: 
Worth reading
From the archives: Remember, remember 11 September; Murderous monsters in flight; Reject their dark game; And let Liberty's flame; Burn prouder and ever more bright - Geoffrey Barto "Bjørn Stærks hyklerske dobbeltmoral er til å spy av. Under det syltynne fernisset av redelighet sitter han klar med en vulkan av diagnoser han kan klistre på annerledes tenkende mennesker når han etter beste evne har spilt sine kort. Jeg tror han har forregnet seg. Det blir ikke noe hyggelig under sharia selv om han har slikket de nye herskernes støvlesnuter."
2005: 12 | 11 | 10 | 09 | 08 | 07 | 06 | 05 | 04 | 03 | 02 | 01
|
No Jews on Kristallnacht?
By Øyvind Strømmen, dilettant.no I’ve always had high respect for the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. But after their latest, poorly researched press release, I’m concerned. It’s not their fault originally. The Norwegian tv-channel TV2 is to blame, aided by newspapers like Dagbladet and Norge IDAG, and bloggers like Jan Haugland of Secular Blasphemy. What’s the story? According to TV2 and others, Jews were barred from participating in the Kristallnacht commemoration in Oslo - the police kept them out to ensure their safety. Carl I Hagen from the rightist Progress Party, is “shocked”: - Jews should have been the guests of honour. Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Wiesenthal Centre is no less concerned: - Can one even imagine a solemn commemoration of the Shoah that itself is Judenrein? But there's a problem: The story isn’t true. Jews have never been barred from the commemoration, and this year, too, Jews took part. But the arrangement committee did not want to turn the commemoration into a political demonstration about Middle Eastern politics. They drew this lesson from last year when Norway's former Conservative prime minister Kåre Willoch criticized Israel and its separation barrier on the Kristallnacht. According to a press release the arrangers “feared that the day would be torn away from its historical role, and the many issues of antisemittism and racism in Norway today”. Therefore they did not want neither Israeli nor Palestinian flags in the commemoration. The only paroles that were to be included were the paroles 130 different Norwegian organizations had agreed upon before the commemoration, paroles like “Nazism – never again” and “Stop incitement against Muslims”. Everyone didn’t agree, and this is where the police came in. They stopped a small number of people on the far right-wing of Norwegian politics from disrupting the commemoration. Among the people they stopped were representatives from the Democratic Party, a party led by former Progress Party politician Vidar Kleppe, who’s well-known for his anti-immigrant opinions, and from Forum against Islamization, an extreme anti-Muslim group. There were also people connected to the Norwegian Israel Centre, amongst these the leader, Erez Uriely. Following the event, Uriely and his wife Rachel Suiza wer, excluded from det Mosaiske Trossamfund (DMT), the Jewish Community in Oslo, who did not find it acceptable that members of its congregation worked together with rightwing extremists. In a press release DMT stated: - In the light of [their] choice to cooperate with groups that DMT strongly opposed on the anniversary of the Kristallnacht, the board chose to exclude Erez Uriely and Rachel Suissa [...] with immediate action. So, the Jews mentioned in the news weren’t just barred from taking part in the commemoration. They were also excluded from the local Jewish Community. The Norwegian Association against Anti-Semitism has also reacted. In a press release they state: - We react strongly against extremist groups who try to bring the Middle Eastern conflict into what is and should be a commemoration of Nazi crimes. On their website the Democratic Party claims that the rightwing demonstrants were anti-Nazis who were barred from demonstrating by anti-Semites who have taken over the Kristallnacht commemoration. Sadly, this is also the impression several Norwegian media and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre leaves us with. In the case of the media that’s lousy journalism. In the case of SWC it’s lousy research. That said it is a sad fact that both the extreme left and the extreme right use the anniversary of the Kristallnacht for their own political purposes, as pointed out in the press release from the Jewish congregation in Oslo. This is the problem both the media and SWC should have adressed.
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-13 11:41 |
Link
For more on this, see Andrew Sullivan, Jan Haugland, and Leif Knutsen 1 2 3. I'm mostly with Øyvind on this one: This was blown out of proportion, first by sensation-hungry journalists and then by pro-Israelis who found the story too good not to spread. Norwegian police chasing Jews away from a Kristallnacht commemoration - it just sounds right to those of us who believe that anti-Israelism often crosses the border into anti-semitism. There is a minor scandal here, which is that anti-racists and pro-Israelis seem unable to come together over the Holocaust, which was both the worst product of racism in history and the focal point of modern Israeli history. Both should acknowledge the other group's right to commemorate it and draw lessons from it. Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-13 12:06 | Link When you refer to anti jewish feelings, dont say anti semitism, because it is not anti semitism, otherwise it will be anti-arabs as well since the Arabs are also semitic before even Moses was born ! Allan, Melbourne | 2004-11-13 12:28 | Link Phew, so the anti-rasists were not anti-semites after all. Good thing! RSN | 2004-11-13 12:35 | Link Oyvind and Bjorn, I disagree. Just the fact that Jews were prohibited from displaying the Israeli flag says something about Norwegian society's attempt to separate Kristallnacht from Israel and make it into a commemoration event where they can put their humility proudly on display. It's so very Lutheran. The fact remains that all of Europe had a big, big hand in the creation of the state of Israel. It was the Europeans who cooperated with the Nazis in the Holocaust; it could not have been done alone by the Nazis. After it was over, there was the embarrassing question of what to do with the survivors. Repatriation was a problem, since the properties of Jews were now occupied by others. And who could blame the Jews for feeling uneasy about returning to those "homes" and "neighborhoods"? Europe breathed a collective sigh of relief when Jews left for Israel, and supported the idea of an Israeli state from the get go. To deny that is to engage in gross revisionism and distortion. Now that the majority of Jews are gone, European anti-Semitism can be practised anew, albeit with the occasional public ceremony demonstrating remorse. And the Arabs are cheered on as they try to complete the original project of the Europeans: the elimination of the Jews. Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-13 12:46 | Link RSN ''And the Arabs are cheered on as they try to complete the original project of the Europeans: the elimination of the Jews.''
What a hypocrite ! Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-13 13:29 | Link Bjørn, I think when you say that the minor scandal is that anti-racists and pro-Israelis were unable to come together over the Holocaust, you have it just about right. I must say it ticks me off immensely when "news" that will naturally incite strong reactions, is the news that is most likely to be "hyped" by a media that is hungry for a big story. It irritates me almost as much as the pre-conceived narrative that often seems to rewrite history in real time, regardless of the facts. As I've said before, this is the philosophical core of that phenonmenon called "spin" which has been discussed before. Sadly, I think that looking superficially at what actually DID happen, makes it easy to airbrush the implications of why there was even this lesser story. You alluded to it when you said that the holocaust was both the worst product of racism in history and the focal point of modern Israeli history. There are forces at play here which made this possible... and they are the same forces which made the original spin on the story seem as though it actually could have been accurate. And there is a story unfolding there which will continue to unfold. Actually, the first I heard of this story at all was when I saw it referenced in the comment section of the post you did yesterday. I was skeptical because it seemed amazing... but I did not dismiss it as impossible out if hand... which is disturbing. So in any case, thanks for the clarification.
Kevin Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-13 14:03 | Link Ex-Christian: When you refer to anti jewish feelings, dont say anti semitism, because it is not anti semitism, otherwise it will be anti-arabs as well since the Arabs are also semitic before even Moses was born ! Incorrect. The word "anti-semitism" was defined as "anti-Jew" in the 19th century, and has never referred to hatred of Arabs. "Semitic" is a language group which was defined to include both Hebrew and Arabic. There is no "semitic" race. Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-13 14:16 | Link You got it TERRIBLY WRONG Bjørn: Semitism" comes from the name of a character in the Bible, whose name was Shem. If you will remember, Noah had three sons who were named Ham, Shem and Japeth. Those who came from Ham were called "Hamites," those who came from Shem were called "Shemites," or "Semites," and those who were descended from Japheth were called "Japhethites." Therefore, anyone who is against the descendants of Shem, would be "Anti-Semitic.: Is that so? Well, let's follow it out a little further. A great-grandson of Shem was born and was named Eber, of Heber. You will find that in Genesis 11:14. Heber had descendants who were called "Hebrews," and his most notable descendant was a man named Abraham, who is called a "Hebrew." (Genesis 14:13) The descendants of Abram (or Abraham) were called Hebrews, especially when the Children of Israel were in Egypt, and the Egyptians called them by that name, "Hebrews." Remember, all the descendants of Abraham were, and are, Hebrews. Abraham had two sons. The first-born son was named Ishmael. His mother was Hagar, an Egyptian. Because Ishmael was not the son of Abraham's wife, he was not given the blessings, which were promised to Abraham, but was to head up a different race of people. The Arabs of today are the descendants of Ishmael. The Arabs are a Hebrew people, because they came from Abraham, who was a Hebrew. The Arabs are also a Semitic people because they came from Shem, the son of Noah. As the Arabs are Semitic, then, anyone who is against the Arabs are" Anti-Semitic." So, if the Jews today are fighting the Arabs, the Jews are" Anti-Semitic," because the Arabs are Semites. Therefore, if the Jews are against the Arabs they are" Anti-Semitic" and should be charge with ''Ani-Semitism'' More readings here: ANTI-SEMITISM: WHAT IT REALLY IS! http://amprom.org/documents_pages/antisemitism.html It is the time to break the jewish monopoly over the title SEMITIC because the jews are not the only semitics in the world.
Michael Farris | 2004-11-13 14:47 | Link "When you refer to anti jewish feelings, dont say anti semitism, because it is not anti semitism, otherwise it will be anti-arabs as well since the Arabs are also semitic before even Moses was born" Okay, what about "Anti-Jewish bigotism" instead? "Jew hatred"???? "Judophobic"???? But no matter what you call it, there's no way to put a nice name on it. Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-13 14:58 | Link Ex Christian, Be that as it may, Bjørn is quite correct when he says that the meaning of the term has become widely accepted as meaning anti-Jew. In fact, in its modern etymology it was a bit artful, and came to replace the term Jew Hatred (which was actually a more honest term and thus harder to rationalize intellectually) in the 19th Century, first in Germany (appropriately enough). Tracing the original use of "Semitic" in modern times, Bjørn is correct again when he says that it is a common nomenclature for a group of languages which have clear commonality in one of the post Sumerian linguistic branches. The reference you make to the biblical "origin" is all well and good, but it is essentially a non sequitur regarding the actual usage of the word itself; and if I might add, is actually a very good example of how your tendency to "redefine" anything that touches on matters Jewish, is highly revealing as to your perspective on what an "enlightened" thought is. I always find it amusing (albeit disturbing) how your ilk has adapted so readily to postmodern sophistry from deconstruction to forms of literary criticism to convoluted historical revisionism in reshaping meaning in your own minds, and thus in your rhetoric. One would think it intuitive that the "nuance" and anchorless methodologies of the meainglessness mongers of faux progressivism would be anathema to an ideology so grounded in self proclaimed moral certainty and ultimate truth. Its extremely revealing as its true nature (and yours) ... that this is not so. KM Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-13 15:15 | Link Ex-Christian: You got it TERRIBLY WRONG Bjørn. Words mean whatever everyone believes they mean. Anti-semitism has meant hatred of Jews ever since the word was invented in the 19th century. ("Semitic" is a much older word than "anti-semitic", descending as you correctly point out from Shem, son of Noah.) What you mean is that you wish anti-semitism didn't mean hatred of Jews, and that you want it to mean hatred of Jews, Arabs, Maltesans and Ethiopians, (who also speak Semitic languages). I'm not going to follow your wish, but there's a good way to solve this: Every time I write "anti-semitism", substitute the word with "Jew-hatred" in your own mind. Because that is the sense I use it in. Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-13 15:26 | Link Allan: This episode has already been used by several posters on this blog stating how bad things are in Norway, well they were proven wrong alright. And on many other blogs. There's a lesson here about spreading ideas we want to believe. The question is: How can the damage be reversed? Andrew Sullivan is read by more than a hundred thousand people a day. RSN: Just the fact that Jews were prohibited from displaying the Israeli flag says something about Norwegian society's attempt to separate Kristallnacht from Israel and make it into a commemoration event where they can put their humility proudly on display. It says something, but what it doesn't say is that Jews aren't allow to commemorate the Holocaust. The story most blogs reported left out so many facts that it was incorrect. Yes, there's a battle over the memory of the Holocaust, between those who see it as a racist event and those who see it as a Jewish event. I believe it's both. I also believe it's a shame pro-Israelis and anti-racists can't find common ground here, but that if the only way they can find that ground is by ignoring the Middle East alltogether, then it is rude of pro-Israelis to show up with Israeli flags. nilsr, oslo | 2004-11-13 16:05 | Link Bjørn, I see the point about those being rejected, they probobly shouldn`t be there, but I don`t think the press are being totaly off target. The fact that paroles like “Stop incitement against Muslims” were agreed upon but no mention of the Jews speaks of some political bearings here. Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-13 16:08 | Link Bjørn, "I also believe it's a shame pro-Israelis and anti-racists can't find common ground here..." I agree, but as I said above, the barriers between them are contrived, and they are bound up in the forces that have brought us to this historic, and often history denying place. "but that if the only way they can find that ground is by ignoring the Middle East alltogether, then it is rude of pro-Israelis to show up with Israeli flags. " And because of what I refer to (though admittedly vaguely) above, here I disagree. The principle that things should appear to be about what their actual substance is about, does not preclude the pro-Israelis bringing Israeli flags to a commemoration of Kristallnacht. Would it have been different if it were the case that the groups that were insisting on bearing the flag were NOT apparrently "extremists"? What if the point that a more reasonable group was earnestly making is that the holocaust IS metaphysically bound to the existence of the State of Israel. Is it "rude" to try to make this point part of the discourse? I think not. And within the bounds of free speech "rudeness" is rarely a relevant issue, as you yourself stated yesterday when referring to its nature regarding recent events in Holland.(At one point I believe you used the term "thick-skinned" to describe what is often necessary to engage in free society... and rightly implied that this is a good thing for both truth and freedom.) If the reaction to Israeli flags would have been the "menacing" presence of Palestinian flags along the commemorative route, all the more reason to permit it. Questions need to be asked, not couched in simpering rhetoric and relativistic nonsense. If this seems "unhelpful" to those who would like a nice pleasant Kristallnacht Commemoration... and they impose their authority on its participants in order to make it not so... then we have missed an existentially critical point haven't we? It may seem like a good idea to feel good about the evening and prevent any unpleasantness, but then... this is part of the insidious folly that is making these troubled times potentially catastrophic times. Bjørn, if the only way to "make" anti-racists and pro Israelis find common ground is to impose a denial of where they diverge, than it is hardly common ground that they find, ikke sant? It is an illusion of that which actually serves to perpetuate a state where the so called anti-racists are not standing openly and unafraid on the principles they claim to hold, and where the pro-Israelis can be said to be more about what they are against, than what they are for. That is why the operative word in free speech, free expression and free assembly... is free. This is a seperate issue completely from the wrongness of how the story was actually spun. Its important to keep it as such (that's an ever important caveat in assessing media events). While I agree with both your position regarding the after the fact "spin train", and the fundamental nature of the events it referred to, I think you err in your final assessment. I base this on your own, well formed and often articulately stated principles regarding Liberty and transparency in a free society. Cheers, Kevin Isdor | 2004-11-13 16:21 | Link Ex-Christian now muslim, Why would muslims want to save Jews from total destruction during the middle ages? You yourself said that you believed that Jews eat babies in their religious rituals. Why would you muslims ever want to save such people? I don't really believe that Jews eat babies. Only because I have known many jews but never seen any of them eat babies. Of course I can't be completely sure. But hypothetically if I knew of a religion that was similarily barberic, I wouldn't go out of my way to preserve it or its believers. Especially if this very hypothetical religion posed such a danger to me and of course my children. Strange... Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-13 16:51 | Link Just saying that the Israeli flag is an incitement speaks VOLUMES about the state of anti-Semitism in Norway. No amount of "deconstructing" can take away the fact that the state of Israel is very dear to most Jewish people. To ban the Israeli flag in a parade commemorating Kristallnacht is beyond bizarre. Time for you so-called logical people to reread George Orwell's 1984. Seriously--there are so many ideas that jump out, including the rewriting of history and the meaning of words, as well as the 5-minute hate sessions. Also pertinent, but a lot more tedious, is Gulliver's Travels, with emphasis on the scientific people who live on an island in the sky. We've discussed this ad nauseum on your blog, Bjorn, but the fact remains that those who want to see Israel destroyed also want to see the Jewish people destroyed. You can "spin" this any way you want. Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-13 17:02 | Link Just went from your blog to Europundits, where Nelson Ascher discusses the phemonenon of the "voluptuousness of reality"--a mental condition whereby, in an effort to be strictly hardnosed and logical, one becomes immobilized and even irrational. Scroll down. It's near the bottom of his current post on the death of Arafat. Slightly OT but not really--the Presbyterian Church (USA) has just voted to divest itself of all stock that do business with Israel. Are these people (1) fair (2) noble (3) working for an evil cause? I'm sure they think they're fair and noble. Kim Sook-Im,US | 2004-11-13 17:03 | Link hi isdor, http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items02/140802-3.html and also go to: Thank you, Kim Sook-Im Gill Doyle, California | 2004-11-13 17:09 | Link I still don't understand why Israeli flags were not allowed in the parade. And I don't understand why the organizers could not include in their procession Jews of every opinion -- right, left, and center. Was this not an event that was supposed to commemorate what happened to the Jews? And were there not then, as there are now, Jews of every opinion? The fact that Israeli flags are apparently regarded in Norway as something akin to Nazi swastikas is also worth criticizing, I think. Is Israel's very existence controversial in Norway? The flag represents Israel, but it does not necessarily represent Israel's more repressive policies. Kim Sook-Im,US | 2004-11-13 17:16 | Link ex-christian, strictly arabs should be referred to as hamito-semitic. At any rate , if you have read my other comments in the other thread you would reallise that the ahl sSunnah wa lJamah/wa shia' are practising a form of biblical sunnism, or practising a form of old testamental judeo-christianity..the religion of the olden pharasees with its cult like obsession with irrational rites and rituals , obligatory 5x/day salaat/prayer, siyam,fasting, stoning of adulteress, denigration of women, hijab/head dress, which is an old jewish custom, keeping fist-length beard, scrapping and bowing to mecca/actually originally to jerusalem, paying of zakat or obligatory tithes, all these are not quranic, but derived from old judeochristianity with influence of zoroastrian, sabaean, mandaen etc folklores, practises, customs etc. You should go and take a look at the site : www.free-minds.org and www.progressivemuslims.org also there is the possiblity that all this information 'transmitted/revealed' to all these so called prophets could be nothing more than high tech psychotronic manipulations by more highly evolved and intelligent sentient beings w/in the solar system or originating extra- solar system. Zecharia Sitchin is author of a fascinating hypothesis about the extra terrestrial origins of the olden gods of the abrahamic religions/ mentioned in the bible as the annunakis or nephilims. Here are the sites: www.xfacts.com shukran lakum wa ma3a salaamah Kim Sook-Im Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2004-11-13 17:20 | Link Well, that was the attempted whitewash. The police, as reported in the media (which may or may not be correct) has a quite different version. They said even the star of david was not welcome. I am also interested in hearing which jews, carrying a star of david, actually participated in the march this year. Most Norwegians don't even see a problem with banning the Israeli flag in a memory of the kristallnacht, and that is maybe the most troubling thing of all. Pro-Palestinian groups who have been supporting and fighting a terror war against Israel and jews generally for decades have no business even getting close to a kristallnacht march. Instead they have hijacked it. The above article, while emphasisisng that Det Mosaiske Trossamfund excluded Uriely, conveniently ignores that they also refused to participate in the march because of the anti-semitic left-wing groups that were prominent in it. If the march organisers had kicked out the "Blitz" anarchists, who have committed many acts of vandalism against jews in Norway, as well as the people wearing kufiahs ("palestina-skjerf") in support of Palestinian terrorism, then they would have some leg to stand on. The above article also seems to pretend it was against the organiser's wishes and plans that Kåre Willoch last year turned the march into an Israel-bashing contest. Who are they trying to fool? As it is, "SOS Rasisme" has two years running made a memorial march of the start of the murder of six million European jews into an anti-Israel propaganda vehicle. If they don't see that this is an atrocity, an insult to the victims of the Holocaust (many survivors and relatives live in Israel, remember?) and politically tone-deaf, then they have a serious problem. Threatening to sue bloggers who point this out, like they did to Leif Knudesn, doesn't make it at all better. Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-13 17:32 | Link Jan Haugland, Bergen '' If the march organisers had kicked out the "Blitz" anarchists, who have committed many acts of vandalism against jews in Norway, as well as the people wearing kufiahs ("palestina-skjerf") in support of Palestinian terrorism, then they would have some leg to stand on. ''
Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-13 17:52 | Link >> They said even the star of david was not welcome. LOL. Ok, the plot thickens. All of Bjørn's arguments work in reverse as well. I'm here waiting anxiously for the "real" story. What I don't get is how in the world the police could have the right to do any of this? Wouldn't a restriction of this sort be a civil rights issue? Don't people have a right to walk around with whatever flag they want to? Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-13 18:26 | Link Bjørn: In fact, we should probably all use the word "Jew-hatred", instead. Not because anti-Semitism means something else (which can be reasonably argued), but because "Jew-hatred" is a better word. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-13 19:17 | Link Gill Doyle: The fact that Israeli flags are apparently regarded in Norway as something akin to Nazi swastikas is also worth criticizing, I think. Pardon my French, but that is bullshit. Israeli flags are not regarded as akin to Nazi swastikas. The arrangers of the commemoration simply did not want it to turn into to a political demonstration for or against Israeli, and therefore didn't want to have flags in the demonstration, neither Israeli nor Palestinian. The background is, of course, partly Willochs critique of Israel last year, a critique that created heavy controverse.That controverse was over a real issue, and SOS Rasisme has taken it seriously. As they should. While their choice can be criticized from different perspectives, it does not signal neither Jew-hatred nor anti-Israeli sentiments. Personally I think it is a sensible choice as it is fully possible to be against both Nazism and anti-Semitism and at the same time sceptical to the state of Israel. It's also simply not true that people wearing David-stars (or for that matter other religious symbols) were barred from taking part in the commemoration. As a matter of fact, the David Star was even used on the official poster for the commemoration. I'll include my translation from the press release from the Det Mosaiske Trossamfund, perhaps the most sensible comment to what happened. I would say that their statements carry much more weight than Jan Hauglands statements on "whitewash". Det Mosaiske Trossamfund astonished over TV2-report The board of Det Mosaiske Trossamfund has, with some astonishment, seen the TV2-reports concerning claims that Jews were barred from taking part in the commemoration SOS-Rasisme arranged in connection with the anniversary of the Kristallnacht 9. november. We want to stress that DMT was invited to take part in the commemoration The board of Det Mosaiske Trossamfund in Oslo (DMT) has been informed that Norsk Israelsenter (NIS) took part in a demonstration in the centre of Oslo on the 9th of November, together with the Democratic party and Forum against Islamization. FOMI represents an ideology that DMT as a cultural and religious minority in the Norwegian society denounces. DMT has no cooperation with NIS. We are, however, aware of the organization being led by Erez Uriely and Rachel Suissa, both have been members in DMT. DMT as a Jewish congregation does not take an opinion in specific political questions if these questions does not have direct consequenses to the work or existance of the congregation in the Norwegian society. This is also true for the Middle East-conflict, eventhough many of our members, of natural reasons, have a deep sympathy with the land and people of Israel. We hope, and pray, that a solution must be found in the conflict that to as a large a degree as possible considers the rights and needs of all parties making it possible for all people and cultures in the region to find a future of peaceful co-existence. From painful experience we know how important it is to fight against all anti-Semitism and racism, and we find it regrettable that representants from both the far left and the far right has used the anniversary of the Kristallnacht to make political statements that go wider than a commemoration of the incomprehensible persecution of Jews by Nazi-Germany. This is the background for our choice not to take part in the commemorations of the Kristallnacht the last few years. Because NIS and the leadership of that organization decided to cooperate with actors DMT strongly condemns the board chose to immediately exclude Erez Uriely and Rachel Suissa from Det Mosaiske Trossamfund on the 9th of November. Might I add that Hauglands statements on wearing a kufiah being an equivalent of supporting terrorism left me baffled, too. Øyvind Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-13 19:20 | Link Kevin: Is it "rude" to try to make this point part of the discourse? If you want to make it together with other people, yes. It would be rude to hold a meeting where Muslims and non-Muslims come together to condemn the van Gogh murder, and then show Submission at that meeting. If the pro-Israelis don't like the profile of the antiracists' Kristallnacht commemoration, they should create their own. But it seems to me that the anti-racists went pretty far to make their commemoration open for Jews and pro-Israelis. That invitation should have been accepted. For pro-Israelis and anti-racists to come together over the Holocaust would have been a powerful message. They can quarrel over Israel the rest of the year. Totoro: Just saying that the Israeli flag is an incitement speaks VOLUMES about the state of anti-Semitism in Norway. To many anti-racists, the Israeli flag symbolizes a brutal occupation, just as to pro-Israelis the Palestinian flag symbolizes terrorism. If both groups are to be able to take part in a commemoration of an event that is important to both of them, it follows that they shouldn't go about waving Israeli and Palestinian flags. The anti-racists did their part by not waving Palestinian flags. A group of pro-Israelis showed up with Israeli flags. How do you suggest the anti-racists react to that? Should they have tried to resolve the entire Middle East debate there and then? Debate it all through until one side changes their mind? Or insist that the commemoration stay away from modern Middle Eastern politics? Seems obvious to me that the pro-Israelis should either have accepted the terms for taking part in an ME-neutral event, or held their own. Jan Haugland: They said even the star of david was not welcome. I am also interested in hearing which jews, carrying a star of david, actually participated in the march this year. It would be hypocritical to ban the star of David and allow the kufiahs. Were anyone turned away simply for wearing stars of David, or just the ones who also carried Israeli flags? But that is still just hypocrisy. The original story about Jews turned away for being visibly Jewish lacked a lot of vital details. By the way, I don't dispute that the anti-racists have hijacked this event - in the past with an openly anti-Israeli message, and this year by showing up in larger numbers. But I think it would be worth the attempt to make this an event anti-racists, pro-Israelis and Jews can have in common. At least on this one day they could attempt diplomacy. Gunnar: I'm here waiting anxiously for the "real" story. What I don't get is how in the world the police could have the right to do any of this? Wouldn't a restriction of this sort be a civil rights issue? Any potentially volatile event is closely attended by the police, to prevent violence. I suspect the organizers pointed out the pro-Israelis to the police as a likely source of trouble. They were probably right. Instead of removing every leftist activist who might be provoked by an Israeli flag, the police removed the Israeli flags. I seriously doubt they did that for political reasons, and they were within their rights. Public peace trumps the right to protest - even in your country, unless I'm mistaken. Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-13 19:47 | Link Bjorn . . . You said: "Public peace trumps the right to protest - even in your country, unless I'm mistaken." No, it doesn't work that way. Check out photos of protestors in the United States. I'm sorry you can't see that the Israeli flag is not a "symbol of brutal occupation." It is a symbol of the Jewish state. It sounds like the Jews of Norway have become dhimmified. Those who want to carry the Israeli flag are considered "right wingers." The world is upside down. Propaganda has triumphed over reality. Be assured that us Jews will fight (figuratively and literally) to protect the Jewish state from destruction. If that disturbs the peace of Europeans and others, well that's just too bad. The progress of delegimitizing Israel is proceeding rapidly. But I want to all to think what a world without Jews would be like. Really think about it. The reason you don't see many Jewish terrorists is because it's against OUR Jewish religion to harm the innocent. What if the survivors of a new Holocaust abandoned their JEWISH religion and became vengeful. Think about it. The Israeli occupation is not brutal. If you want to find brutal, look elsewhere. Israelis are trying to defend their country as best they can while millions of dollars are being spent to arm the terrorists who attack them. The hypocrisy of Norwegians is unbelievable.
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-13 20:06 | Link Totoro: No, it doesn't work that way. Check out photos of protestors in the United States. So any group of any size can walk anywhere they like and shout slogans? They don't need permits? They're not closed off in free speech zones if there are particular fears of violence? This is news to me. I'm sorry you can't see that the Israeli flag is not a "symbol of brutal occupation." It is a symbol of the Jewish state. You believe that. I believe that. Most of the anti-racists in questions do not. So the question is: Should anti-racists and pro-Israelis attempt to hold a Kristallnacht commemoration together, or should they hold their own? Because if there is any value in holding it together, it's only natural they they should put apart issues they disagree about which are not directly related to the issue. The Holocaust was a horrible product of racism independently of whether the Israeli occupation of Palestine is racist. The Holocaust was a horrible massacre of Jews independently of whether Israel is in the right today. It sounds like the Jews of Norway have become dhimmified. Those who want to carry the Israeli flag are considered "right wingers." But these people were right wingers, at least in the immigration and Islam critical sense of the word. The hypocrisy of Norwegians is unbelievable. Absolutely. The question is: Is there no place at all where anti-racists and pro-Israelis can come together? Not even over something everyone agrees is one of the most horrible events in history? Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-13 20:11 | Link >>I suspect the organizers pointed out the pro-Israelis to the police as a likely source of trouble. ok, please excuse my ignorance. Certainly, the organizers have that right. I assumed that jewish folks organized it, so I didn't expect that they would exclude israeli flags. >>Public peace trumps the right to protest - even in your country, unless I'm mistaken. As unlikely as it may seem from my postings, my country is Norway. In the country that I'm currently residing in, I don't believe that people in the public can be touched by the police, until they actually break a law. IOW, the authorities can't do anything about people who might do something. Where people get confused is the distinction between public and private events. A private event on private property is different, since the property owner has the right to remove anyone for any reason whatsoever. For example, the big party conventions. Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2004-11-13 20:18 | Link Bjørn: I mostly agree with you about various issues, Bjørn, but this baffles me. Are you seriously arguing that for a commemoration for Jews killed by the nazis, the jews should be so polite as to not wear the national flag of the Jewish State, to not offend the participants who openly support terrorists who work hard to organise the second Holocaust? Palestinian flags surely have nothing to do on a kristallnacht memorial - period. Israel was created as a direct result of the Holocaust, because events had proved that in the diaspora, jews repeatedly suffered pogroms and genocide. The flag represents the only true hope for securing that the tragedy is not repeated. Equalling Israeli and Palestinian flags and pretend to reach a "compromise" by banning both is disingenious.
Det Mosaiske Trossamfunn chose to not participate, in protest against leftist extremists who have hijacked the occasion. That is really all we need to know. They don't like the jewish individuals who were present at the march for their political views. How does any of this contradict the version of events TV2 reported? They were, after all, not there. Øyvind, if you don't see how westerners wearing the late terrorist godfather Arafat's famous headgear is a support of terrorism, I'm afraid I can't help you. Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-13 20:25 | Link Isdor ''Ex-Christian now muslim, Why would muslims want to save Jews from total destruction during the middle ages?''
Source : Sarina Roffé is a career journalist and the author of Branching Out: The Kassin and Labaton Dynasties . She is a member of the Jewish Genealogical Society, Inc. of New York, and Brooklyn's Syrian Jewish community. JEWISH GATES The tolerance of the Umayyad regime made Muslim Spain a refuge for Jews, and their numbers increased dramatically. Source:The Jewish Gates http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=126 Colin Thubron, the British author, writes in his book Jerusalem, " In the early centuries, the Muslims were generally tolerant of the Jews and lived with them peacefully while Europe was steeped in persecution.'' Salman ben Yeruham, A Karaite Jewish author, writing about A.D. 950, the Muslims granted the Jews access to Jerusalem and its holy sites. Salman wrote: "As it is known, Jerusalem remained under the rule of the Rum [the Byzantines] for more than 500 years, during which they [the Jews] werenot able to enter Jerusalem. Anyone who was discovered entering was ''killed''. When by the mercy of the God of Israel the Rum departed from us and the kingdom of Ishmael [the Arabs] appeared, the Jews were granted permission to enter and reside there." During the reign of Saladin this traditional Islamic tolerance continued. Conversely, when the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, they burned the Jews in their synagogue. From 1099 to 1189, Jews were not allowed to live in the city. But with the Muslim repossession of Jerusalem, Jews were allowed to return. The Spanish poet Yehuda al-Harizi, who was in Jerusalem in 1207, described the significance for the Jews of the recovery of Jerusalem by Saladin: [ In A.D. 1190] God aroused the spirit of the prince of the Ishmaelites [Saladin], a prudent and courageous man, who came with his entire army, besieged Jerusalem, took it and had it proclaimed throughout the country that he would receive and accept the entire race of Ephraim, wherever they came from. And so we came from all comers of the world to take up residence here. We now live here in the shadow of peace. Further testament to Saladin's tolerance comes from the eminent German Jewish historian of the Nineteenth Century, Heinrich Graetz.In his Geschichte der Juden [History of the Jews], vol. 11, published in 1853, he states that the Sultan, " opened the whole kingdom to the persecuted Jews, so they came to it, seeking security and finding justice.'' At about the same time that Jews were fleeing from Spain and seeking refuge in Arab lands and elsewhere (15th and 16th Centuries), the Ottoman Empire opened its doors to them and gave them refuge. The prominent Jewish banker Don Joseph Nasi, a refugee from Portugal, was made advisor to Sultan Suleiman who showered the emigre with honors. There are a number of statements from prominent Jews expressing gratitude to the Ottomans for their generous treatment of fugitive Jews. In his History of the Jews, A. L. Sachar, a former president of Brandeis University, noted: "Jews had found refuge in the Ottoman dominions for many decades before the expulsion from Spain. During the fifteenth-century persecutions in Germany, thousands had fled eastward and had been well received in the Turkish provinces. Life was secure and the morrow could be greeted without terror.'' Source : Arab American Roman Catholic Community: http://www.al-bushra.org/jerusalem1/jerhist.htm Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2004-11-13 20:28 | Link Oh, and Øyvind, in the article above you write "The story isn’t true" But, in fact, everything you summarised above that line is true. Yes, you have additional information, there are counter-arguments, but as far as it goes what TV2 reported is true. What I wrote is true. Thus, Øyvind, you are dishonest, and since you explicitly mentioned my blog, I take that as an accusation of dishonesty that you simply haven't backed up with facts. You could have said there was more to the story, but you said "the story isn't true" which is a blatantly dishonest statement. I am looking forward to seeing your apology. It would also be interesting to see evidence that there actually were some jews marching with stars of david present. Any pictures? Any name? If that would be true, it would certainly be significant for the story. If it isn't, it would be another dishonest defence of "SOS Rasisme". Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-13 20:29 | Link Jan Haugland, Bergen ''Israel was created as a direct result of the Holocaust, because events had proved that in the diaspora, jews repeatedly suffered pogroms and genocide. ''
T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-13 20:35 | Link Fundamentally I have nothing against safeguarding a memorial of such a sad event from political manifestions. "The organizations finds it *particularly repulsive” that these attempts were made by “groups that use the same rhetorics of hatred against Muslims as the Nazis used against Jews in the thirties" I don´t know anything about this democratic party in Norway. But I do know a lot of parties here in Europe are being compared with nazis for little reason - just one critic remark of Islam appears to be enough at times. SOS racisme in Norway I don´t know much about as well but here in Denmark it´s made up largely with individuals from International socialists and DKP/ML. The first being neotrotkists the second being Communists which still consider Stalin a comrade. They respected not bringing a palestinian flag fine, but how about mentioning who they are and what they stand for when they don´t cover themselves under a figleaf of antirascism? Michael Farris | 2004-11-13 20:35 | Link "BUT WHY THE ARABS AND THE PALESTINEANS SHOULD PAY FOR 'YOUR' CRIMES AGAINST THE JEWS ????" That's not the question. The question is why do the Palestinians do so poorly in direct competition with the Jewish population (and why do most other Arab groups do so poorly when forced to compete with Palestinians?) And learn some history, other Arabs/Moslems detest your beloved Palestinians and are guilty of worse crimes against them than the Israelis are. Isdor | 2004-11-13 20:40 | Link Ex-Christian now muslim, I wasn't claiming that Christians weren't intolerant of Jews or that Muslims were. I was asking why would muslims want to aid the Jews even though they are evil enough to eat babies. Why would muslims want to save Jews from total destruction during the middle ages? You yourself said that you believed that Jews eat babies in their religious rituals. Why would you muslims ever want to save such people? I don't really believe that Jews eat babies. Only because I have known many jews but never seen any of them eat babies. Of course I can't be completely sure. But hypothetically if I knew of a religion that was similarily barberic, I wouldn't go out of my way to preserve it or its believers. Especially if this very hypothetical religion posed such a danger to me and of course my children. Strange... Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-13 20:41 | Link Someone here said earlier that the Nazi jews are not brutal in their occupation of the palestinean land, well, let us see the facts: Let us look at this CHRISTIAN Palestinean town under the nazi jewish occupation: ''Beit Jala's overall situation deteriorated dramatically during the years of the Israeli occupation, more than 6,000 dunams of land (about half of the the total land area of the town ) were confiscated for the establishment of Israeli settlements in two strategic areas -one at the highest point of the towns Mount Everest, and the other on the northern side of the town adjacent to Jerusalem, Gilo settlement, which was established totally on confiscated land from the Beit Jala community. Thousands of dunams of the towns most fertile farmland have been swallowed up by Israeli settlement roads, and a whole populated area in the northern part of the town has been cut off and annexed to the Jerusalem municipality . Unemployment and disguised unemployment remain very high in the town, forcing many people to nurture the idea of leaving the country and seeking immigration to make living, a thing which our Municipality works hard to prevent by creating job opportunities. Let us read the UN Commission on Human rights regarding the sadistic nazi jewish occupation of the palestinean land:
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/400428B523407689C1256E770057784B?opendocument How about AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL ? Israel/Occupied Territories: Excessive use of force http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150952004?open&of=ENG-ISR Israel/Occupied Territories: Israeli settlers wage campaign of intimidation on Palestinians and internationals alike http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150992004?open&of=ENG-ISR Israel/Occupied Territories: Killing of children must be investigated http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150552004?open&of=ENG-ISR
Razing Rafah: http://hrw.org/reports/2004/rafah1004/ Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip http://hrw.org/campaigns/gaza/
In 1948 thousands of Palestinians took refuge or were driven forcefully from their homes by the Israeli terrorist forces during the war that followed the proclamation of the state of Israel. Many settled in Lebanon. In 1968, Israeli terrorist commandos blew up 13 airliners at Beirut airport. In April 1973, Israeli elite troops, including present-day Foreign Minister Ehud Barak disguised as a woman, entered Beirut flats and shot dead three Palestinian. In March 1978, Israel attacked PLO positions in south Lebanon and occupied a 10 km (six mile)-wide strip north of the Lebanese border. About 1,500 people were killed, mostly Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. In 1978, U.N. Security Council resolution 425 ordered the Israelis to leave Lebanon. They refused! Israel has never complied with a single UN resolution which has been against its illegitimate interests. In 1981, Israel launched air raids on Beirut, killing hundreds of civilians. In July 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the declared aim of routing Palestinian guerrillas. Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon promised his army would stop after 40 km (25 miles) but it encircled Beirut, 40 km further north. After bombardments by the Zionist Israeli Terrorists, about 20,000 people were killed, mostly Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. In September 1982, Israeli forces stormed west Beirut, and supported an assault on the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila and allowed more than 1500 of innocent refugees to be slaughtered. In 1985, Israel, under Prime Minister Shimon Peres, pulled most of its forces out of Lebanon and set up a 15 km (nine mile)-wide occupation zone to stop cross-border attacks! The Israeli Terrorist Regime then faced a more relentless resistance force: Hizbullah. In February 1992, in a terrorist act, Israeli gunship helicopters rocketed the car of Lebanese leader Sheikh Abbas Musawi, killing him, his wife and son. Then Israeli forces stormed two villages north of the occupation zone. In July 1993, Israel unleashed "Operation Accountability," a week-long air, artillery and naval blitz in which 130 people, mostly Lebanese civilians, were killed and 300,000 fled their homes. In April 11, 1996, Israel unleashed "Operation Grapes of Wrath". This Israeli genocide with more than 14,000 shells and 1,500 air raids against innocent civilians, Killed more than 300 people mostly women and children (including 102 refugees shelled at a U.N. base in the south), thousands injured, damaged or destroyed more than 50 villages or cities and left more than 500,000 civilians with no home or shelter. http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-13 20:44 | Link Isdor I did not say 'I' believe jews eat christian babaies, it was Famous CHRISTIAN Beside, Muslims have a duty to save all humanity, not only the jews. I will not hesitate to save any jew even now even most of the jews nowadays are the archenemies of muslims along with the christian fascists who rule America. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-13 20:47 | Link Jan: When I visited Brüssels last summer I saw a pro-Palestinian demonstration. Oddly, a Jewish man stood a few metres away from the rest of the demonstrators. I first thought he was demonstrating for Israel, and I found him to be brave to stand up against the other demonstrators all alone. I was prejudiced. He was demonstrating against Israel. If I am not mistaken (and if my French is good enough to understand what he was talking about) he even found the very existance of Israeli to be against the word of G-d. I don't think any of his cobelievers were marching in Oslo, but, dear Jan, you seem to forget that the Israeli flag belongs to the national state of Israel and that it isn't a symbol for all Jews. The Nazis did not slaughter Israelis, they slaughtered Jews. It should be possible for people to oppose genocide without embracing the state of Israel. Also, I find it interesting that DMT talks about both far rightist and far leftists using the Kristallnacht to their own ends while you manage to read that they say that they haven't been taking part because of "leftists extremists who have hijacked the occasion". How those those words differ? I agree that leftists and people opposing Israel have been using the Kristallnacht commemoration for things it shouldn't have been used for. That happened this year as well, I read in some newspaper that a demonstration somewhere (possibly in Kristiansand) included a parole against the Israeli "separation barrier"/"wall". SOS Rasisme in Oslo, however, had taken the controverse over Willochs statements last year seriously, as they should. Because they wanted to create a commemoration where people having different views on the Middle East-conflict could feel welcome they said that national flags were unwanted. It's possible to disagree with that choice, but to talk about a "Judenfrei" Kristallnacht commemoration, like you did is preposterous. DMT was, as they point out themselves, invited. Last year a representative from DMT spoke at the commemoration. Finally, Jan, would you say that wearing a suit makes me a supporter of banning alcohol since people known to advocate such a view has also been seen wearing suits? Øyvind Isdor | 2004-11-13 21:09 | Link Ex-Christian Now Muslim, Actually you did say that Jews eat babies. So you are not only a crackpot but you are also a liar. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-13 21:20 | Link Jan Haugland: I'm not about to apologize for anything. On your blog you said this: [...]The shameful acts of the so-called anti-racists in denying jewish symbols access to a memorial for the genocide directed against jews That wasn't true. You've also claimed (in comments to the post, before those were completely hijacked by a real anti-Semite) that SOS Rasisme was lying when they said no banners where allowed in the demonstration, showing a picture of a banner to make your case. What SOS Rasisme did say was that no preapproved banners, accepted in a process with 130 organizations, were accepted. Your claim was false. Judenfrei, you wrote. False. "[the police] argue they could not guarantee the security of jews among the leftist "anti-racists", you wrote. The police did point to the security of the right-wing demonstrators as an excuse, not to the security of "Jews among the leftist 'anti-racists". Once more what you wrote was false. TV2 Nettavisen wrote: "but the arrangement committee did not accept Jewish symbols under the commemoration". That wasn't true either. They also wrote: "Jews wanting to take part in the commemoration was shown away by the police". If you look closely at the report you can maybe say that the actual wording was correct. The impression it leaves, though, is false. The reaction of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre reflects this. By the way, Erez Uriely attacked the commemoration in the newspaper VG in the morning of the commemoration, - The Kristallnacht is being used to create new Jew-hatred, he said. The leader of SOS Rasisme responded: - I can't really understand this. Last year a speaker from Det Mosaiske Trossamfunn took part in the commemoration. This year we have a speaker from the White Buses (a group that arrange schooltrips to concentration camps in Germany and Poland, my note) Thorbjørnsrud also said that no paroles concerning the Israel-Palestine question would be allowed in the commemoration: - On a day of such historical importance I hope that we can stand together regardless of views on Israel and Palestine, stand together against racism and nazism in Norway. With the growing racism in Europe that victimizes both Palestinians and Israelis it is important that we don't let us get divided [in this fight]. Wow, the "so-called anti-racist" even sounds sensible. Øyvind Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-13 21:25 | Link Jan Haugland: Are you seriously arguing that for a commemoration for Jews killed by the nazis, the jews should be so polite as to not wear the national flag of the Jewish State, to not offend the participants who openly support terrorists who work hard to organise the second Holocaust? Yes - that is, if they want to take part in a commemoration together with such people. I mean, nobody is forcing them to share this event. There could be two independent events, one which emphasises the Holocaust in light of modern anti-racist causes, and one which emphasises it in light of modern threats to the Jewish state. Personally, I see the value of focusing on the one aspect of the Holocaust anti-racists and pro-Israelis agree on, that it was a racist genocide against Jews. Why must everything revolve around modern Middle Eastern politics? But if this is impossible, and perhaps it is, the solution is simple: Hold two independent commemorations. When I was involved with the anti-terror meetings earlier this year, we made an effort to focus on the one issue many could agree on, opposition to terrorism, instead of more divise issues championed by people like myself, like Israel or the war on terror. It didn't work very well, because those we appealed to were suspicious of our motives. For instance, we invited the local Røde Kors to recruit blood donors at the event, but they pulled out after bad press and orders from the top. Nor did we fully achieve neutrality on divise issues - the anti-semitism meeting had a religious / pro-Israeli character. There were plenty of excuses to avoid us. But I still think people should have taken that chance to find a common ground. Just as I think Norway's pro-Israelis should have taken the chance offered to them to find a common ground with the anti-racists, for this one day. Not every day has to be another battle in the Big Fight. Ohad Efrati, Israel | 2004-11-13 21:33 | Link I don't think any of his cobelievers were marching in Oslo, but, dear Jan, you seem to forget that the Israeli flag belongs to the national state of Israel and that it isn't a symbol for all Jews. The Nazis did not slaughter Israelis, they slaughtered Jews. Oyvind, it's worth being aware that the Neturei Karta (these anti-Israel hasidim who you admire) are a tiny minority even among Hasidim, and that their leaders now instruct them not to participate in these demonstrations. Øyvind, Strømmen | 2004-11-13 21:45 | Link Erev tov, Ohad I hardly admire the Neturei Karta, unlike them I believe that the state of Israel is legitime and that it has a right to exist. These Jews are, however, an example that it's fully possible to be a Jew and still opposed to even the idea of an Israeli state. This group would probably have problems marching under Israeli flags, while I'm sure they'd have no problem commemorating the Shoah. There are many non-Jews that feel the same way, and I believe that the choice of SOS Rasisme to leave national flags and opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict out of the commemoration was a good choice. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-13 21:52 | Link I'll add that I am fully in agreement with Bjørns last post. It is important to find those common grounds, both in the fight against racism and anti-Semitism and in the fight against terrorism and for peace in the Middle East. Actually, I believe that not only should those critical of Israel and those supportive of the country find together, those who are supportive of Israel should be critical and those critical should support the states right to exist. Sadly, Pavlovian reflexes are all too common. But that's another issue. Øyvind Gill Doyle, California | 2004-11-13 22:05 | Link Øyvind wrote: "Pardon my French, but that is bullshit. Israeli flags are not regarded as akin to Nazi swastikas. The arrangers of the commemoration simply did not want it to turn into to a political demonstration for or against Israeli." Holy mackrel, Øyvind! Calm down. If the Israeli flag is not considered in Norway to be a provocative symbol -- if no one in Norway regards as something akin to a swastika -- then there is no reason to ban the flag. The Jews have their own state now. That's Israel. Israel's formation was definitely a consequence of what happened to the Jews during WW2. Kristallnacht led to WW2. You see the connection? Seems to me that it ought to be OK to display the flag. Folks who have nothing against the Jews might be able to tolerate the idea that Israel exists. Who cares what the others think. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-13 22:15 | Link Gill: I think Bjørn pointed out quite well how both Israeli and Palestinian flags can be understood by the right (or wrong) people. I think his point his good. As I've said before it the decision of SOS Rasisme can be criticized, although I agree with it. Criticize is one thing. Claiming that the Israeli flag "apparently" is seen as something akin to Nazi swastikas in Norway is another. And that's where my French surfaced. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-13 22:19 | Link Kristallnacht led to WW2. That's an original theory, by the way. Øyvind Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2004-11-13 22:26 | Link Øyvind, So you stand by your now utterly demolished whitewash of the story. The police said jews with david's stars and Israeli flags would be in danger, and thus refused them to participate in the march. You have repeated it is "false" but you haven't been able to point to any jewish person who actually marched with a david's star. The jews who wanted to go were refused. Unless you can give evidence to the contrary, the march was judenfrei. Referring to obscure sects of anti-Zionsists is disingenious. Some time ago, a black man was arrested in Sweden as part of a group of neo-nazi murderers. Does this prove the Swedish neo-nazis are not racists? There was similarly a jewish revisionist much liked by fascist groups. Does he prove they were not anti-Semites? Yes, it is possible to be critical to Israel without being anti-Semite. This is the same tired old argument. People throwing paint at Israel's embassy, using banners with swastikas in Israeli flags are not "critical to Israel." They are blatantly anti-Semitic. And, lo and behold, these people form the active backbone of the so-called "anti-racists" in Norway. I quoted the SOS Rasisme spokesperson saying no "paroles were allowed." It was on TV, so is a bit hard to deny. Later it was obviously corrected to "no paroles except those we accepted." Well, d'oh! Too bad neither him nor you realised that this destroyed the argument. Finally, Jan, would you say that wearing a suit makes me a supporter of banning alcohol since people known to advocate such a view has also been seen wearing suits? I can't even comprehend the desperation behind this argument. People advocating for and against everything and nothing wear suits. Nobody interprets it as a statement about any political position. The "palestina skjerf" is not a common fashion accessory. It is a political statement, like the white sheets of the KKK (no comparison otherwise). It was introduced by people supporting the PLO and associates' terrorist campaign against Israel. Nobody in Europe will wear it unless he or she is not at least sympathetic to the terror war against Israel and jews (yes, PLO et al killed jews not only Israelis), and opposes Israel. Wearing a symbol of anti-jewish terrorism in a kristallnacht memorial is so obviously tasteless that you keep undermining your position by not seeing it.
I sympathise with your ideals. It would be nice if people could set aside political differences to fight against terrorism. If the anti-Israel left were opposed to terrorism, I guess there would be a chance it could work. Like it would be nice if SOS Rasisme didn't rely on the anti-Semitic loonie left for muscle, so they could have any credibility when they oppose anti-Semitism. Surely, many of them are no doubt secretly appaled by the fringes. But when they chose to have Blitz thugs present instead of having a march that is safe to attend even for right-wing jews, they prove you can't have it both ways. The label "Anti-Racism" is a political weapon against not only neo-nazis and other racist thugs, but is also actively used to smear anyone advocating strict immigration policies and those who express skepticism to Islamists in Norway. The only solution for the future is that leftist "anti-racist" groups keep far away from kristallnacht memorials. They have no right to it. With their dishonest reaction to the aftermath of the latest fiasco, including legal threats and an avalanche of distortions, they have no credibility. Gill Doyle, California | 2004-11-13 22:34 | Link Bjørn wrote: "To many anti-racists, the Israeli flag symbolizes a brutal occupation, just as to pro-Israelis the Palestinian flag symbolizes terrorism. If both groups are to be able to take part in a commemoration of an event that is important to both of them, it follows that they shouldn't go about waving Israeli and Palestinian flags." Well, these attitudes are just plain wrong, it seems to me. Everyone ought to be able to speak his mind. Let them all fly their flags. Let each interpret the meaning of those flags as he will. Why not let them all march -- pro-Israeli people, pro-Palestinian, Nazis. Let the whole circus march right down Karl Johan. After all, isn't that what Kristallnacht is all about -- a time to reflect on what anti-Semitism in Europe has wrought. Put it all on view, then. Because it's still with us -- all of the old hatreds and unresolved issues. Gill Doyle, California | 2004-11-13 22:38 | Link Gill wrote: "Kristallnacht led to WW2." Øyvind replied: "That's an original theory, by the way." I don't know -- I just thought I heard somewhere that anti-Semitism had something to do with WW2. Shows you how little we Americans know about anything. By the way, Øyvind -- you're not a Holocaust denier, are you? Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-13 23:08 | Link I'll leave it up to others to decide who's "whitewashing" and not, Jan. The Davidstar was even on their official poster! But no - it was banned, you say. Sounds terribly logical, doesn't it? As far as I can see, the variant of SOS Rasisme is pretty much backed by the Jewish congregation and the hardly Israel-negative organization Norwegian Association against Anti-Semitism. Your version, however, seem to be influenced by a wish to "get" those darn "socalled anti-racists", "Blitz thugs", etc. Frankly there's no reason to whitewash that FOMI and the Democratic party - and people cooperating with them - were kept away. It was the right thing to do when they did not accept the rules 130 organizations had agreed on. "Blitz thugs" don't rule 130 organizations. Since you seem to advocate the view that everyone that doesn't want to walk underneath an Israeli flag is an anti-Semite, and that people wearing "palestinaskjerf" also are - well, it's hardly surprising that you grab the opportunity. Is the "Palestine scarf" a political statement? Indeed? Amongst some leftists it is just as much about fashion as the newest Beckham hairdo, believe me. But then let's accept that it is a political statement. What does it state? And who are to decide that? Those who wear it, or those who'd like to interpret it as bad as possible? I know people who wear the "palestinaskjerf", Jan. They're just as opposed to terrorism as you and I. They've got another thing in common with me, too. They support the creation of a Palestinian state. And if they're making any statement with their scarf, that's it. (The real statement, however, is mostly: I'm a rebel). As for quotes from TV2... well, that's the TV media, Jan. Incidentally I've seen it from the inside through my education. Taking the best soundbites to make a sensationalist story is hardly a problem. Lousy journalism, I called it. Because that is what it is. Finally, I'll include my translation of a press release from SOS Rasisme where they attack TV2. According to Jan they're just "whitewashing". But it might be worthwile reading their version of the story, as well: TV2 - as loudspeakers for the extreme right The last day SOS Rasisme has been attacked by TV2 and the Democrats who has claimed that we refused Jews from taking part in the Kristallnacht commemoration. The organization has now sent a complaint to Pressens Faglige Utvalg (media watch organ governed by the press itself, my note) 1. We never refuser David-stars in the demonstration. Several Jews and others carried David-stars in the demonstration. A David-star was also included in the poster for the commemoration, and it is beyond sense that we should have refused anyone [carrying] this. We have stated that Israeli and Palestinian _flags_ were unwanted, because the Kristallnacht committee is not taking an opinion on the Middle East conflict. The Democrats refused to accept this and were therefore stopped by the police. 3. TV2 scared people. [...]SOS Rasisme has today had phone calls from several Jews in despair, chocked by the report on TV2. They thought we refused Jews from taking part in the commemoration. 4. No participation from racist parties is wanted in our demonstration against racism. What we said no to was that a racist political party - the Democratic party - should misuse the Kristallnacht as a political manifestation. We had informed about this in a press release [prior to the commemoration] Chosen coverage? TV2 has been informed about the information above several times, both before, under and after interviews with us. The channel has stilled chosen to edit the reports in a way that makes it look like we refused Jews from taking part in the [commemoration] and like we have refused people from having David-stars. We find it sad that TV2 knowingly keeps from reporting our information on the commemoration and instead bases their reports on claims from one of Norways most antiimmigrant groups. TV2 should seriously consider what role they want to play in the Norwegian public and what forces they want to run errands for through their speculative news coverage. That was SOS Rasisme. I find it sad that both New York Post (" Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-13 23:14 | Link Gill: No. I am not a holocaust denier. Why would anyone think so? Punching below the belt seems to be popular these days. The other day my family was probably Quislings, I was told. I can't even remember why. Yes, WWII was about anti-Semitism. But Kristallnacht didn't lead to WWII. You can't expect European powers to be that quick to react, Gill. I thought you American had discovered this by now. And sadly, anti-Semitism wasn't something patented by Nazi Germany. As you say; all the old hatreds are still here. But back then it was also here. In Norway. In Sweden. In other countries. Many people didn't react much to the news about Jews being persecuted - or found it to be exaggerated. In Norway the police force took part in rounding up Jews for the Nazis after the invasion, and sadly too few of us had the guts to stand up. There are few Jews left in Norway. Øyvind Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-13 23:19 | Link Bjørn, I have to say I am utterly flummoxed by your position. To deny that there is a metaphysical connection between the Jews, Krystallnacht, the Holocaust and Israel is an absurdity that boggles the mind. Indeed, to even take the position that in a "commemoration" of Krystallnacht, it will be unacceptable to carry the Israeli flag, renders utterly meaningless the fundamental point of such an event. This is true even if you make the purpose of the event a purely "anti-Racist" one. Why? Because if you defer to the idea that having this flag is "rude" or might arouse conflict, you are innately accepting that it is "good" to appease hatred (in the name of anti Racism!!??). Indeed, even if one stakes out a faux moral high ground by stating that Israel is an oppressive and racist State and thus must not be touted in an "anti Racist rally", it does nothing to immunize from the fact that this alone is a position that fosters negativity in relations between peoples while at the same time stifling the discussion of issues that undoubtedly are bound in racism itself. What ARROGANCE! It is only in the present environment of mass solipsism and ideological narcissism that a group that purports to be against racism could take such a convoluted reasoning to the bar. It baffles me that you do not see this. You went so far as to profer a comparison rife with distorted equivalancies of the kind that have crushed the public discourse over these very issues under mountains of intellectual detritus. Do you REALLY think that the metaphor you implied of bringing Muslims and non-Muslims together to condemn the van Gogh murder and springing the Submission film on them, is the same as carrying the Israeli flag at a commemmoration for Krystallnacht!!!??? Quite simply, you have lost me here.
It seems to me that the idea that we should be able to redefine commenorations like this so that "common ground" can be found between different groups is, under the criteria in which you are defending, an excercise that is worse than futile. I say it is worse than futile because it serves to perpetuate mere illusions of "common ground" since it acts to perpetuate divisions, even those that could be exploded in the light of day. More than anything, this United Nations-esque approach to "successful diplomacy" serves nothing, except to perpetuate the deconstructed meaninglessness of the present status quo. This merely maintains the kind of illusory twaddle that drives the EU and the UN to make their pointless pronouncemnts over things like "progress in establishing a positive dialogue on paving the way to an equitable and peaceful settlement in Darfur". It is hogwash because it addresses nothing, stands for mothing, defends nothing, and achieves nothing. Nobody learns, no light is shed, no understanding is conveyed... and only shadows thrive. The bottom line? A commemoration of Krystallnacht was co-opted by ideologues under the auspices of anti-racism, who beneath that banner, then prevented Jews from participating beneath the flag of Israel. And they did so with self righteous indignance I'm sure. Its a pity they could not be challenged in a public forum to defend their indignance under the theory that it might be borne of any number of insidious (albeit highly nuanced and sophisticated) hatreds... Now THAT would have been useful! That would have been the kind of thing that happens in a free discourse unhindered by postmodern hypocrisy and politically malleable defintions of political correctness. Ultimately, this is a perfect "activism for social justice" story in present Norway. Its insane of course, and morally repugnant. But its perfect.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-13 23:44 | Link Press release from the Oslo police: The Oslo police has been criticized on several fronts after the Kristallnacht 9th November - that the police should have refused someone from demonstrating [strange wording, yes. my note]. The 9th November a demonstration outside the American embassy had been [legally] reported, the background was an initiative by "the Committee for a free Iraq" [a group with leftist roots, my note]. This was a legal demonstration and everything was in order without the police having to interfere in any way. Tuesday 9th November we received several indications that several of those who took part in the demonstration outside the American embassy later wanted to take part in a demonstration arranged by SOS Rasisme and LO Ungdom [labour union youth organization, my note]. The information indicated that some people on the right wing also wanted to commemorate the Kristallnacht. We received indications that both sides [i.e. leftists mentioned above and rightists, not SOS Rasisme, my note] wanted a confrontation. It was discovered that some of those who wanted to commemorate the Kristallnacht belonged to the Democrats, and that they intented to have their own commemoration. No application or formal notification was made about this. Attempts from the police to get in touch with representatives for the Democratic party were not successful. Our officer on duty contacted the judicial employee on duty who, with background in the Police law § 7 decided to ban the group the Democrats from having their commemoration in central Oslo. This is the background and the facts behind the incidents on the 9th November. Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-13 23:44 | Link Jan Haugland: But when they chose to have Blitz thugs present instead of having a march that is safe to attend even for right-wing jews, they prove you can't have it both ways. But it is you who says they can't have it both ways. That unless one is allowed to carry an Israeli flag, a Jew or pro-Israeli should not take part in a Kristallnacht commemoration. I agree with your criticism of anti-racists. You know that. What I don't see is why the issue of modern Israel must be forced at a commemoration for the Holocaust. Are you absolutely sure that more is lost by taking part in a relatively neutral event, without flags, but along with people who at other times are you political enemies, than is gained by condemning it? Kevin McDonnell: To deny that there is a metaphysical connection between the Jews, Krystallnacht, the Holocaust and Israel is an absurdity that boggles the mind. I wouldn't call it metaphysical, but I haven't denied that there is such a connection, or that the Holocaust is relevant to understanding modern Israel. I'm just saying that connection is not the most important aspect of the Holocaust, and that it should be possible to stand together against the Holocaust for one lone event without championing that connection. It baffles me that you do not see this. I probably do agree with you on the problem with the anti-racists. But this is about what anti-racists and pro-Israelis have in common. Why should it be so difficult for them to acknowledge that? Do you REALLY think that the metaphor you implied of bringing Muslims and non-Muslims together to condemn the van Gogh murder and springing the Submission film on them, is the same as carrying the Israeli flag at a commemmoration for Krystallnacht!!!??? In the relative amount of offense caused, yes. No other comparison intended. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-13 23:59 | Link Sorry, it was the New York SUN I quoted above. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 00:24 | Link >> I don't know -- I just thought I heard somewhere that anti-Semitism had something to do with WW2. Shows you how little we Americans know about anything. Certainly, you are right. Without anti-semitism as the fuel to the fire, Hitler would have been unable to gain power, even though one could argue that any deep seated hatred would have suited his evil purpose. The question I have for you "sophisticated" non-religious folks is this: How do you explain the deeply rooted phenomena of anti-semitism, I mean "jew hatred", which is a much more accurate description. How could .23% of the population be so hated by so many people. In fact, jew hatred is not prevalent in more devout christian communities, but is prevalent in a certain percentage of non-devout, non religious, and muslim people. I would speculate that jew hatred is non-existent among people outside the abrahamian religious family, like hindus. Why? There are many other conflicts, many other forced migrations, but none engender this sort of discussion. Consider that Norway is in the far north, has no significant jewish population, and no particular interest, and yet seems almost obsessed with the Israeli-arab situation. Why? To be blunt: If God doesn't exist, why worry so much about "God's chosen people"?
Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 00:32 | Link ExC, NRL: BUT WHY THE ARABS AND THE PALESTINEANS SHOULD PAY FOR 'YOUR' CRIMES AGAINST THE JEWS ???? 1) It wasn't their territory, the british originally intended the whole mandate to be the jewish homeland. Gill Doyle, California | 2004-11-14 00:56 | Link Oeyvind wrote: "And sadly, anti-Semitism wasn't something patented by Nazi Germany. As you say; all the old hatreds are still here. But back then it was also here. In Norway. In Sweden. In other countries. Many people didn't react much to the news about Jews being persecuted - or found it to be exaggerated. In Norway the police force took part in rounding up Jews for the Nazis after the invasion, and sadly too few of us had the guts to stand up." OK, good for you, Oeyvind. You're a good man to admit all that. I apologize for my below-the-belt blow. HOWEVER, I continue to be very skeptical of attitudes in Norway (and elsewhere in Europe) toward Israel. The hostility that I see in Europe toward Israel seems hard to explain. Travel the world, and you see no people -- outside the Muslim world -- who get so worked up about this particular issue. I wonder why. And when we Americans are criticized -- when the long litany of crimes is run through by our European critics -- always at the top of this list is what Europe considers the most unforgiveable of our offences: America supports Israel. I think sometimes that Israel's deplorable treatment of the Palestinian people is welcome news in Europe. It seems a useful justification for openly hating Jews again. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 01:04 | Link Gill: I've got many things I probably could put on the top of that list you mention. Your support of Israel isn't one of them. I think you've supported them in cases they didn't deserve any support, but such support hasn't merely been given by you guys. Anyway, I support Israel too. I also support the idea of a Palestinian state, though. Øyvind Alene | 2004-11-14 01:06 | Link Øyvind-- That such an event has broader lessons to teach is true, and no anti-muslim or other racist rhetoric could be appropriate. Neither should the event become a political pro-Israel rally. But to disallow the symbols of the nation is to deracinate and universalize the memory, the teaching moment. This horror was inflicted upon Jews. Why may it be remembered only in universal humanist terms? jimmytheclaw, earth | 2004-11-14 01:24 | Link gunnar spot on except the mandate was split half was israel other half trans jordan. google balfour decree from league of nations. prior to the 1967 war the west bank was jordan the gaza strip belonged to eqypt. therefore that makes the palestinians jordan, egyptian, syrian etc... Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 01:25 | Link >> But I wonder whether the commemoration of Kristallnacht is the right place for expressing this generalized anti-racist sentiment, øyvind, it seems a pattern with you. I can't tell whether is an unwillingness to make a moral judgement, or that you have accepted a false neutrality premise, or a naive kum-baya mentality. Presented with completely opposing sides, you seem always to come down the middle. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-14 01:31 | Link "Without anti-semitism as the fuel to the fire, Hitler would have been unable to gain power, even though one could argue that any deep seated hatred would have suited his evil purpose". I think the conditions of the Versaillés treaty was more than enough. This was the major source of hate in Germany a hate directed towards the French people as well as Jews. But jews where hated everywhere in Europe - some places more than others though - and you can only wonder where it came from?. For Germans probably the Balfour declaration gave it extra extent ? But I actually think Hitler could have won alone by the promises of national restoration, revenge over Versaillés treaty as a matter of fact this is what they majorly did. "Consider that Norway is in the far north, has no significant jewish population, and no particular interest, and yet seems almost obsessed with the Israeli-arab situation. Why?" Well my answer would be 1.8 bio. Moslems largely and widely considering the very existance of Israel hate object number 1. their hate reaching the proportions of the German people after WW1. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 01:41 | Link jimmytheclaw from earth, thanks for the correction. It's a bit complicated to recall from memory, but the point is obvious: Israel is a legal entity, and they were attacked by aggressors, and these aggressors then lose the right to what they previously had. You don't resort to violence, and then when that doesn't work out, get to go back to the way things were. It would be like Japan saying to the Americans right before signing the unconditional surrender, "we demand China". Egypt was lucky to get the Sinai back. Israel is way too passive. The problem is that they are mostly lefties that still haven't learned that appeasement only invites more attacks. They will be hated no matter what, so they may as well go for complete victory. Jeff, USA | 2004-11-14 01:41 | Link Øyvind, Bergen: Since you seem to advocate the view that everyone that doesn't want to walk underneath an Israeli flag is an anti-Semite, and that people wearing "palestinaskjerf" also are - well, it's hardly surprising that you grab the opportunity. Is the "Palestine scarf" a political statement? Indeed? Amongst some leftists it is just as much about fashion as the newest Beckham hairdo, believe me. But then let's accept that it is a political statement. What does it state? And who are to decide that? Those who wear it, or those who'd like to interpret it as bad as possible? I know people who wear the "palestinaskjerf", Jan. They're just as opposed to terrorism as you and I. They've got another thing in common with me, too. They support the creation of a Palestinian state. And if they're making any statement with their scarf, that's it. (The real statement, however, is mostly: I'm a rebel). Isn't that irrelevant, though? A Palestinian flag is not appropriate for a Kristallnacht commemoration for very obvious reasons. Israeli flags seem reasonable, but they were chosen to be banned since the organizers don't want this to become a rally about Middle Eastern politics. Fair enough. Why then is a kaffiyeh acceptable? Because leftists wear things which have very obvious political implications of which only they are ignorant? Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 01:45 | Link >> Ultimately this hate is directed towards the western civilization as a whole. Well, Americans have only come to understand this after 9/11, and this is less understood elsewhere. So this cannot possibly explain the rampant "jew hatred", which has been around a lot longer than a few years. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-14 01:52 | Link I think there should be formed an international anti-hate organization it would be more relevant for the world, because hate in general is the real problem. Thomas Bolding Hansen | 2004-11-14 01:55 | Link I have no clue why the historic hate for jews have arisen - it´s makes no sense at all. But one form of hate lead to another - hate is hate - love is love. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 02:28 | Link >> I have no clue why the historic hate for jews have arisen - it´s makes no sense at all. This is one question which seems to have no satisfactory non-religious answer. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 02:58 | Link Jeff: I find wearing a scarf, also a "palestinaskjerf", comparable to wearing a David star. It may be interpreted as a political statement, but it isn't necessarily. Both were accepted in the demonstration, and I do not see a problem with this. However, the issue I commented on regarding the scarfs were Hauglands rather radical claims that wearing such a scarf is equivalent of supporting Palestinian terrorism. Gunnar: I have no problem passing moral judgement on neither TV2 and their lousy journalist nor the racist politics of the Norwegian Democratic Party. I also have no problem passing moral judgement on anti-Semitism or Jew-hatred. Alene: I do have opinions on what the Kristallnacht should and should not be used to. I think protesting against hatred and racism in general is okay. However, that is not what I'm trying to do here. I'm trying to show how TV2, Jan Haugland etc. has created and spread a story that isn't true. I've also pointed at the results, such as the New York Sun reporting that Norway now "forbid[s] Jews from marking the anniversary of Kristallnacht". This is how an urban legend is created. And to be frank, I find it quite scary already. Jan: Why do you think Det Mosaiske Trossamfund has bothered to send out a press release telling us that they were astonished by the way TV2 presented the story? Are they helping SOS Rasisme to whitewash the anti-Semitism of Blitz, is that what you're saying? Your not only saying that, though, you're also saying that SOS Rasisme and its coarrangers were lying about Jews being welcome in the demonstration not only after, but also before, the incident you try turning into a "Judenfrei" commemoration. Might I remind you that organizations like Norsk Folkehjelp (Norwegian Peoples Aid) and LO also supported this commemoration. Do you think they would accept anything like that? Do you think the 130 organizations supporting the commemoration would? Never, not once, did SOS Rasisme refuse people from wearing David-stars in the demonstration. Yet you repeat the claim that people wearing the Star of David was not welcome. On what grounds? The only source I can find for this, except of TV2, is a secondhand statement by Jan Simonsen - he quotes an unknown policeman. But then here's the catch: He's a prominent member of the Democratic Party. Do you see a conflict of interests there? The story seen in the press release from the police seems somewhat different than his, the story in the press release from the Norwegian Association against Anti-Semitism, hardly made up of "Blitz thugs" seems somewhat different, the story in the press release from the Jewish congregation seems somewhat different. Now, now, WHO to believe?
Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-14 03:07 | Link Kevin McDonnell, Bergen . . . Your post of 23:19 expresses my views exactly. Especially the phrase: "profer a comparison rife with distorted equivalancies of the kind that have crushed the public discourse over these very issues under mountains of intellectual detritus." "Mountains of intellectual detritus." That sums it up so neatly. Today Nelson Ascher on Europundits used the term, "voluptuousness of realism" but I didn't think that quite fit the bill, because we generally use the word "voluptuousness" in a more earthy, sexual sense, not an intellectual sense. But Ascher was describing the concept that extreme "realism" can slither into madness, if carried beyond all other considerations, such as common sense. However, mountains of intellectual detritus is a great description of the use of logic to prove the outrageous. For example, now that I know that Norwegians are terrorist sympathizers, I'm going to have their flag banned in Chicago. Because, if it's not banned, I'm going to burn it and that would disturb the peace. But, you say, "Norwegians aren't terrorist sympathizers." Well tough luck to you, because I have the state to back me up (I forgot to mention that the mayor is my cousin). In fact, I don't think you Norwegians should even have a state--you're a bunch of clodfoots who stole the land from the Swedes, who are peaceful farming folk. In fact, maybe I'll send a few billion to the Swedes who want their old country back. You don't like it? I don't care. Just shut up and be good, and maybe I'll let you live. Or, maybe not, depending on what's fashionable this decade. Jeff, USA | 2004-11-14 03:11 | Link Øyvind: I find wearing a scarf, also a "palestinaskjerf", comparable to wearing a David star. It may be interpreted as a political statement, but it isn't necessarily. Both were accepted in the demonstration, and I do not see a problem with this. However, the issue I commented on regarding the scarfs were Hauglands rather radical claims that wearing such a scarf is equivalent of supporting Palestinian terrorism. Whether it is the equivalent of sympathizing with Palestinian terrorism or not is debatable, obviously. But I'm curious as to how you see it to be the equivalent of a Star of David, which has a clear connection to Kristallnacht. I'm also confused when you say you see it as something that "can be political, but isn't necessarily". Can you elaborate further? Is this really something that's so common as a fashion accessory that it has lost most of its political implications? Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-14 03:19 | Link Bjorn . . . You said: "What I don't see is why the issue of modern Israel must be forced at a commemoration for the Holocaust." Because the people who are trying to delegitimize Israel wish to force Jews to flee for their lives again. Have you heard of the "wandering Jew"? The "rootless cosmopolitan Jew"? Where did these ideas come from? Jews are originally from Israel, and after being pushed out of their homes over the centuries, they were forced to wander--driven from country to country, existing only at the pleasure of the people who claimed that country (who may not have originally been from there but who now controlled it). So, the Jews rebuilt their country. Those who think the Jewish flag is some kind of temporary flag should be disabused of that idea, not encouraged. There is no middle ground on this issue. You cannot paper over the differences between those who recognize the State of Israel and those who want to see it vanish again. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 03:19 | Link >> I have no problem passing moral judgement on neither TV2 and their lousy journalist nor the racist politics of the Norwegian Democratic Party. I also have no problem passing moral judgement on anti-Semitism or Jew-hatred. ok, sounds good, but what is the judgement? A historical and factual examination of the so-called palestinian (PLO) movement cannot possibly ignore the reality that it's totally motivated by "jew hatred", and has always been the aggressor. Why then do you make a moral equivalence between the PLO and the state of Israel? And isn't a bit late for you? Ariks | 2004-11-14 03:19 | Link Ishmael was the son of a Kushite woman and he married a Kushite woman. Ishmael doesn't have the birthright of the first born and therefore in a biblical sense Arabs are not semites at all. It is also not proven that Ishmael is really the father of the modern Arabs (ha'aravim - those in the east doesn't necesarily mean Arabs from the Arab peninsula). Secondly the word anti-semite was created in 19th century european literature and has nothing to do with any biblical interpretation. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 03:22 | Link I am afraid I expressed myself poorly. I find it generally comparable, it can be considered a political statement, but isn't necessarily. I find no problem with people wearing Palestinian scarfs or stars of David in such a commemoration. Personally I would not use such a scarf there. I also think that the Star of David has a natural place there, and this, I believe, was also the reason the arrangement committee included the Star of David in the official poster of the commemoration. If the kafiyeh was included there instead or in addition I would find it tasteless. Amongst leftists, and even apolitical but "rebel" youth in Norway, these scarfs are fairly common. Within these circles they do not always have a political meaning, no. The Star of David can, obviously, be a symbol both for support of Israel and of Zionism, but also a symbol of belonging to the Jewish religion. It's a historical symbol pointing back at king Davids signature consisting of two dalets, anyway. Øyvind paul | 2004-11-14 03:24 | Link Can anyone find a reference in arabic or a european language to a "palestinian" arab identity prior to 1896? Please name some "palestinian" leaders prior to this period? Please name characterisitcs of language, culture, dress, food, etc that set the "palestinians" apart from syrians or jordanians? What do the damn palistinians have to do with a Kristallnacht commemoration anyway besides the mufti of jerusalems call for Hitler to kill the jews of "palestine" and the arab support for the nazis? you europeans have gone mad! Its amazing. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 03:27 | Link Yes, it's late. I do not believe I've made a moral equivalence between the PLO and Israel. You should read my posts closer, Gunnar. If you can find any such moral equivalence, it is I who should do the same thing. I'm not sure your conclusion when it comes to the PLO is completely accurate, either, but there's little doubt that the PLO has had anti-Semitic elements with much influence in the organization, that it has supported terrorism and that it has led Palestine in a wrong direction. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 03:29 | Link Paul wrote: What do the damn palistinians have to do with a Kristallnacht commemoration? Not much. Which is why the arrangement committee did not want the commemoration to turn into a demonstration on Middle Eastern politics. Jeff, USA | 2004-11-14 03:34 | Link Øyvind: Thanks for explaining. I really wasn't aware that the kaffiyeh is such a common thing there. It's pretty surprising to me, as here they are basically synonymous with Palestine and its causes (the black and white version, at least). Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 03:36 | Link You don't like it? I don't care. Just shut up and be good, and maybe I'll let you live. Or, maybe not, depending on what's fashionable this decade. At first, I was horrified when I read this, but then I put myself in your shoes. People are casually discussing the rightness or wrongness of banning your flag. It's outrageous. However, I would point out, oh mighty one, that it was Sweden who declared neutrality in WW2, and some say "cooperated" with the Nazis. Even now, the Swedish PM is the only Euro head of state that went to the Arafat funeral. At least, the norskies fought the Nazis (my distant cousin was in the resistance), and they hung that Quisling Quisling. So, oh please, won't you get rid of Sweden instead? Norway could use some farmland, and I would feel better about buying a Volvo. There is no middle ground on this issue. You cannot paper over the differences between those who recognize the State of Israel and those who want to see it vanish again. That's for sure. I'm sick to death of the alleged "neutral" parties, who can't distinguish morally between decent democratic people defending themselves with honor, grace, and considerable restraint and murdering nazis, seething with uncontrollable rage and jew hatred. paul | 2004-11-14 03:47 | Link Oyvind; Funny how you failed to answer the other questions isnt it? ok how about another challenge? Now ive talked to many many arabs (and muslims) about the jewish Holocaust and ive found that 95% will either 1. deny it happened 2. wish more Jews had died or 3. called for another one; (often all of these opinions are expressed at once) so who are the real nazis? Now before you belittle me as a racist please do your own research; Ask 10 or 20 random arabs (or muslims) about the jewish Holocaust and please tell us their views... if you find that i'm wrong then i will sincerely and thankfully apologise. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 04:10 | Link If you can find any such moral equivalence, it is I who should do the same thing. [Shocked and Amazed] Thanks for making it so easy on me. You saved me the effort of going back through your posts, by providing evidence right in the next paragraph: little doubt that the PLO has had anti-Semitic elements with much influence in the organization, that it has supported terrorism This kind of understatement can only be attributed to a failure of moral certitude and judgement. It's like saying that the KKK had elements of racism. It's like saying the Nazis had anti-semitic elements. It's exactly like it, since ARAFAT WAS A NAZI! Amin Al-Husseini in Berlin meets with Adolf Hitler and is active in the decision to exterminate all Jews through the infamous Final Solution http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/AminAlHusseini.htm#part2 Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 04:15 | Link >> if you find that i'm wrong then i will sincerely and thankfully apologise. You won't have to, since it's such a common view in arabia that there have been many editorials in arab newspapapers that lament that "if only hitler had killed more jews". In fact, Hitler was planning on sending all jews to Palestine, but al-Husseini talked him into killing them in Europe instead. It's saying something to out-nazi the fuhrer. Sylvia, Denver | 2004-11-14 05:39 | Link Gunnar and others have noted the disproportionate amount of Jew-hatred that infests Europe. I've thought about this for awhile, because it doesn't make any sense. Israel is, in reality, of little importance economically and politically to Europe. Despite propaganda to the contrary, Jews have had little or nothing to do with the economies or politics of Europe, which was wholly dominated by the Church/State and the aristocracy. Yet, the European governments - almost without exception have essentially declared war on Israel through their proxy - "Palestine". Palestine itself is a fraud, there is no such place, and in fact was the old Roman provincial name for the region. The palestinian is really a faux ethnicity created by European colonialism. But why? Here are some thoughts. If you go back to the origin of modern Europe - in a political sense, it really begins with Rome. By the 3rd century, Rome had essentially co-opted Christendom. The Romans do have a history of doing this, starting with the Sabines, and ending with the Romanization of the theologies of the Greek cultures that they conquered. But Judeo/Christendom posed a problem. The theology really didn't allow for the things the Romans wanted. Infallablity, for example. My understanding is that the Church (the old Holy Roman Empire Catholic Church) claimed to have gotten it's authority from St. Peter, who was vested with the authority by Jesus. But from what I can gather, the House of David has no proxies - it can't vest it's authority in a priesthood. (Protestantism takes this up) I also noticed that there is no "descending" aristocracy in Judaism. There are no dukes, you can't buy a lordship. Even if you disregard Jewish law, you can't trash the laws and customs of the House of David, because that's what the Church based it's authority on in the first place. In other words, According to Jewish/Davidian law, the Church is illegitimate. (this doesn't have anything to do with Christendom per se, only the political entity that the Roman Empire morphed itself into).Even Protestant Kings are illegitimate, they didn't want to pay taxes to Rome - but they don't want anyone digging too far into their own authority. (American Puritans anyone?) This medieval Church essentially created the aristocracy - the entire social system - that still has a great deal of political and economic power today. And the European aristocracy is really a hodge podge of families that were politically connected to the Church. My bet is that if you closely examine Jewish/Davidian law, they are illegitimate. Worse yet, the House of David did not have to power to levy taxes on it's people - yet the European Aristocracy did just that, often crushing the general population. By Davidian law, that's illegal. Yet that is where these people claimed to have gotten this authority. It gets even worse. A few years ago, I stumbled across this: If you goggle "Lurie House of David" (which I tried to do right now but I can't get the connection) you find something very interesting. Apparently, there are are people who believe that the House of David is back.(www.avotaynu.com/books/lurie.htm) I have not read the book, but it supposedly has an introduction by one of the chief rabbis of Jerusalem. If this is so - if it is true - I'm quite sure the likes of Prince Charles et al. are quite distressed. Israel is their worst nightmare. What if Israel were to become a constitutional monarchy? Reinstate the House of David on the Judean throne? They can do that. There's nothing stopping them - and with increasing numbers of orthodox/ultraorthodox in Israel, it is not impossible. Can you imagine Prince Charles (or that awful Ernst of Hanover - wasn't he the one that couldn't tell a public sidewalk from a urinal?)having to bow down to the King of the Jews? I thought not. Not to mention what that would do to the authority of the Vatican. Nothing good, I'm sure, which might explain their silence regarding the Islamization of cities like Bethlehem. Europe and the UN did not create Israel. Jews had been returning to the area during the collapse of the Ottoman empire, which created a power vacuum. IMHO, the British and others essentially rubber stamped what they couldn't stop, and tried to make the region as unstable as possible. The area is indeed unstable - but their primary objective seems to have failed. So the European governments (with the exception of Eastern Europe - which no longer has an aristocracy) are doing everything in their power to delegitimize Israel. They must. I admit that this is a bit out on a limb - just a theory. But there must be something so threating to the European upper classes - which is where anti-semitism originates and is then inculcated into the population. Much of the anti-semitism in the Arab word is a regurgitation of old European anti-semitism. American Christians, of course, are also a threat, because the very idea is an anathema to the upper classes of Europe. I know that this is very hypothetical, but I can't find anything else that would explain this rabid obsession. OT: Whenever I am blighted with seeing a picture of that cretin, Prince Charles, I am reminded yet again, why we fought a revolution. sort of OT: Israel is fighting basically a border war, not dissimilar to the Kurds fighting "Arabization", or Kashmir, Sudan Thailand, Timor etc. The bloody borders of Islam. The Euros care not about Darfur or Timor. Why so obsessed with Israel? Allan, Melbourne | 2004-11-14 05:45 | Link "People are casually discussing the rightness or wrongness of banning your flag. It's outrageous." Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-14 06:15 | Link Sylvia, Denver . . . Your explanation is unusual, but I always enjoy your posts. I certainly would like an explanation for the peculiar denseness of Europeans regarding Jews and Israel. In one of Arthur Koestler's novels, he wrote about how during the British Mandate, the British preferred the Arabs because they seemed so, well, colonial. The Jews, however, acted as if they were as good, if not better, than their British rulers. It must be tough, being so superior, and yet being shown up time and time again by people whom you kick around and treat like garbage. Maybe anti-Semitism is just a product of simple jealousy. Or, as you said, maybe it's because the rulers and aristocrats of Europe know that if you inquire a bit into their backgrounds, they're descended from brutes with horses and axes. Sorry, Gunnar, if I'm insulting any of your ancestors. You seem wiser than the rest. Thanks for your support. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 06:39 | Link Sylvia, An interesting, if not far fetched, theory about rabid jew hatred. I don't believe that british royalty actually believe that their legitimacy depends even on "Christianity", let alone jewish royalty. Your theory also doesn't really explain why people throughout society, who don't know enough history to be possibly motivated by such ancient concerns. I can tell you for sure that the Roman Catholic church is not concerned with the Davidic line, since they hold that Jesus is the last of that line. Take a look at these people http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/ And there is no explanation why most moderately devout christians support jews, while the less religious, non-religious, & muslims all tend to exhibit jew hatred in bigger numbers. The best secular answer seems to be "socialist envy" of people who are generally successful in life. However, this answer falls apart when you consider that most Israelis are socialistic themselves, and envy, although an ugly emotion, would seem inadequate to explain the seething rage that would result in the "final solution" which is still going on. I would assert that this is one question that has NO satisfactory answer from the secular world. However, it's easily answered. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 06:43 | Link "People are casually discussing the rightness or wrongness of banning your flag. It's outrageous." Why is that outrageous? Not sure what country you are from, but if it's Australia[insert your country here], imagine that folks were discussing that your flag were to be banned from display. Totoro demonstrated to me with great effect, since he managed to get my feathers ruffled with his Norway analogy. His point is so taken. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 06:53 | Link >> Sorry, Gunnar, if I'm insulting any of your ancestors. You seem wiser than the rest. Thanks for your support. No problem. The truth is that some of my ancestors were brutes. Their moral code was so advanced that they left one child alive in a village, while they threw the rest into a big pit. Saint Olav changed all that. His death, and the miracles that followed transformed the society into one of peace. By throwing off their religion just now, after a 1000 years, they stumble blindly into the night, hoping that they are right, and that a 1000 years of norwegians are wrong, that there is nothing evil out there in the dark. The jewish people have one big advantage over such people: they know that evil exists. They also know, as do Catholics, that God's covenant with his people Israel is valid forever. David Elson, Australia | 2004-11-14 07:51 | Link Gunnar, Not sure what country you are from, but if it's Australia[insert your country here], imagine that folks were discussing that your flag were to be banned from display. Now that's a bit nationalistic, why can't we all just get alone as happy little global villagers? As for flags, I don't think you'll see too many Australian flags at Aboriginal reconciliation weeks activities. http://www.abc.net.au/message/blackarts/culture/s853725.htm Israeli nationalism is not the same as granting the Jewish people equal rights within western nations. Anymore than Australian nationalism can be equated with aboriginal rights.
David Elson, Australia | 2004-11-14 08:12 | Link y throwing off their religion just now, after a 1000 years, they stumble blindly into the night, hoping that they are right, and that a 1000 years of norwegians are wrong, Surely you mean that they stumbled out into the light?? What about the people who lived for 1000s upon 1000s of years without your Christianity or even monotheism? Just because a few people believe a certain thing, doesn’t mean that they are right. People in non-Western countries also assume since Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. have so many adherents, been around for so many years, they must be true. If the popularity and longevity of religion were indications of truth, then Hinduism, Islam are also true. How can they all be true when they explicitly contradict each other? While the world may indeed be awash with the threat of Islamic terrorism, and isolated bouts of anti-Semitism we shouldn’t forget the world is still a better place than what all these others (including those 1000yr old Norwegian Christians) have made of it in all these ages. The world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past and the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. Hope for the future is needed, not looking back toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our enterprise can create. Cheers I’ll leave you with the words of your famous Thomas Jefferson; "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823] "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" [Letter to von Humboldt, 1813]. David Elson, Land of OZ | 2004-11-14 08:34 | Link Gunnar, Some other prominent fellows for ya; John Adams (on religious conflicts) Thomas Edison (separation of church and state) "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 08:45 | Link >> If the popularity and longevity of religion were indications of truth A straw man, since I never said, nor thought any such thing. Of course, Christians, like Jews, do not rely on faith alone. Their religion is based on evidence. Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-14 09:12 | Link Gunnar, Maryland ''Of course, Christians, like Jews, do not rely on faith alone. Their religion is based on evidence.'' Oh yeah, right, like the trinity for example,christians rely on evidence which is 1+1+1 = 1 !! looooooooool. davo Aussie | 2004-11-14 09:13 | Link You express quite clearly in your post the belief that disregarding religion will result in stumbling " blindly into the night" Where there is "evil out there in the dark". Honestly I have heard nothing that would suggest this is true. Quite the opposite in fact. I think it is this unwillingness to abandon 1000 yr old traditions that have lead to the plight of many in the middle east, particular those living in predominately muslim nations. Just check out these devot god lovers from modern and recent history;
I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." "God has revealed to me that those doing battle for Allah and our country and meet death will immediately go to Heaven." "We, the Order of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, reverentially acknowledge the majesty and supremacy of Almighty God and recognise His goodness and providence through Jesus Christ our Lord." And also from the bible itself. "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-14 09:22 | Link Gunnar, Maryland ''Amin Al-Husseini in Berlin meets with Adolf Hitler and is active in the decision to exterminate all Jews through the infamous Final Solution ''
Bryan Mark Rigg University Press of Kansas http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righit.html
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righitpix.html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/Bishops-salute-Hitler.jpg Catholic Bishops giving the Nazi salute in honor of Hitler !!
David Elson, Australia | 2004-11-14 09:26 | Link Gunnar, Evidence? Like say the Bible? "[The Bible is] a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology." ["Mark Twain and the Bible"] Well as extraordinary claims require some pretty extraordinary evidence I'd like to hear yours. Really I don't see the logic behind an all powerful, all seeing allah/god that would create some faulty humans (in his own image no less!) after which he would then punish them for the flaws he created them to have... If he is really all powerful, and all knowing, than why doesn't he stop those Islamic extremists from explicitly using his name as justification? If he doesn't but is all powerful than he is malevolent and if he knows but can't stop it, than why should he call him God/Allah/Rae/Zeus etc... Why would god need you Gunnar to defend him? His existence should be self-evident to all, or his power such that no resistence to him could be broached. Cheers, Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-14 09:38 | Link Gunnar ''6) There are no palestinian people.''
Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2004-11-14 09:40 | Link Øyvind, I must have missed the post where you provided evidence there were jews in this year's Oslo march. Once you have provided this evidence, you may have some leg to stand on. As evidence stands now, there were no jews present. The synagogue didn't want to go because of the presence of leftist anti-semites, and the right-wing jews who wanted to participate, were refused. The police said while a journalist was present that they would not permit anyone with stars of david or Israeli flags to march, because of the leftist thugs. We don't have to take demokratenes word for that. The Oslo police on the streets know the Blitz people very well. Their political leadership who draft press releases, however, to a large degree sympathise with the anti-Israel left. But note that nothing in the press release actually contradicted what TV2 said. When you refer to LO (trade union) for support, we know you are at the very end of your arguments, and arguably of your wits. The stalinista are die-hard Israel haters. Øyvind, your pattern of deception and the orwellian summersaults you have to go through to defend the "anti-racist" left is astonishing. Maybe it was worth it for Bjørn to introduce some loonie left apologia here for variety, but I for one regret seeing the usual deceptions from the leftist echo bubble promoted on such a quality blog. I need only open any Norwegian newspaper or listen to NRK if I feel like a dose of that. Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-14 09:42 | Link Øyvind, Bergen
The PLO only responded in kind to the israeli terrorism against the Palestineans. Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-14 09:56 | Link Totoro, U.S. '' Maybe anti-Semitism is just a product of simple jealousy. Or, as you said, maybe it's because the rulers and aristocrats of Europe know that if you inquire a bit into their backgrounds, they're descended from brutes with horses and axes.''
Anti jewishness does not stem from nothing, it has roots in the fact that most christians believe the jews killed Jesus, it is also notable that the jews through the middle ages grew so rich out of any proportion due to their greed and the use of interest on their money loans, something which made MARTIN LUTHER himself declaring:
(Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant Church)
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-14 10:16 | Link Totoro: Those who think the Jewish flag is some kind of temporary flag should be disabused of that idea, not encouraged. There is no middle ground on this issue. That does not answer my question of why the connection between Israel and the Holocaust cannot be left aside even for one single event, to enable a shared anti-racist/pro-Israeli statement about the Holocaust. I'm disappointed in the counterarguments I've received here. People seem eager to convince me that the flag of Israel is relevant to the Holocaust. Of course it is. They tell me that anti-racists are often hysterically anti-Israel. They certainly are. Have I denied any of these things in what I've written above? Could anyone show me the comment where I implied any such thing? If not, I would appreciate that people reply to what I've actually written. The question, to summarize, is this: Should anti-racists and pro-Israelis attempt to cooperate over a Kristallnacht commemoration, even despite all their differences of opinion over modern Middle Eastern politics? If yes, then the only way to do so is by laying aside divise issues, as the organizers of this event attempted to do, and the pro-Israelis who were chased away ignored. If not, I would like to see an explanation of why the cost of taking part in such a neutral, flag-free event is higher than the gain of condemning it. Øyvind: Amongst leftists, and even apolitical but "rebel" youth in Norway, these scarfs are fairly common. Within these circles they do not always have a political meaning, no. Perhaps, but among the kind of people who show up at an event like this it probably does have a political meaning. I would compare it to the Israeli flag in symbolism. The kafiyeh symbolizes the Palestinian struggle to achieve statehood just as much as the Israeli flag symbolizes Israel's struggle to survive. And unlike the star of David it has no direct relevance to the Kristallnacht. So I believe it is inappropriate to wear it at a neutral event. If not to make a statement about ME politics, what's the purpose of wearing kafiyeh's at a Kristallnacht commemoration? Sylvia: Gunnar and others have noted the disproportionate amount of Jew-hatred that infests Europe. I have an explanation: It's the soap opera effect, the same reason why internal American politics is covered in such detail in Europe. The Israeli and Palestinian struggles are captivating stories that have held our attention for half a century merely by being interesting, through plot twists and changes of main characters. We must watch on for the same reason we watch the next episode of a soap opera: Because we've learned to care for the characters, and because there's always a new turn to keep things interesting. Jan Haugland: Maybe it was worth it for Bjørn to introduce some loonie left apologia here for variety, but I for one regret seeing the usual deceptions from the leftist echo bubble promoted on such a quality blog. I wouldn't normally post two articles by Øyvind in a row. I did it with this one (specifically asking him for a translation) because I share many of his misgivings about the "Judenfrei" blog stories, but hadn't come around to putting them into words yet. Yes, this debunking could have been done by NRK or anyone, but the people who need to hear this don't listen to NRK. Pro-Israeli blogs presented one version of this event which was clearly skewed. Øyvind's article, read together with this discussion, comes much closer to the truth than most of the blog stories I've read. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 10:16 | Link Evidence? Like say the Bible? No, not the Bible. First, do you accept that Scott Peterson was just proven guilty? Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 10:23 | Link I have an explanation: It's the soap opera effect, the same reason why internal American politics is covered in such detail in Europe. The Israeli and Palestinian struggles are captivating stories that have held our attention for half a century merely by being interesting It's an attempt, but this only explains interest, not hatred. There is jew hatred in the US as well. There seems to be no connection between interest in the latest happenings in the israel-palestinian conflict and jew hating. It certainly doesn't explain the hatred in earlier times. Dave, Qld | 2004-11-14 10:44 | Link It's ironic that those who are so concerned about the unactualised lives of others are so keen to end the lives of another human being. And there is no explanation why most moderately devout christians support jews, while the less religious, non-religious, & muslims all tend to exhibit jew hatred in bigger numbers. Gunnar, I'm not sure that this is actually true, most atheists I know, direct their attentions toward the actions and misdoings of christians (particularly against protesants for some ungodly reason?!?). Most of the religious institutes (the Major churches, Anglican/Catholic) in Australia were firmly opposed to the War in Iraq, and many of Bush's other foreign policy intiatives (war on terror, pre-emptive striking, support for Israel and strategic missile defense). And for reasons unbeknownst to me have repeatedly released press releases attacking the government over a whole range of issues during the last couple of years, as if to some how alter public opinion/policy (mostly in regards to our government support for Bush's cool ideas, :-). Oh well. Cheers, Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 11:06 | Link It's ironic that those who are so concerned about the unactualised lives of others are so keen to end the lives of another human being. You totally lost that debate, so don't bring that up again. No one who supports the WOT is keen to end the lives of other humans. They are keen to save as many as possible, as any one who thought for just a few minutes would see. If there was no threat of death, no WOT. By your logic, fighting nazi Germany was an attempt to kill people. I'm not sure that this is actually true, most atheists I know, direct their attentions toward the actions and misdoings of christians (particularly against protesants for some ungodly reason?!?). I didn't include atheists, since they are so small in number. And I agree that aetheists are generally more anti-christian. Ohad Efrati, Israel | 2004-11-14 11:26 | Link Bjorn wrote: The question, to summarize, is this: Should anti-racists and pro-Israelis attempt to cooperate over a Kristallnacht commemoration, even despite all their differences of opinion over modern Middle Eastern politics? As an Israeli, the relevance of this question is hard for me to grasp. Obviously they should be able to cooperate (though the assumption here is apparently that in Norway being "anti-racist" includes being "anti-Zionist"). However, carrying an Israeli flag in this context means "I support Israel and I also support the commemorative purpose of this march". Surely anti-racists (and even anti-Zionists) should be able to tolerate the fact that some marchers might have these beliefs and sentiments. If the "anti-Zionists" can't tolerate this, it strongly suggests that they view the Israeli flag as a symbol of some unspeakable evil (hence the Nazi comparison that some commenters have made above). It's very understandable if the Jewish community feels thay can't march together with such people. Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-14 11:41 | Link Meanwhile The Canadians are giving a hand to the American leftists: Ladies and gentlemen,
Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-14 11:47 | Link And here is how America's new map looks like: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/images/04new_map.jpg Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-14 11:50 | Link >> Israeli flag as a symbol of some unspeakable evil Ohad, it strikes me that Jews, like devout Christians, never ponder the quite amazing phenomena of seething rage and hatred of Jews. I believe that our shared understanding of God's chosen people make this an easily understood issue. However, it strikes me as odd that people who are unreligious, and others who claim to not believe in God don't find the phenomena perplexing. After all, how can .23% of the world's population warrant such attention? When I was an aetheist, I was struck by how some other aetheists were extremely anti-christian. I thought this was odd. After all, if God didn't exist, then Christians are just much ado about nothing. Living in the US, the claim that religious people could somehow threaten the liberties of non-religious people seemed quite an empty concern. However, the case is even stronger for Jews. If God/Satan don't exist, then why the intense world-wide Jew hatred? T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-14 15:49 | Link "The Euros care not about Darfur or Timor. Why so obsessed with Israel?" So many European journalists took extra classes at Pravda and still explore the agitprop ideas of Lenin. ( partly figurative speaking here ). No criticising is free so why send expensive troops when people are being murdered in the thousands. It´s the same old story Something needs to be done noone wants to do it. But if we are anyway gonna repeat ourself like in Bosnia and make so called "safe zones" and still let people commit genocide there without doing a damn thing ( like ah Szrebiniza ) anyway so we can still claim neutrality and keep the blood of our own hands and be good old softpower Europe. It´s to hot for Europe down there like in Somalia - Rwanda - and now Sudan. Not to forget the ever insulted moslem world that would take as another insult - and call for more jihad. And Israel and the poor downtrodden palestinians appeals to our protective instinct of the weak, and oh - my - god we are so scared when it comes to all this hate in the moslem world which is fuelled by the very existance of Israel ( and I mean very existance - not just lack of co-existance with a genuine palestinian state ). Ah well and just for the note atleast here most people really don´t give a damn about either Israel or Palestine - whereas the press as I told once and twice and thrice and now the fourth time is largely and disproportionally consisting of left - wing, self rightous, well-meaning, PC, Utopians, and Marxist inspired journalists looking for a new proletariat after the classical working class/proletariat got bribed by welfare. ( And as a note found democracy works better as well ) And in the most extreme revolutionary leftie groups you happen to find the absolutely most blindfolded supporters of Islam - even the militant and terrorist one. They find a dual unity with Islamo fascism in the hate towards the western civilization, and the wish to violently crush it. The hardcore left being a monority hiding among legions of well meaning people hoping for a better world does in no way negate the legacy of marxism. Another mass collective/seperative, them and us, ideology to arise in the 19th century amongst pan nationalism, wahhabism and other 19th. century madness , stretching it´s sick and deluded heritage to this day over the bodies of 100´s of millions victims. But as the Danish Poet "Piet Hein" put it. "The true measure stick of the world is the individual" The problem of poetry is that ít´s to short to explain its full meaning. The beauty of it is how much it can explain with so very few words. Jeff, USA | 2004-11-14 16:13 | Link Ex-C: It is funny seeing christian zionist fascists talking about muslims or Arabs cooperating with The nazis when some prominenet Generals in Hitler Army were indeed JEWS ! Did you look at your own link? "Half-Jew". "Quarter-Jew". What does that mean? It's like saying "half-Christian" or "six-thirteenths Muslim". Either you are a Jew or not. There is no Jewish race. With such racist nazi zionist statement no wonder jews are blown up and targeted all over the world. Oh, the irony. Are there Palestinians, ex-C? Or are they a modern creation by Arab leaders for use as a political tool? As you may know, it was a PLO member, Zahir Muhsein, who said in 1977: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. "For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 17:12 | Link paul: There's no doubt that there is much anti-Semitism in the Muslim world and amongst Muslims. I've written about that before. There's also little doubt that many of these anti-Semitists like European anti-Semitists often are Holocaust deniers or feel that it has been exaggerated. That is, however, completely off-topic. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 17:26 | Link why the intense world-wide Jew hatred? Simple, Gunnar. A long tradition looking for scapegoats is behind it all. Because of their diaspora Jews were scattered as a people and therefore a minority group in many countries, both in the Christian and the Islamic world. They were blamed for diverse problems in the different societies. For some Christians, of course, the Jews were also the murderers of Jesus. There's a reason "The Passion of Christ" created quite a fuzz. They also had a distinct culture, often spoke their own languages (yiddisch, ladino, and others) and because of this was treated with suspicion. If you consider other ethnic groups, like the Romani people (Gypsies), that were also minorities around the world you will discover that they too have had their problems. On the Holocaust Teacher Resource Centre you can read about the Nazi persecution of them. Hundreds of thousands were killed. The mostly European anti-Semitism has also spread together with other European ideas. The anti-Semitism in the modern-day Muslim world is for instance heavily inspired by European anti-Semitism and you will Hamas quoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other European anti-Semitic books. Groups like the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo (the only terrorists that have used a sarin-like chemical weapon) are also inspired by European anti-Semitism. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 17:30 | Link Bjørn asked: what's the purpose of wearing kafiyeh's at a Kristallnacht commemoration? I am not sure everyone that wore it had a purpose at all. As I said, wearing them is fairly common and I suspect that not all leftist youth would give it a second thought even when they should. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 17:47 | Link Man, I did not want this to turn into a Palestine-Israel discussion. However, I'd like to clarify this on the "Palestinian" national identity: IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL! People were living in the area before the state of Israel surfaced. They were both Arabs and Jews, adherents of different religions and with different historical backgrounds. Many of those people still live in the region and they have to find a way to be able to live in peace regardless of their national or religious identities. Then, for the (simplified) history lesson. The Ottoman Empire dominated the Fertile Crescent for centuries. When the Empire failed to modernize sufficiently it started to lose control. At the same time different ideas rose, one was the idea of panislamism, used by sultan Abdulhamid II when he tried gathering support under the banners of the kaliphate, but also used by some of his critics. Another idea was the idea of panarabism, that existed in many variants. Then there were regional and local "nationalism", like Syrianism, Egyptism etc. Nationalism was a fairly modern concept, of course inspired by nationalist movements in Europe. Incidentally these nationalist movements inspired not only Arabs to look for their national identity, it also inspired Zionism. The trend that gained a momentum in the internal strife of ideologies amongst Arabs was, at first, the idea of panarabism. The idea was to create one Arab nation from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the East. Others were more pragmatist and wanted to create regional Arabic states, one of the ideas that was popular was an idea to create a Syria including present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Palestine. These hopes failed, though some attempts were made. As a result pan-Arab nationalists turned towards local nationalism and towards other ideologies. Thus the idea of Palestine as a national state also rose. The challenge from the Jewish immigration to the region also influenced this development. Today there is little doubt that there exists a genuine view of Palestine as the fatherland (al watan) for Palestinians. This is not a PLO hoax. Øyvind Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-14 18:17 | Link Jeff, USA ''Did you look at your own link? "Half-Jew". "Quarter-Jew". What does that mean? It's like saying "half-Christian" or "six-thirteenths Muslim". Either you are a Jew or not. There is no Jewish race.''
Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-11-14 18:22 | Link Øyvind, Bergen
You are right on this one, I for once believe the holocaust is an exaggerated event made to milk as much money as possible from the 'guilty' westerners, even one prominent jewish thinker wrote a book called THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY, it is a MUST READ for everyone who wish to venture out of their historical security zone: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id44.htm
Jeff, USA | 2004-11-14 18:36 | Link Ex-C: You only forgot to mention that for jews, anyone who is born of jewish mother is JEW. To Jews. To Jews, you are goy. Do you refer to yourself as that? To Muslims, I am kaffir. I don't go around calling myself as one, though. So if Jews would consider the son of a Jewish mother a Jew, that is their designation. Nobody else's. "Half-Jew" is still nonsense. You are right on this one, I for once believe the holocaust is an exaggerated event made to milk as much money as possible from the 'guilty' westerners, even one prominent jewish thinker wrote a book called THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY, it is a MUST READ for everyone who wish to venture out of their historical security zone: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id44.htm The Holocaust happened. No doubt it has been milked by opportunists, both in the Jewish and general anti-racist/multiculturalist camps. Because there are people exploiting it for profit does not change what happened. It doesn't make it less of a humanitarian tragedy. Or, if it does, the Palestinians' plight is also grossly exaggerated, and they should simply be laughed at for being exploited by Arab politicians, not pitied. Right? :) As to the anti jewishness in the muslim world, it is true, it does exist and it is totally JUSTIFIED based on what the jews are doing right now in Palestine. So... when people have blanket hatred for Muslims because of Muslim terrorists and extremists, that is wrong. When Muslims have blanket hatred for Jews because of what Israel is doing, that is "totally justified". What am I missing here? Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 18:39 | Link Jan: "As evidence stands now, there were no jews present". What evidence, Jan? I have not seen any such evidence. Do you think that DMT would have refrained from mentioning this if it was a fact? Did they mention any such thing? Why do you think they said they were baffled by the news report? Do you think other organizations supportive of the march would refrain from protesting against something like that? Please provide your evidence that no Jews were present. DMT did not want to take part as a congregation. That does not mean that no Jews were present. The police stopped a group of 12-15 people (the number according to Norwegian Israel Centre themselves), including both Jews and non-Jews. That does not mean that no Jews were present. Would you not say that you need to provide evidence for such a claim before naming a commemoration "Judenfrei"? For your information, I have it from several different sources that Jews were present in the march, including the arrangement committee. Do you have any proof that these people are lying? Do you have anything suggesting that they are? Do you regard all of the marchers as "extreme leftists" and supporters of "Blitz thugs"? Might I remind you that the march was supported by numerous organizations across the political spectre? You seem unable to answer these facts: 1. SOS Rasisme repeatedly stated, before the commemoration, that everyone wanting to take part was welcome. 2. DMT makes no mention whatever of Jews being denied access to the march when they surely would if that was a fact. They did however state that they were invited to the march. 3. Norwegian Association against Anti-Semitism, hardly an anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli organization, has supported the polices decision to show the rightwing extremists away. They make no mention of the march being Judenfrei. 4. The police has explained the incident with the police law, paragraph 7, making it legal to show away demonstrators. They have also pointed out that the Democrats and their allies made no formal note to the police of their intention to demonstrate, as is normally required. They do not explain any of their actions with anyones wish, neither their own nor SOS Rasismes - to keep Jews away from the march. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 18:44 | Link P.S: Might I add that DMT also stayed away from the march last year, but that a representative of the organization was one of the speakers at the occasion? Considering your "evidence", were there also no Jews present last year because DMT did not want to take part as a congregation? Gill Doyle, California | 2004-11-14 19:01 | Link Bjørn wrote: "The question, to summarize, is this: Should anti-racists and pro-Israelis attempt to cooperate over a Kristallnacht commemoration, even despite all their differences of opinion over modern Middle Eastern politics? If yes, then the only way to do so is by laying aside divise issues." Why, in order to commemorate Kristallnacht, should people have to lay aside some of what they believe in? Let them all march. Why not? Let the anti-racist and anti-Israeli people march. Let the pro-Israeli and anti-racist people march. I would go further and say -- let the nazis and pro-Palestinian people march. The whole purpose of the march, I would think, should be to remind people that hatred and racism creates problems. The presence, in the column, of nazis and pro and anti-Israeli people would make it abundantly clear to us that all of those problems are still with us and must still be addressed. Why try to purge these various elements from the Kristallnacht ceremony, as though they distract from the point of the commemorative? They are the point. Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-14 19:24 | Link Gill Doyle: Why, in order to commemorate Kristallnacht, should people have to lay aside some of what they believe in? Let them all march. Why not? Because then the march would be no different from the one last year, which was heavily anti-Israel. Let's face it: Of the Norwegians who want to take part in such an event, the vast majority is critical of Israeli policies, and many see Israel as a racist state, committing the same mistakes as the Nazis on a smaller scale. If everyone is allowed to make any statement they like at a Kristallnacht march, those people will dominate the event. Are you seriously suggesting that a Jew or pro-Israeli would feel more welcome at such an event than the one that was held last week? Pro-Israelis hated last year's event, where Kåre Willoch protested against the wall. All they had to dislike about this one was that they weren't allowed to carry Israeli flags. That's a petty complaint I have no respect for. Again: Not every day has to be another battle in the big fight. Your beliefs are not made dirty somehow by shaking hands with people you strongly disagree with. Considering the irrational level of rhetorics over the Middle East conflict, I think it would be useful for both parties to see that there are those on the other side who share views not in conflict with their own. That there might actually be reasonable people in the other trench, or at least that they're not all unreasonable to the core of their being. Those kinds of assumptions cause a lot of damage - look at American right-left rhetoric, for instance. The way conservatives sneer as they say "liberal", and vice versa, the way they assume perverse motives. I'm all for confronting wrong ideas, but that ugly sneer is where this total dedication to the Big Fight I detect from people here leads to. I have no interest in going there. David Boxenhorn | 2004-11-14 19:47 | Link Kristallnacht is first of all a Jewish tragedy. It is entirely appropriate for Israeli flags to be present. Imagine a commemoration of the Sabra and Shatilla massacre - a Palestinian tragedy inflicted by Christian allies of Israel. It would be wholly inappropriate for Israelis to come and wave flags, and try to turn it into an anti-racist protest against Palestinian terrorism. On the other hand it would be completely appropriate for Israelis to come show genuine empathy with the Palestinians. What we see here is a clear attempt to de-Judaize the tragedy of Kristallnacht by racists posing as anti-racists. It unbecomes you, Bjorn, not to call it like it is. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 20:02 | Link Erev tov, David First things first... you're completely right about the racists posing as anti-racists. You'll find them in the Democratic party and in the organization Forum against Islamization, who demonstrated together with representatives of the Norwegian Israel Centre, a highly disputed group amongst Norwegian Jews. This is also the reason Erez Uriely, the leader of that group, is now excluded from the Jewish congregation of Oslo. Secondly. Using all my goodwill I can still not see how not wanting a commemoration to turn into to a political demonstration on current Middle East politics is an attempt to de-Judaize the Kristallnacht commemoration. Making such a claim against a commemoration supported by 130 Norwegian organizations across the political spectre seems odd. Øyvind Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2004-11-14 20:10 | Link Øyvind, It is painfully obvious you are not used to debates. Of course I cannot prove that nobody present in the march was actually secretly jewish. Neither have, after all this mess, any jewish person stood up and said they were there. You ask me to prove a negative, while failing to demonstrate what would be extremely easy to do if there actually were jewish people present. If jews were present totally anonymously, none of the thugs would realise they were jews, so that is a pretty irrelevant question. My point was that no jews participated while carrying a star of david (or anything else indentifying them as jewish). Thus my headline stands: the march was judenfrei. The police on the scene said that nobody would be safe wearing a star of david and even less an Israeli flag. The jews who wanted to be in the march were refused to do so. None of your huffing and puffing change these facts.
Very well said! How would Norwegians react if we were refused to use our own flag for the memorial of our own national tragedy? Jews should not be forced to "meet half-way" during a memorial march for their own national tragedy by agreeing to treat the Israeli flag as a symbol they should be ashamed of. These so-called "anti-racists" demonstrated, to use a good jewish word, some chutzpah. The only right thing to do for SOS Rasisme in the future is to stay far away from anything having to do with kristallnacht. March on any other day, if you have to. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 20:43 | Link Apparently, Jan, you're not very used to journalism. It is a general rule in journalism that when you want to make a claim you should be able to back it up with sources. If you want to make a claim about the march in Oslo being Judenfrei you will have to back it up, too. You didn't. Instead you point out that the congregation did not want to take part, and that a few rightwingers were refused by the police to take part. That's not evidence. And of course you know this. It just doesn't matter to you, because that's not the story you wanted to tell. My claim, however, is backed up with sources. I've read statements from several people who were actually in the Kristallnacht commemoration, including the arrangement committee. You might say that it is in their interest to lie. Sure. My sources aren't objective. Your information, however, also isn't. In fact it's both second-hand, subjective and seems illogical when other information is considered. It's basically in breach with basic journalistic rules. You say that the police on the scene said that no one would be safe wearing a David star. I've asked you to prove this. Can you? The only source for any claim like that is the group of rightwing demonstrators who claim that the police told them that they should not even think about getting close wearing a David Star. Why do you choose to trust this secondhand information? There's little doubt that the police did warn the rightwing demonstrators. There's also little doubt that the police is right about there being some leftists that also took part in another demonstration that were seeking confrontation. However, the police also stated that the rightwing demonstrators were seeking confrontation. This is the same thing as DMT said in their press release, and which I quoted in my original article above. You apparently did not read it, since you later claimed that I completely ignored that they did not want to take part in the commemoration. Your story, of course, was a bit different than theirs. You said: [The article] conveniently ignores that they also refused to participate in the march because of the anti-semitic left-wing groups that were prominent in it. I said: That said it is a sad fact that both the extreme left and the extreme right use the anniversary of the Kristallnacht for their own political purposes, as pointed out in the press release from the Jewish congregation in Oslo. This is the problem both the media and SWC should have adressed. DMT said: We find it regrettable that representants from both the far left and the far right has used the anniversary of the Kristallnacht to make political statements that go wider than a commemoration of the incomprehensible persecution of Jews by Nazi-Germany. This is the background for our choice not to take part in the commemorations of the Kristallnacht the last few years. What version of what DMT said is closest to the truth, Jan. Your or mine? Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-14 20:48 | Link Jan wrote: My point was that no jews participated while carrying a star of david (or anything else indentifying them as jewish). Which is a point you can have no evidence for whatsoever. I'll repeat my question: Do you think det Mosaiske Trossamfund or the Norwegian Association against Anti-Semitism would fail to point this out if it was the truth? I'll repeat another question you haven't answered as well. Why do you think DMT was left baffled over the TV2 report? Øyvind Dave, Qld | 2004-11-14 21:29 | Link Gunnar jew hatred is not prevalent in more devout christian communities, but is prevalent in a certain percentage of non-devout, non religious, and muslim people. Well if middle eastern terrorist groups, and left-wing anti-Israelite socialist groups didn't keep bringing the Palestinian/jew thingy to my attention via the global media than I wouldn't even notice or care what was going on there anymore than any other country. The cyclical retribution of prepetual struggle gets real boring real fast. Besides, I am an Australia and why should the nationalistic concerns of either Jews or Arabs be of concern to me? My non-religiously is hardly provoking me to hate the jews, and to be honest I am almost totality uninterested in this boring arid region. The holocaust and the rise and fall of European intolerance, and facism is a different kettle of fish. And isn't that what this Kristalnacht crap is all about? Commemorating the killing of jews during WW2 due to European racism and intolerance and to prevent the resurgence of such against any nationality?? As opposed to a parade of pro-Israeli nationalism? Or do you suppose that Jews who live under and serve the Australian flag are somehow anyless Jewish than their nationalistic brothers? To be blunt: If God doesn't exist, why worry so much about "God's chosen people"? Well it does not appear that the Jewish claim to divinity is the cause of all this angst. Most people seem to gain an interest in what Israel does as a result of its actions against the Palestinians (some of which are quite dodgy), with many leftists political leaders getting their disinfranchised local islamos on side by pledging their support for the poor Palestinians. Hardly the result of religious jealousies. Dave T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-14 22:02 | Link "First things first... you're completely right about the racists posing as anti-racists. You'll find them in the Democratic party and in the organization Forum against Islamization, who demonstrated together with representatives of the Norwegian Israel Centre, a highly disputed group amongst Norwegian Jews. This is also the reason Erez Uriely, the leader of that group, is now excluded from the Jewish congregation of Oslo." Øyvind So Øyvind ( not bjørn cause he has written it in between the lines and his idea of these two groups meeting without turning into warfare over Israel/palestine for one day I find agreeable ) And really what do you find in the ranks of SOS racisme ? Why did the police find it urgent turn away these provoking people ( rightwing rascists so called and maybe so ? ) who would they would provoke and what would they provoke them to do ? When we talk about the scarf users, and not the ones using it as some anti uniformity uniform as indeed so many do as part of their natural youthfull anti conformity ritual - maybe with a Che Guevera t-shirt as well, why do these people use these scarfs, what are their views on Israel/Palestine ? "That said it is a sad fact that both the extreme left and the extreme right use the anniversary of the Kristallnacht for their own political purposes, as pointed out in the press release from the Jewish congregation in Oslo. This is the problem both the media and SWC should have adressed." Øyvind in the very original blogpost.' That´s true Øyvind it is sad. However why don´t you hesitate to call these people moslem hating and rascists - while painting broad and nuanced about what palestinian scarfs mean. And not question what Israel hating hard core lefties are doing there at all ? Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2004-11-14 22:05 | Link Øyvind, You have said (on your blog) that statements made by the police, members of government and parliament, the people who were denied access and journalists who witnessed this personally as well as the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is "a lie." Now, all you can fall back on is the absense of direct evidence that none of the people present were secretly jewish. You have chosen to back up your dishonesty with countless distortions. You are flat out wrong when you say we only have the "Demokrat"s word that the police said David's stars were not allowed. As I said, at least one journalist witnessed the exchange with the police. The MTS has not at all mentioned anything about jews being present. What they have said, relevant to this case, is that they did not participate. How you can take that as a statement of support is beyond me. On your blog you say (a positive claim) there were other jews present. Are you backing down from this now or are you willing to present evidence? Or maybe double standards are part of your journalist ethic? When all you have to fall back on is some unspecific standards of journalism that you pretend to know something about, then you're really grasping at straws. Journalistic standards are not held in very high regard here. I am trained as an historian, not as a journalist. When you claim I am lying, you have the burden of evidence. You have failed to meet that standard. Your desperate apologia for the anti-Semitic left has, to use an understatement, left us unmoved. Bjørn Stærk | 2004-11-14 23:50 | Link Jan and Øyvind: I believe you should both rely more on links to back up your claims here. You're quarrelling over something that should be easy to settle with the right sources, without any need for lessons in basic journalism / logic principles, (which I don't think either of you really need). Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-15 01:12 | Link Bjørn: I have referred to press releases from several organizations. For those who are able to read Norwegian they are all available at the pages of SOS Rasisme. I have also pointed to a press release from the Oslo police, available at their website here. There are numerous articles about the incident in several newspapers; Dagbladet, TV2 Nettavisen, Aftenposten, VG 1, 2, Adresseavisen and Norge IDAG. None of these newspapers have a direct quote from police sources making the claim Jan Haugland makes. When such a claim is attributed to the police it is a second-hand quote made by Jan Simonsen at the Democratic party at all instants. The Star of David was on the official poster of the arrangement, which makes Jan Haugland and TV2s claims seem more than odd. They have also been categorically denied by SOS Rasisme. After being asked by the journalist from TV2, SOS Rasisme explicitly stated that Jews were welcome. The organization has also published parts of an email from Det Mosaiske Trossamfund here, I quote: [to] the leadership of SOS-Rasisme. The board of det Mosaiske Trossamfund reacts with puzzlement over TV2s angle when the coverage around the controverse of this years commemoration of the Kristallnacht in Oslo is concerned. This is even more true because TV2 was informed on our view Seems strange that DMT was complaining if Jan Haugland and TV2s report was accurate, does it not? SOS Rasisme has afterwards repeatedly stated that Jews were welcome this year as they have been other years, for instance in the numerous press releases found on their site. They have said that Jews were taking part in the commemoration this year, see press release I've already linked to. That claim is repeated by for instance Norsk Folkehjelp which links to SOS Rasismes press release. Norsk Folkehjelp (Norwegian Peoples Aid) is hardly an extremist organization. I've also pointed out that Jews did indeed take part last year, eventhough neither DMT nor Uriely et al did. I have contacted both SOS Rasisme and Det Mosaiske Trossamfund to get more information around this controverse. Regrettably it is still weekend so I have still not received any answers, but I will post them here when received. The demand that one should be able to support ones claims, especially when they are this controversial, is true for both journalists and historians. As this case clearly shows, both those trained as historians and those train as journalist can utterly fail. The demand for being able to fund claims is the same for historians as for journalist, eventhough both professions - as this case clearly shows - hardly follows it up. T.Hansen: No, I do not hesitate referring to neither FOMI nor the Democratic party as racist. One of the leading figures of FOMI, Jarle Synnevåg, lost his job in the Norwegian army after making statements like this on the Internet: [It's regrettable that the Satanists] did not put fire to churches with church asylants, then one could say that the one evil smoked out the other, literally speaking In the interview with Dagbladet he says that Islam is a disease that must the swept of the human mind. The democratic party wants to put all asylum seekers in closed camps and electronically mark them, according to this Vårt Land article found on their own website. Since they were established they've used every chance to attack immigrants in general and Muslim immigrants especially. The statements from DMT and the Norwegian Assocation against anti-Semitism regarding these groups (referred above) are easy to agree with.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-15 01:26 | Link Oh, I might add that our former president of parliament Jo Benkow, has commented articles in the party newspaper of the Democrats in this manner: - What they stand for is barbaric and it must be worked against The background was an ad showing a father who was asked by his two children: "Daddy, what did you DO when they came to get us?", "Support the democrats and you'll have a home in the future as well". The ">poster is in fact from the first world war, but it has been rewritten and was used as a warning against Islam. Benkow says: What Kleppe [partytop in the Democrats] is doing is negative nationalism. This is a grotesque variant of scare propaganda where the nuances totally disappear. One groups is given almost all blame for everything that's wrong. But I'm not surprised... Jo Benkow is Jewish, by the way. Geir, CV | 2004-11-15 01:42 | Link Well then BS. I had never heard of this story before reading about it here (reason being I'm in Britain). However, I find it refreshing that you (at least) are appologetic about the harm that overly excited bloggers can actually cause. Bearers of the truth indeed........ It is quite interesting that jan chooses to call the left anti-semmitic, can you explain why? Surely, this is a pan-political-axis problem, yes? That being said, I think it is sad that one cannot be critical of Israli heavy handedness. But a pat on the back to you BS and oyvind for being honourable. It's a shameful state of affairs when bloggers are listened to. and I hope that this story makes you all think for a second before shouting fire. finally, as Lars lonning says: tenk for en prevantiv effekt hvis alle som bryter loven hadde faatt doedsstraff uansett. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-15 01:48 | Link Link fell out: http://www.demokratene.info/nyheter/2004_vil_internere_flyktninger.shtml By the way, Demokratene has also interviewed Erik Gjems-Onstad on their website. They show his medals from fighting in WWII and lets him criticize those who have criticized the party. What is left out? Well, Erik Gjems-Onstad is also famous for being the lawyer of several prominent Nazis and he has been writing in the extreme rightwing newspaper Fritt Forum. Amongst other people writing in the same magazine Tore W. Tvedt is worthy of notice. He was then the leader of an obscure Holocaust revisionist organization called the Organization for True History. These days he leads the Nazi-Odinist cult Vigrid. Guilt by association? Indeed. But there are people you simply should not associate with. Gjems-Onstad has also written a book on the Arne Myrdal case, defending the well-known anti-immigration activist Myrdal who was arrested and jailed for his plans to bomb a "asylmottak" (refugee central). According to some people, including Gjems-Onstad, Myrdal was a victim of a conspiration... Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-15 01:50 | Link Dæng that HTML-code. Here's the poster mentioned above: http://www.universityofthepoor.org/schools/artists/WWI/daddy.htm Allan, Melbourne | 2004-11-15 02:14 | Link I think its a good idea to keep the demonstration free from contemporary middle eastern politics, but there seems to be no reason why people should use palestine scarfs when the Israeli flag was forbidden. Even the users themselves might not mean anything by it, it will definately be taken as a support of Palestine by the casual observer. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-15 09:57 | Link While we're waiting for the responses I promised above I'll quote Rolf M. Hansen, who was in the march himself: - I was there myself, and I saw several well-known Jews that took part. The Israeli state has controversial politics. Some support them, others despise them. Therefore it is natural that a commemoration like this tries to be netural and don't allow political statements as waving flags, neither Israeli nor Palestinian. Of course, Jan Haugland accuses this man of lying. Well, as Haugland wrote himself: When you claim I am lying, you have the burden of evidence. Those that apply for Jan Haugland as well? Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-15 13:25 | Link I've got to admit that I've made a mistake. My mistake? I believed Jan Haugland. The above article also seems to pretend it was against the organiser's wishes and plans that Kåre Willoch last year turned the march into an Israel-bashing contest. Who are they trying to fool? "SOS Rasisme" has two years running made a memorial march of the start of the murder of six million European jews into an anti-Israel propaganda vehicle Well, well. The truth, however, is that Kåre Willoch did not take part in any SOS Rasisme arrangement last year. He spoke in another arrangement that had nothing to do with SOS Rasisme, I have been informed. Here's an article about SOS Rasismes arrangement last year found in Dagbladet Jan Haugland proven wrong. Again. But more is to come. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-15 16:12 | Link So any group of any size can walk anywhere they like and shout slogans? They don't need permits? They're not closed off in free speech zones if there are particular fears of violence? This is news to me. You changed the subject. The point was that that carrying an israeli flag is not a violation of any law. People need a permit to walk down the street and block traffic. But once given, the police can not interfere, unless someone breaks a law. Nobody has the right to prevent people from expressing themselves. From what you describe, it seems like a civil rights violation. Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2004-11-15 16:22 | Link Øyvind, Is this some bad court TV movie? At the end of the court case, when all looks glum for the poor innocent defendent, a previously unknown woman storms into the court room, proclaiming "he is innocent! he was with me all night when it happened!" And, indeed, a previously unknown poster "Rolf M. Hansen" barges in on the impeccable quality site IndyMedia (!), stating he was marching there, and there weren't only some, but several jews present. Many of them "well-known" (how many of these exist in Norway? Three?). And, a bit later in the debate the same mystery witness says he is himself jewish! Extremely convenient. Against such strong documented evidence, what can we say? Tomorrow no doubt "Per N. Olsen" will post somewhere, telling us there were legions of jewish people in the march, all having massive neon david's stars. And on it goes. But without me. I've stated my case, strongly as it is, and have no interest in pursuing mystery witnesses on Indymedia. PS: You are correct that Willoch probably did not march with SOS Rasisme last year. My apologies. He appears to have participated in a different march on the same day. Interestingly, the article you link provides no information about Willoch whatsoever, so it is puzzling that you refer to it as evidence. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-15 16:42 | Link Apparently, Jan, you're not very used to journalism. It is a general rule in journalism that when you want to make a claim you should be able to back it up with sources. Straw man alert: Jan is a blogger, not a journalist. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-15 17:09 | Link Now Øyvind I agree this people could be among the few - hardly more than 1000 people in Norway which are genuine rascist - atleast they are hate based and fail to understand that among refugees are actually some people which come here because they like democracy not quasi fascistoid ISLAM - poets - intellectuals - which have been persecuted and honest ordinary people with heart, common sense and integrity. Where as I have no problems calling things by their real name - including rascism I know full well that the label is placed on backs broadly including my own back and the party I vote for ( Danish People´s party - The party everyone liked to bash and still enjoy though it got over 10 % of national votes and is material for support in the current right wing majority government in the parliament ). I certainly don´t have a problem with calling rascists for rascists when they are genuinely so and some few are. What I do have a problem with is that the same calling thing by their real name don´t apply to SOS rascisme which I bet is another front used by and consisting of largely leftwing rabiats. These groups as usual have a lot of well meaning people in their ranks as well - socialists - Idealists - maybe even a few idealistic right wing that though they feel a bit uncomfortable there in the company support the cause of anti - rascism. But for some mysterious reason you will hardly ever find these people demonstrating against statements of mullahs and radicals like. "infidels are worthless". "Osama Bin laden is a freedom fighter" "We westerness are all hedonistic" ". That mysterious reason is that the organization is in it´s core dominated by extreme left wing ideology which involves unconditional support for Palestine blind to the fact that much of the so called resistance against Israel is perpetrated by groups that are fundamentally anti semitic and wish nothing but the total destruction of Israel, the root cause being being hate to our Capitalist imperial civilization. But as things turned out I would years later work together with these extreme left wing groups in a cause we all could agree on - to say no to the Maastricht treaty. I have known and had respectfull debates with these people and know them and what they stand for pretty well and even liked them as individuals. But still what they stand for is dangerous not only what the extreme right stands for. I pointed this out before and will point it out again - if the moderate and intelligent politicians fail to address the issues of immigration and fundamentalist islam - People here will be forced into the arms of extremists and the anger and despair which lead to actual hate and rascism will grow - The great taboo - no go zone - the scare of criticizing islam as well as the scare of adressing these issues is countereffective and create more problems than it solves. We are at war and it´s the most difficult one ever because it´s against terrorism not a nation with a specific location. It´s against an enemy hiding in the shadows and among civilians and among a bio. moslems which is inhabit as a parasite ( sorry for that rascist comment - just find it describes the situation pretty accurate ) And indeed Islam itself is part of that problem as well as the fact that you can´t say that without being considered a moslem hater. But Jihadic fundamentalist islam is just as connected to moderate islam as socialism was connected to marxism and coomunism and ultimately what happened in Russia, China, Cambodia etc. Costa Rica the only true success acheived. We may be reaping as we have sowed to some extent and it´s not like in my opinion that we are all good and they are all bad - to me it´s a choice between the better part and the worse. As a note anyway if anyone consider me rascist or moslem hater after this they should know that I have literally starved for years paying for 4 kids in the third world a monthly fee so they could get education, health care, and not starve to excessively. Among these kids were a moslem boy from India for one and for the second until 1993 or was it 4 ? Two kids in Rwanda which may have been butchered while the world was busy talking big words. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-15 17:10 | Link Norwegian supporters of PLO are in fact supporting Nazis. George Will on ABC's "This Week." Under Arafat's direction, Palestinian schools now teach "a kind of virulent anti-Semitism akin to that in Nazi Germany," T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-15 17:20 | Link Now Øyvind I agree this people could be among the few - hardly more than 1000 people in Norway which are genuine rascist - atleast they are hate based and fail to understand that among refugees are actually some people which come here because they like democracy not quasi fascistoid ISLAM - poets - intellectuals - which have been persecuted and honest ordinary people with heart, common sense and integrity. Where as I have no problems calling things by their real name - including rascism I know full well that the label is placed on backs broadly including my own back and the party I vote for ( Danish People´s party - The party everyone liked to bash and still enjoy though it got over 10 % of national votes and is material for support in the current right wing majority government in the parliament ). I certainly don´t have a problem with calling rascists for rascists when they are genuinely so and some few are. What I do have a problem with is that the same calling thing by their real name don´t apply to SOS rascisme which I bet is another front used by and consisting of largely leftwing rabiats. These groups as usual have a lot of well meaning people in their ranks as well - socialists - Idealists - maybe even a few idealistic right wing that though they feel a bit uncomfortable there in the company support the cause of anti - rascism. But for some mysterious reason you will hardly ever find these people demonstrating against statements of mullahs and radicals like. "infidels are worthless". "Osama Bin laden is a freedom fighter" "We westerness are all hedonistic" ". That mysterious reason is that the organization is in it´s core dominated by extreme left wing ideology which involves unconditional support for Palestine blind to the fact that much of the so called resistance against Israel is perpetrated by groups that are fundamentally anti semitic and wish nothing but the total destruction of Israel, the root cause being being hate to our Capitalistn, imperial civilization. But as things turned out I would years later work together with these extreme left wing groups in a cause we all could agree on - to say no to the Maastricht treaty. I have known and had respectfull debates with these people and know them and what they stand for pretty well and even liked them as individuals. But still what they stand for is dangerous just as dangerous and just as widespread as what the extreme right stands for. I pointed this out before and will point it out again - if the moderate and intelligent politicians fail to address the issues of immigration and fundamentalist islam - People here will be forced into the arms of extremists and the anger and despair which lead to actual hate and rascism will grow - The great taboo - no go zone - the scare of criticizing islam as well as the scare of adressing these issues is countereffective and create more problems than it solves. We are at war and it´s the most difficult one ever because it´s against terrorism not a nation with a specific location. It´s against an enemy hiding in the shadows and among civilians and among a bio. moslems which is inhabit as a parasite ( sorry for that critical comment - just find it describes the situation pretty accurate ) And indeed Islam itself is part of that problem as well as the fact that you can´t say that without being considered a moslem hater. But Jihadic fundamentalist islam is just as connected to moderate islam as "moderate" socialism was connected to marxism and communism and ultimately what happened in Russia, China, Cambodia etc. Costa Rica the only true success acheived. We may be reaping as we have sowed to some extent and it´s not like in my opinion that we are all good and they are all bad - to me it´s a choice between the better part and the worse. As a note anyway if anyone consider me rascist or moslem hater after this they should know that I have literally starved for years paying for 4 kids in the third world a monthly fee so they could get education, health care, and not starve to excessively. Among these kids were a moslem boy from India for one and for the second until 1993 or was it 4 ? Two kids in Rwanda which may have been butchered while the world was busy talking big words. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-15 17:25 | Link Sry for the double post was to eager to post there and thought I stopped the first. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-15 18:03 | Link Jan Haugland: Well, well, the court case will continue to evolve, mister. That is a promise. Until then you might ponder upon why I linked to the Dagbladet article. The reason was precisely because it did not mention Willoch, while it was an article about the SOS Rasisme arrangement last year. If Willoch was there he surely would have been mentioned :). Thanks for admitting you were wrong, though. You couldn't claim that SOS Rasisme had turn the commemoration into an anti-Israeli propaganda machine last year. Neither have they this year. I'll be back, as Arnold says. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-15 18:15 | Link Gunnar wrote:Straw man alert: Jan is a blogger, not a journalist. My attack is mainly on TV2 and other media, not on Jan Haugland. His blog is however news-oriented, and I don't see any reason it should be exempt of critique. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-15 18:25 | Link T. Hansen: You have several points in your post that could and should have been adressed. I do not feel, however, that they are relevant to this discussion, and because of a lack of time I will not write much. I do want to emphazise, though, that I too think that various anti-racist groups should also warn against racism, maybe especially anti-Semitism, found in Muslim (and other) immigrant groups. In my opinion they have not completely failed doing this, but such a claim wouldn't be far off. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-15 18:32 | Link Glad you liked my little quote, by the way, Jan. Now you can see how easy it is to do source critique. Fun little game, isn't it? It's the game both of us should have been playing when it comes to the Willoch - SOS Rasisme link as well. Isn't it? Indymedia is indeed not trustworthy. Not all posters there are necessarily untrustworthy. But some are. I've seen enough of crazy "Bush are alien"-theories there, I'll gladly admit that. So, is this source trustworthy? No. Not on his own, at least. Then, Jan, here comes the catch: Are the claims from the Democratic party and NIS trustworthy, Jan? That's the question you will have to ask yourself. And have you yet provided any source where the police is directly quoted saying what you have repeatedly claimed they say? Øyvind T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-15 19:35 | Link "You have several points in your post that could and should have been adressed. I do not feel, however, that they are relevant to this discussion, and because of a lack of time I will not write much." Well I disagree they are relevant. Pretty more relevant than evidence of jews present to the demonstration or not. I just found this article via the debate on Jihadwatch By the way which I will quote this from: "Mr. Pacepa, it’s your turn.
Pacepa: Thanks Jamie. I believe that the most important thing in a war is to know your enemy. Today’s terrorism is a 21st century variation of the old anti-Semitism, that weapon of the emotions wielded by so many tyrants over the centuries.
History always repeats itself, and if you can live two lives, you have an even greater chance of seeing that repetition with your own eyes. During the last six years of my other life, as a Romanian intelligence general, the main task of the Soviet bloc espionage community was to transform Yasser Arafat’s war against Israel and its main supporter, the United States, into an armed doctrine of the whole Islamic world. America was our main enemy, and a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on it than could a mere one million. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. Our task was to convert its historical hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States, by portraying this land of freedom as an “imperial Zionist country” financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion,” the Kremlin’s epithet for the US Congress.
According to KGB theorists, the Islamic world was a petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hate. Islamic cultures had a taste for nationalism, jingoism and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against America would flow naturally from their religious fervor. We had only to keep repeating, over and over, that the United States was a “Zionist country” bankrolled by rich Jews. Islam was obsessed with preventing the infidel’s occupation of its territory, and it would be highly receptive to our dogma that American imperialism wanted to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom." http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15952 Sandy P | 2004-11-15 21:25 | Link OT, via Roger L. Simon and others' places: UNSCUM inflation, that is. Previous reports estimating skimming by Saddam and his United Nations Oil-for-Food cohorts at 10 billion dollars were off by a measly 11.3 billion bucks, according to a probe by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. It's now 21.3 billion (more than double the original estimate) and could go higher, making the Oil-for-Food Scandal the greatest heist in world history by far. Kofi & his cronies should be proud. They've earned a place in the Guinness Book of Records. [You're not trying to tell me the UN is worse than Halliburton?-ed. Nah. Don't worry.] ---- Not 1 red cent. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-16 00:01 | Link Everyone: I had a phone conversation with Imre Hercz, a Norwegian Holocaust survivor that has been central in det Mosaiske Trossamfund tonight. He told me that he had been present at the commemoration. He experienced no problems. He also told me that he did not take part in the march, because he felt that the arrangement had taken a wrong turn by including political issues with no relevance to the Kristallnacht or Nazi atrocities, namely Norwegian immigration politics. He criticized leftwingers for this. In my opinion few people have more right to do so than him. As I wrote in the post above, both TV2 and Simon Wiesenthal Centre should have adressed the real problem - that both leftwing and rightwing groups use the Kristallnacht to their own ends - instead of cooking up a story about Jews being barred from the arrangement. The full interview with Hercz will, eventually, be posted at dilettant.no. John Ø. Welle, Legalesia | 2004-11-16 01:19 | Link Øyvind: At this point in the proceedings, the defence wishes to call SOS Rasisme to the bench as a witness in the Strømmen vs. Haugland case. Øyvind Strømmen (hereby refered to as the accuser) has repeatedly questioned the veracity of the sources quoted by Jan Haugland (hereby refered to as the defendant) to illegitimatize his claims. The accuser has in his further efforts to repudiate his claims, quoted extensively from the organisation known as SOS Rasisme. The defence therefore wishes to point out and prove beyond the shadow of a fart's doubt, that the sources quoted by the accuser are proponents of biased opinion on the Israel/Palestine conflict, and their statements should thus be consumed with truckloads of salt, and washed down with brewage distilled no less than three times. That is not to try to validate some of the sources used by the defendant, but merely to point out that it is perhaps a bit premature (as the case currently stands) to claim victory on the grounds of the word of SOS Rasisme. The defence also wishes to acknowledge that the accuser has used other sources to back up his claims as well, but wishes to focus solely on the credibility of SOS Rasisme to the extent of this post. SOS Rasisme has on their website some dedicated pages (Norwegian) to illuminate the Norwegian people of the intricacies of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Will the jury agree that if the contents linked to on these pages are demonstrably schewed in the direction of pro-Palestinian sentiment, there might be a chance that the decision to ban Israeli flags on 'Krystallnatten' (while at the same time allowing keffiyahs) might be rooted in something deeper than the professed wish to stay neutral? To Wit: 1. It starts off with a link to a story (Norwegian) in the BA (BergensAvisen) that the Kristallnacht is 'a reminder to us all of what is happening in the Palestinian territories. It does it's best to draw a comparison between the Nazi's confiscation of property and general terrorisation of the Jewish people before and during the second world war and Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories.. ("Sounds familiar?" the article rhetorically asks, after giving a mostly correct account of some of the atrocities perpetrated against jews by the Nazi's.) Too bad Godwin's Law doesn't seem to be applicable to the mainstream media. 2. The next story is a link to a story (Norwegian) in VG, where SOS Rasisme leader Torbjørnsen explains how little he can understand why the recent debacle may have caused increased hatred towards jews. 3. A link to a story (Norwegian) in Aftenposten that explains to us how Israel's concern over the rise of anti-semtism in France, is a real-political ploy to freeze France and the EU out of the peace-process, so that Israel and USA can employ their nefarious schemes without being disturbed. 4. Amnesty Accuses Israel of Racism (Norwegian) is the title of a story from Nettavisen. This is presumably from the same report that also accuses The Palestinian Authorities for gross violations of Human Rights. The defence seems to remember that this was (relatively) widely reported, but somehow SOS Rasisme has neglected to find it worthy to find a link to any stories about that. 5, 6, 7, 8 (Norwegian) SOS Rasisme links to a whooping four stories about Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid's remarks earlier this year that "Israeli activities in the Palestininan territories reminded him of the Nazi's". Which, of course, later turned out to be a little more nuanced than that, but hey, what a story! 9. Last but not least, the defence wishes to note that SOS Rasisme links to an opinion piece (Norwegian) by Aftenposten's chief editor Harald Stanghelle about the horrors of the Israeli occupation. He starts off dubiously by quoting a comment from former conservative prime minister Kåre Willoch upon visiting Israel/Palestine. ("Ingen av oss kan sitte hjemme i en slik tid. Ingen av oss kan si vi ikke visste." - "None of us can sit at home in times likes these. None of us can say we didn't know.") As you might guess, his call for activism isn't directed towards doing something to stop Palestinian teenagers blowing up school buses in Jerusalem. Stanghelle ends on this note: "..the main problem is an occupying Israel-regime, that not only crushes any hope of a Palestinian state, but also leads a policy that fuels more violence and terrorism." Why is SOS Rasisme linking to clearly biased opinion pieces on the Israel/Palestine conflict? The defence could go on and on, but instead we encourage the jury to take a look at the site, and form a judgement for themselves. (If you're Scandinavianly inclined at least..) The fact that the majority of articles written by the Norwegian media is slanted toward a pro-Palestinian viewpoint, isn't any excuse for SOS Rasisme to present an equally lopsided version of the conflict. Especially not when it's an organisation that claims to be neutral. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-16 04:02 | Link >> So now the SOS Rasisme is Nazi organisation sprouting anti-racism slogans as a cover for its Jew-hatred? I’m sure news of this will come as a surprise to many of its members. Back in the right thread. I don't know much about this SOS Rasisme. According the J Welle, they seem highly biased towards the PLO. I do know for sure that the PLO is an evil fascist entity, with direct connections to the Nazi regime of Hitler. The reality of this is not some kook conspiracy theory, but is easily discovered. I'm emotional about this issue, because I don't understand what's so controversial about judging that Nazis are evil, and should be opposed. David Elson, Australia | 2004-11-16 04:28 | Link SOS Rasisme website; http://www.sos-rasisme.no/english/ SOS Rasisme was started in Norway in 1985 [sic] to create a broad alliance against racism whether it is organised racism/nazism, institutionalised racism or "every day racism". Hardly the words of a potential nazi. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-16 04:37 | Link >> Hardly the words of a potential nazi. Like I said, I really don't know about, or care about SOS Rasisme. The PLO is evil. Allan, Melbourne | 2004-11-16 10:18 | Link Gunnar: Trond Thorbjørnsen | 2004-11-16 11:06 | Link I've read parts of this blog, but there is alot of things to do after the wrong TV2-story. 1. Both Jews and the Star of David where of course welcome! 2. Israeli/ Palestine flags/ banners where not allowed. The focus of SOS Racism in Norway shall be on issues concerning anti-racism in Norway. 3. The news section about Israel/Palestine-conflict See also our Program of principles: Keep on the good discussion! Pete, Paris | 2004-11-16 11:45 | Link "The fact that the majority of articles written by the Norwegian media is slanted toward a pro-Palestinian viewpoint, isn't any excuse for SOS Rasisme to present an equally lopsided version of the conflict." I think it worth noting that although there may be some truth to the claim that some newspaper articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict tend to present the Palestinian side of the story - what you call "slanted towards a pro-Palestinian viewpoint" - the effective actions of the state of Israel, the US, and the world community overwhelmingly favours the Israeli "point of view", in that there are no effective sanctions whatsoever against continuing perennial Israeli injustice in the occupied territores and no effort on the part of the international community to do anything about it. It would be hypocritical and wilfully blind to pretend that the only problems in these territories are due to "Palestinian terrorism" - a suicide bomb on a civilian bus is a terrible crime, but so are deliberate "targeted assassinations", random destruction of property and lives, murder of civilians and the insanely twisted logic that condones blatant land-grabbing, water-stealing, and the construction of a "security barrier" that effectively materialises these thefts, isolates one family from another and creates even more impossible living conditions than already existed. A concrete example I can provide of "media bias" dates from earlier this year, if my memory is correct - the occasion was a suicide bomb exploded near a Tel Aviv bus station, killing one Israeli policeman and the bomber, and wounding several others - the bomber was certainly attempting to board a bus and cause many more victims. This was treated as headline news by all the news channels, with video coverage of weeping, terrified Israeli civilians, outraged ambulance workers, and so on - only the Franco-German channel Arte added a comment by a Palestinian spokesman who said that although the PLO condemned the attack, no news outlet had yet mentioned the fact that the same week in the Occupied Territories, 17 Palestinians had been killed in various Tsahal raids. This comment was not included in reports by France 1, France 2, France 3, France 6 or the Swiss channel I receive. I can also confirm that reports on terrorist violence against Israel, as broadcast by the French TV channels, a Swiss channel, CNN and BBC World, which are the ones I pick up here in Paris, are given major audio/video/interview media coverage, whereas reports on Tsahal actions resulting in deaths and destruction in the Occupied Territories are usually noted only by short spoken comments from the newsreader, usually buried late in the news programme. There are only very rare video reports of this sort of thing. If you want to remove violence, you must first address the cause of the violence - in the hope of avoiding unnecessary violence from the pens of the enraged, I wish to point out that by this statement, I do not wish to condone terrorism or to imply that everything is the fault of Israel and the US, this would be a stupidly blinkered error - however, the problem of terrorist violence in the Middle East will not be solved either by a stupidly blinkered insistence that the problem is exclusively "Arab" or "Islamist". State terrorism is also a reality. I read somewhere on this site that there exist clear connections between the PLO and Nazi Germany - I haven't looked at that, I'll try and research that - but it's worth responding that there also exist clear connections between the US government and Nazi Germany (amongst others, the grandfather of the present US President)and between the German Zionist movement and Jewish bankers who helped finance Adolf Hitler. The one does not excuse the other, of course, and that works both ways. What is needed is an awareness that the scapegoat mentality is a disease that we should by now be capable of treating with preventive means. Best wishes Pete Øyvind, Bergern | 2004-11-16 12:20 | Link Very nice attempt, John Ø. Welle. The truth is, however, that SOS Rasisme links to numerous articles in Norwegian newspapers on a number of different issues. And as Thorbjørnsen himself told us: The news section about Israel/Palestine-conflict SOS Racism in Norway has not taken and will not take any stand in this issue. Nevertheless, there is discussions about racism as a catalysator in the conflict, and we collect all news in Norway about racism on our pages. Not only news that we like... or in this case - has a meaning about But hey. Minor details, isn't it? Just like the minor detail that the commemoration wasn't Judenfrei. Øyvind nilsr, oslo | 2004-11-16 13:55 | Link "But hey. Minor details, isn't it? Just like the minor detail that the commemoration wasn't Judenfrei. " Maybe "almost Judenfrei" suits you better, Øyvind? You might be right in a narrow sense. As Christine, one of the journalists on document.no writes, -most of us commemorate this day in a private setting. Because they know the arrangement has been dominated by groups which the rest of the year use any occation to hammer Israel and glorify the Palestinians. She also say this does not justify right wing extremes participating for some counterweight effect. So, you can shout you throat hoarse, you can`t change the fact that this commemoration already is heavily political. The press coverage atleast made us aware of it. John Ø. Welle, Rantville | 2004-11-16 14:00 | Link Torbjørnsen: Øyvind: Well, perhaps the commemoration wasn't, but did you actually listen to what Imre Hercz told you about why he didn't participate in the march? Or were you just too gleeful that you'd finally got your "proof" against Haugland? To me, the really serious issue isn't wether a lone jew showed up on the commemoration, but that jews in general feel that they don't belong there because extreme left-wing elements have hijacked the commemoration. If anyone should have been banned from the event, it should have been the people wearing keffiyahs, or for that matter, people that don't understand that the Israeli flag, if it not belongs, at least has a very natural place in a commemoration on 'Kristallnacht'. Even more so, if they have to resort to violence to demonstrate that lack of understanding. I mean, people here have argued that the committee arranging the event did the right thing to ban both Palestinian and Israeli flags, so as to keep the event from becoming politicized. That's all very fine, if it had been an event commemorating, say, 9/11, but not when the event is a commemoration of the 'Kristallnacht'. It's like banning American flags from the hypothetical 9/11 commemoration. Sure, you can argue that there would have been people (and there probably was) that would have wanted to use the Israeli flag to politicize the event, but there would be ten people to every one such person that would have wanted to bring the Israeli flag, because it's a powerful symbol of the freedom the Jewish people gained after the attrocities commited against them in the Second World War. Would there be any similar symbolism present in the Palestinian flag to suggest that it should have been allowed, if the Israeli flag had been allowed? You know, Bjørn has written previously on the concept of 'neutrality', and very well might I add, and this seems to me to be an instance were neutrality should have yielded to the objective view that the Israeli flag, has a much more natural place in a 'Kristallnacht'-commemoration than a Palestinian flag. Besides, allowing the keffiyah, is just about the same as allowing the Palestinian flag anyway. It should not be likened to the David star in symbolical value. The keffiyah is directly linked to the Palestinian cause. If the wearers are too stupid to realize that, that's their problem. I would like to comment a bit on Thorbjørnsen's claim that SOS Racism "has not and will not take any stand in this issue" too. You, Øyvind, seem to think it's enough that SOS Racism makes a claim, and then it must be true. Did you actually check any of the links listed on their Israel/Palestine section? Why on earth would they have a link to a vitriolic anti-Israeli opinion piece there, if it's supposed to be a "collection of news about racism"? What about the four cases about the remarks earlier this year by the Israeli Justice Minister? (And not one of them telling the whole story.) Why not a single case demonstrating the very real hatred a large proportion of the Palestinian people hold towards jews? The claim that they're collecting "all news in Norway about racism" simply isn't true either. Nor would I expect them to, but I would at least expect them to admit that there is some selectiveness involved in the process. The question is; do the news collected from the Israeli/Palestine conflict reflect a balanced view? Go see for yourself.. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-16 14:21 | Link I've just received an email from the Norwegian Association against anti-Semitism. She too criticizes SOS Rasisme, this critique and SOS Rasismes response will be posted in the article I am working on for dilettant.no. Christine Mohn also criticizes LO (the main Norwegian labour union) and Norsk Folkehjelp for coming with unbalanced and partly wrong claims about Israeli politics. The critique in its entirety and their responses will also be found on dilettant.no when I have the time to complete the article. However, here's one of my questions and part of the response from Christine Mohn, who is the leader of the group and also a member of the Jewish congregation in Oslo: Me: - SOS Rasisme claims that both Jews, Muslims, Christians and others took part in the torchlight prosession. Do you have knowledge of Jews that took part? Mohn: I know a couple of Jews that took part without problems. What is problematic from the point-of-view of Norwegian Jews are that SOS Rasisme has hijacked the commemoration in such a way that it now has become a demonstration against general nazism and racism against Muslims. Anti-Semitic tendensies in the Norwegian society is not touched, eventhough this date is primarily relevant for Jews and Jewish history. Mohn also says that they sharply distance themselves from the Democratic party, FOMI and the Norwegian Israel Centre. Øyvind Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-16 14:29 | Link John, Thank you for that clarification on SOS Racism. Somewhat distressingly, there is nothing there which in any way surprises me since in the present times, with most events such as the one this thread encompasses it has become depressingly easy to accurately predict what the "nature" of the players will be. I cautiously alluded to it in my posts above without knowing. You have verified it. This makes the apologist post by David from Australia also sadly typical. How common it is for the front end Public Relations face to diverge far indeed from what the internal agenda of SO MANY "Progressive" organizations in this chapter of history. Image over substance is not a code or a dogma... it is merely a necessity. In due Orwellian fashion, groups that claim to be about "Human Rights", or "Peace", or "Racism"... have been co-opted by something else entirely. Things are not about what they are about, and it is unsustainable. In any case, part of the premise wherein Øyvind (and indeed Bjørn) have justified the "conditions", wherein Jews could and could not participate in a commemoration of Krystallnacht, has been based on the fact that there were opinions held by many people that would have made the Israeli flag infalammatory and well... "rude". I was earlier maintaining that stifling the freedom to express opinions and argue in a discourse MUST not be impinged. Indeed, in this case, the stifling was not on equal footing and we should not pretend it is so. If one reads what John cited above, it is clear that the perspectives (and it is my opinion that most of them would be exploded in the light of a free doscourse and can only be perpetuated in a highly framed and deliberately constrianed venue... as per virtually the entire public discourse in Norway for example) represented there were the ONLY ones that were served by these restrictions. It strikes me that the claim of displaying the Israeli flag being incendiary (even with the artful "equivalence" of restricting the Palestinian flag)is supremely disingenuous. This was hardly about SOS Racism avoiding "conflict". Rather, it was about them remaining unchallenged. And they should be challenged! Indeed, they should be challenged even existentially as to their right to claim propriety over this very IDEA of being against racism. They should be prepared to defend their mandate over that idea! Every body who makes a claim should. But they are not. So let's take this from a different angle, which in this context is not in my opinion, "off thread". To wit: How does SOS Racism justify their proposition that Israel is a "racist" State? What historically, has Israel done that they believe they would have done differently? What mistakes that Israel has made, in their opinion, that constitutes racism... especially a kind of racism that justifies the holocaust comparisons that they have made? These seem like very reasonable questions to ask openly of an organization that appears to hold to highly emotive propositions, as though they are simply inarguable. Why have they not? Because Øyvind (and Bjørn???) like many others have internalized an unfree perspective where strife is to be avoided whenever possible and clashes of ideas are to be kept in check. Two things happen in this paradigm (beyond the obvious creeping death of any meaningful definition of "Free" society of course.) First, polarization is actually enhanced as extremes are enabled to move in shadow, redefining the terms of perception (versus reality) along more and more absolute lines... they will call these distortions "purity" even as they discard more and more of the facts in favor of a "vision". This is metaphysics Øyvind by the way. There is nothing mystical about it. That is a distortion of the term. The second thing that happens (and it is an epiphenomenon of the first) is that the ruthless will set more and more of the terms of debate, wherein up to and including threats of violence will come to be understood as the possible result for even the slightest discussion... of more and more of the the issues being faced. This is an insidious process with the inevitable result being that the discourse is only possible along such a narrow venue that it only reinforces the tiny slice of the "whole truth" which serves the ruthless themselves... who have in fact defined it. The two of you are, in sophisticated and relativist terms, argueing that this is acceptable. Bjørn, you even argue that the nature of the "Anti Racism" organizers (who actually set these restrictions... whatever they actually were) is not relevant to the debate. I am utterly nonplussed at this, and it rattles me that you argue it. For Øyvind I am not surprised, since even for a fine mind (actually, especially for one, since the seduction of illusory 'innate' moral superiority, goes hand in hand with the arrogance of intellectual superiority... this has been the power of leftism over the intellectual mind since it first formed) it is ever the case that this is what Relativism hath wrought. Still... why can we not ask that SOS Racism justify its positions? I will tell you a theory about what is the source of strength for so much of their ideological ilk. They do not need to justify their position because their voice is resonant with more than a tipping point in the public discourse (on the walls of Platos Cave). Consequently, the innate "superiority" of their claims is simply assumed and "moved on" from. Thus the masses of people who join them in their "cause", do so in an orgy of purely emotive self righteous indignation, do not have to rationally address the possibility that what they are really pleasuring themselves with, is an insidious and vile manifestation... of the very hatred they "hate". I say again... it is only in this upside down, mass solipisist and blindly narcissistic perceptual world where image trumps substance as long as it feels good... that this could be the case. But in this world... it is indeed almost the ONLY thing that can be. It is bound to be the "way", by its own nature. It is unsustainable yes, but the longer it is maintained, the more horrific will be the final consequences, so devastating it is to meaning itself... and so empowering to nihilism. Regardless of what "exactly" was the nature of this event... it is apparent that it was yet another very bad thing in a string of bad things that have been cast as "Good". It will not end well. Cheers, KM T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-16 14:38 | Link Well Øyvind usually does a good job being neutral and objective which I respect though it´s not my personal stand. But in this case I think not - His failure to admit that extreme left wing people supporting the PLO/Palestine - which is the most massive exponent of modern jew hate ( and wish the extinction of Israel ) is probably ( it would be very unlikely it is not so though well meaning people and humanists also fill the ranks ) Where as hatemongers and rascists from both sides whether it is about moslem immigrants or zionists has nothing to do there at all! Nor the PLO symbol which that palestinian scarf also is it would be like bringing a swastika saying it´s an old Indian religious symbol of eternity which is also true to put it on a edge! This memorial of what inaugurated an attempt of genocide of a whole people is not a place for any doublestandards at all! And certainly not for covert doublestandards of left wings hiding in sheeps clothing in a front with beautiful words as foundation. If SOS rascisme really want to live up to it´s name it should take just as serious organizations and individuals which have the extinction of the jewish state and in effect the people in it as well as goal, mullahs that compare jews with apes and swines, as it takes organizations which have the opinion that Immigrants shall burned inside churches. If this doesn´t make my point clear I don´t know what to do. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-16 14:57 | Link Welle, nilsr, et al: 1. I have not denied that both rightwing groups and leftwing groups have used the anniversary of the Kristallnacht to things it should not be used for. This is the problem both TV2 and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre should have adressed, as I have repeatedly written. 2. In my opinion the stories SOS Rasisme has included links to are pretty much as balanced as the Norwegian media is when Israel is concerned. Some of the summaries you give of the stories are a bit odd, but I will not go into a discussion on this, because I feel it is not relevant. 3. I have pointed out that Jan Hauglands claim that there were no Jews is a lie. He asked me to prove it. I have proved it. 4. I have had a correspondence with Christine Mohn, which is partly quoted above. She raises some of the same issues as Det Mosaiske Trossamfund. However, she has given due criticism to the Democratic party, NIS and FOMI and she has never made a claim about the commemoration being "Judenfrei". 5. In short, I respect and partly agree with Mohns point of view, and I would like to see a less politicized commemoration of the Kristallnacht. To me, "less politicized" does not mean bringing Israeli flags into the arrangement, because I, like Bjørn think that anti-racists and pro-Israelis should be able to cooperate on this. 5. I'm just Bjørns introduced loony, left apologia after all. Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-16 15:03 | Link >> 2. Israeli/ Palestine flags/ banners where not allowed. The focus of SOS Racism in Norway shall be on issues concerning anti-racism in Norway. How did you come to the decision to ban the Israeli flag? Like others have pointed out, it would seem similar to banning the Norsk flag on May 17th, because Swedes might be upset. And even worse, it's like mostly swedes marching in the May 17th parade, because Norwegians no longer feel welcome. And this in the name of "anti-racism"? It's too much. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-16 15:14 | Link Gunnar: I just noticed that you claim that I make a moral equivalence between the PLO and Israel because I say that elements with power in the PLO have definitely been anti-Semitic. I find this strange. You then go into some argument about Arafat being a Nazi because of a family member of his cooperating with Hitler. You quote a site called "tellthechildrenthetruth". Amazing. Well, Arafat was Arafat, and not any of his family members. He was a terrorist leader, he held anti-Semitic views, he was corrupt, etc. There is plenty of stuff to criticize him for, but yet - you feel the need to call him Nazi don't you. Just like you arrogantly refuse that there is any such thing as a Palestinian people. What is the definition of a nation, Gunnar: Nations are culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institutions, religion, and historical experience. I do not understand this wish to steal the Palestinian peoples right to an identity. T. Hansen: Your point is quite clear. Here's my quick response: 1. As a leftist I have no problems admitting that many people in SOS Rasisme are leftists, too. In name the organization is politically independent, but I'm sure that the leftists in the organization have a certain influence on the choices made. 2. Still, SOS Rasisme is not a solely leftist organization and I agree with what someone wrote about the organization on a debate forum somewhere. It is "gullegod". 3. I have no problems admitting that the extreme left and heaps of more moderate leftists (and heck, even some bluish people) have supported PLO in one way or another. That is a grand mistake of them, and I mistake that should not and can not be excused. 4. However, being a member of different left wing groups for years I have not met anyone that wants to see Israel extinquished. Some have called for a one-state solution where Palestinians and Israelis have equal rights. That is a naive dream in my eyes. Most call for a two-state solution. 4. I've also not met a single anti-Semitist in leftist organizations, but I know they exist. A while ago one of them was expelled from the Red Electoral Alliance for his views. 5. What I have often seen, however, are pro-Palestinian views that are uninformed, unbalanced and at times directly wrong. Øyvind Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-16 15:15 | Link Øyvind, Regarding "I'm just Bjørns introduced loony, left apologia after all." No sir, you are not. In fact you show admirable respect for truth and accuracy as I believe is evidenced by both your interest in gaining the input of, and (I believe) your fully accurate citation of, those you quoted above. I do not think you appreciate how this in fact, sets you apart from much of that which you seek to defend... which is more often than not, ultimately indefensible using the principled position you seek to do so from. I also think you may be distressed at how difficult it will be to gain access to the "mainstream" discourse, while holding to your earnest interest in covering a larger "footprint" of events than is "acceptable" along the diminsihing terms of "debate" I described above. (Indulge me on numerous scare quotes... I don't think they are in excess.) I often disagree fundamentally with the perspective from which you choose to argue of course, and I bemoan the fallacies which I beleive are inherent in the ease with which you set aside core issues which in the end are all that matters... but you are no loony. Intellectually self immolating possibly, ideologically addled perhaps, diminished by academic indoctrination undoubtedly. But no... not a "token" stooge.
KM Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-16 15:30 | Link The second thing that happens (and it is an epiphenomenon of the first) is that the ruthless will set more and more of the terms of debate, wherein up to and including threats of violence will come to be understood as the possible result for even the slightest discussion This is exactly correct. To avoid another holocaust, one must analyze how it came to be. What Kevin describes is exactly what happened in the Weimar republic. The definition of insanity is to change nothing, and expect a different result. In this case, the situation is hardly subtle. Al-Huseini, an extreme fascist, with strong connections to Nazi Germany, Hitler & Eichmann, founded the fascist regimes in Syria and Iraq. They attacked Israel shortly after it's founding. They created the myth of the "palestinian" people as a proxy front line against Israel. These states have constructed terrorist organizations to destroy and occupy Lebanon (where is the outrage?), in order to destroy Israel. Al-Huseini's newphew, the so-called "Arafat" has been clearly trying to complete the work of his uncle, Hitler, and Eichmann. Only an obtuse observer would believe at this point that Arafat had any goal other than the complete destruction of Israel. So the decision to ban Israeli and PLO flags at an event to commemorate the holocaust is a particularly horrifying attempt to make a moral equivalence between the victims and the evil aggressors. John Ø. Welle | 2004-11-16 15:46 | Link Øyvind: Well, that's just the problem isn't it? You're trying to paint a picture where both the extreme right and the extreme left are equally guilty of hijacking the commemoration. What I'm trying to say, is that the extreme left has monopolized the event, leaving both moderate jews (wrongly) and extreme rightwing elements (rightly) out of the cycle. In my opinion the stories SOS Rasisme has included links to are pretty much as balanced as the Norwegian media is when Israel is concerned. And that's also a part of the problem, since that means that the stories that are being linked to aren't very balanced at all. Let the media proseletyze all they want, but an organisation that claims to crack down on racism in all forms, should rise above that. To me, "less politicized" does not mean bringing Israeli flags into the arrangement, because I, like Bjørn think that anti-racists and pro-Israelis should be able to cooperate on this. I would just like to ask you a question. Shouldn't pro-Israelis and anti-racists be able to cooperate regardless of whether the Israeli flag is present, especially on this day? Is the sensibilities of the left so fragile, that they can't tolerate Israeli flags, even on 'Kristallnacht'? If someone is trying to politicize the event by forming counter-demonstrations against people carrying Israeli flags, let them be banned. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-16 16:03 | Link John Ø. Welle: My claim about the commemoration being used by both rightwing and leftwing groups to their own end is not only mine. It is the same thing said in a press release from Det Mosaiske Trossamfund, and also the same thing I've been told from other sources amongst Norwegian Jews. Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-16 16:17 | Link Well, Arafat was Arafat, and not any of his family members. He was a terrorist leader, he held anti-Semitic views, he was corrupt, etc. There is plenty of stuff to criticize him for, but yet - you feel the need to call him Nazi don't you. That's the point, Arafat was not Arafat. It's a lie. He was an egyption. He is the nephew of the mufti, and there is nothing that indicates he has any other aim than Al-Huseini. If it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Just like you arrogantly refuse that there is any such thing as a Palestinian people. What is the definition of a nation It's not arrogance to study history. It's arrogance to bury your head in the sand to avoid seeing the continuity of events and ideologies. Unlike most people, I don't use the word "Nazi" like a general insult. If you analyze the ideology of the Nazis and boil it down, you can then correctly apply that description to anyone who holds the same views. And this isn't ancient history, we're talking 80 years. The historical reality is that the whole area is the traditional homeland of the jewish people. When Jews started returning in the early part of this century, other than some jewish communities, the area was almost deserted. The non-jewish population was a mixture of different nationalities. Jews revitilized the land, and their economic boom attracted arabs into the area. Al-Huseini, the genocidal racist, started to oppose the jewish people, and worked with Hitler to ensure that Jews were killed in Europe, rather than be deported to the palestine area. Arab demands for land were already satisfied with transjordan. Still, the arabs attacked Israel, shortly after its founding, and by being the aggressors, lost all claims. One can't resort to violence, and when that doesn't work out, go back to the negotiation table. The arab regimes refused to accept the people displaced by the war that they started, and instead, deliberately created the myth of "palestinian" people, who are culturally indistinguishable from other arabs. Thus, Israel is not "occupying" territory. Syria and others have and continue to commit acts of war against Israel. Israel would be within it's rights to defend itself, eliminating Nazi (Baathist) Syria. Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-16 16:47 | Link Øyvind, -To me, "less politicized" does not mean bringing Israeli flags into the arrangement, because I, like Bjørn think that anti-racists and pro-Israelis should be able to cooperate on this.- This is all, to put it cryptically, both besides the point, as well as the whole point. It is besides the point because the term "politicized" in this case (as well as in many others today which are co-incidentally (NOT!), the very issues which affect the status quo and are under pressure), is deceptive by design. Are we to understand that the very tenets, both historical and philosophical which actually make such an idea as "anti racism" meaningful, and indeed lend any meaning to the symbolic act of commemorating Krystalnacht, are now readily proscribed under the very "bad" label of "politicizing"? Heavens forbid!!! (But have I misspoke there... has this expression offended anyone? I didn't mean to imply that I have any mandate over what 'Heaven' might opine on this issue... nor even did I mean to imply that such a superstitious place as Heaven might actually exist, and I realize that such a citation could possibly be construed as "hate speech" by some and i ddon't want to politically charge this discussion so please forgive my choice of words!) It is however the whole point, for the fact of the AFFECT that this fatuous yet insidious concept has on the discourse. It impacts heavily on the framing of a wide spectrum of issues, and thus on the capacity of the majority of us to easily perceive and come to an understanding of, the very common ground you claim was respected. Was it respected by claiming it was necessary to mandate it as reduced to mere ILLUSION!!!??? If there is to be strife so be it, but let us bound it only by the idea that all opinions will be defended on their own merits before the eyes of all. (See related comment on freedom and the open discourse in Bjørns previous thread here: http://blog.bearstrong.net/001499.html#008092 and still related if slightly less so on group/cultural/ideological "arbitrage" here: http://blog.bearstrong.net/001499.html#008103) Much, and I do mean MUCH of the seething and festering conflict that is becoming more and more bound to naked hatred (yes even under the auspices of such noble sounding banners as "Peace" and "anti-Racism") is the result of the diminishing spectrum of discussion, and the myopic projection of what IS, through a lens that is deliberately narrow. Narrow the image and you narrow possisble opinions of the people: Does that not sound like the internal meanderings of many types of historical groups and figures we have seen before? Will we ever learn enough about ourselves to dispense with elitist arrogance and understand that freedom is first and foremost, a humble acceptance of truths unknown, and unknowable by anyone, accept everyone? This recasting of Krystallnacht is nothing that should be deferred to because it is "about" the unimpeachable cause of anti racism...nor should it be surprising that such an unimpeachable tenet has been cynically co-opted by ideologues. Such are the odious vagaries of human nature, especially when even the idea of a moral center is arrogantly set aside by those who see themselves as capable of reshaping it. It has always been the purview of the left to co-opt symbols merely for their emotive power, and often to ends diametrically opposed to the symbols basic essence. It matters little that this guts them of their meaning and value, since (and especially today), what does it matter what the "truth" is anyway? Reduced to mere icons, such symbols can rally the masses towards a desired end which by "virtue" of being owned by a "progressive" mindset... is defacto "good"... so there is the "moral" rationale... you can do ANYTHING now! (AGAIN with the scare quotes... do I need to use them to convey the ironic tragedy of this creeping meainglessness begetting mass nihilism? Perhaps not.) In any case, I will say this again. This event, no matter how it is spun or recast, is already revealed to be another brick in the wall. When the wall is finished, there will be a seige. Colorful metaphors not withstanding, there were forces at play in this event that are the true issues that will ultimately move history. All the sophisticated analyses and nuanced rationales in the world will not only fail to illuminate these facts, but serve quite well to empower them. Alas... KM Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-16 19:41 | Link Palestinian Nazis Going Strong Without Their Hitler http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/16/90400.shtml (and if you resort to argument by persona by attacking the source, you lose) Sixty days we're going to do this? Palestinian leaders have supported Germany and central powers in World War One, Hitler in World War Two, Stalin in the Cold War, and Saddam Huessein in the Gulf War. That's a losing streak." Only a Nazi would deny that the holocaust actually took place. And just who is Mahmoud Abbas? According to Mort Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the man also known as Abu Mazen, has authored a book denying that the Nazis murdered six million Jews. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-16 19:51 | Link "Only a Nazi would deny that the holocaust actually took place". You know, Gunnar, I wish you were right. Sadly, though, neither anti-Semitism nor holocaust revisionism is limited to Nazis. Øyvind Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-16 19:56 | Link "You know, Gunnar, I wish you were right. Sadly, though, neither anti-Semitism nor holocaust revisionism is limited to Nazis. " Øyvind, you beat me to it. Interesting. KM Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-16 20:20 | Link Now that I've provided proof that Jews were indeed present at the commemoration of Kristallnacht and that the stories in for instance NY Sun and TV2 is false, I guess we can move on to an issue many people here find much more interesting. What can be done for the Kristallnacht commemorations to be more inclusive, both for Jews and non-Jews following years? In many ways it is easy to find the solution. We don't even have to go far. We can go to Askim, a small city in Eastern Norway. A few years ago there was a neo-Nazi march in Askim. Local upper secondary school-pupils reacted strongly, and decided to create a commemoration of the Kristallnacht. They did it this year as well. Amongst the guests were Jo Benkow, a prominent Norwegian Jew famous from Norwegian politics. Amongst the other guests was Gunnar Sønsteby, Norwegian resistance hero, and Odd Einar Dørum, justice minister. I've looked at pictures, and people wearing the "palestinaskjerf" was also present. Still, the march had every potential to become a broad political statement against Nazism, a statement truly honoring the sad memories of WWII, a statement that political parties across the political scale can agree with. I do not believe SOS Rasisme is wrong to raise other issues on Kristallnacht. There is little doubt that that night was not only a dark night in the history of Jews, it was also one the darkest nights in the history of racism. I do not believe that leftist groups are wrong at criticizing Norwegian authorities for their immigration politics, I agree with their opinion. Neither do I believe that the cause has been hijacked by leftist extremists, as some have suggested. 130 supporting organizations are too much for that to be true. However, I do think that the current way is a bad way to create the broad commemoration that the Kristallnacht anniversary should be. I've spoken with several people within the Jewish society of Norway that thinks that Det Mosaiske Trossamfund should take an initiative to such a commemoration themselves. That idea isn't bad. It's their history, after all. I believe that SOS Rasisme should be invited to the commemoration, and that different political groups should be invited too. I do not believe Israeli flags should be used, because I know many people who are devoted in the fight against anti-Semitism who are still critical to Israel and would feel uncomfortable walking under their flag (there's a context for that, if you see a Norwegian demonstration with Israeli flags, you know it is pro-Israeli). Individual statements in the form of the Star of David, the kafiyeh or buttons saying "Power to the People" or "Buddha is great" should be accepted, but the only general message of the commemoration should be: We are against Nazism. We honour the memories of those lost. We will fight for it never to happen again. At the time there are arrangements later in the evening at the Kristallnacht. There could also be such arrangements after the arrangement I have suggested above. Those wanting to demonstrate against racism and against Norwegian immigration politics could do so. Those wanting to celebrate the Israeli state and express their support for it could do so. But in the main commemoration it is the memories that count the most. Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-16 20:32 | Link "Only a Nazi would deny that the holocaust actually took place". no white wash terms. It's "jew hatred". Obviously, your definition of "Nazi" is not ideological, but seems narrowly construed in irrational terms. Definition: Fascism, ideology whose essential elements are: 1) totalitarianism, the use of force and a unifying theme. Example unifying themes are a) nationalism and b) religion Let's see, the PLO is completely consistent with elements 1 and 2. Therefore, Fascist. (For unifying themes, they choose both a & b) Definition: Nazi, a type of fascism using the Jews as the choice for inferior humans. Let's see, the PLO also chooses Jews as the inferior humans. Therefore, Nazi. So, my challenge to you is: a) Why isn't the PLO a fascist ideology? and b) Why would anyone want to deny the historical fact of the holocaust? Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-16 20:46 | Link Indeed, Gunnar, my definition of Nazism is ideological. Nazism is not merely a totalitarian and racist ideology, it is also an ideology infested with a romantic view on the nation, a militarist world- and history view. In addition to its racism, attacking foremostly Jews and Gypsies, but also other non-"Aryan" people, Nazism was also sexist and anti-gay. I could go even further, but I see no point. Nazism was indeed a fascist ideology. Fascism, however, is not limited to Nazism. And neither anti-Semitism nor totalitarism is limited to Fascism. The PLO is made up of a series of groups. Some of them indeed does possess an ideology worthy of the label fascism. Others do not, but as mentioned before it is little doubt that elements in the PLO with significant influence, like Yassir Arafat, has supported both terrorism, ideas of Jew-hatred etc. This is enough of a reason to condemn them. Why would anyone want to deny the historical fact of the holocaust First I was going to write: "Beats me", as a response to this. But then it doesn't really, I think the first and foremost reason people do this is because it this not fit with their picture of Jews as the puppet masters of the world. Therefore they downplay the meaning of the Holocaust, or refuse that it really happened, and say that it all was a part of some giant scam. You'll find people in different political camps falling into this conspiracy theory, and to be frank I think the sad fact is that most of them are not Nazis. Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-16 21:00 | Link >> Nazism is not merely a totalitarian and racist ideology, it is also an ideology infested with a romantic view on the nation, a militarist world- and history view. In addition to its racism, attacking foremostly Jews and Gypsies, but also other non-"Aryan" people, Nazism was also sexist and anti-gay. I could go even further, but I see no point. Distinctions without differences. You mistake the unifying theme (which can be various things) as essential, when it isn't. Still, the PLO has everything you list here. So, I see no point here, since you made my point. >> Nazism was indeed a fascist ideology. Fascism, however, is not limited to Nazism. And neither anti-Semitism nor totalitarism is limited to Fascism. Straw man, since I never said it was. Nazism is one type of fascism, which is one type of totalitarianism. "Jew-hatred is a unifying theme of Nazism. So, you're point is?
T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-16 21:16 | Link That denial of holocaust you find not only in the circles of jew haters but in the circles of conspiracy theorists - people denying we been on the moon, claiming that Bush is a reptile not just figuratively ect. ect. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-16 21:36 | Link Don't know about the strawman. Is he a nice fellow? Did he, like you, make the claim that only a Nazi would deny that the holocaust actually took place? Gunnar, I think it's totally uninteresting to quarrel about definitions of what the PLO is and isn't. I find both the acts and the ideas of PLO to be despicable, and have repeatedly condemned PLO. My support for the Palestinian cause is not a support to the PLO, but to the Palestinian people, you know, those guys you pretend don't exist. I believe there are only three ways to achieve peace in that region: 1. Ethnic cleansing of the Israeli Jews. I oppose the first two. I support the third. Some might say a democratic one-state solution for both Palestinians and Israelis is an alternative. I believe that such a solution, if possible, belongs to the realms of science fiction. I'm not going to write further on this, because I do not want this debate to be about Israel and Palestine, I want it to be about the Kristallnacht commemoration in Oslo. If you have comments to my last post on that subject, a post on how to make the commemoration more including, I would appreciate that. Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-16 22:39 | Link >> That denial of holocaust you find not only in the circles of jew haters but in the circles of conspiracy theorists - people denying we been on the moon, claiming that Bush is a reptile not just figuratively ect. ect. Ok, so assuming the person is not insane, believing in ludicrous lies would seem to indicate Nazi tendencies. However, it's part of fascist propaganda to come up with crazy lies to support their "unifying theme". Maybe the reality is that there are more Nazis around you than you care to admit. I'll point out that here in the US, I have never come across a holocaust denier, nor known anyone who has. The few times it's come up was in connection to actual american Nazis, somewhere in the US. Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-16 23:07 | Link Øyvind, 1. Ethnic cleansing of the Israeli Jews. I oppose the first two. I support the third. Some might say a democratic one-state solution for both Palestinians and Israelis is an alternative. I believe that such a solution, if possible, belongs to the realms of science fiction. ... Not to quibble Øyvind, but you state not merely the obvious, you state the only thing that can be sanely considered a reasonable objective. In fact... it is safe to say that this is so obvious that those that support the so called one state solution are, rather than belonging to a sci fi view.. are far more likely to be falling into some of the ideological morass and hatred associated with the aforementioned nazi thing. One need not be a Nazi per se... to have drank deeply from its dark chalice. In fact... one can label oneself a "progressive" and be fully engorged on this nihilism. Lets be clear on that...its important. But in a larger sense, it is also worth noting that even when one accepts that the "Two State Solution" is the only viable one in a sustainable and brighter future... it still requires one to accept that there is much to be done to get there... and that some actual judgements and resolve and strength may be necessary to achieve it. The How To... this is why it is necessary to call a spade a spade when it comes to groups like SOS Racism. These groups... because of what they espouse... are not allied with anything that might help to acheive a just peace. You can argue that I'm wrong in this statement, but you cannot pretend that it is not worth discussing. Cheers, KM Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-16 23:14 | Link Gunnar, I think it's totally uninteresting to quarrel about definitions of what the PLO is and isn't. I find both the acts and the ideas of PLO to be despicable, and have repeatedly condemned PLO. My support for the Palestinian cause is not a support to the PLO, but to the Palestinian people, you know, those guys you pretend don't exist. I'm sure it's uninteresting to lose the debate on substance, and concentrate on form. The real issue of this thread is not Kristallnacht itself, but the fact that Israeli flags were banned, a PLO symbol was not, and that Jews didn't feel comfortable at this event. For some, events like Kristallnacht seem to be all about feeling good, oblivious to the fact the we're marching straight into the madness again. I'm sure it's uninteresting for some to make a moral distinction between the victims and murdering fascists. Where is your support for the Lebanese cause, or the Tibetan cause? I believe there are only three ways to achieve peace in that region: Actually, the rational possibilities are: a) non violent arabs being absorbed into Israel (unlikely for a generation because of the nazi indoctrination, and because Syria & Jordan don't actually want this) b) non violent arabs given another state called palestine (unlikely, since Syria & Jordan don't actually want this) c) non violent arabs absorbed into Syria and Jordan (not possible with Syria, since their goal is the destruction of Israel) Therefore, the only rational solution is to remove the aggressors (works every time it's tried): 4) complete military defeat of the terrorists and the states that sponsor them, with civil rights for anyone who renounces terror violence. Dave Elson | 2004-11-16 23:20 | Link it is necessary to call a spade a spade when it comes to groups like SOS Racism. These groups... because of what they espouse... are not allied with anything that might help to acheive a just peace. huh? SOS Racisme Norway is an affiliated offshoot of (and hence allied with) the International Federation of SOS Racism. A group promoting multi-racial tolerance, is not exactly befitting of the narrow nazi mindset. Cheers Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-16 23:51 | Link >> huh? SOS Racisme Norway is an affiliated offshoot of (and hence allied with) the International Federation of SOS Racism. I don't know enough about this org to say one way or the other, but this is an invalid defence. Yea, and the UN is supposed to support worldwide peace and harmony, but in fact, it helps bring about the opposite. One has to look at what they actually do, rather than what they say they do. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 00:18 | Link In other words, Gunnar you propose a one-state solution in Israel were both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs have civil rights? The kafiyeh, or al-Hatta (both names are apparently used), is a common Arab head garb that has been in daily use since the time of the prophet Muhammad. The last 300 years it has been used in countries like Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq and the Gulf countries. I still remember the fuzz when a Norwegian TV journalist dared using one of them as protection during a sand storm in Iraq. In Jordan a red and black variant is used as a part of the military uniform. It can be regarded a symbol of Palestine, and it is true that Arafat has played a role in making it such a symbol. He, however, wore it in a special manner, hanging it one side as a reference to the map of Palestine, instead of leaving it hung down the back. Amongst Norwegians it is mostly used around the neck, like other scarfs. In the Arab world the kafiyeh is common, regardless of politics. In a period in the seventies the fashion industry in Paris used it. It is also not uncommon amongst hiphoppers, and it is seen, amongst other places, in the classic hiphop movie "Beat Street" (1984). Most people that wear this scarf in Norway, I dare say, does not wear it as a symbol of their support for the PLO. Some wear it as a symbol for their support of Palestine. Some wear it as a symbol they are rebel. Some just simply wear it. Øyvind Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-17 00:20 | Link Kevin McDonnell . . . You said: "It has always been the purview of the left to co-opt symbols merely for their emotive power, and often to ends diametrically opposed to the symbols basic essence. It matters little that this guts them of their meaning and value, since (and especially today), what does it matter what the "truth" is anyway?" Maybe this is what is so disgusting about the left in general. "Peace and freedom" usually end up meaning "war and slavery." "Human Rights Watch" and "Amnesty International" mean "support the dictators and child murderers." The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) means "support Islamists but not Christians" and "support terrorists but not the general public." Now Kristallnacht is "memorialized" but the Jewish flag is kicked out. Whew. Oyvind, I simply cannot follow your elaborate web spinning. After you have created your "mountain of intellectual detritus," the truth is completely buried. You could be a lawyer--you have a gift for obsfucation. Perhaps you could use this gift for good (not evil) and defend the weak and serve justice. Surely there are people in Norway who could use a good lawyer. Check out "Unholy Alliance: Militant Islam and the Radical Left." (or similar title) by David Horowitz. He discusses the eternal fascination of the left with the ideal over the real--no matter how bad things get--in Cuba, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, North Korea, etc., the left will find a way to rationalize the failure of its dream state. Another source for information, Oyvind, that you may or may not find interesting is frontpagemagazine.com, a website run by Horowitz. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 00:31 | Link >> In other words, Gunnar you propose a one-state solution in Israel were both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs have civil rights? Gosh, I realize that it's after midnight in Norway, but rub your eyes, and read what I wrote again. I identified 3 rational possibilities. They all depend on the removal of the states that are sponsoring the war against Israel. Once the real problem is solved, and the de-nazification program has been completed, the 3 choices remain. Each individual can have choice. There is no reason for Israel to give up any of it's hard won territory, but if they want to. In addition, it's possible for Jordan and Syria to simply extend their borders if the people choose to be part of these countries (remember, Syria is a democracy at this point), or if the arab people without a country choose to have their own country, we can carve territory out of Syria and Jordan. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 00:38 | Link >> you may or may not find interesting is frontpagemagazine.com, a website run by Horowitz I didn't know about this great resource. Thanks for the info. I have a lot of respect for Horowitz, since with careful reasoning, he went from socialism to american conservatism. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 00:46 | Link Furthermore, Gunnar, I have been supporting the Tibetan cause for years. Heck, if you go through my wardrobe you will find no Palestine scarf, but you will find a t-shirt saying "Free Tibet". Right now I'm mostly concerned with the cause of the Libyan people, though. Am I entitled to this? Do I have to declare every cause I support to be allowed to support a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine? Is that really necessary? What kind of a debate technique is that, anyway? Furthermore, I find Israel to be a democratic country. I have said this several times before. Democracy is a good thing. I like democracy. I also like the fact that the Israelis have a separate judicial branch that has at several occasions made fair decisions against proposed laws or acts taken in Israel or the occupied territories. It is not hard to find out that many of Israels enemies has a despicable ideology. This, however, has not, does not and will not exempt Israel from due critique. No country, democratic or not, regardless of its enemies and regardless of what these enemies do, gets a "get out of jail free"-card from me. I'm not about to debate the faults of Israel here, though, since they are not the issue. The issue is the Kristallnacht commemoration, and now that I have proved that it was Judenfrei, I would like to discuss how it can be made more including for both Jews and non-Jews. You seem stuck with the thought that any Jewish commemoration should naturally include an Israeli flag. I don't agree. I think many people that have nothing against Jews will feel uncomfortable walking under the Israeli flag, not because they are anti-Semites, but because they oppose the current politics of Israel. I am not going to argue with you on whether they should feel comfortable walking under the Israeli flag or whether they should support Israeli politics, because that is also not the issue. The issue is what should be done to make both Jews and non-Jews across the political scale feel comfortable in taking part in a commemoration of one the largest tragedies through human history. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 00:54 | Link Man, totoro, there are loads of people in this country that are prejudiced against Americans. You, on the other side, seem to be prejudiced against leftists. I have not read Horowitz book, but I frequently check out Frontpage Magazine. Sometimes I find interesting articles there. You want the truth, Totoro. Okay, here's the truth: 1. There was a commemoration of the Kristallnacht in Oslo. Both Jews, Christians, Muslims and others were present. Israeli and Palestinian flags, and any banners but the preagreed were not wanted, and not present. 2. People accused me of lying when I pointed out that Jews were presented. I proved them otherwise. 3. A tiny group of far right extremists were stopped by the police trying to get into the commemoration. 4. Many Norwegian Jews feel uncomfortable being there. I have yet to see anyone complaining about scarfs, instead they say that the commemoration should not have included more general issues. 5. I sympathise with this view, and wish for a Kristallnacht commemoration that is more including for both Jews and non-Jews. I have suggested a way to do this. No one seems interested in commenting this, instead they want to discuss whether SOS Rasisme is racist, whether PLO is Nazist and whether the kafiyeh is a symbol of the PLO. Mr. Mistake, Øyvindland | 2004-11-17 00:56 | Link Sorry, Jews were present, not presented. Øyvind T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-17 01:03 | Link "he went from socialism to american conservatism." Or from an Utopic stand which in general aspires to change the world to fit ideology, to a pragmatic stand which in general adopts ideology to reality. Not necesarily neither American nor conservatism. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 01:06 | Link You seem stuck with the thought that any Jewish commemoration should naturally include an Israeli flag. I don't agree. But you haven't defended that viewpoint from first principles. I think many people that have nothing against Jews will feel uncomfortable walking under the Israeli flag, not because they are anti-Semites, but because they oppose the current politics of Israel. I am not going to argue with you on whether they should feel comfortable walking under the Israeli flag or whether they should support Israeli politics, because that is also not the issue. A commemoration of a horrible tragedy which cannot happen again is one thing. When rational people think about a bad tragedy which can happen again, they think, how can we prevent it from happening again. A commemoration of a tragedy, which is still occurring on a smaller scale is totally different. Rational people try to figure out how to stop it. Israel IS the mechanism to stop this tragedy in the future. Objecting to the Israeli flag in general is in effect, helping it to happen again. I may disagree with US policy, but objecting to the US flag is objecting to the very idea of America. And since this tragedy is still occurring, and the PLO is the cause, Norway's support of the PLO has furthered the cause of racism. The issue is what should be done to make both Jews and non-Jews across the political scale feel comfortable in taking part in a commemoration of one the largest tragedies through human history. You seem oblivious to the fact that some people shouldn't be made to feel comfortable. Should we have a march against rape, and water it down so much that even rapists feel comfortable marching, and so that the rape victims feel uncomfortable? Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 01:11 | Link >> "he went from socialism to american conservatism." Or from an Utopic stand which in general aspires to change the world to fit ideology, to a pragmatic stand which in general adopts ideology to reality. Ok, more accurately: from marxist communism to classic liberalism. From an ideology that aims to violate rights to one that supports, secures, and protects rights. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-17 01:30 | Link I still think leftwing extremists who do actually hate Israel and support PLO should have no place there in a kristall night memoration. Nor do blind fools who consider deliberate murder of Israelis via suicide bombs as their struggle for freedom. By this I do not mean socialists which base their struggle purely on democracy. I been one myself and though I did not like the palestinian scarf and would never have bought one, my mother gave me one and when it was very cold I used it a couple of times. Luckily I lost it fast and rather froze my neck since then. I have always seen it as a symbol of the Palestinian struggle and did not want to go along with the blind support in leftwing circles. My mother was a volunteer working for palestinians half a year in Beirut in the late 70´s as part of "Tvind". I do know the palestinian side of things got it with my mother´s milk :). And I do know the left wing and they are far from neutral.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 01:30 | Link Strange metaphor there. So, do you regard anyone that feels uncomfortable with walking under an Israeli flag to be a rapi... sorry, anti-Semitic? Or is it possible to be both highly sceptical to Israel and opposed to Nazism and anti-Semitism? And, if you do indeed think that this is possible, do you think that it would be a good thing or a bad thing to have those people, many of whom would feel uncomfortable walking under an Israeli flag, taking part in a commemoration together with Jews and pro-Israelis? And last but not least, do you regard Jews and Israelis as the very same group or as two different groups that are highly overlapping? Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 01:35 | Link My last post was a response to Gunnar. It seems like my Internet connection to anywhere outside Norway and Sweden is a bit on-and-off tonight. Anyway, sleep tight. Or in the case of Gunnar: Have a nice evening. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-17 01:37 | Link "Ok, more accurately: from marxist communism to classic liberalism." Gunnar Ok I can nod now - nod - nod. I do at times feel more like an American then European though. As a conservative - no. Maybe Neo con :) Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 02:19 | Link Strange metaphor there. So, do you regard anyone that feels uncomfortable with walking under an Israeli flag to be a rapi... sorry, anti-Semitic? It IS a metaphor, look it up :). Actually, I think that most people are caught up in a mania. (an interesting phenomena: in tests with a group of 20 people and one test subject who thinks that all of the others are also being tested, the tester presents a series of obviously untrue statements. This showed that the majority of people will choose a falsehood, just because everybody else chooses it). However, a few do know better, and they are the true threat. "Evil only succeeds, when good people do nothing". And good people do nothing, when a few evil people have manipulated the majority into making it difficult to stand up. This is exactly what Kevin said in one post, although in more flowery intellectual language. But it's amazing the effect of one party standing up for the truth. The other side is a house of cards that quickly crumbles. Or is it possible to be both highly sceptical to Israel and opposed to Nazism and anti-Semitism? To be intellectually honest, you would have one standard. It's a double standard to compare homicidal maniacs to a nation defending itself from homicidal maniacs, and start quibling about collateral damage. It's crucially important to be fair. If you complained about Israeli anti-terror tactics, compare them to the US or Britain, and provide complete moral support. Don't ever include Israel and the PLO in the same sentence, implying a moral equivalence. It's like complaining about the tactics of the norwegian resistance: "Oh yes, the Nazis are deplorable, but I'm not too happy with the resistance either, they just blew up our bridge, and Mr. Johannsen was on that bridge." Like, which side are you on! And, if you do indeed think that this is possible, do you think that it would be a good thing or a bad thing to have those people, many of whom would feel uncomfortable walking under an Israeli flag, taking part in a commemoration together with Jews and pro-Israelis? Educate them. Stand up for the truth. Don't let them wallow in ignorance. If they feel uncomfortable at Kristallnacht, they can organize their own march. Objecting to a flag is objecting to the very idea of that country. The Israeli state is the final solution for the good side, so that the evil side doesn't succeed in their "final solution". And last but not least, do you regard Jews and Israelis as the very same group or as two different groups that are highly overlapping? All jews are citizens of Israel. In a country that makes them feel safe (like the US), some may be emotionally distant from Israel. In coutries that make them feel unsafe (france), they may feel closer to Israel. Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-17 02:27 | Link Øyvind, "The issue is what should be done to make both Jews and non-Jews across the political scale feel comfortable in taking part in a commemoration of one the largest tragedies through human history." Feel comfortable? That Jews and non Jews shall be made to ... "feel comfortable"? At a Krystallnacht Commemoration? And the remedy... this was to defend the honor of such a commemoration? This is... the issue? Holy Sh*t... that is so utterly not the issue. Certainly not as you frame it (though as I said above... it is virtually the whole issue otherwise). And this is why I object so fiercely to your entire premise... and Bjørns in this case. This is not the point at all... and the Jews and non Jews who are feeling "uncomfortable... and the state of affairs where the reasons for this which are being cast as "politically controversial" (and whatnot) and thus verboten to address... is a weeping and grieving shame, and makes a bitter mockery of any meaningful so called Krystallnacht "commemoration". Period and Full Stop. As long as this is the defense for whatever the hell it is that occurred that night, which I'm confident that based on everything I have read here including your comments gives me a good flavor for it... then what it really is that you are defending is the perpetuation of fog and shadows where things that are far indeed from the ideals that are being so self righteously (and jealously) touted... fester and grow. This is where we are. Everything else is non sequitur... or perhaps its just "nuance". I can't tell sometimes. KM PS I get the distinct impression that you are disdaining to answer me in your comments. I'm used to it. G'nite. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 02:29 | Link >> I do at times feel more like an American then European though. As a conservative - no. Maybe Neo con :) So do I, but remember that Americans don't have a monopoly on freedom. For example, the Japanese are just as dedicated to it. I'm encouraged by the new voices for reason I see on european blogs, and by the fact that the media in the US had the same iron grip on america has the european media has in europe. Now, the 3 big network anchors are meeting, wondering, "how did we lose control of this thing?" It's amazing how things can change. Who would have predicted that the iron curtain would come down? Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-17 02:34 | Link Gunnar, "If you complained about Israeli anti-terror tactics, compare them to the US or Britain, and provide complete moral support. Don't ever include Israel and the PLO in the same sentence, implying a moral equivalence. It's like complaining about the tactics of the norwegian resistance: "Oh yes, the Nazis are deplorable, but I'm not too happy with the resistance either, they just blew up our bridge, and Mr. Johannsen was on that bridge." Well said. G'nite. KM PS Flowery intellectual language? I stand hip deep in indignance!... I may have bad dreams! Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 02:52 | Link >> PS Flowery intellectual language? I stand hip deep in indignance!... I may have bad dreams! I meant no disrespect, it's quite an impressive ability. Sleep well in Bergen. Allan, Melbourne | 2004-11-17 03:46 | Link Gunnar, Kevin et al: "Like, which side are you on!" Øyvind, I think your suggestion for a commemoration that is in the name of DMT, where SOS is invited is good, I sure dont have any better suggestions. "PS Flowery intellectual language? I stand hip deep in indignance!... I may have bad dreams!" Dave Elson | 2004-11-17 04:49 | Link When rational people think about a bad tragedy which can happen again, they think, how can we prevent it from happening again. Well in this case, since the cause of the holocaust was racism and religious intolerance, we need to examine ways of reducing bigotry and intolerance levels within society as a whole. After all it would be racist to consider racism directed at one group of people as being more important than that at others. Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-17 04:57 | Link Gunnar, Maryland . . . If you complained about Israeli anti-terror tactics, compare them to the US or Britain, and provide complete moral support. Don't ever include Israel and the PLO in the same sentence, implying a moral equivalence. This is the heart and soul of the issue. How does one fight terrorists? Israel has been pilloried, and the Israeli flag banned from a Kristallnacht memorial (!), by people who have no standards whatsoever for judging Israel. How will Norwegians defend their country, if jihadists ever decide to target it? Sensi | 2004-11-17 05:19 | Link «All jews are citizens of Israel. In a country that makes them feel safe (like the US), some may be emotionally distant from Israel. In coutries that make them feel unsafe (france), they may feel closer to Israel.» Well, i disagree, all jews are citizens of their own country, even if they have sometimes strong links with Israël State and people. Of course there are racists acts against jews in France: 322 reported since january 2004, they are btw mainly not "anti-semitic" but "anti-jews" acts because they are done by semitic arabs, the French State and people have denounced at each time all these acts and fight them by the law and the police. Thus don't blame a complete majority for what a few individuals have done. If a few jews feel really unsafe in France it's because of something like 10 pricks that used to paint graves (btw catholics and muslims graves also) with racists and nazis symbols or sentences. For all the rest of this "fear factor", that is due to Israel half-propaganda about "jews fear in France" which is done by the immigration center which despair for new arrivals. That a fact. There were a lot of fake cases that used to do the headlines in Israel (& France) but not anymore when the truth was known: a woman falsely agressed in the RER (subway) (she was not Jewish and is a mythomaniac who lied), a burned Jewish association that was finally burned by a Jew who was fired by them few times ago, a Jew teen agressed by a mad man, but that man also half-stabbed 4 more people (a white man, a black man, an arab muslim, etc). Concerning Israël, Cisjordania & Gaza strip, i condemn all terrorists acts against civilians, for the two parts in that conflict. There are always (sometimes) roots of terrorism, in this case it is the ground dispossession and the occupation. What would you do if you and your family were in a refugees camp since 37 years? Best regards, Allan, Melbourne | 2004-11-17 06:50 | Link Totally agree with you Sensi. Its like it has been politically correct to hate France these days. Dave, Qld | 2004-11-17 11:00 | Link @ Welle, Gunnar, That's all very fine, if it had been an event commemorating, say, 9/11, but not when the event is a commemoration of the 'Kristallnacht'. It's like banning American flags from the hypothetical 9/11 commemoration. Sure, except the actions of the Nazis during the holocaust was targeted at the jewish people of multiple European nations, not against a specific nation-state, whereas 9/11 is against the entire American nation. Holding Jewish religious identity is very much a separate thing from being a citizen of the Israeli state (obviously there are non-Jewish Israelis). The Nazis also failed to understand that distinction between religious and national identity. @ McDonnell, Metaphysical issues aside, what pragmatic alternative then would you have proposed? Clearly allowing the extreme Israeli right to match under the banner of the Israeli state promoting that said nations policies would do little to prevent another such genocidal event from occurring or further the cause of anti-racism (including that directed at Jews). Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 12:25 | Link Allan: As I've said before I would not use a "palestinaskjerf" at such a commemoration. Personally I would find it to be in somewhat bad taste. But that's it. It's fully possible to express support for the Palestinian state and express outrage at anti-Semitism at the same time. Wearing a scarf is a personal statement, it's nothing like holding a banner or waving a flag. That's why I don't believe in banning it from a commemoration where the issue isn't whether or not one supports a Palestinian state. Gunnar: There are several ways of defining a Jew. It can be an ethnic group, meaning there are non-religious Jews, and even Muslim Jews. It can also be a religious group, a Jew is an adherrent to the Jewish faith. Regardless of what way you look at it, there's little doubt that far from every Jew in the world is a citizen of Israel. There are an estimated 13 million Jews in the world, though I have seen higher numbers. 5,6 million of them in the US. 5,2 million live in Israel. There are 250.000 Jews in Argentine, 270.000 in Britain, 370.000 in Canada, 600.000 in France. Around 100.000 in Germany. The Holocaust or Shoah was an attack on the Jewish people in Nazi-occupied country. It was one of the worst chapters of human history ever. But it wasn't an attack on Israelis. There are Jews out there who oppose Israel, there are Jews out there who are highly critical of Israel, these Jews have just as much a right to the Holocaust as the Jews that support Israel. Israel is a state. Jews are a people. It logically follows that it is fully possible to support the fight against anti-Semitism (which is anti-Jewish, not merely anti-Israeli) and still don't want to express support to Israel. Therefore, saying that Israeli flags should be a part of any Kristallnacht commemoration is a way of limiting the people there. I believe that's a wrong tactic. A broad political alliance in Norway oppose anti-Semitic ideas and almost every Norwegian find the Nazi atrocities of WWII to be abhorable. That leaves us with several choices, Gunnar, two of which I will mention here: 1. A demonstration without Israeli flags, and without banners on other issues than anti-Semitism. Such a demonstration will have a broad appeal. 2. A demonstration with Israeli flags and/or with banners expressing support of Israel. Such a demonstration will have a narrower appeal. In the fight against anti-Semitism I'd like to have as many people with me as possible. It seems like you wouldn't. Kevin: I have often not responded to your posts. The reason for this is that I often have problems understanding them. English is my second language, and although I feel that I know it pretty well, I often have problems with your language. It is, as Gunnar said "flowery intellectual", or as Allan said "complicated". A little less Latin would help. Latin isn't even my third language. Øyvind John Ø. Welle | 2004-11-17 13:20 | Link Øyvind: Had you said "highly sceptical to current Israeli policies" you might have had a point. As it stands though, I guess it's still possible to be against the idea of Israel the state, and still be opposed to the ideas of Nazism and anti-Semitism, but I think you'll find it vanishingly rare. And, if you do indeed think that this is possible, do you think that it would be a good thing or a bad thing to have those people, many of whom would feel uncomfortable walking under an Israeli flag, taking part in a commemoration together with Jews and pro-Israelis? It's a question of whose sensibilities you don't want to insult. Do you want to placate the people that are uncomfortable walking under (or probably more correctly: amidst) Israeli flags, or do you want to support the right for the many, many Jews that sees the creation of Israel as closely linked to the Holocaust to carry the Israeli flag? I seriously don't get how this is supposed to be such a difficult equation, at least not when we're talking about the Kristallnacht. And last but not least, do you regard Jews and Israelis as the very same group or as two different groups that are highly overlapping? You are of course absolutely right to say that Israelis and Jews are not necessarily the same. But if you want to argue that the creation of the Israeli state, and thus the Israeli flag, isn't something that means very much to a vast majority of Jews, Israeli or not, you're out of your mind. Again, it becoms a question of whose sensibilities we should try to placate. You're arguing as if only the _presence_ of the Israeli flag may be insulting. You don't seem to acknowledge that the _lack_ of the Israeli flag, may be construed as an insult on the Kristallnacht. Dave: The creation of the Israeli state is directly linked to the holocaust, and has thus a great deal of relevancy to the Kristallnacht. What you're arguing, is that a small minority of Jews don't like that link, or perhaps don't even see that link. Why should the preferences of that small minority trump that of the majority of Jews who sees Israel as a symbol of the freedom gained after WWII, a symbol of escaping the hatred that made the Kristallnacht possible? Øyvind: Well, I certainly haven't said that SOS Rasisme is racist, but I will certainly say they're biased in their views on the Israel/Palestine conflict. It's kind of puzzling that you fail to see the relevance of this, when they're the ones arranging the event that fail to do what you're asking for: Be more including for Jews and non-Jews. Whether the keffiyeh is a symbol of the PLO isn't really the issue either. It's whether Jews (and non-Jews for that matter) might feel alienated by an event where the keffiyeh is allowed. (Especially when the event is a commemoration of the Kristallnacht.) Again, it goes to the very core of what you're asking for: Making the event more including for Jews and non-Jews. But how to make the event more including then? My suggestion, is to launch a state-financed campaign to educate the Norwegian people that carrying the Israeli flag doesn't necessarily equate support for current Israeli policies. And if it does, so fucking what; live with it. Complete with Classe Ekman and all. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-17 13:26 | Link "Concerning Israël, Cisjordania & Gaza strip, i condemn all terrorists acts against civilians, for the two parts in that conflict. There are always (sometimes) roots of terrorism, in this case it is the ground dispossession and the occupation. What would you do if you and your family were in a refugees camp since 37 years?" Sensi. Well Fatah and PLO both was formed before 1967 - there was no occupied territory then! They got a deal involving 90 % of the occupied territory, but Arafat wanted the right of return of millions of palestines into Israel ( the more Fatah members the better if you keep in mind the goal of PLO/Fatah ) and launched the second intifada. John Ø. Welle | 2004-11-17 13:28 | Link Øyvind: Yeah and it's fully possible to burn an American flag as a way to keep one self warm too, it just isn't very likely. To say that wearing the keffiyeh is nothing like holding a banner or waving a flag, is deeply disingenuous. The keffiyeh has become, at least in the West, a symbol for the support of the Palestinian cause. As I said earlier, if the wearer is too stupid to realize that, it's his problem. That's why I don't believe in banning it from a commemoration where the issue isn't whether or not one supports a Palestinian state. Exactly. But that is why it should be banned. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-17 13:48 | Link "There are always (sometimes) roots of terrorism". Yes there are you are right - and in this case the root is hate to jews, anger over that what Arabs consider their lands is in the hands of infidel jews. Blunt disrespect of jews as infidels - people of lower value, and crazy ideas about jihad including you go to heaven if you do and failure to do so if you can means that you go to hell instead. In other words utter disrespect for human life and this world and people living it and even for their own lifes and a view on other people´s faith as lower beings which qualify to be named rascism and be compared to nazism more than anything else. Øyvind: That you can find jews which don´t support Israel and gladly went to SOS racisme´s demonstration means nothing but that among jews there are marxist - idealist/wellmeaning people as well that would move to the moon if they could and it meant peace. Yes the palestinians are equal in rights and value and deserve to live in a land of their own - not because they are a historic people with a long tradition of being palestinians - but because they feel like an entity I go so far in meeting them. But as long as they hate the jews and wish for martyrdoom and try to blow as many israelis up as possible there will be no peace! John Ø. Welle | 2004-11-17 13:49 | Link Øyvind: In the fight against anti-Semitism I'd like to have as many people with me as possible. It seems like you wouldn't. Jesus, that's a pretty stuffed up strawman you're putting up there. I think pretty much everybody here (with the possible exception of ex-Christian) agrees that anti-Semitism is something that we'd like to see as many people as possible to join the fight against. What I'm saying, and a lot of others too, including many of the jews you've been talking to as I understand it, is that the people responsible for arranging the Kristallnacht-commemoration has diluted the very important message to stand up and fight against anti-Semitism by including increasingly more issues in the paroles. There are 364 other days of the year to take a stand against all these other issues. Why can't the Kristallnacht-commemoration focus solely on anti-Semmitism? And if you agree that it should focus solely on anti-Semmitism, can't you see why some people would find it insulting to not be allowed to carry Israeli flags? Isn't that a way to make a narrower appeal as well? Sensi, paris | 2004-11-17 14:56 | Link @ Allan, Melbourne | 2004-11-17 06:50 «Totally agree with you Sensi. Its like it has been politically correct to hate France these days.» :) Since the U.N. case, where France diplomacy say 'no' to Bush's government and their WMD "proofs" (sic) that they show to the World as an argument to go to war, some great "democrats" in the U.S.A., with the help of major news networks and a few thousands of blogs & websites, have done a huge racist and xenophobic propaganda against France and the french people. Here we call that fascism. Best regards, n.b: This website in english monitor -a few- "french bashing" acts: Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-17 15:05 | Link Sensei . . . You said: "What would you do if you and your family were in a refugees camp since 37 years?" This excuse for terrorism is the most ridiculous one you could possibly use. I know at least 25 people who were in refugee camps. Maybe more, if I started to make a serious count. Members of my own family were in refugee camps. However, none of these people sat there like lumps, waiting for UNRAA checks to come in for the next three generations. If these 25 or more people became terrorists, you would have a large problem on your hands. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 15:09 | Link >> What would you do if you and your family were in a refugees camp since 37 years?" But why are they there? Because the Arab states forced them into the camps as a deliberate strategy to fight Israel. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 15:35 | Link Press release from Det Mosaiske Trossamfund, 16.11.04. By Rolf Kirschner, president of Det Mosaiske Trossamfund. Unfair critique of SOS Rasisme Det Mosaiske Trossamfund has noted that a debate has evolved in the media after a group of people were stopped by the police in connection with SOS Rasismes demonstration in memory of the Kristallnacht, 9th November. In connection with this there have been accusations against SOS Rasisme that we want to comment: It is in no way right that DMT as a congregation or Jews as individuals were unwanted in connection with the demonstration. We find it regrettable that such claims have been raised. It's also completely unknown for us that Jewish symbols, like the Star of David, should have been unwanted in this connection. What we were told, and found to be a correct decision is that [SOS Rasisme] did not want to allow national flags in the demonstration. As far as we know, this was done to prevent the demonstration from ending up being a demonstration with connections to the Middle Eastern-conflict or the war in Iraq. DMT was invited to take part in the arrangement, but we refused. This is because of our scepticism to the development of the arrangement in Oslo the last few years, because the demonstration in our opinion has developed into a political manifestation that go far beyond the original intention. For us who are surviors and decendants of those who survived the atrocities of the Nazis it is worrying that forces that in many ways use the same argumentation against Jews as the fascists and Nazis once did are invited to take part in such a commemoration. To put it even clearer: The Kristallnacht was the start of the Nazi persecution of Jews in Europe, and what happened this night was to a large degree attacks on Jewish stores and institutions. Today we see that groups on the far left wing of the political spectre and some Muslim groups (that we hope are not representative for most Muslims) use the same means. Jewish schools, retirement homes, graveyards and society houses is being attacked over almost the whole of Europe, as is Israeli embassies and consulates. There has been signs of this also here at home, and it is mainly the same groups that are being these actions here as in the rest of the world. For us as Jews it is impossible to take part in a commemoration against racism when other participants carry posters that, in Arabic, have clearly racist messages. We are however aware that SOS Rasisme has noticed this and that they made every attempt to prevent such things this year. The arranger deserves good words for this, and therefore we find the critique against them regrettable in this connection. Eventhough we have been critical to parts of the commemoration we have had, as a Jewish congregation, no wish to stand in the way of the yearly arrangements, or any wish to damage them in any way. We have also in no way encouraged our members to keep away from the demonstrations. As Norwegian Jews we are concerned with dialog as a way to reach increased understanding. Therefore we dissociate ourselves from any action that front confrontation and build up under more opposition and hate between [different] groups. That is why we found it very unwise of some of our members to act in a way that clearly would have been provocative on the others that took part in the commemoration 9th of November. That we were made aware that people that are connected to extreme right groups was a part of this made it unbearable for us. This is why what happened also had the consequense that two of our members were excluded from our congregation. It is repeatedly said that there is an increasing anti-Semitism in the society. To a certain degree this is also correct, but in the debate that has surfaced now, it is important for us that the Jewish society in Norway does not experience this as a immidiate problem. We see the tendencies, we warn against them and we are glad to see that both the government and the public sphere raise the issue. It is therefore completely wrong to claim that Jews feel unwanted in Norway, or that anti-Semitism has reached a level creating problems. It is simply not right, and such claims should not be used unless a situation arises where it is necessary. And with the help of G-d we hope that this will never be a case. Sensi, paris | 2004-11-17 15:35 | Link @ Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 15:09 Open a book of history and start to read the small characters that make words. @ Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-17 15:05 «This excuse for terrorism is the most ridiculous one you could possibly use.» Where have you read that it was an excuse? «I know at least 25 people who were in refugee camps. Maybe more, if I started to make a serious count. Members of my own family were in refugee camps. However, none of these people sat there like lumps, waiting for UNRAA checks to come in for the next three generations.» Well, you speak about which refugee camps? For the rest, please go to Israël, Cisjordania & Gaza strip, as i have done in 2002, then you could talk of what you know. Best regards, Sensi, paris | 2004-11-17 15:44 | Link «Yes there are you are right - and in this case the root is hate to jews, anger over that what Arabs consider their lands is in the hands of infidel jews. Blunt disrespect of jews as infidels - people of lower value, and crazy ideas about jihad including you go to heaven if you do and failure to do so if you can means that you go to hell instead. In other words utter disrespect for human life and this world and people living it and even for their own lifes and a view on other people´s faith as lower beings which qualify to be named rascism and be compared to nazism more than anything else. lol, are you speaking of the 10 to 20% of the palestinian people that support Hamas and others terrorists bunches, or the others 80% of the palestinian population who ask and deserves the same rights as everybody around the world? Best regards, Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 15:44 | Link John Ø. Welle: Seems like Det Mosaiske Trossamfund agrees that it is a good idea to keep national flags out of the commemoration. They've got some chutzpah! You say that the kefiyeh is a symbol for the Palestinian cause. Fine. To many people who use it, it is. To many people who do not use it, it is. Supporting the Palestinians right to a national state, however, is not anti-Semitic, nor the same as supporting terrorism against Jews or against anyone else. It is fully possible to be a supporter of the Palestinian cause and devotedly against anti-Semitism and Nazism. Commemorating Holocaust and the Kristallnacht is not a statement about Middle Eastern politics, it is a statement against Nazism and anti-Semitism. If those who support Palestine and those who support Israel can not walk together in such a commemoration... well, then it is no wonder that there is war in the world. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 15:46 | Link And John, don't give me that strawman speech. Gunnar has said that Israeli flags should be a part of the commemoration. This undoubtably will lead to the commemoration having a narrower appeal. Thus, Gunnar supports a narrow arrangement, instead of a broad one. Øyvind Sensi, paris | 2004-11-17 15:58 | Link @ T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-17 13:48 Offtopic but btw in one of the private school in Paris that i have done, half of my tiny classroom (15/16 years old) was shouting "death to dirty arabs!" ("mort aux sales arabes" in french), they were jews and we were starting to learn the Israel/arabs wars... They were more racist (anti-semitic) than anybody i have encounter in my short life, more than any palestinian that i have met during my journey in Israël, Cisjordania & Gaza strip... Something to say? Best regards, Jeff, USA | 2004-11-17 16:01 | Link Øyvind: If those who support Palestine and those who support Israel can not walk together in such a commemoration... well, then it is no wonder that there is war in the world. I think the problem, Øyvind, is that they ban Israeli flags and then turn around and ban Palestinian flags as if they have the same historical connection to Kristallnacht. They don't. The Star of David is allowed, but it is a generally Jewish symbol - nothing to do with Israel specifically. The kaffiyeh is as blatantly political as a Palestinian flag to many people, but it is allowed. You see it wearing it as being in "bad taste," but not as something that should be banned. So if somebody wants to show support for Palestine at this rally, they can; if they want to show support for Israel, they cannot. Isn't that what this amounts to? Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 16:05 | Link Jan Haugland: I am eagerly awaiting your response to the latest developments in the bad court movie. Øyvind Sensi, paris | 2004-11-17 16:16 | Link «Well Fatah and PLO both was formed before 1967 - there was no occupied territory then! ...PLO, formed in 1964, recruit their people in Jordania & Gaza among arabs refugees, who were unable to go back in their own house in Palestine since 1961 because of the Israeli Parliament that forbade them to do so... Maybe open, you too, an history book. «They got a deal involving 90 % of the occupied territory, but Arafat wanted the right of return of millions of palestines into Israel ( the more Fatah members the better if you keep in mind the goal of PLO/Fatah ) and launched the second intifada.» Camp david? Here again come propaganda, please read the texts, ty. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 16:23 | Link >> I am eagerly awaiting your response to the latest developments in the bad court movie. I eagerly await any substantive response from you on the bigger issues. You may win a battle (that a few jews may have been there), but you lost the war. If you think the press release means anything, it doesn't. You seem to regard them as an authority to decide what is and isn't right. Jews are typically non-confrontational and appeasement oriented. They don't want any trouble. Victims usually are. But strong people have to stand up for what is right and true. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-17 16:33 | Link "lol, are you speaking of the 10 to 20% of the palestinian people that support Hamas and others terrorists bunches, or the others 80% of the palestinian population who ask and deserves the same rights as everybody around the world?" Sensi yes I am talking about the MAJORITY of Palestinians which support the terror bombings and groups like Hamas, Fatah, PLFP. The majority of palestinians that consider OBL a hero and more so than Arafat. Their failure to marginalize Jihadists, to see through the facade of Arafat, to make a stand against the true enemies of the peace, they yes, do yearn for, failure to not hate. If you wanna live in mythology of the poor downtrodden replacement proletariat of the left being downtrodden by the evil zionist imperialism that´s fine but it´s not more true than is the complete opposite. It´s so simple all they have to do is to accept Israel and live in peace with it and stop the mindless suicide bombings and they will get their own state and Israel will take care of it´s own extremists without hesitation or preference. But for each time they fail and bomb will get a even worse deal. As a matter of fact it´s absolutely last chance now due to Arafat´s death. after this it´s the wall and the nomandslands that will be forced to grow as they use more and more ranged weapons. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-17 16:47 | Link "They were more racist (anti-semitic) than anybody i have encounter in my short life, more than any palestinian that i have met during my journey in Israël, Cisjordania & Gaza strip... Something to say" Yes there are rascists among the Isralians as well, that hate Arabs and try to settle all over the occupied territory. But in the larger scheme still the obstacle to peace is suicide bombing and is mostly on their shoulders. Maybe you should try to travel to Israel as well and talk to the people there. Israel voted for peace through voting on their lefties and the deal was not bad for the Palestinians, just Arafat and PA could not reliquish his goal of all of Jerusalem and return of refugees - as well as more covertly the goal of destroying Israel all together. If you don´t like these facts that´s your problem I been a leftie I know the blindness involved, for the palestinians it´s more than a problem, it´s their life. Israel can take care of it´s extremist and in less warlike circumstances punish them due, Palestine is so blind that it´s completely sad and cannot stop or is willing enough - even as much as see it´s problems. That spells the difference. Sensi, paris | 2004-11-17 16:51 | Link @ T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-17 16:33 Well, lol, Arafat make the PLO recognize the right of the existence of Israël in 1988... Best regards, n.b: peace now. Sensi, paris | 2004-11-17 16:56 | Link «Israel voted for peace through voting on their lefties and the deal was not bad for the Palestinians, just Arafat and PA could not reliquish his goal of all of Jerusalem and return of refugees - as well as more covertly the goal of destroying Israel all together.» This is a myth: they have never been more illegal colonization constructions than during the time that ehud Barak was in place, he ended the camp David talks just before the Israeli elections... Best regards, Sensi, paris | 2004-11-17 17:01 | Link «journey in Israël, Cisjordania & Gaza strip...» Thus yes i have visited & talked to Israeli inhabitants (I was there with one of my best friend who have the two nationalities French/Israeli and who is a jew [not practising]) :) Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 17:02 | Link ...PLO, formed in 1964, recruit their people in Jordania & Gaza among arabs refugees, who were unable to go back in their own house in Palestine since 1961 because of the Israeli Parliament that forbade them to do so... Maybe you should open up a history book. The so called "refugee problem" is one created by the arab states as a means for these states to wage a terror war against Israel, when they failed in open warfare. It continues, because a) The goal of the Arab states is the destruction of Israel, and not to help "palestinians". Even the PLO doesn't help the palestinians. b) By capitulating, appeasing and retreating, the Israelis encourage their enemies c) By pressuring Israel to use restraint, the US is prolonging the conflict d) By conferring legitimacy on the PLO, and supporting the PLO "cause", the Euros are prolonging the conflict An abundance of evidence exists demonstrating that Palestinians were encouraged to leave their homes to make way for the invading Arab armies. The beginning of the exodus can be traced to the weeks immediately following the announcement of the UN partition resolution. The first to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the upcoming war and fled to neighbouring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends. By the end of January 1948, the exodus was so alarming that the Palestine Arab Higher Committee asked neighbouring Arab countries to refuse visas to these refugees and to seal their borders against them. What caused the refugee problem? There have been Palestinian refugees since 1947, when a voluntary exodus began following the UN proposal to partition the land into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The idea was rejected by the Arab states, who declared war on the fledgling State of Israel and hence the refugee problem began. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-17 17:17 | Link "Well, lol, Arafat make the PLO recognize the right of the existence of Israël in 1988..." Yea but forgot to move it from Fatah´s goals and to demolish the al - aqsa Brigade -. Of just as much value as Hitler´s declaration in 38 he had no more territorial claims after sudetenland. Yes settlers are given to much space but if Arafat not been so stupid and instituted 2 intifada Rabin could have been replaced by another peacenik. Let´s see the Palestinians vote for peace, their vote is actually their voice, their vote can actually change things though Arafat done his best to make democracy a corrupcracy. Sensi, paris | 2004-11-17 17:23 | Link once again lol gunnar + nice piece of objective article. I will repeat there that i don't take side for anyone, i am just trying to restore some truths, with the point of view of my personal experience. cu soon Best regards, Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 17:24 | Link >> Yea but forgot to move it from Fatah´s goals and to demolish the al - aqsa Brigade -. Of just as much value as Hitler´s declaration in 38 he had no more territorial claims after sudetenland. LOL that people actually believed Arafat. He was caught red-handed telling his people in Arabic that the actual goal was "to drive the jews into the sea". US translators are way behind, but they did catch that one. Sensi, paris | 2004-11-17 17:31 | Link as far as i remember, al-aqsa Brigades were formed after Sharon (war criminal @ Sabra et Chatila) went in front of the al-aqsa mosquee, which was the "provocation" that lead to the 2nd intifada. last post for today.. Best regards, T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-17 17:32 | Link "will repeat there that i don't take side for anyone". Oh indeed, I do take side ( ...... ) and won´t express any contradiction in terms like that. Jeff, USA | 2004-11-17 17:33 | Link Sensi I see. So they can feign indignation and outrage at the plight of the Palestinian people but not lift a finger to help them. They're their "brothers"... until they need something, that is. A friend in need is a pest, indeed. Your shouting "racist" cracks me up, btw. Heaven forbid somebody expects Arab countries to take in Arab refugees! Especially when there are plenty of white majority countries to infiltrate, er... immigrate to. Right? ;-) Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 18:02 | Link >> "will repeat there that i don't take side for anyone". What propoganda! Disingenuous at best. A few hundred thousand leave in 47, probably less than the jews displaced from arab lands, and now Israel has to accept millions back? It's such an obvious attempt to "drive the jews into the sea". Just another sign of French tacit support for jew-hatred and fascism. More french supported the Nazis than the allies in WW2. I LOL whenever someone says "excuse my french" whenever they swear. Dave, Qld | 2004-11-17 20:17 | Link @ Welle, Why can't the Kristallnacht-commemoration focus solely on anti-Semmitism? And if you agree that it should focus solely on anti-Semmitism, And if it focuses solely on anti-semmistism why should the nation of Israel be made an issue? Those Norwegian Jews and Norwegian gentiles who should be commemorating the holocaust, due to the tragic history they share, and who are opposed to some of Israeli’s policies (yet support its existence) should not be forced to march under and in apparent agreement with this flag. They are commemorating the rise of anti-semmitism in Europe and the genocide this led to, not the creation of Israeli. @ Jeff, turn around and ban Palestinian flags as if they have the same historical connection to Kristallnacht. Obviously there is no such connection between these national flags and 1930’s style anti-semmitism, that’s why they were banned. The kaffiyeh is as blatantly political as a Palestinian flag to many people, but it is allowed. Personally I do not think that is should have been allowed there either. However as this march seemed to have become blanket match against anti-semmitism and racism it is sightly more excusable. So if somebody wants to show support for Palestine at this rally, they can; if they want to show support for Israel, they cannot. Isn't that what this amounts to? Nope. The kaffiyeh is a symbol of support for the ethnic peoples of Palestine, not for a state, or for acts of terrorism against Israel, just as the Star of David is a symbol of the Jewish people. Wearing these symbols amounts to opposition to racism against these groups, not tacit support for the politics of either side. And a commemoration of past atrocities is not the time nor place to advocate the support for either Palistinian attacks or Israel often times aggressive policies. Dave, Qld | 2004-11-17 20:21 | Link Jeff, Your shouting "racist" cracks me up, btw. Heaven forbid somebody expects Arab countries to take in Arab refugees! Especially when there are plenty of white majority countries to infiltrate And you wonder why Sensi thinks your views are racist... Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 20:54 | Link should not be forced to march under and in apparent agreement with this flag. They are commemorating the rise of anti-semmitism in Europe and the genocide this led to, not the creation of Israeli. These are individual people carrying a little flag. There is no "under and in apparent agreement with". Your distortion of this fact is revealing. Israel is intimately connected to this tragedy, as it was created in the spirit of "never again". Objecting to a flag is objecting the very idea of that country, which can only be construed as supporting genocide. At best, it's a civil rights violation. Obviously there is no such connection between these national flags and 1930’s style anti-semmitism[sic], that’s why they were banned. The historical reality that you ignore is that there is a connection between the PLO flag and jew hatred, which has been held with an unbroken thread of continuity between the 1920s and now. Arafat grew up in Jerusalem in the care of his uncle, Al-Huseini, who was a Nazi. Far from never denouncing his uncle's ideology, Arafat was an enthusiastic supporter. Jeff, USA | 2004-11-17 21:26 | Link Dave: Obviously there is no such connection between these national flags and 1930’s style anti-semmitism, that’s why they were banned. What is the difference between "1930s style antisemitism" and today's? There is none. It is a continuation. To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with the banning of flags. I find it disingenuous to ban the Palestinian flag and Israeli flag as if they have equal historical connections to Kristallnacht, though. Personally I do not think that is should have been allowed there either. However as this march seemed to have become blanket match against anti-semmitism and racism it is sightly more excusable. I think this another part of the problem. It is becoming a blanket anti-racist march. Sure, the Holocaust is part of the larger phenomenon of racism, but I don't think that Kristallnacht should lose its distinctively Jewish identity, either. Nope. The kaffiyeh is a symbol of support for the ethnic peoples of Palestine, not for a state, or for acts of terrorism against Israel, just as the Star of David is a symbol of the Jewish people. Wearing these symbols amounts to opposition to racism against these groups, not tacit support for the politics of either side. And a commemoration of past atrocities is not the time nor place to advocate the support for either Palistinian attacks or Israel often times aggressive policies. As I said, I think that's being disingenuous. This was a march about Kristallnacht, and as the people who are wearing kaffiyeh are not Palestinians, it is not part of their ethnic identity. They can leave it home for the day. I think this is a more subtle way of expressing their view on Middle East politics, and in a way, a subtle way of hijacking the Kristallnacht commemoration altogether. IMO, you might as well allow both flags. Why can't it be a sign that Israel and Palestine can and should coexist? To wave a flag doesn't mean you agree with the government's policies. The flag represents the people as much as the government. Perhaps moreso. And you wonder why Sensi thinks your views are racist... Although not addressing me, yes, Sensi is almost sure to find my view to be racist. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, though. My point is that regional groups of Arabs aren't expected to take in each other's refugees, because... well, why should they? Sensi finds it racist to assume that they would want to integrate just because they're Arab. I would agree with that. However, conservatives in white-majority Western countries are constantly painted as racist when they have concerns regarding immigration. If Sensi doesn't do this, then it's not directed at him. I simply find the general hypocrisy coming from the left on this issue to be hysterical. Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-17 21:38 | Link Sensi, Paris . . . You said: "For the rest, please go to Israël, Cisjordania & Gaza strip, as i have done in 2002, then you could talk of what you know." I've been there many times. You probably went as part of some kind of anti-Israel protest group. Right? Also, maybe you should brush up on your definitions of propaganda and fascism. You may be surprised to learn that Americans boycott France on their own. There is no organized boycott. It's just that we're tired of your ridiculous excuses for supporting fascists like Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, and Saddam Hussein.
Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 22:12 | Link >> What is the difference between "1930s style antisemitism" and today's? There is none. It is a continuation. That's right, no difference. Even the same people. This is a really interesting look into the leftist mindset. I catch this whiff from øyvind as well. Apparently, 1930s style jew hatred is bad, but the jew hatred of today, it's different and ok. It's like current history started sometime in the 70s, and everything that happened before is ancient history, maybe even some other planet. majei | 2004-11-17 22:48 | Link Muslims have no right to participate in Kristallnacht. Jews on the other hand have every right to participate, and to exhibit any symbols of Judaism they wish to exhibit. They have earned that right, that historical right. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 22:54 | Link Jeff wrote: So if somebody wants to show support for Palestine at this rally, they can; if they want to show support for Israel, they cannot. Isn't that what this amounts to? Not at all, there's plenty of ways people can show individual support to Israel, without waving flags around. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 23:01 | Link Muslims have no right to participate in a Kristallnacht commemoration? What kind of crap is that? Everyone, regardless of religion, has not only the right, but the duty, to protest against anti-Semitism (and for that matter other racism). Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 23:08 | Link Gunnar wrote: I catch this whiff from øyvind And that's from the guy who yelled strawman warning a while ago. Well, to make this perfectly clear for you, Gunnar (not that I'm so sure it will help, because one thing is what I say and another thing is what you have decided that I say): Every kind of anti-Semitism or Jew-hatred is bad. This is equally true whether the Jew-hatred is possessed by a Muslim, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Christian, a Concervative, a Leftist, a Fascist, an Islamist, someone living in the thirties, someone living in the 2000s or someone living in the future. Every kind of anti-Semitism should be confronted and fought against. This is also true for racism in general. Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 23:26 | Link I said it was a whiff, but me thinks thou dost protest too much. Your view as expressed: >> Every kind of anti-Semitism should be confronted and fought against except for the jew-hatred of the PLO, and their supporters. They should be made to feel confortable in a Krisallnacht march, since they might be offended by the Israeli flag. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 23:37 | Link I'm worried. Apparently the rate of illiteracy in the States is higher than I previously assumed. I oppose the PLO, Gunnar. I have told you this up to several times, now, haven't I? I believe I have. I also oppose those in Norway who support the PLO, those who do it because they agree in ideology, I oppose the most, those who do it because they really don't know better, I oppose less. I do not think people who support anti-Semitic ideas have anything to do in a Kristallnacht commemoration. I have never thought so. But, Gunnar, wearing a "palestinaskjerf" or supporting the creation of a Palestinian state is not and will never be the same as supporting anti-Semitism. Except in those dreams that you seem to have, of course. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-17 23:38 | Link Oh? I protest too hard, do I? Maybe I should protest a bit less then, maybe then you could use that as a reason to make silly claims agains me. Or maybe I just shouldn't have said anything. Because then you could have attacked for that. Brilliant, Gunnar, so brilliant. Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 01:05 | Link I have told you this up to several times, now, haven't I? I believe I have. I'm not fooled by the Kerry-esque "take both sides of the issue" trick. You say a lot of things, but it all comes down to: a) No Israeli flag at a Kristallnacht But, Gunnar, wearing a "palestinaskjerf" or supporting the creation of a Palestinian state is not and will never be the same as supporting anti-Semitism. And I provided historical facts regarding these so called mythical "palestinian" people. You provided no substantive response. There has never been such a state, and never been a people called "palestinian" before. It's a made up group of people. The arabs living within the Jewish homeland left of their own accord, based on advice from the arab states. When Israel was attacked by these criminal arab states, they lose all claims to territory. It's now part of Israel, get over it. Besides, arab demands were already satisfied with transjordan. These arab states are COMPLETELY responsible for the refugee situation, so they need to give them citizenship. Because of brown shirt thuggery, we have no way to separate the wishes of the so called "palestinian" people from the leaders who are engaged in attempted racial cleansing. There is substantial evidence that these people have been indoctrinated in nazi hate, like the hitler youth. We have no way of knowing anything about them, until the 1) the terror states are removed, and 2) the terrorists are removed. So, this whole palestinian problem is a contrived cover for jew hatred. Even if people don't realize this, it doesn't change the reality that "support for the palestinian cause" is in fact supporting "jew hatred". This seems so shocking to you, since you have been enmeshed in an environment of political correctness. Sensi, paris | 2004-11-18 02:50 | Link @Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-17 18:02 Do not expect a reply from me, i have chose here that i will not speak at walls. @Jeff, USA | 2004-11-17 17:33 «Oh indeed, I do take side ( ...... ) and won´t express any contradiction in terms like that.» This is not a contradiction, if i highlight some truths concerning history that might to make think some people that i am some kind of pro-palestinian, i take the time to repeat that i don't take side for any of the two peoples, because i won't blame either of these people for what their representants have done and that i want an equal peace and a prosperous and respectful future for them. «I see. So they can feign indignation and outrage at the plight of the Palestinian people but not lift a finger to help them. They're their "brothers"... until they need something, that is. A friend in need is a pest, indeed.» I don't support at all any Arab country, neither for what they have done to try to destruct Israël nor what they do (or don't do) to make their own people live in a democratic regime and a more properous life. The past history have show us that they don't give a fuk of the "palestinian people" and that when they «feign indignation and outrage», this is nothing more than an inept posture, maybe to please their citizens or divert them from their own problem with something like a scapegoat (bouc émissaire in french). «Your shouting "racist" cracks me up, btw. Heaven forbid somebody expects Arab countries to take in Arab refugees! Especially when there are plenty of white majority countries to infiltrate, er... immigrate to. Right? ;-) » This is not the problem, saying that arabs must go with arabs coz they are both arab is a bit sectarian... The individuals who immigrate to Europe or the USA, go there to try to find a decent work to make their family live properly, they don't find that in their native country, i have not at all something to object at their purpose. More on this, we, also need them, as the USA that is made of all kind of immigrations, Europe needs, at least for democraphic reasons, legal immigrants. Of course when a country like France has millions without employment, one can understand that some would like first that those present finds one job before others are added to the applicants list. @Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-17 21:38 «I've been there many times. You probably went as part of some kind of anti-Israel protest group. Right?» No, i was there on "cultural" holidays, there are tons of things to visit, at least in Jerusalem. «Also, maybe you should brush up on your definitions of propaganda and fascism. You may be surprised to learn that Americans boycott France on their own. There is no organized boycott. It's just that we're tired of your ridiculous excuses for supporting fascists like Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, and Saddam Hussein.» Well, i have in mind the same definition of propaganda and fascism as the one in my encyclopedia. http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/france-02.htm Americans that boycott France on their own for Chirac saying in substance: "no, at this time, there is nothing that force us to make war at Irak if our purpose are the WMD threats" are some kind of strange people. Supporting fascists like Osama bin Laden? I have not see any french people supporting him publicy or not, and we are in afghanistan to fight him, al-quaeda and the talibans... Lol, we fight arab/islamic terrorism in our own country since the middle 60's... Yasser Arafat? We try to make israëlis and palestinians to make peace, Yasser Arafat use to represents the "palestinian people" (wrongly or not)... Saddam Hussein (put in place by CIA in 1963) ? We didn't support him and his regime, we only knew that he had no WMD at the time of the UN debate, if it is what you call support, we call that simple facts... Once again, if Bush had not lied to us and the world, and rather asked us: well, we have to free Iraqis of the totalitarian regime of Saddam, we would have said to him that the priority and the immediate threat are terrorism, but that, once this threat extinct, completely or significantly, we would be at your sides on the battlefield. In my own personal utopian, i want U.N. to force and ensure democratic elections everywhere around the world for the good of the mankind and the human dignity. North Korea and their 800.000 persons in Goulags dying of starvation would be a good start point. Best regards, Dave, Qld | 2004-11-18 04:49 | Link a)No Israeli flag at a Kristallnacht; why is this such a big deal? The non of the organisations involved jewish or otherwise expressed disgust at this. b) PLO symbol YES; I thought that earlier postings had confirmed that wearing the “Palestinaskjerf” is a sign of solidarity with the palestitian people (as distinction from the PLO). c) Jews not comfortable at their own event; I’ve known some Jewish folk before, and I didn’t realise that they were so insecure that they would be unable to honour their lost comrades without the benefit of some good old fashion nationalistic flag waving. One would venture to say that signs of nationalism (often a big cause of racism, and yes anti-semmitism) would be misplaced at such an event. d) support for banning both flags, implying a moral equivalence; I’m pretty sure that Øyvind didn’t express any where that he believed them to be morally equal symbols, rather that each were irrelevant to the events. Of course the formation of the Israeli state was the logical conclusion of the holocaust, when they had to find a place to put all those Jews nobody wanted. Sandy P | 2004-11-18 05:16 | Link Have you guys been paying attention to what's going on in Northern Spain? Via Barcepundit: Along with the local time and temperature, venomous slogans against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Israel appear on the municipal information board in the northern Spanish town of Oleiros. "Let's stop the animal, Sharon the assassin, stop the neo-Nazis," reads the bright-red illuminated sign in the town of a few thousand people located in the Galicia region. Israel's ambassador to Spain, Victor Harel, protested the message in a letter he sent to the Spanish Foreign Ministry on Monday. Earlier in the day, Harel called the mayor of Oleiros, Angel Garcia Seoane, who said he stands 100 percent behind the message. According to Harel, Seoane said that he doesn't have anything against Jews, but feels completely differently about the Israeli government, its head, and those who represent it in Spain. Harel cut short the conversation with the mayor.
Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 05:28 | Link >> Americans that boycott France on their own for Chirac saying in substance: "no, at this time, there is nothing that force us to make war at Irak if our purpose are the WMD threats" are some kind of strange people. LOL. Saddam violated the UN resolutions with impunity, because he knew that he had already bribed the French. He figured that the US would not go without explicit UN permission. This unfortunate sequence of events has made the entire UN a farce. A corrupt organization funneling money from the Oil-for-terror, er I mean Food program. http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15984 The Duelfer report makes clear that Saddam was playing a game, and was waiting for the sanctions to be lifted, so he could resume his WMD program. In the meantime, he was funding terror on a worldwide scale, with the US as the target. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15919 So, the truth is that Iraq 1) committed acts of war against the US The reality is that the US may have waited too long to go in, and if so, the french actions in the UN, motivated by personal corruption, may be responsible for a terrible tragedy. yea, I know, talk to the hand. Don't bother you with reality. Have some wine and cheese. Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-18 05:32 | Link Gunnar, Maryland . . . You said: "Apparently, 1930s style jew hatred is bad, but the jew hatred of today, it's different and ok. It's like current history started sometime in the 70s, and everything that happened before is ancient history, maybe even some other planet." Wow. You hit the nail on the head. I remember after the Six-Day War how the attitude of the "elite" and the "intellectuals" began to change. Before 1967, Israel was a brave little country that was building itself up from the sands. After it won the Six-Day War, so-called humanitarians like the American Friends Service began to criticize its every move. Suddenly the so-called humanitarians discovered the "Palestinians," who must have emerged out of the ground. Where were the "Palestinians" before? Before the Six-Day War there was a WALL that ran across the Armistice Line (not a border, an armistice line). What was stopping these Arabs from developing their own area? But, as you said, Gunnar, history begins in the 1970s, so anything that happened before that time "doesn't count." What it boils down to: leftists support Jews only when they seem pitiful, like garment workers and rag pickers. Now leftists hate the Jews because they create a country and invent lots of things that everyone uses, even if you don't know it. What hypocrisy. Banning an Israeli flag carried by marchers in a Kristallnacht commemoration is Jew-hatred, my friends. Maybe Norwegian Jews are willing to act like dhimmis and Uncle Toms (Jewish version), but I can tell you that American Jews will not stand for this. When we say "Never Again," we mean it. Take this as you will. P.S. I have to laugh when you Norwegians decide that the marchers are "right-wing" and that's the reason the flags should be banned. What a charming example of groupthink. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 05:55 | Link Totoro, great post! I'm still amazed that øyvind and others use the attitudes of jews in norway as an argument. They obviously feel uncomfortable in the face of a lot of hostility. "Oh they say it's ok, so it's ok". What, we don't have our judgement? Next, we'll hear that polls taken in the concentration camps reveal that most jews were happy to be there. Did you check out the Rishon Rishon blog? Well, now that the state department is getting cleaned out of leftists, we'll have a more coherent US foreign policy. As Bush said, Israel won't ever have to negotiate with terrorists again. The new PLO guy invited the leaders of the terrorists groups to be in his cabinet LOL. I would personally prefer that Israel takes out that Lebanon destroyer nazi terror state Syria. The US has enough to do with Iran. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 06:33 | Link Democrat, Rep. Tom Lantos of California, who is seething as Congress probes the French-U.N.-Saddam oil-for-food scandal: "We all knew that Saddam was doing everything in his power to evade sanctions. But it is truly infuriating to discover the depth of the contempt and greed displayed by the governments of nations such as France, Russia and Syria who evidently jumped at the chance to participate in Saddam's crimes against the international community." Knut Frøyen, Oslo | 2004-11-18 08:39 | Link From my viewpoint, the main problem with this particular commemoration is the acceptance of anti-racism into an anti-nazism event. As the excellent Jim Kalb wrote: “Because it is based on denial of truth anti-racism very quickly became the refuge of scoundrels, a stronghold of licensed abuse, bigotry and lies.” The anti-racists can have their demonstrations on any other day of the year, but the Kristallnacht should be reserved for the true antagonists of Nazism. This may seem self-contradictory at first glance, but let me explain… First of all, one must understand why Nazism is correctly labelled as racist, and in what manner it is often wrongly depicted as racist. The Jews do not constitute a single race, but rather a wide range of different ethnicities. If hatred towards Jews is to be called racist, one must falsely accept the concept of Jews as a single race, which is what Hitler successfully managed to convince the Germans of in his Nazi-rhetoric. However, the meaning of the term racism would by many be allowed to incorporate this intentional deceit when the end objective by the perpetrator is to discriminate on the basis of race. That is why there is no logical link between Kristallnacht and racism until you understand the genealogical fallacies of Nazism. As you know, the leftist organisation “SOS Rasisme” in head of the Norwegian Kristallnacht commemoration said it wanted to avoid politicising the event by banning Israeli and Palestinian flags. But “SOS Rasisme” is in itself a factor of politics and ideology, namely the dangerous ideology of anti-racism. The leftist agenda is, unwittingly or not, the deconstruction of language and creation of George Orwell’s “Newspeak”. This process is called nominalization and the result is “floating abstractions”. At the web page of “SOS Rasisme” one can see how they operate with a floating definition of the term racism, including all kinds of demographic grouping with the intent to generalise over qualities and such. This distortion cultivates a political climate where critique against religion and foreign cultures is immediately cast into suspicion. The objection to generalisation coupled with the never-ending demand for nuances is the "opus moderandi" of the relativistic leftists. Laconic speak is seldom heard, and meaningful essences of understanding seems out of reach. The misrepresentation of resistance towards immigration has incited an oxymoronic affiliation between our right-wing Progress Party and a handful of genuine racists and Neo-Nazis. Throughout the 80s and 90s we saw the violent anti-racists, the reactionary leftist group called “Blitz”, engage in bloody skirmishes with scant numbers of Neo-Nazis, and also with the police. An overwhelming majority of the population now mistakenly identifies Nazism (or Neo-Nazism) as a right-wing extremist entity. Anti-racism is therefore de facto working to dilute the perception of Nazism and its roots. The left has been successful all over Europe at stapling Nazism to the right side of the axis. The communists and Nazis fought each other in Germany at the time Hitler rose to power, and of course later during WW2. When two groups oppose each other so vehemently they must represent each end of the scale – that’s the reasoning people probably use. On the contrary, Nazism is a logical consequence of socialism, its perspective on economics, individual rights and state regulation. Hitler’s race struggle is the continuation of Marx’s class struggle. When socialist economics fail someone has to take the blame, and it’s never going to be the people with the “good intentions”. If people don’t understand the underlying cause of fascist type ideas like these, they are likely to re-emerge, probably in a new wrapping. And anti-racism is paving the road with its relativism and nihilist nominalism, forging the clouded minds into submission of faulty equivalence. Bush=Hitler, you know! Further more, the continuation of Hitler’s anti-Jewish propaganda is today seen more in the growing Moslem community than anywhere else. The unapologetic and scapegoating nature of detrimental statist ideas needs its new victims. Except that the victims are not new. Knut Frøyen ~ Oslo *** The mind of the left: The Myth of Nazism's Conservative Roots: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/849251/posts "If you do not wish to be a victim of today's philosophical bankruptcy, I recommend The Ominous Parallels as protection and ammunition. It will protect you from supporting, unwittingly, the ideas that are destroying you and the world." - Ayn Rand Pete, Paris | 2004-11-18 09:40 | Link Good post Knut. However - "The Jews do not constitute a single race, but rather a wide range of different ethnicities. If hatred towards Jews is to be called racist, one must falsely accept the concept of Jews as a single race, which is what Hitler successfully managed to convince the Germans of in his Nazi-rhetoric. However, the meaning of the term racism would by many be allowed to incorporate this intentional deceit when the end objective by the perpetrator is to discriminate on the basis of race." Do these terms by any chance define Israel as a racist state pursuing racist policies? Best wishes Pete Knut Frøyen, Oslo | 2004-11-18 10:17 | Link "Do these terms by any chance define Israel as a racist state pursuing racist policies?" I’m no expert, but as far as I know, Israel is not discriminating on the basis of race or ethnicity. Nor are they portraying Moslems as a race, or showing contempt and hatred for Moslem ethnicities. At least not in the way Jews are demonised on Arabic-speaking TV in the M.E. ( memritv.org ) The majority rationale for Israel’s repatriation policies is about letting Jews determine their own future, just as Moslems can in more than 20 countries (and counting…) And so, the discrimination is based on culture and religion, and should not fall under a rational definition of the term racism. Knut Frøyen ~ Oslo David Mathew Elson | 2004-11-18 10:43 | Link "Do these terms by any chance define Israel as a racist state pursuing racist policies?" Pete, this is like throwing fuel onto a raging fire! "and so, the discrimination is based on culture and religion," I'm definitely sure that this is not any better than discrimination based on race! How about fighting for a world free from such narrow minded discrimination. Note: when I say discrimination I am referring to that based on race, ethnic background etc.. not valid discriminations based on quals, ability, suitability. Sensi, paris | 2004-11-18 11:00 | Link Once again lol @ Gunnar. http://www.miquelon.org/lies.html «PAUL WOLFOWITZ Quotes on France : "France Should Pay For Opposing Iraq War" - "The French have behaved in ways ... that have been very damaging to NATO. I think France is going to pay some consequences, not just with us but with our countries who view it that way," Short Bio from infoplease.com : Deputy defense secretary, began making a case for an invasion of Iraq shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the U.S. He said Saddam Hussein should be ousted before he could pass on weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. Known for his sharp intelligence and his hawkish views, Wolfowitz has worked for every U.S. president since 1973, except President Clinton. In 1992, he recommended to the first President Bush that the U.S. launch unilateral, preemptive military strikes against hostile countries seeking to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction. The proposal was then deemed reckless and overly aggressive, but in the context of the war against terrorism, the strategy of preemption has gained currency in the U.S. In fact, it is exactly the course President George W. Bush has charted with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Member of JINSA. The only thing that interest me in all your nonsense is the quote from Tom Lantos. Best regards to all except Gunnar, Sensi, paris | 2004-11-18 11:20 | Link «Don't bother you with reality. Have some wine and cheese.» Once again come the racist, for your personal information: i don't like cheese except Beaufort and i don't drink wine. Well, don't bother you with reality: ZERO (0) WMD was found in Irak. Best regards, Sensi, paris | 2004-11-18 11:36 | Link @ Sandy P | 2004-11-18 05:16 Yes, i have read that previously and this is truly weird... Best regards, cf. http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2004/11/antisharon_publ.html Sensi, paris | 2004-11-18 12:48 | Link Oops, dunno why but it seems that i have made a confusion between Horowitz and Wolfowitz, lol, my apologizes. Best regards, Sensi, france | 2004-11-18 12:53 | Link «TOM LANTOS, REP. CAL. "I am particularly disgusted by the blind intransigence and utter ingratitude of France, Germany and Belgium, countries which blocked our efforts to even engage in contingency planning if our ally Turkey were attacked by Iraq. Had it not been for our military commitment, France, Germany and Belgium today would be Soviet socialist republics. The failure of these states to honor their commitments is beneath contempt." - Rep. Tom Lantos (Dem.-Calif.)» This guy seems very objective and smart (ironic) (he forget that France had nuclear weapons btw) http://www.miquelon.org/politicians.html Sensi, paris | 2004-11-18 13:07 | Link @Gunnar the propagandist «BILL GERTZ Bill Gertz is not a France-Basher, his speciality however is spreading misinformation about the French Government in the Washington Times. Here are few headlines from Gertz's columns over the last few months : Once again, don't bother you with reality, you have the good sources and are well informed. Best regards, Allan, Melbourne | 2004-11-18 13:43 | Link Sensi: Jeff, USA | 2004-11-18 14:20 | Link @Sensi: «Oh indeed, I do take side ( ...... ) and won´t express any contradiction in terms like that.» This is not a contradiction, if i highlight some truths concerning history that might to make think some people that i am some kind of pro-palestinian, i take the time to repeat that i don't take side for any of the two peoples, because i won't blame either of these people for what their representants have done and that i want an equal peace and a prosperous and respectful future for them. You were actually responding to something T Hansen said here. «I see. So they can feign indignation and outrage at the plight of the Palestinian people but not lift a finger to help them. They're their "brothers"... until they need something, that is. A friend in need is a pest, indeed.» I don't support at all any Arab country, neither for what they have done to try to destruct Israël nor what they do (or don't do) to make their own people live in a democratic regime and a more properous life. The past history have show us that they don't give a fuk of the "palestinian people" and that when they «feign indignation and outrage», this is nothing more than an inept posture, maybe to please their citizens or divert them from their own problem with something like a scapegoat (bouc émissaire in french). At least you seem to understand this. Not too many other people do. The eulogizing of Arafat makes me ill. «Your shouting "racist" cracks me up, btw. Heaven forbid somebody expects Arab countries to take in Arab refugees! Especially when there are plenty of white majority countries to infiltrate, er... immigrate to. Right? ;-) » This is not the problem, saying that arabs must go with arabs coz they are both arab is a bit sectarian... The individuals who immigrate to Europe or the USA, go there to try to find a decent work to make their family live properly, they don't find that in their native country, i have not at all something to object at their purpose. More on this, we, also need them, as the USA that is made of all kind of immigrations, Europe needs, at least for democraphic reasons, legal immigrants. Of course when a country like France has millions without employment, one can understand that some would like first that those present finds one job before others are added to the applicants list. I think the insincerity of Arab outrage about Palestine was shown when they allowed them to be turned into refugees by Arab governments. Now that they've been refugees for so long, everybody has forgotten why. All they know is that Palestine has a right to that land for some reason or other. And "that land" means Israel, whether anybody will say it or not. I have no problem with immigration. It needs to be controlled a hell of a lot better than it has been, both in the USA and in Europe. Of course, what Europe does in terms of immigration is not and can never be of concern to me. Most Europeans seem to think multiculturalism is a godsend. Makes me wonder why they don't propose flooding the third world with lots of different races and cultures. Can only improve things, right? Not sure what you mean by "democraphic" reasons. Are you referring to Europe's aging population? @Totoro: Wow. You hit the nail on the head. I remember after the Six-Day War how the attitude of the "elite" and the "intellectuals" began to change. Before 1967, Israel was a brave little country that was building itself up from the sands. After it won the Six-Day War, so-called humanitarians like the American Friends Service began to criticize its every move. Suddenly the so-called humanitarians discovered the "Palestinians," who must have emerged out of the ground. Glad to see I'm not the only one who notices this. The left likes people when they're little and helpless. They loathe success. Since Palestine is a miserable failure, they're a great pet for the left. And judging from the post-Arafat anarchy, they will continue to be for a long, long time. Sensi, paris | 2004-11-18 14:24 | Link «Sensi: History will remember their lies, misinformation and their propaganda against France and french people. We will never forget: be sure. I have seen all of the UN debate in live and also Bush announcing the war (was at 3AM in Paris) Bush was so ridiculous that i was ashamed for the americans. It was, it is, a bad B Movie. Best regards, Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-18 14:28 | Link Sensi, You have a strong tendency to caricature comments and positions as though they can be readily dismissed. Yet you do little if anything in your rhetoric to cause them to be dismissable. Smarmily disdaining things that if true, are distressing to your well constructed view of the world... does not make you righteous (though it may make you French). What you define as racist, is seemingly anything that a postmodernist would presently deconstruct as such... because it casts light on a meaningful framework on what racist, or indeed hatred really is about. This is the reason that racist/imperialist/colonialist and so on in the present public discourse, ultimately end up being defined as whatever it is that is opposed to the meaningless mongers of the transnationalist left. Period. I like to call it the "Power of Whateverness" which has been the operative tool of the "Progressive" media and Academia who have become doctrinally conformist in their domination of the tools of profection in the public discussion. Particularly in Europe. This is one reason why blogs like Bjørn's are so important, and may perhaps be historic oe hopes... in keeping a genuine free exchange of ideas alive. None, I repeat none of what you accused Gunnar of regarding racism is simply "inarguable". In fact, Gunnar easily has the better of it as far as reasoned and well argued discourse is concerned (IMHO). In pure ranting screeds however, you win hands down. But this is only a "win" in a myopic circle jerk... like exist in the many "Peace" marches I have gone to. (Do you think it is an example of the power of the people when any time someone tries to engage a gathering of such champions of social justice, they reflexively commence to drown out any such person with chants such as "No Racist Wars" etc? I have seen this, and while it is chilling to watch hatred and rage crush out individual freedom so completely, it is absolutely terrifying to realize that these are the same people who unquestioningly and jealously define themselves as the "tolerant freethinkers" of the world! We are in a madness.) Interestingly, in getting a feel for the "flavor" of your comments, I'm struck by how similar they are to Ex-Christian's. The same is true of the websites you cite as though they are beyond questioning. Does it not strike you that in clinging to them without exploring anything beyond tightly defined borders, you risk being an automoton to a monologue? I only say this because it is wearisome to see you pretend to engage in a dialogue, when it is not one. Oh... and the endless "lol's" are transparent and bordering on pathetic now... its becoming tedious. KM Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 14:35 | Link Gunnar: As I stated above a nation is: "Nations are culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institutions, religion, and historical experience" Palestinians have a common language (a dialect of Arabic), they have common institutions, they do not have a common religion (as there are both Muslim and Christian Palestinians, belonging to different religious groups) and they do have a common historical experience. These factor make them a nation. Being a nation, Gunnar, is not a gift handed down from God. Being a nation is about feeling as a nation. Before the French nation state was created the French language consisted of numerous languages, quite a few of them still in use. The modern French language is a result of standardization. The idea of being French was created. As was the idea of being American. Nations are not eternal entities that has always existed, but a result of historical processes. There's little doubt that Palestinians of today feel themselves as one nation, distinct of other Arabic nations, i.e. Egyptians, Moroccans, Iraqis, etc. Furthermore these groups have different heritage. When the Islamic empire grew and gained control in the areas currently known as Israel and Palestine there were already people living there. These people belonged to different ethnic groups, mainly Semitic ones, and had different religions. Aramaic was lingua franca of the region. After the Arabic (Islamic) conquest it was gradually replaced by Arabic [1]. The people living in the region was, like people living in several other regions conquered by the Arab Muslims, both "Islamicized" and "Arabicized". Today, Aramaic, is almost extinct. This process also influenced Jews living in the region, some converted and more or less all of them took to speaking Arabic. Let me quote from "Medieval Jewish Civilization: An Encyclopedia (Routledge)": Jews in the Fertile Crescent had spoken Aramaic for centuries, using Hebrew and Hebrew‑Aramaic as their literary languages. By the tenth century, Arabic had superseded both of these as the unified spoken and written tongue of the Jews. This contrasts revealingly with Europe. There, Jews adopted local dialects (French, German, etc.) for speaking purposes. But they did not use Latin, the language of most written culture, for literary purposes. Rather, they continued to employ rabbinic Hebrew for their writings. Jews in the East were less uncomfortable with Islam as a religion, and anti‑Jewish polemics in Arabic were far less prevalent and less inimical than Latin polemics against the Jews and Judaism. Moreover, Arabic represented the means of acquiring secular culture (medicine, science, historiography, belles lettres, secular poetry, etc.), to which Jews were powerfully attracted. One should add that Arabic is so close to Hebrew linguistically that its adoption for everyday as well as formal literary purposes must have seemed relatively effortless. Jews mostly wrote Arabic in Hebrew characters, which they apparently found easier than Arabic script and perhaps more "Jewish," in that it allowed them readily to punctuate their writing with Hebrew words, phrases, or classical Jewish citations, as was so common and often necessary. But Jewish comfort with the Arabic language stretched to a certain liberty with the religious vocabulary of Islam. Such a prominent paragon of rabbinic leadership as Sa'adyah, for instance, could refer unselfconsciously to Torah as shari’a (the Islamic term for the holy law), to the Jerusalem‑oriented direction of prayer as Kibla (Muslims use this word for Mecca), and to the Jewish hazzan as imam. To make a long history short, the Arabic and later Ottoman dominance in the Fertile Crescent lasted for centuries. But when the Empire failed to modernize sufficiently (though serious attempts were made from about year 1800), it started losing control. At this time different ideas rose in the Arabic world. One was the idea of panislamism, used by the Ottoman sultan Abdulhamid II when he tried gathering support under the banners of the Kaliphate, but also used by some of his critics, who wanted to create an Arabic Kaliphate. Another idea was the idea of panarabism, that existed in many variants. Then there were regional and local "nationalism", like Syrianism, Egyptism etc. Nationalism was a fairly modern concept, of course inspired by nationalist movements in Europe. Incidentally these nationalist movements inspired not only Arabs to look for their national identity, it also inspired Zionism. Though the Jews had said "Next year in Jerusalem" for a long, long time, the dream of creating a Jewish national state was a dream surfacing at appr. the same time, with leading figures like Theodore Herzl, Moses Lilienblum and Leon Pinsker as proponents. The trend that gained a momentum in the internal strife of ideologies amongst Arabs was, at first, the idea of panarabism. The idea was to create one Arab nation from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the East. Others were more pragmatist - considering that the state of development was highly different in different parts of the Arabic lands - and wanted to create regional Arabic states, one of the ideas that was popular was an idea to create a Syria including present-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Palestine. These hopes failed, though some attempts were made, as late as in the latter part of the last century. As a result pan-Arab nationalists gradually turned towards local nationalism and towards other ideologies (Islamism is, incidentally, one of them). Thus the idea of Palestine as a national state also rose, eventhough it was an idea that had surfaced even under the Ottoman Empire. The challenge from the Jewish immigration to the region had also influenced this development. Today there is little doubt that there exists a genuine view of Palestine as the fatherland (al watan) for Palestinians. This is not a PLO hoax. These are the realities on the ground. You can of course try to deny those realities. But they'll still be there. Øyvind [1] It's worth noting that the Bible also tells us of an Arabic group, the Midianites, and that Arabs, like Jews, regard Abraham as their ancestor. Sensi, paris | 2004-11-18 14:41 | Link «Not sure what you mean by "democraphic" reasons. Are you referring to Europe's aging population?» Exactly. Best regards, Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-18 15:02 | Link By the way Sensi, Since you have taken to readily condemning the US along the no war for oil lines, and defending France as champions of social justice, I wonder if you might comment on the motives of the French government in so vehemently opposing the takedown of the Saddam regime. For example, the surreally generous contracts that were made between Saddams regime and French companies like TotalFinaElf, where the margins were by far, the largest in the history of foreign develoment of oil fields. (Talk about post colonialism!) These were to kick in as sson as the sanctions regime was removed. Interestingly, it was then that thr French became deeply interested in the plight of the downtrodden Iraqi people... even as the Oil for Food contracts were being turned into an abomination of humanitarian corruption, in no small part by French companies and diplomates and yes, ministers of the government, as France became Iraqs largest "trading partner" under the sanctions regime. I can understand how the French like to deal with despots. After all... its so much easier to make back room deals rather than that whole "competitive bidding" process... whcih seems so crassly American. Its quite (SNIFF!)... "messy" you know. Oh theres more, so much more. French trade in so called "dual use" products that were strictly forbidden under thew sanctions regime. French trade in replacement parts for armaments that were strictly forbidden under the sanctions regime. French deals cut in contravention of the the sanctions, which included incentives for French support in the securty council for an end to those sanctions. It is a tale so odiously hypocritical, that it could only be bourne of the special sniffing smarminess that has defined French cynicism back to Sartre and beyond. French bashing you say? This is a term that I do not at all think fits what it is to come to grips with the sense of shock, betrayal and disgust that is sweeping across the US as the true scope and magnitude of French duplicitousness and lack of even the tattered remains of any moral decency... becomes known. It is at times in fact, almost too difficult to take it all in, and one imagines that it will surely come down. But then, like Kofi Annan, it is obvious that it is still possible to continue to vomit forth more "nuance" and claim the illusion of the high ground. Quoth Mssr. Chirac "I am not sure, with America AS IT IS THESE DAYS, that it would be easy for Is it not at times like this that you want to rage like Gore did in Florida Notice that as Chirac stands in moral judgement over the United States presumably because of the young marine who may have put down an unarmed By the way... have you heard the retaraction that France's TV3 made for the whole Palestinian Child shot by Israeli troops thing that created such a wave of disgust three years ago? Amazingly... it was completely contrived and they have known it since only a month after the incident. What a tale. Wonder what their agenda was for such a gross breach of "journalistic ethics". Why... I can't even imagine! Alas... I actually can. There is simply no way to convey the sense of desolation that the arrogance of so called "value neutral" reporting (what a crock!!!) conveys to the world... and how much impetus it robs from even the abstract idea that Odd isn't it, how so called moral "equivalence"... isn't even that? It is instead merely an enabler for anything to be whatever, with the net result that everything will be steered into the ubiquitous narrative of But regardless of all that... Chirac, who in a classic French "morality" tale, would be in prison were he not in power (now there is an incentive to put oneself in the service of the "people") ... really makes me want to vomit bile from the depths of my soul. I think that covers it.
KM Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 15:13 | Link That is why there is no logical link between Kristallnacht and racism until you understand the genealogical fallacies of Nazism. Knut, brilliant! Thank you for helping me to understand the crucial point that this so called "anti-racism" is in fact accepting the Nazi premise. And just like it's a fallacy that Jews are a race, people say "race" when they mean ethnic group. However, jews are not one ethnic group either. In fact, science is now revealing that the whole concept of race (black/white/asian) is false. The genetic difference that makes one person white, and another black are smaller than the difference that makes one tall, and one short. These are all completely artifical distinctions that some humans use as a basis for bigotry. On the contrary, Nazism is a logical consequence of socialism, its perspective on economics, individual rights and state regulation. Hitler’s race struggle is the continuation of Marx’s class struggle. When socialist economics fail someone has to take the blame Exactly right! Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-18 15:37 | Link Øyvind, Regarding your last post (which was very informative and I thank you for it as it included many things I did not know), I wonder what the output of such analysis you expect. I do not think that many reasonable people dispute that it is desirous that the Palestinians eventually get self deterimination via their own state. The rub however is how that can be acheived. For my part, I see it as the only way to remove them from the travails of being pawns in the Middle East power plays, wherein the worst and most cynical manipulators of their fate are not the Europeans (even the French), and certainly not the Israelis, but the Arab nations around them. The fact is, that Palestinian statehood is not something that is at all desirous among any of the despots in the Arab world. The "struggle" however, and the Jew Hatred that shoots off like sparks from a grinding wheel as a result, is highly desirous. This is primarily because, as is the nature of tyrannies, hate objects are essential to maintain power. Indeed, a truly free Palestine that could begin addressing its historical, cultural(and often self inflicted) wounds... and even have peace with Israel is, I daresay, the LAST result that most of the M.E. regimes would like to see. So the question is, how will it be done? And in this I point out that it is completely impossible to continue to assuage the beast of Jew Hatred and Leftist anti-Semitism based as they are on irrational hatreds, merely on the blithe inanity that this "avoids conflict". It does not. It merely puts the necessary reckoning off, and increases the interest and penalties that will eventually be levied. In the creation of a Palestinian State, a clear look at history among ALL players including external ones in Europe and the US is not merely critical, it is essential if there is to be a shred of hope. Otherwise, hatred and nihilism will simply put on the garb of "victimhood" and "social injustice" (the ruthless love to wear these outfits), retreat to the shadows... and seize the levers of power as soon as ruthlessness permits. This is Israels quite reasonable fear. There must be demands made on any nascent Palestinians leadership that will be unacceptable to many who are in the running now. So be it. They must be unmasked now rather than later and forced to defend their ambitions for what they are. The demands made likewise on the Isaelis are already known, and I have no doubt (and it is reasonable to not to) that Israel, in a fair discussion and an open venue where ALL the gory essentials of what really is at play in the region is on the table, will do whatever is necessary to effect a just peace for all. They have shown that already. But the key here is an open venue. There has to this date, NEVER been a venue that even remotely positions Israel as having a valid point in anything. Even (actually especially) in progressive circles, or human rights venues... and yes even in venues meant to deal with "racism"... most end up looking like the even in Durbhan a few weeks before 911. Jew Hatred as an expression of the empotional angst of despairing over racism. It is diabolically surreal. It is simply a fact that such decrepit and intellectually twisted sentiments in creating a "peaceful" settlement in the region... will NEVER succeed. Surely you understand this. And this is why I speak so forcefully about the need for open discussion. If there is to be strife, let there be. But let the DEMAND be that it be supported by the ideas that foster it. Otherwise indignation, no matter how "heartfelt", is merely masturbation. There will be no Peace for the Palestinians while it is possible for humanitarians to assume the role of apologists to hatemongers and nihilists who want to murder all Jews. It is existentially impossible. What say you? Cheers, KM Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-18 16:48 | Link Jeff, USA . . . You said: "The left likes people when they're little and helpless. They loathe success. Since Palestine is a miserable failure, they're a great pet for the left." In this regard, I was in China recently. While most of the country is still poverty-stricken, the capitalist zones such as Shanghai are booming on a scale that is almost unreal. I look forward to the left's discovery of the Chinese. They will have to do some amazing mind-rewrites. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 17:04 | Link Kevin, Gunnar seems to dispute it, he also disputes that the Palestinians are a nation. That's the reason for my post. Otherwise, Kevin, you have many valid points. It is indeed questionable whether a Palestinian state is in the interest of many current governments in the Arab world. This is especially true if the Palestinians should be able to establish a truly democratic state. I doubt that Syria wants that. I doubt that Jordan wants that. In fact, the country in the region who would probably have the highest interest in that to happen... is Israel. I disagree with some of your assumptions about progressives, human right groups etc. I do however fully agree that people supporting the Palestinian cause should stop functioning as "apologists" for murder, Jew-hatred, terrorism etc. I have often wished for a Western movement that makes it painfully clear for the Palestinians that while it does support the idea of a viable Palestinian state (an idea Gunnar seems not to support, correct me if I'm wrong), it also supports Israel right to exist and opposes both terrorism and other violent means. If a movement like this were to surface and at the same time as supporting those basic tenets was able to criticize both sides in the conflict that would be a step forward. Since I'm calling for critique against both sides Gunnar and other might think that's a sign of talking about "moral equivalence" between them. It is not. There's little doubt that the Israeli society is both freer, more democratic and less militaristic in nature than the Palestinian society. This does not make Israel exempt of critique, and there are several issues Israel need to adress to be able to reach a sensible compromise making a viable Palestinian state, and eventually: peace, possible. These are, in essence, the same views that I have fronted both in the article and in several Norwegian-language articles posted on dilettant.no. Øyvind Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 17:06 | Link Correct text: Both in the article "Kill Pavlov" and in several Norwegian-language articles posted on dilettant.no. Links should work. Øyvind Jeff, USA | 2004-11-18 17:06 | Link Totoro: I laugh out loud whenever I read about China's "mysterious" economical boom. It is astounding how many people in the media refuse to understand (or at least acknowledge) that there is no secret, that it's just capitalism at work. I also laugh when I read about how the Chinese goverment is concerned that maybe they're being too lenient. If they crack back down, they will kill the economy all over again, and I imagine the death of this boom will be just as inexplicable to the media and the left as was its birth. The freer the market, the freer the people. When will people learn? Terje, Gdansk, Poland | 2004-11-18 17:14 | Link Totoro:"P.S. I have to laugh when you Norwegians decide that the marchers are "right-wing" and that's the reason the flags should be banned. What a charming example of groupthink." Groups like Demokratene and FOMI are indeed on the far right, and Norwegians who support Israel (like myself) should take every opportunity to disassociate themselves from them. (Like others have mentioned, the Mosaic Congregation in Oslo have expelled members of these organisations, and they have done so for a reason.) That said, these groups are marginal in every sense of the word.
One can argue about the ideological contents of Nazism, but neither the Left nor the Right can be acquitted of blame for the Holocaust. Neither can non-Germans. Like Øyvind mentioned here earlier, the Norwegian police rounded up Jews for the Nazis. Anyone remotely familiar with Norway's topography knows it is not difficult to hide away people in Norway; still, more than half of all Norwegian Jews were sent to the death camps. Sandy P | 2004-11-18 17:42 | Link Sensi, no blood for cocoa.
Just goes to show whoever wrote that doesn't understand US media. NYT isn't the paper of record in the US anymore, for starters. Maybe a little more "nuance" as to the lay of the American media land would be in order. Best regards. Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-18 18:02 | Link Øyvind, Regarding your desire for a "Western movement that makes it painfully clear for the Palestinians that while it does support the idea of a viable Palestinian state... it also supports Israel right to exist and opposes both terrorism and other violent means...", I would opine that the reason that this is almost impossible, is due to the elements dominating (and indeed framing) the public discourse that I described in the previous post. It is folly to think that this is not associated with the description I used for "progressive" movements. In fact, it is the reason I always use scare quotes around that word... and I think you fail to realize that your perspective of what that word should mean, which would I think NOT requiresuch scare quotes, is not in fact a description of that which has co-opted the word itself! In any case, I want to add that I do not think it is readily apparrent that the Palestinians make up a "Nation" either. I think that which we call Palestinians is a rather extraordinary contrivance. But then... this is not the first case of such a contrivance... colonial history (ironically) is full of them. Its just that I think its irrelevant. Whatever else an in depth historical analysis might indicate, it is clear that as it stands NOW, the people who comprise the Palestinians, have the greatest hope for a decent future, both individually and collectively... in a State. But that will require much of them, and others. And there is a great mass of enemies of its success to be dealt with before this will be possible. And they... will not just "go away" from EU, or even UN pronouncements. Something to think about.
T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-18 18:27 | Link "Since the U.N. case, where France diplomacy say 'no' to Bush's government and their WMD "proofs" (sic) that they show to the World as an argument to go to war," Before you resolve once again to accuse me and others of not reading history books, thus implying you know history yourself - let´s get some facts straight. The no Bush´s government wasn´t just about a no to Bush´s WMD proof for war. Nor was the mythological weapons of mass destruction the only reason pointed out to go to war with Iraq, It was as a matter of fact just the easiest atleast in part refutable reason for going to war in terms of him having the weapons back then - not in terms of his intent to get them if unchecked! But the regime change in Iraq had been the US and UK foreign politics goal since 1991 and the French goal was to lift the sanctions and leave Saddam at large. Now my government was clever enough to say that though it thought Saddam was in violation of the UN Restrictions and had WMD, it found it by far reason enough to go with war in Iraq one the sole ground to rid Iraq and the world of Saddam and to establish a democracy there - as a note this they did because for 1. The Danish people in general needed no other reason - Saddam was enough. 2. that our contribution to this war was symbolic anyway ( a petty sub and small marine ship - during the war ) So we were talking about risking 1000´s of lives for doing so. For Bush and partly Blair it was different, they had to send large contigents of troops and of course relatively many of these would die. So they used massively accusations and false intelligence extensively provided by INC and Chalabi to persuade their voters to go to war. However it was never the only reason to go to war Regime change was the core of it. Creating a democracy there was also. Support for terror, Current and speculated future, was part. Sending a signal to states US cannot attack or do not really wish to attack - because either the price will be to high or no immediate and in terms of premptive war reason is available. North Korea,( 1 million could die first day in war with them and after that estimate came out US rhetoric vs NK mysteriously cooled down ) Iran ( which probably can be target still though ), Syria, Pakistan, Saudi - Arabia. The signal send was not to support terror by handling them WMD and atleast Libya clearly got the message, but probably also the rest. Another signal send was how easy the US can defeat other armies and is willing to use force if it has to. Oil was not really a part, the oil could have been brought to the market and world need much faster by lifting the sanctions and putting in a condition that Iraq would spend most of it´s income to rebuild the oil infrastructure that would still have meant Halliburton since they are the biggest company when it comes to that.! We are talking about a 200 bio dollars war ( though they figured about half the cost ) lifting the sanctions would have been free and the billions of dollars spend much better searching for oil in yet unexplored regions of the world. War for oil = utterly bull shit. The french stance is nothing about lack of evidence of WMD. It´s about a opportunistic world view in contrast with that of the US. It´s about multipolar Superpower vision where though EU is not yet the superpower Chirac yearn for, he already made the stance on behalf of his ideas. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 18:34 | Link One can argue about the ideological contents of Nazism, but neither the Left nor the Right can be acquitted of blame for the Holocaust. Neither can non-Germans. Like Øyvind mentioned here earlier, the Norwegian police rounded up Jews for the Nazis. Anyone remotely familiar with Norway's topography knows it is not difficult to hide away people in Norway; still, more than half of all Norwegian Jews were sent to the death camps. You seem to minimize the ideological analysis, and seem to think this is about assigning blame. It's not. The only rational thing to do is to carefully analyze how this came to be, in order to prevent the madness from happening again. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 18:47 | Link Kevin wrote: Its just that I think its irrelevant. Whatever else an in depth historical analysis might indicate, it is clear that as it stands NOW, the people who comprise the Palestinians, have the greatest hope for a decent future, both individually and collectively... in a State. This is of course an even better reason that it's silly to bring up arguments about the Palestinians not being a nation, as Gunnar has repeatedly done. It's irrelevant. So, there we agree. But that will require much of them, and others. And there is a great mass of enemies of its success to be dealt with before this will be possible. I'm not the only one that makes obvious statements, it seems. But, again, Kevin, you are right. Øyvind Pete, Paris | 2004-11-18 18:47 | Link Knut Thanks for your reply - I'm no expert either, but it seems to me highly debatable whether or not Israel discriminates against Arabs of the Palestinian persuasion - Israel even discriminates severely against its own. This is an extremely complex question, and cries out for a just solution, which will not be provided by indulgence in the "scapegoat" mentality you mentioned in your excellent post. I've no doubt that Arabic TV channels in the Middle East can be accused of an "anti-Jewish" bias - however, this I suspect is more likely a distortion of the anger against the state of Israel felt by most of the Arab world - just as anti-Iraqi feeling has been distorted into "anti-Muslim" bias on Western TV. In fact the view of Arabs and Muslims in general as the source of pretty much all evil has persisted and intensified over the last thirty years, wilfully transmitted by the media. I'm often astounded by certain people's incapacity or unwillingness to see this pervading media atmosphere - reading between the lines of some of the posts on this subject, it's clear as daylight that the authors have no doubts at all of the fundamental savagery and unworthiness of Iraqis, Arabs, Palestinians ... but all Muslims are not bloodthirsty savages, just as all Jews are not cynical power manipulators. It is admissible to hold the opinion that Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians is unjust and bloody without being anti-Semitic, leftist or a cowardly devotee of suicide-bombers. It is possible to be against the dreadful waste of human lives and energy caused by the US invasion of Iraq without being a Saddam-lover, a dhimmi or a secret Frenchman. It's exactly that level of discussion which causes problems. Also, one atrocity does not excuse the next. Dave - I've no intention of inflaming things, but I need to understand the points of view we're discussing. Best wishes Pete Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 18:51 | Link >> It has certainly backfired on them that they did. Perhaps not. On a superficial level, one might suppose that not finding WMD was a blow to bush. In reality, this is the preferred political position. If you were Bush, which claim by the democratic challenger would you rather fight: 1) Challenge: No WMD, wrong war, wrong time, he mislead us. Response: Oh darn, there were no WMD. Well, Saddam was a bad guy no doubt, and there were several other good reasons to get rid of him (which is true. The challenge is ineffectual since people feel he is honest, so they conclude it was a mistake, not lies) or 2) Challenge: Sadamm did have WMD, but they were transferred before the attack. The president incompetently failed to protect Americans. Response: the UN made us fail, I'll do better next time? (ie no good response). Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 19:09 | Link NOW, the people who comprise the Palestinians, have the greatest hope for a decent future, both individually and collectively... in a State. It's silly to pretend you have made one counter argument to the analysis in my postings. I pointed out that the only hope for the "palestinian" people is the removal of the arab sponsor states. Your response: silence. I pointed out that all we know about the so called "palestinian" people is through the prism of the PLO, which I pointed out is Nazi. In desperately trying to disagree with that, you end up making my point. With 60% of the "palestinian" people having fallen prey to nazi propoganda, you propose to make them a state?? And you say this while trying to claim that you aren't supporting a nazi agenda. If you read what I wrote, I say that after the terror sponsor states are removed, and the terror organizations destroyed, and the "palestinaian" people are de-nazified, sure they can have state. The only proper purpose of a government is to secure the rights of its citizens. There is no right to form a state to violate other people's rights. Once they demostrate a civilized nature, they could form a state if they wanted, given whatever territory that Syria, Jordan and Israel are willing to give them. They certainly have no "rights" or moral high ground to stand on, that people in the far, far north should concern themselves with. Jeff, USA | 2004-11-18 19:09 | Link Øyvind: This is of course an even better reason that it's silly to bring up arguments about the Palestinians not being a nation, as Gunnar has repeatedly done. It's irrelevant. So, there we agree. It can be silly or irrelevant, but it isn't necessarily. Understanding that there was no distinct Palestinian identity until recently goes hand-in-hand with seeing the real agenda of the PLO. If you don't see that the PLO has thoroughly manipulated its own people as a tool, then you cannot understand its true depravity. Failure to see this has resulted in Arafat being eulogized by Western media, not as the sick terrorist who killed the likes of Cleo A. Noel, George Curtis Moore, and Guy Eid, along with countless other (certainly no less important) souls, but as a "saint" and a "statesman". Yes, there is certainly a Palestinian identity now. That is a reality that will have to be dealt with, and they are no less human than anybody else, no less deserving of peace and basic human rights. But if we don't address the PLO's indoctrinating young Palestinians with virulent Nazi-esque antisemitism, then the creation of a Palestinian state does no good. This is the elephant in the living room, so to speak. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 19:17 | Link Let me remind you of the words of Pastor Niemöller: First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out, because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Strange leftists to be allies of the concervatives and persecutors of the commies and the trade unionists. But hey? Of course the Nazis were leftists. Only leftists are evil! There are no bad rightists, rightists are - after all - right! Yes, that's right - they are right! And when the Norwegian newspaper Norges Handels og Sjøfarttidende, hardly a leftist newspaper, criticized the parlamentarism for not being effective enough and wished for "some fascism, mr. prime minister" that was probably also just because they were fooled by those darn Nazi leftists. They knew their propagandamaking, after all. A Norwegian author, Tormod Valaker, has gone through the newspapers Norges Handels og Sjøfartstidende, Morgenbladet (these days rather leftist, those days very right-wing), Aftenposten (right), Dagbladet (left) Nationen and Tidens Tegn in the period 1930-1940. He has also looked at the same newspapers under Mussolini and the rise of Italian fascism in the twenties. All the newspapers, except Dagbladet, were quite consequent in their defence of Mussolini, Hitler and Franco, supportive of the München peace, attacking the peace prize given to Ossietzky, supporting the Anschluss of Austria (!). When the concervative politician Carl Joachim Hambro attacked "the new Germany" he ended up getting two editorials attacking him in Aftenposten. The newspaper of his own party. Dagbladet in general opposed the other newspapers. But hey? Why did all those concervatives support the fascists? I mean, couldn't they see that the Nazis were really leftists? After all, anyone that evil must be a leftist! And why the heck did Dagbladet oppose their fellow Nazi leftists? Jews fled to Norway in the years before the Second World War, and some of them were refused to enter the country. An example from the refusals: The worst thing that can happen to this person is that he is placed in a work camp, and as we know, Jews hate working. You did read that right. Who cooked such a refusal up? Do not have an idea. Must have been a leftist. T Hansen - Denmark | 2004-11-18 19:24 | Link "Challenge: No WMD, wrong war, wrong time, he mislead us."
The situation with Iraq and Saddam was a problem without any ideal solution. I was against the war and would and will still have voted for a solution where the sanctions were lifted, Saddam was tolerated but kept checked via permanent inspections. and by UN troops placed in Iraq especially to secure the Kurds and human right inspectors ever looking into how he treated his people broadly and in jails etc. + restrictions on jow he used the income of oil revenue - all should go to the welfare of the people in Iraq and rebuilding the country. But still not a perfect solution since Saddam would continue to play around and the UN forces could risk eventually to become Hostages if not great in numbers and heavily armed that being a scenario without any end since Saddam would be followed by Uday and being there, what to do and when to do it, would be of almost permanent and immense complications. In the end noone misses Saddam and if they do we have to watch em closely. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 19:32 | Link Gunnar, I have proven you wrong on your claims that the Palestinians are not a people. Nations, I've repeatedly pointed out, are all created. Since you live over in Maryland, you should be aware of this. Now, let us get on with your little game, huh. Let's pretend for once that you're right that the majority of Palestinians are indeed Nazis (eventhough polls show that they want democracy, and that they even regard the Israeli democracy as a model). Not just anti-Semitic, not just supportive of violent means, not only willing to use suicide bombings. But Nazis. How do you propose to "denazify" them? In fact the best way to remove support of terrorism, support of anti-Semitism, etc. from the Palestinian public is, undoubtly, to help them create a viable and democratic state. Until then, various terrorist groups supporting various totalitarian ideologies, have something of an equivalent of the Versailles Treaty working out very nicely for them. I'll tell you one thing, though, Gunnar. While it's working out nicely for them, it's working out very bad for the Palestinian people and it's also working out terribly bad for the Israelis. They were supposed to find a safe homeland in Israel, remember? Well, they're safer in France. Sandy P | 2004-11-18 19:36 | Link We haven't denazified Europe, Oyvind. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 19:54 | Link >> But hey? Of course the Nazis were leftists. Only leftists are evil! There are no bad rightists, rightists are - after all - right! Yes, that's right - they are right! Ok, I finally see what's going on here. Folks are correctly analyzing Fascist ideology and finding a socialist core. And since you consider yourself a "lefty", you are taking this personally. Well, I for one do not believe in group think or group responsibility. Labels such as Left or Right are meaningless at best, and deceptive at worst. The world of political opinions and ideology are far more complex. A person is far more complex. A two dimensional model is far better than a linear line of left-right, but is still only a model. There is nothing wrong with "left of center" virtues, as long as they are honest and intended for good. Virtues such as compassion, an appreciation for community, care for the less fortunate, and stronger desire for peace and fellowship are all good. Similarly, "right of center" virtues such as patriotism, individual responsibility, enterprise, and justice are also all good. Most good people have all of these virtues, and only emphasize some more than others. However, Evil uses these differences between us against us. Evil combines these virtues (and often distorts them) with the use of force. So, ideologically, socialism is the core of Nazi fascism, but only the Nazis themselves are responsible for the horrors that they committed. Just like I am not responsible for what some crazed "crusader" did in the 11 century, you are not responsible for what some crazed nazi did in the 1930s. The nazis combined some "left of center" virtues and some "right of center" virtues with total hate, destruction, and evil. An evil person who spouts support for a single virtue does not taint the virtue. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 19:56 | Link Jeff: Just as it is obviously wrong to celebrate Arafat as a saint (I haven't seen that one) or a statesman and leave out his terrorist acts for decades, it is also wrong that there was no real Palestinian identity until recently (whatever "recently is supposed to mean"). Palestinian nationalism was born as a part of the same nationalist wave that gave birth to Zionism. It started off with more general Arab nationalism in Ottoman-ruled Arab territories, but gradually developed into a distinct Palestinian nationalism, as MyJewishLearning.com puts it: "Though Palestinian nationalism developed a generation after Zionism, Muslim and Christian Arabs who identify as Palestinian root their nationality in centuries of continued residence in the land they call Palestine". If you want to take a look at the use of propaganda in this regard, well, Gunnars claim is just a repetition of a claim made by Golda Meir: "there is no such thing as a Palestinian people”. And yes, that claim was a claim made to further Israeli interests on the expense of the Palestinian people. Even before the end of Ottoman administration, Palestine, rather than the Empire, was considered by many Palestinians to be their country. An example? On 25 July 1913 the Palestinian newspaper al-Karmel wrote: "This team possessed tremendous power; not to ignore that Palestine, their country, was part of the Ottoman Empire." The idea of a specifically Palestinian state, however, was at first rejected by most Palestinians. The First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (in Jerusalem, February 1919), which met for the purpose of selecting a Palestinian Arab representative for the Paris Peace Conference, adopted the following resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds". This was a result of panarabism. Panarabism later waned. As a matter of fact, European powers, England and France, played a prominent role in that, as they more or less created present-day states like Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan (Transjordania). Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 20:02 | Link Well, for once, Gunnar, I wasn't arguing against you. I was arguing against Knut Frøyen who repeated a classical Objectivist claim. Well, when people want to push Nazism away from the right wing I am reminded of those Marxists that deny that Marxism had anything to do with Stalin (Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha etc). Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 20:09 | Link >> In fact the best way to remove support of terrorism, support of anti-Semitism, etc. from the Palestinian public is, undoubtly, to help them create a viable and democratic state Agreed, that's why you support US action in Iraq, right? :) But this is impossible while large and dangerous states next door don't want this, dangerous terror groups inside don't want this, the leaders terrorize their own people, used force to get elected, and a large proportion of the citizens support the destruction of Israel. It would be like trying to democratize the Kurds, while Saddam was still in power, and in control of the area: complete insanity. Wishing for something does not make it happen. So, to be rational, norwegians who are obsessed with these arabs who have been used as tools of the terror states, and designated "palestinian" should spend ALL their time advocating the destruction of the terror states. Shall we check the record? Oh, what do we find here, Norway hosts Arafat as a stateman, strengthening him, and prolonging the agony of the poor "palestinian" people. If the welfare of these people is the goal, why does the response result in the opposite? Jeff, USA | 2004-11-18 20:10 | Link Øyvind: Recent is a subjective term, of course. In dealing with national/regional identities, I consider the last 100 years to be recent history. You may not. However, to call the emergence of a Palestinian identity a recent event is not to devalue them at all, nor is it morally equivalent to putting terrorists like Arafat on a pedestal. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 20:29 | Link I was arguing against Knut Frøyen who repeated a classical Objectivist claim. øyvind, knut is right. Your mistake is to continue to see the world in terms of left-right. Nazism is based on marxism. But you are correct to point out that Marxism and Pol Pot are connected. That is, you are correct that a person who internalizes a philosophy, will eventually begin to act out the philosophy's logical consequences. Marxism is evil, and it only leads to evil, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc. I know you're not a marxist, so we should be able to at least agree on that, right? Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 20:44 | Link >> Gunnar, I have proven you wrong on your claims that the Palestinians are not a people. Oh really? If you have, I didn't notice. First of all, I never claimed they weren't a "people". That's pretty general isn't it. To disprove that, I would have to claim that they are martians. :) A dielect does not a nation make. If so, NYC should be it's own country. As you said, all things being equal, at one point, they preferred to be part of Syria. However, given that Syria is a fascist dictatorship, no wonder they want to be separate now. If all sources of terror are removed, and Syria becomes a vacation destination, then this desire for independence might disappear. If not, that's fine. They would have to negotiate in good faith with Syria, Jordan, and Israel for the territory for their state. However, they have no rights to territory lost in war when they have been part of the aggressors. It's just like Japan has no right to Guam. If they want some of that land, they should immediately kill the terrorists in their midst, hold a referendum on the question of Israel's right to exist and defend itself, send roses to the Israeli people, make cute faces, and say "pretty please?" They would then find that the Israelis are generous and loving to people who aren't trying to exterminate them. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 20:46 | Link Gunnar asked: Agreed, that's why you support US action in Iraq, right? :) Well, Gunnar, that depends what the word "action" means. If you're thinking of the war, you know I did not support it, the reason was that I felt (and feel) that it will not help creating a democratic Iraq. Still, I support most of the current efforts of the United States in Iraq to create a democratic state. Seeing a democratic Iraq means more for me than seeing the Americans defeated. Believe it or not. Norway should support democracy movements in Arab countries. Our support of Arafat hardly was supporting democracy. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 20:54 | Link Marxism is many things, not only a political ideology. Therefore I do not agree that Marxism is by necessity evil. However, I can call it evil if you really want me too. Those ideas that are worth saving from Marxism have been conjured up by heaps of other people too, anyway. Ø. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 21:49 | Link Well, Gunnar, that depends what the word "action" means. If you're thinking of the war, you know I did not support it, the reason was that I felt (and feel) that it will not help creating a democratic Iraq. Ok, John Kerry, don't tell me, you first voted for the bill, before you voted against it? These two posts are like a parody of leftist thought. I'd be laughing, but I think your serious. The first two paragraphs contradict each other, and contradict reality. The fact that you can't clearly see "Marxism as evil" supports my earlier assertion that you aren't able to make the correct moral distinctions. It's a choice between equivocation, moral ambiguity, doubt, doubtfulness, dubiety, dubiousness, enigma, equivocacy, equivocality, incertitude, inconclusiveness, indefiniteness, indeterminateness, obscurity, puzzle, tergiversation, uncertainty, unclearness, vagueness and explicitness, lucidity, unambiguity, certainty >> Seeing a democratic Iraq means more for me than seeing the Americans defeated. This is just so amazing and is so revealing. I feel like I should turn away or something. You guys are supposed to be better at hiding the hidden agenda. You need to come to the US for some leftist training. They can teach you how to support the leftist agenda without revealing that a) there is something you like about Marxism, and b) that you want to see America defeated. PS, why would I want you say something you didn't believe? Is some kind of abstract game to you? Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 22:03 | Link So, there's a new swear word in America? John Kerry. How bloody nice. I was against the Iraq war from day one. Not because I do not believe in creating democracy. But because I believed and still do believe that the United States will fail in creating democracy in Iraq, and that they, in the process, will create new enemies. You might not agree with that view, but there's nothing contradictory about it. Marxism is also a tool for economic analysis. As a tool for economic analysis it is somewhat flawed, but not evil. The idea of a dictatorship to ensure the transmission to a classless society, though, is both stupid and evil. Happy now? I'm not going to discuss neither Kerry, the Iraq war nor the merits or lack thereof in Marxism here, though. It should be possible to discuss one political issue without discussing every political issue. Then, let's go back to Israel and Palestine (even that is off-topic), shall we? I've got four questions for you, Gunnar: 1. Would you not say that there's a difference between the current state of Palestine and the state of Germany before the WWII? 2. How do you think Israel can contribute to creating a viable democratic Palestinian state? 3. Do you think Israel would be more able to contribute to creating a viable democratic Palestinian state if it changed its politics in one why or another, and if yes, how? 4. Do you think that the settlement movement in Gaza and on the Western Bank is an obstacle to creating a viable, Palestinian state and to create peace in the Middle East? Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 22:12 | Link Yes, I'll gladly see America (or rather the current American politics) defeated. It depends who defeats them, though. If I have to choose between say Iranian politics and American politics, I'd say: Go, George. If I had to choose between Iraqi insurgents bombing civilians in their fight for a crazy theocracy and American fighters bombing civilians by mistake, I'd say, once again, go Georgieboy! I'd rather have the USA as superpower than the China of today. But if I can have something better, like an America that appreciated the virtues of a welfare state and had the guts to elect a black man (and preferably "a regular Joe", not some third generation rich guy or a ketchup queens king), well, then I'd love to see it. And if America needs to be defeated for that to happen; yeah, sure, I'd love to see America defeated. You see, Gunnar, unlike you I do not see America as representing everything that's good and virtuous in the world. But in the case above, Gunnar, the words "seeing America defeated" was actually me trying to crack a joke. I should never have done that of course. I'm so silly. Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 22:41 | Link 1. Would you not say that there's a difference between the current state of Palestine and the state of Germany before the WWII? Only in physical location, economic and military strength, nationality, none of which are essential attributes of nazi fascism. As I have asserted earlier without compelling contradiction, the PA constitutes a nazi fascist state. 2. How do you think Israel can contribute to creating a viable democratic Palestinian state? Why should they contribute at all, they are not the cause of the misery. As I have state previously without compelling contradiction, it is the arab terror states that are the cause of palestinian misery, and the ONLY obstacles to a viable democratic palestinian state. 3. Do you think Israel would be more able to contribute to creating a viable democratic Palestinian state if it changed its politics in one why or another, and if yes, how? You see, you are obsessed with Israel as a problem. The answer is Yes, I do. Here is my advice to Israel: Announce to the world, "ok, enough is enough, one more terrorist attack, and we will declare all out war against the terrorists, and the states that harbor and support them". And when one more attack occurs, Israel should take out the PA and Syria. 4. Do you think that the settlement movement in Gaza and on the Western Bank is an obstacle to creating a viable, Palestinian state and to create peace in the Middle East? As I have stated before without contradiction, there is something called "good faith" negotiations. Instead of the true jewish homeland (never abandoned), the jewish people were negotiated down to a tiny strip of land that you could see across. And they accepted that, God Bless them. But the arab states told the arabs in that area to pull out of Israel, and they attacked. When one party attacks another, and they lose, they no longer have any rights. A Nazi guy couldn't have poked his head up after the fall of Berlin and said "but we still claim the Sudetenland". It's the most ridiculous thing ever. The same thing happened in 54 and 67. And in the 90s, they were offered their own state for goodness sake, and they turned it down, and attacked. They just don't have any rights now. By rights, it's part of Israel now. There is no reason on earth for Israel to ever negotiate with the PA ever again. With Powell out, and Rice in, Bush doctrine will be clear and consistent, and will be applied to the Israeli situation. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 23:05 | Link Why should they contribute at all, Gunnar asks about Israel when I asked him how he thinks Israel can contribute to a Palestinian state. Easy question. There are three reasons. 1. It is the morally right thing to do. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 23:08 | Link Furthermore, Gunnar, you have not answered question four. It is a very simple question, and it is fully possible to answer either "yes" or "no". Even without mentioning Sudetenland. 4. Do you think that the settlement movement in Gaza and on the Western Bank is an obstacle to creating a viable, Palestinian state and to create peace in the Middle East? Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 23:17 | Link 1. It is the morally right thing to do. They have no obligation to help an enemy dedicated to eradicating them. 2. They are able to do it. Actually, without removing the arab states that are dead set against a "palestinian" solution, they don't have the power. You're like staring at Israel like a flame, unable to look away. You notice that the flame flares up every once in awhile, but you are oblivious to the dark figures who are stoking the flame, causing the problem. 3. It would be in their interests to do it. Why on earth? Is it in America's self-interest to establish a homeland for wayward Al-qaeda members? Actually, it is, it's called Guantanamo Bay Ha HA. But no, it's in Israel's interest to solve the real problem: remove the remnants of Nazism: Syria and the PA. In Nazi germany, they were defenseless against the gestapo. Now, with a supporting US foreign policy, and no UN (it's irrelevant) to worry about, they can proceed to ensure their own safety and survival. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-18 23:32 | Link It's so revealing that other than lip service, no one in Europe talks about the misery of the Lebanese people. This is real occupation. Where are the UN resolutions? Where are the Lebanese scarves? Where are the articles in the norwegian press about this tragedy? Oh, that's right, the Lebanese people aren't trying to destroy Israel, so what good are they to the "agenda"? We, the people of Free Lebanon, thank Prime Minister Sharon and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom for the campaign launched by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs aimed at ousting Syria from occupying Lebanon. Syria is an occupying power in Lebanon, with some one million Syrian workers in the country. We remind Israel that this current Syria will never sign a Peace accord with Israel, and its political double standards are designed to reduce US pressure on Damascus in order to better blackmail Jerusalem through Hezbollah and Hamas. Through Hezbollah's strategy of terror in Lebanon, Sheikh Yassin wants to exacerbate the Iranian - Syrian "organized" campaign of terror, thanks to Damascus's contribution to the process in its involvement and encouragement of Palestinian terror Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 23:48 | Link Ah, Gunnar, first, let me remind you what you wrote when I said: In fact the best way to remove support of terrorism, support of anti-Semitism, etc. from the Palestinian public is, undoubtly, to help them create a viable and democratic state You wrote "Agreed". This is why it would be in Israels interests to help the Palestinians. Because a viable, democratic Palestinian state is the best way to stop terrorism and achieve peace. This is also why it would be the morally right thing to do. There's also another reason it would be in Israels interests. To quote Uri Dromi of the Israeli Democracy Institute: Either we give the Palestinians equal rights, in which case Israel ceases to be Jewish, or we don’t, in which case Israel ceases to be democratic. The only way for Israel to remain both Jewish and democratic is for it to pull out of the territories. As mentioned before, Gunnar, there is a third alternative. And that is ethnic cleansing. Of course, ethnic cleasing isn't particularily democratic either. And I would think that you oppose that alternative. But why do I trust in Israels ability to do it? Well, there are two important reasons: 1. Unlike Palestine, Israel is a democracy. The majority of Israelis, like the majority of Palestinians want peace. Majorities in both countries support a two-state solution [1]. Continued failure to achieve peace has a greater political cost for Israeli leaders than for Palestinian leaders, who often have interests in a continued war. 2. Israel can choose to unilaterally pull out of Gaza and the Western Bank, as Sharon now is suggesting to partly do (congrats to Sharon for that). Opinion polls show that about two thirds of Israelis support a pullout from Gaza. A pullout from most of the Western Bank also has considerable support. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-18 23:56 | Link Where are the Lebanese scarves? Actually, Gunnar, they are the same and look the same as "palestinaskjerf", so they might be a bit difficult to spot. And yes, for once I agree completely with you, there is far too little focus on the role Syria plays in Lebanon. Lebanon has the potential of becoming a fully (not only somewhat) democratic state, the greatest obstacle to that is Syrias influence and presence. Articles in Norwegian press? Well, Lebanon isn't a Holy Land. As Mark Twain once wrote: When I was a boy I somehow got the impression that the river Jordan was four thousand miles long and thirty-five miles wide. It is only ninety Everything happening in Israel just seems so terribly important! But in general, Norwegian media coverage on foreign issues is lousy. Yet another issue we can pick up on this thread! Great, isn't it? By the way; there are some positive developments in Lebanon these days. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-19 00:09 | Link Gunnar: The UN resolution you are looking for is resolution 520, that Syria still violates. The resolution calls for: "the strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence under the sole and exclusive authority of the Lebanese Government through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon" Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-19 00:21 | Link In fact the best way to remove support of terrorism, support of anti-Semitism, etc. from the Palestinian public is, undoubtly, to help them create a viable and democratic state Gotcha. Democracy is the best way to remove "support" for terrorism, not the best way to "fight" terrorism. Just like what the US is doing in Iraq, the elements are: 1) destroy/kill the terrorists Note that #3 doesn't require a separate state. #3 is impossible without 1 & 2. In fact, trying to establish a PA state while it's still infested with rabid seething nazi hate machines is not in Israel's self-interest. Opinion polls show that about two thirds of Israelis support a pullout from Gaza. A pullout from most of the Western Bank also has considerable support. Well, it's their perogative, they can do whatever they want. My point is that they have no moral obligation to give up any territories. I have already stated my advice. Public opinion may change with change in US foreign policy and the removal of the PA and Syria. Sandy P | 2004-11-19 00:56 | Link Oyvind, you have to define "democracy." OT: Keep your eyes on North Korea, folks, things might be getting interesting there. I encourage everyone to visit Rantburg. If you don't have a strong stomach for the commentary, just click on the articles themselves. Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-19 00:59 | Link Well, I look forward to following what's going on in Iraq into the future. Right now it seems like the U.S. is going for pretty much the same method as Israel has tried the last thirty years. It hasn't been working. Seems like the Brits do better down in the south, though. They've got traditions, after all. Øyvind Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-11-19 01:05 | Link Democracy: Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly or indirectly exercised by the people. Good enough? Of course, democracy is not binary. A country can be somewhat democratic, somewhat undemocratic, etc. Øyvind Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-19 01:20 | Link Right now it seems like the U.S. is going for pretty much the same method as Israel has tried the last thirty years. Hardly. Israel has always just taken pot shots back. Their response has been very timid. The American action in Iraq is so much different. It will succeed. Now, go to bed, so I can get some work done. :)
Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-19 01:36 | Link Oyvind, Bergen . . . You asked Gunnar, Maryland: "4. Do you think that the settlement movement in Gaza and on the Western Bank is an obstacle to creating a viable, Palestinian state and to create peace in the Middle East?" I ask you, Oyvind--why is it not OK for Jews to live in "Palestine," most of which is historic Jewish land? Is there something special about Jews that makes it OK to ban them from various countries? Actually, I'm being sarcastic here, as you may have guessed. The issue of Jewish settlements in the territories has been expanded to the ridiculous. Why should Jews support areas that are "Judenrein"? My non-Jewish friends think it's OK to throw Jews out of "Palestinian" areas, but when I tell them that we should throw Hispanics out of Anglo areas, their eyes bulge, they change the subject. Typical of U.S. "liberals"--they're always happy to have an opinion, but don't like to be challenged. I'm including you, Oyvind, under this general term "liberals" because the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" add nothing to the conversation. This isn't about "wings." It's about Jews. Jeff, USA | 2004-11-19 01:39 | Link My non-Jewish friends think it's OK to throw Jews out of "Palestinian" areas, but when I tell them that we should throw Hispanics out of Anglo areas, their eyes bulge, they change the subject. Either multiculturalism is good... or it isn't. :-) Gill Doyle, California | 2004-11-19 02:20 | Link Øyvind writes: "Well, I look forward to following what's going on in Iraq into the future. Right now it seems like the U.S. is going for pretty much the same method as Israel has tried the last thirty years. Øyvind, this comment of yours requires some explanation. America has taken no land from the Iraqis and does not plan to stay. I can't see any similarities AT ALL between what America is doing in Iraq and what Israel has done in Palestine. Øyvind writes: "Seems like the Brits do better down in the south, though. They've got traditions, after all." I wonder if you have been following what is happening now in Iraq. The Brits are stationed in southern Iraq, where the majority of the Shia live. The Shia are, for the most part, satisfied to wait for elections in January. They are certainly glad to be rid of Saddam, and they are not opposed to the idea of a democratic Iraq, because the Shia constitute the majority in Iraq. The Brits have had an easy time of it because the Shia are content to wait and see whether a democratic government can be pushed through. The Brits were assigned to the south exactly because it is a relatively quiet area and easy to manage. The Americans are dealing with the Sunni in the northern and central regions. The Sunni are in rebellion because they are a minority in Iraq and will not control a democratic Iraq. Furthermore, the Sunni are hated by both the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. They are hated because they have for many years lorded it over both Kurds and Shia. They know they are hated and do not relish the idea of being a minority in a democratically governed country. If the Americans succeed in establishing a democratic governmment in Iraq, it will have been done with absolutely no encouragement from people like you. And with absolutely no help from many of the old democracies of Europe. If we succeed, what will you say to the people of Iraq when they ask why Europe did not come to their aid? Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-19 02:33 | Link >> If we succeed, what will you say to the people of Iraq when they ask why Europe did not come to their aid? That's already happened. At one point after the liberation, the french started to drone about some criticism of the US, and the Iraqi guy shut him completely by saying in essense "Hey where were you when we needed you most." Now, we know: On the take. The UN is like the "commission to keep organized crime out of Atlantic City". We only found out later that a mafia guy was on the committee. It's like putting Jamie Gorelick on the 9/11 commission. Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-19 03:03 | Link For those equivocators who are so skilled in the fine art of nuance, that they claimed that it's possible to be a sane person who denies the holocaust, and not be a Nazi: Ernst Zundel is a German-born Nazi, Holocaust denier, and anti-Semite. He makes his living by selling Nazi military paraphernalia. Zundel had become Canada's leading pro-Nazi and Holocaust-denial propagandist. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3528.html Perhaps, they are just afraid to face the possibility that there are more Nazis around than they are willing to admit? Allan, Melbourne | 2004-11-19 03:27 | Link I say: go Øyvind :) Totoro: Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-11-19 03:53 | Link >> But you would not like it if the Canadian government took parts of US and made it Canadian, right? But if the UN gave Ontario to the US, and Canada accepted the will of the UN, but the US attacked Canada anyways, repeatedly, and denied that Canada had a right to exist, and in the war that followed, little Canada overcame the odds to defeat the US, and paid dearly in Canuck lives to retake Ontario, and went on to take New England before Washington pleaded for peace, then Canada gets to keep Ontario and New England. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Two men are bargaining for a piece of property. The potential buyer doesn't like the terms, so he kills the man, takes the deed and moves into the house. The police then prosecute the man, he loses and he goes to jail for the rest of his life. Then, the victims family files a wrongful death suit, and so, the aggressors loses everything he had. You are proposing that the aggressor should be allowed to go back to the original bargain that the seller/victim proposed, and that the aggressor should get his property back as well. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Sensi, paris | 2004-11-19 05:06 | Link @ Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-18 15:02 Well, i have not really the time to answer your "whole owned brain"'s sentences... «Since you have taken to readily condemning the US along the no war for oil lines, and defending France as champions of social justice» Where have you read that? Nowhere. «and the French goal was to lift the sanctions and leave Saddam at large.» Lol, you can say whatever you want if it is your wish. Can you remember that we make Gulf war 1? «For example, the surreally generous contracts that were made between Saddams regime and French companies like TotalFinaElf, where the margins were by far, the largest in the history of foreign develoment of oil fields» False Republicans rumors. lol you are so fun, any proof of what you are vomiting? «France became Iraqs largest "trading partner" under the sanctions regime.» Once again lol, maybe can you show us where you read such crap. «I can understand how the French like to deal with despots. After all... its so much easier to make back room deals rather than that whole "competitive bidding" process... whcih seems so crassly American. Its quite (SNIFF!)... "messy" you know.» Well, USA prefer to put despots in place (as Saddam).... «Oh theres more, so much more. French trade in so called "dual use" products that were strictly forbidden under thew sanctions regime.» Once again false accusations by crappy anti-french journalist (Bill Gertz), never proven always denied... «our ever so self decared "objective" media remains uninterested in relaying the facts of French troops actions in Ivory Coast... nor their behavior therein (which is pretty shocking).» Lol, we have a full reports of all facts, thus how can you say such lies? Once again you are owned by your news as below: look at these sort of articles: different dates, same picture, two legends: full disinformation, reporting Ivory Coast officers as facts is somewhat ridiculous when you know that this government is a fascist and xenophobic one. You know nothing, yep that a fact. Just check at the UN website to fill up your ignorance with some facts. @ Sandy P | 2004-11-18 17:42 «Sensi, no blood for cocoa.» Lol, we have 3 or 4 billions of invest in Ivory Coast, not really Cocoa but more in communication services, that is so ridiculous that it make your crappy argument more fallacious than ever (btw i like chocolate). Best regards, Totoro, U.S. | 2004-11-19 05:16 | Link Oyvind, Bergen . . . You said: "But if I can have something better, like an America that appreciated the virtues of a welfare state and had the guts to elect a black man (and preferably "a regular Joe", not some third generation rich guy or a ketchup queens king), well, then I'd love to see it. And if America needs to be defeated for that to happen; yeah, sure, I'd love to see America defeated." You are a utopian fool. Your views will never make sense because you will always be able to find fault. Sensi, paris | 2004-11-19 06:16 | Link @ Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-11-18 14:28 Oops, sorry don't see your post. «How many frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows |
