IN OTHER WORDS, NEVER OFFER AN EXCUSE FOR THEM.
Norway, for those of you who have read these pages for awhile, is a state run by radical extremist Leftists, which is greatly reflected and magnified in their policies vis-a-vis the world’s only Jewish state. They simply can’t take any ounce of criticism, which also speaks much of their narcissism as well. The state of Norway, which views itself as a “promoter of good”, is very narcissistic about its virtue, and when their flaws are pointed out, it’s the person doing the finger pointing that’s to blame, not the radical extreme Left that manages the Norwegian state.
Barry Rubin responds to the Norwegian media who cried foul over an earlier piece by Rubin, and it warrants reading, he hits home on a theme not presented elsewhere, and he’s spot on. KGS
UPDATE: Barry Rubin’s article now in Norwegian after the English.
Norway and terror: Repressing discussion doesn’t help
By BARRY RUBIN
08/06/2011 22:50
“I do not understand Norway’s position, and I say that as a friend of Norway. If they shoot, if they fire rockets, why doesn’t Norway believe that they are terrorists? What else do they need to do? Let us not forget that Norway and the other Scandinavian countries called in Yasser Arafat and said: ‘If you want a deal, you must first renounce terrorism. You must recognize the State of Israel, and you must commit yourself to peace.’ Why is all this forgotten? What is the difference between the PLO at that time and Hamas today?” – President Shimon Peres, May 2011
“We want Palestine in its entirety – so there will not be any misunderstandings. If our generation is unable to achieve this, the next one will, and we are raising our children on this. Palestine means Palestine in its entirety, and Israel cannot exist in our midst… We liberated Gaza through resistance. We want to conduct resistance in the West Bank as well.” – Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, July 2011, a few days before members of Norway’s ruling party expressed enthusiastic support for helping Hamas.
Ironically, the reaction to my article “The Oslo Syndrome,” published in The Jerusalem Post last Monday, proved its thesis, the same point that Peres made. If terrorism is empowered, terrorism is more likely to occur. That uncontroversial point has been blown up into something controversial by deceit.
Essentially, the position of Norway’s media and government is this: Hamas isn’t terrorist, but I’m pro-terrorist.
The Norwegian government and media establishment is not ready to have an honest discussion of these issues. Instead, my article was misrepresented in order to stir up a frenzy that closed ears and shut eyes to what I was saying. Indeed, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet falsely claimed that I had endorsed the terrorist attack there. Not a single Norwegian reporter or editor made any attempt to contact me since the beginning of this issue to hear my side or to ask my views.
How’s that for constructive dialogue and healing? The blog Israel Matzav sums up my position very well: “Rubin said that this terror attack, committed by a ‘normal Norwegian boy’ [not my words] ought to make Norwegians do some introspection about their government’s support for terror organizations like Hamas. Is Norway giving its youth the wrong message through its support for Hamas? Why is Norway not even willing to ask itself that question?” And the Norwegian reaction is to reiterate – as its ambassador to Israel portrayed his country’s view – that there is a rational reason to murder Israeli children (“occupation,” despite the fact that Israel has withdrawn from all of the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank, and indicated its readiness to accept a Palestinian state 11 years ago), but not to murder Norwegian children. In other words, one can only discuss the evil Norwegian terrorist in the parameters laid down by the Norwegian Left. One can talk endlessly about how his specific ideology – right-wing, allegedly Christian, and Islamophobic – but not the way he fits into a much wider pattern of rising terrorism in general.
I didn’t write about the content of his ideology but about his choice of strategy on the basis of my three decades’ of scholarly study about terrorism. Why did the Norwegian terrorist think that killing people would help – not hurt – his cause? Because like terrorists around the world, he sees other groups that use terrorism succeed politically, build a mass base of support, and gain sympathy for their cause despite their methods.
Second, nobody ever apologizes for criticizing Israel in the harshest terms after terrorist attacks, something I did not do to Norway. No newspaper in the world to my knowledge apologized for the terrible things written on its pages about the United States after September 11.
The deputy foreign minister and foreign minister of Norway, who both attacked me, have never criticized Hamas or Hezbollah by name.
Last May, Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre explained, “We condemn organizations that are involved in terrorism, but Norway has considered the situation as such that having lists where we put an organization and call it a terrorist organization will not serve our purposes.”
Obviously, if Hamas was named as a terrorist group, then cabinet ministers couldn’t have its leaders to tea. But by not naming it, they are saying: You can commit hundreds of acts of terror and it will cost you nothing politically. But if Israel responds, for example, by counterattacking into the Gaza Strip, we will condemn Israel.
Yes, this is a policy that encourages terrorism and makes it look successful: It wins sympathy for the cause and antagonism toward the victims.
But while Norway won’t criticize terrorist groups by name, its officials and media are unrestrained in attacking Israel.
Alan Dershowitz has written from personal observation that in Norway, “Anti-Semitism doesn’t even mask itself as anti-Zionism.” And this behavior is carried on by public institutions and media.
Former prime minister Kare Willoch criticized US President Barack Obama for appointing Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff because he was “Jewish,” with no apology. The author Jostein Gaarder wrote an op-ed in Aftenposten titled, “God’s Chosen People” at a time when three Israeli soldiers had been kidnapped by Hezbollah and a war was on, describing Judaism as “an archaic national and warlike religion.”
Apology? In 2008, a Norwegian comedian said on national television, “I would like to wish all Norwegian Jews a Merry Christmas – no, what am I saying! You don’t celebrate Christmas, do you!? It was you who crucified Jesus.” Apology? Last year, the minister of finance spoke at a largely Islamist-organized anti-Israel rally. Apology? A person who has served as a Foreign Ministry official remarked in 2008 that she occasionally wished the UN would send “precisionguided missiles against selected Israeli targets.”
Apology? But I never said and I’m not saying now that a terrorist attack took place in Norway because of its anti-Israel policies or atmosphere. Nor am I saying that Norway “supports” terrorism itself, that it applauds the murder of civilians elsewhere. What I’m saying – as nobody has publicly acknowledged in Norway – is that to show terrorists they will get more sympathy than Israel, to reward a group such as Hamas, to say that terrorism can be ignored if directed against the “proper” people is to increase the overall level of terrorism against Israel and in the world, including in Norway itself.
You’ve never heard of Samira Munir and Norway’s establishment has swept her story away.
She was a Norwegian politician of Pakistani origin who fought for women’s rights and against Shari’a law. She was found dead in November 2004, supposedly a suicide but seeming far more likely to have been a terrorist murder. She had received daily death threats by phone and while walking down the street.
Might this act, whose perpetrators were never punished, indicate that some people think they can commit terrorism, get away with it, and suffer no political damage? If others who have extremist views and/or mental disorders see every day that terrorism produces political advantage and sympathy for those who commit it, they are more likely to commit terrorism. If groups see their terrorism is no barrier to being invited to Norway and to having lunch with cabinet ministers while their enemies’ self-defense countermeasures are condemned and vilified, they are more likely to adopt terrorism as a strategy.
The underlying concept of the Norwegian response is that Norway is a country that isn’t supposed to have terrorism committed against it. But Israel is a country that deserves to have terrorism committed against it. My point is that neither country “deserves” to have this happen. That doesn’t mean Norway is guilty or should be punished or that an evil terrorist attack is justified. No, it means that Norway should be more consistently and universally against giving terrorists victories – even though it does so by ignoring their terrorism.
We are now approaching the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States. There were those then, including in Norway, who said the United States had it coming and the attack was due to its policies.
There are always those – including in Norway – who say that Israel has it coming and the attack is due to its policies.
My view is the precise opposite. I’m saying about Norway precisely the same thing I said about the United States after September 11: The attack proves the need to take a tougher stance against terrorism and against all terrorist groups. If the world thought al-Qaida won and its attack brought political gains, then there would be more terrorism. As it happened, there was tough action against al-Qaida itself, but other terrorist groups concluded that terrorism worked, increased their operations, and did reap political rewards.
The world that the Norwegian government and left-wing media want is one that accepts there are two groups in the world: those immune not only from criticism but from serious discussion of their actions, and those who can be lied about with impunity, have hatred incited against them, and then must apologize for not staying in their place as second-class people with second-class rights to express their views.
What I wrote in “The Oslo Syndrome” is that people who accept rationales for terrorism and reward those movements politically increase terrorism. Equally, those who accept double standards, slanderous lies (without apology) about themselves in the media of other countries, and the consorting of those countries with groups that want to exterminate them only increase that behavior, too.
The writer is director of global research in the International Affairs (GLORIA) Center. He is a featured columnist at PJM and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.
NOW IN NORWEGIAN:
Norge og terror: Det hjelper ikke å skyve debatten under teppet
Av Barry Rubin
Kommentar: Folk som aksepterer begrunnelse for terrorisme og belønner slike bevegelser politisk, øker terrorisme.
“Jeg forstår ikke Norges posisjon, og jeg sier dette som en venn av Norge. Hvis de skyter, hvis de skyter raketter, hvorfor tror ikke Norge at de er terrorister? Hva mer er det de må gjøre? La oss ikke glemme at Norge og de andre skandinaviske landene kalte inn Yasser Arafat og sa: “Hvis du vil ha en deal må du først forkaste terrorisme. Du må anerkjenne staten Israel og du må være fast bestemt på fred. ” Hvorfor er alt dette glemt? Hva er forskjellen mellom PLO på den tiden og Hamas i dag?” President Shimon Peres, Mai 2011 “Vi vil ha hele Palestina – så det ikke blir noen misforståelser.
Hvis vår generasjon ikke greier å få til dette, vil den neste få det til, og vi oppdrar barna våre til det. Palestina betyr hele Palestina, og Israel kan ikke eksistere iblant oss… Vi frigjorde Gaza gjennom motstand. Vi kommer til å gjøre motstand på Vestbredden også.” Hamas-leder Mahmoud Zahar, Juli 2011, noen dager før medlemmer av Norges ledende parti uttrykte entusiastisk støtte for å hjelpe Hamas.
Ironisk nok beviste reaksjonene på min artikkel “Oslo-syndromet” som ble trykket i The Jerusalem Post forrige mandag, den tesen som ble fremsatt der, og det samme argumentet som Peres brukte. Hvis terrorisme blir anerkjent, er det større sannsynlighet for at terrorisme vil forekomme. Dette ukontroversielle poenget har blitt blåst opp til et kontroversielt poeng, gjennom bedrag.
Kort uttrykt er norske media og myndigheters posisjon denne: Hamas er ikke terroristisk, mens jeg er tilhenger av terrorisme.
Norske myndigheter og media-etablissementet er ikke klare til å ta en ærlig diskusjon om disse temaene. Min artikkel har i stedet blitt misrepresentert for å skape så mye bråk at folks øyne og ører har blitt lukket i forhold til det jeg sa. Ja, den norske avisen Dagbladet har endog med urette påstått at jeg støttet terroristangrepet der i landet. Ikke en eneste norsk journalist eller redaktør har gjort noe forsøk på å kontakte meg siden dette fant sted, for å få mitt syn på saken.
Hvordan kan dette være konstruktiv dialog og leging av sår? Bloggeren Israel Matzav beskriver min standpunkt i et nøtteskall: “Rubin sa at dette terrorangrepet, begått av en “vanlig norsk gutt” (ikke mine ord) burde få nordmennene til å foreta litt selvgransking når det gjelder sine myndigheters støtte av terrororganisasjoner som Hamas. Sender Norge ut feil signaler til sine unge gjennom sin støtte av Hamas? Hvorfor er ikke Norge engang villig til å stille seg dette spørsmålet? “
Og den norske reaksjonen er å svare – som landets ambassadør til Israel beskrev sitt lands syn på saken – at det er en rasjonell grunn til å myrde israelske barn (“okkupasjon”, til tross for at Israel har trukket seg tilbake fra hele Gaza-stripen og store deler av Vestbredden, og sa seg villig til å godta en palestinsk stat for 11 år siden), men ikke til å myrde norske barn. Med andre ord kan man bare diskutere den onde norske terroristen innenfor en ramme fastlagt av den norske venstresiden. Man kan snakke i det uendelige om hans ideologi – høyrevridd, antatt kristen, og islamofobisk – men ikke om hvordan han passer inn i det mye bredere mønsteret av økende terrorisme generelt.
Jeg skrev ikke om innholdet i hans ideologi men om hans valg av strategi basert på mine akademiske studier av terrorisme gjennom tredve år. Hvorfor trodde den norske terroristen at det å drepe mennesker ville hjelpe – ikke skade – hans sak? Fordi han, som terrorister verden rundt , ser andre grupper som anvender terrorisme lykkes politisk, bygge en støttebase og vinne sympati for sin sak til tross for de metodene de bruker.
I tillegg ber ingen om unnskyldning for å kritisere Israel i de hardeste ordelag etter terroristangrep, noe jeg ikke gjorde overfor Norge. Så vidt jeg vet har ikke noen avis i verden bedt om unnskyldning for de forferdelige tingene som ble skrevet om de Forente Stater etter 11. september.
Norges viseutenriksminister og utenriksminister, som begge har gått til angrep på meg, har aldri kritisert Hamas eller Hezbollah ved navn. I mai i fjor forklarte utenriksminister Jonas Gahr Støre, “Vi fordømmer organisasjoner som er innblandet i
terrorisme, men Norge ser situasjonen slik at det å ha en liste hvor vi setter opp en organisasjon og kaller den en terrororganisasjon, ikke har noe for seg.”
Det er klart at hvis Hamas ble navngitt som en terrororganisasjon ville ikke stortingsrepresentanter kunne be dens ledere på te. Men ved ikke å navngi den, sier de: Du kan begå hundrevis av terrorhandlinger og det vil ikke koste deg noe politisk sett. Men hvis Israel går til motangrep for eksempel i Gaza-stripen, vil vi fordømme Israel.
Ja, dette er en politikk som oppfordrer til terrorisme og får den til å se vellykket ut: Den vinner sympati for saken og hat mot ofrene. Men selv om Norge ikke er villig til å kritisere terroristgrupper ved navn, har norske myndigheter og media ingen hemninger når det gjelder å angripe Israel. Alan Dershowitz skriver, basert på personlige observasjoner, at i Norge “prøver ikke engang antisemitismen å maskere seg som anti-zionisme.” Og denne oppførselen pågår i offentlige institusjoner og i media.
Tidligere statsminister Kåre Willoch kritiserte USAs president Barack Obama for å ha valgt Rahm Emanuel til Chief of Staff fordi han var “jødisk” – uten å beklage det. Forfatteren Jostein Gaarder skrev en kronikk i Aftenposten med tittelen “Guds Utvalgte Folk” akkurat da tre israelske soldater hadde blitt kidnappet av hezbolla og krig pågikk, hvor han beskrev jødedommen som “en arkaisk nasjonal og krigersk religion.”
Beklage det?
I 2008 sa en norsk komiker på fjernsyn: “Jeg vil gjerne ønske alle norske jøder en god jul – nei, hva er det jeg sier! Dere feirer jo ikke jul. Det var dere som korsfestet Jesus.” Beklage det? I fjor talte finansministeren foran et anti-Israelsk torgmøte som stort sett var organisert av islamister. Beklage det? En person som har vært ansatt i Utenriksdepartementet bemerket i 2008 at hun noen ganger skulle ønske at FN ville sende “presisjonsstyrte raketter mot utvalgte israelske mål.”
Beklage det?
Men jeg har aldri sagt og jeg sier ikke nå at et terroristangrep fant sted i Norge på grunn av landets antiisraelske politikk og atmosfære. Jeg sier heller ikke at Norge “støtter” terrorisme i seg selv eller at det jubler over mord på sivilister andre steder. Det jeg sier – noe ingen i Norge har akseptert offentlig – er at det å vise terrorister at de vil få mer sympati enn Israel, å belønne en gruppe som Hamas, å si at terrorisme kan bli sett gjennom fingrene med dersom den blir rettet mot de “riktige” menneskene, det er å øke det generelle nivå av terrorisme mot Israel og i verden, inkludert i Norge selv.
Du har aldri hørt om Samira Munir, og det norske etablissementet har dyttet historien hennes under teppet. Hun var en norsk politiker av pakistansk opprinnelse som kjempet for kvinners rettigheter og mot sharialov. Hun ble funnet død i november 2004, angivelig på grunn av selvmord men mye mer sannsynlig offer for terroristmord. Hun hadde daglig mottat drapstrusler både på telefon og mens hun gikk ute.
Er det mulig at denne handlingen, som ingen har blitt straffet for, viser at enkelte tror de kan begå terroristhandlinger ustraffet og ikke lide noen politisk skade? Hvis andre som har ekstremistiske synspunkter og/eller mentale forstyrrelser hver dag ser at terroristhandlinger skaper politiske fordeler og sympati for dem som begår dem er det mer sannsynlig at de begår terroristhandlinger. Hvis grupper ser at det at de er terrorister ikke er noe hinder for å bli invitert til Norge og spise lunsj sammen med stortingsrepresentanter mens deres fienders selvforsvars-mottrekk blir fordømt og behånet, er det mye mer sannsynlig at de vil benytte terrorisme som strategi.
Den underliggende ideen ved den norske reaksjonen er at Norge er et land som liksom ikke “skal” ha terrorisme begått mot seg, mens Israel er et land som fortjener å ha terrorisme begått mot seg. Mitt poeng er at ingen av disse landene “fortjener” at noe sånt skal skje. Det betyr ikke at Norge er skyldig og burde bli straffet eller at et ondsinnet terrorangrep skal rettferdiggjøres. Nei, det betyr at Norge burde være mere konsekvent og totalt imot det å gi terrorister aksept – selv om aksepten består i å å se gjennom fingrene med terrorhandlinger.
Vi nærmer oss nå tiårsjubileet for 11 september-angrepene på USA. Den gangen var det folk som sa at USA hadde fortjent det og at angrepene kom som resultat av landets politikk. På samme måte finnes det alltid de – også i Norge – som sier at Israel har fortjent å bli angrepet og at det er et resultat av landets politikk. Mitt synspunkt er det eksakt motsatte. Jeg sier om Norge akkurat det jeg sa om USA etter 11 september:
Angrepet beviser at det er nødvendig å innta en hardere holdning overfor terrorisme og mot alle terroristgrupper. Hvis verden trodde at al-Qaida hadde vunnet og at deres terrorangrep hadde ført til politiske fordeler, ville resultatet ha blitt mer terrorisme. Det som skjedde var at det ble tatt harde midler i bruk mot selve al-Qaida, mens andre terroristgrupper kom til den konklusjonen at terrorisme virker. De trappet opp sine operasjoner og høstet politiske belønninger.
Den verden som norske myndigheter og det venstrevridde media vil ha, er en som aksepterer at det finnes to typer mennesker: De som er immune ikke bare mot kritikk men mot seriøs debatt rundt sine handlinger, og de som ustraffet kan bli løyet til, få hat pisket opp mot seg og etterpå må be om unnskyldning for ikke å holde seg på sin plass som annenrangs innbyggere med annenrangs rettigheter til å uttrykke sine synspunkter.
Det jeg skrev i “Oslo-syndromet” er at folk som aksepterer begrunnelse for terrorisme og belønner slike bevegelser politisk, er med på å øke terrorisme. På samme måte er de som aksepterer doble verdier, personforfølgende løgner om seg selv i andre lands media, og slike lands glorifisering av grupper som vil utrydde dem, også med på å øke den slags oppførsel.
Forfatteren er director for global forsaking i International Affairs (GLORIA) Center. Han er saltiest i Pajamas Media og redactor av The Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.
I’ve lost a lot of sympathy for Norway, land of Jew hating Jackals. Let Islam be their reward.
Barry mein lieber
There’s a world of difference between what happened in Norway and ‘terrorism’ in the West Bank and Gaza. Norway as far as I’m aware is not occupying anyone else’s territory. Israel is and has done for 63 years with all the oppression and deprivation of human rights this entails. Moreover it shows absolutely no intention of vacating all those territories as required by international law – which incidentally allows Palestinians the right to resist occupation.
Israel through the good offices of the Oslo Process abused the Palestinians’ abjuration of violence to increase its settler population by more than 50%. That is why attempts by Israel to brand resistance as terrorism ring hollow, especially as Israel uses overwhelming force to maintain its occupation.
You quote the Hamas Foreign Secretary Mahmoud Zahar as the authentic voice of Hamas rejectionism. But what about his Israeli counterpart Avigdor Lieberman who has called for the forcible transfer of Israel’s Arab population?
It’s just plain wrong to say Israel has withdrawn from … much of the West Bank. It controls ie occupies more than 60% of it.
Your recourse to anti Semitism (a la Dershowitz) to label any challenge to the Zionists’ view of their intrinsic right to the Holy Land is… very Dershowitzian. After all it was Dershowitze who disgracefully marshalled a pusillanimous US academia to block Norman Finkelstein’s tenure at De Paul University. His crime? Exposing Dershowitz’s sloppy endorsement of fraudulent scholarship in a book that purported to show that Palestine was effectively uninhabited before the Israelis settled it, neatly dovetailing with the myth of a land without a people, a people without a land.
As to the appointment of Rahm Emmanuel because he was ‘Jewish’. If people of Jewish extraction were to be removed from any recent US administration, they would cease to function. More important than Emmanuel’s Jewishness is the fact he believes Israel has the right to hold on to settlements. With a father who fought in the Irgun – his speciality was blowing up buses – this might be understandable. However it does not equate with international law.
Your meretricious and crassly hypocritical use of the case of Samira Munir to impugn Norwegian justice overlooks the way Israeli courts systematically condone one set of laws for ‘settlers’ and another for those whose lands they occupy. ‘Might this act’ (the alleged murder of Munir), whose perpetrators were never punished, indicate that some people think they can commit terrorism, [and] get away with it?’ Yes, indeed. It happens regularly in the Occupied Territories or if prosecuted results in derisory sentences.
The real issue is Israel has never accepted Palestinian sovereignty over the lands it conquered in 1967 even though this is the clear consensus interpretation of Resolution 242. When is it going to?
Terrorism is terrorism no matter who is intentionally targeting innocent civilians, with the expressed intention to spread fear within the populace with violkence for political intentions. Also, occupying territory is in itself not an illegal act, hence UNSC 242 being a chapter 6 type resolution as opposed to a chapter 7 that demanded Hussein’s full removal from Kuwait. Israel’s presense within the disputed territories and eventual withdrawal is through negotiations only, and in the case of Gaza, a unilateral decision of its choosing.
Also, Israel has shown it’s willingness to vacate territory won through war by negotiations as in the Siniai peninsula as well as from the just mentioned, Gaza Strip. Be reminded again, the UNSC resolution call for a negotiated settlement by the parties in question, you however conveniently just mention ISrael, as if their os only one party to the conflict. International law allows for self defensive measures but not for terrorism. You’re badly mistaken. Show me exactly where IL states that an entitey can target indiscriminantly civilians with murder and mayhem, especially when there is no clear military value at the target?
During the height of the Oslo process, at a time when more land was being handed over to the Arabs for self rule, the level of terrorism was at its heighest as well. Regardless of how many settlements there are, it doesn’t give anyone the right to brutally butcher children in their beds and cut babies out from the bellies of their mothers. Why is it you types believe that a trailor on a hill in Judea, is a roadblock to peace, while the brutal burders of Jews by Arab terrorists shouldn’t be allowed to stop the peace process? It’s illogical.
Zahar calls for the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel, Leiberman called for the exchange of populations (in areas of the future new border) in a peace deal, there is no comparison, other than Arabs and Jews being mentioned by both. Israel in fact has withdrawn from much of ancient Judea and Samaria, the PA controls politically over 90% of their own land. What defines an area as occupied, is the political element. Again, Israel is legally occupying whatever land its currently on in strict reading of international law. Chapter 6 UNSCR 242 underlines that legality.
Your straw man argument of the anti-Semitism claim, doesn’t hold water as well. Rubin didn’t claim an intrinsic right to all of ancient Israel, just to the parts that they legally agree upon with the Arabs in a negotiated settlement. Stop lying. Norman Finklestein is a disgrace, he’s not a professor and was rightfully denied a seat in a serious learning institution. Your historical revisionism is seriously flawed, any serious scholar will tell you that Finklestein’s ‘sholarship is a trustworthy as Gnome Chumpsky. What a laugh. How can expect to get aweay with that one. seriuously? The region of Palestine was essentially a wasteland due to Ottoman user/ lender policies that habitually depopulated the region. The archives show the Ottomans repeatedly foricbly or through bribery repopulating it with people from all over its empire.
About Israeli law, no other supreme court in history is allowed to be petitioned by civilians, and have their cases heard before it like in Israel, which has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Arabs living in the disputed territories. Also, it’s highly ridiculous of you to even bring it up, especially in the Norwegian context when its own courts entertain sharia law, with more and more of its immigrant muslims living under a different set of laws than ethnic Norwegians. Given the chance, the radical extremist Leftist government of Norway would allow for sharia courts to have offical parity with its own rule of law.
‘Terrorism is terrorism no matter who is intentionally targeting innocent civilians, with the expressed intention to spread fear within the populace with violkence for political intentions.’
This is the argument of the entrenched (colonial) power: the apartheid regime in South Africa, the British n Kenya and Malaya, the Americans in Vietnam and latterly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The local population will want to be rid of the alien force and lacking the conventional means to be rid of them will revert to unconventional ones – as dare one say did the Irgun and Stern Gang under the British Mandate.
Violence is always a failure but meeting an irresistible entrenched force is sometimes the only way to react.
So this holier than thou attitude to violence by the Israelis – a state born out of terror – is a bit rich.
‘Also, occupying territory is in itself not an illegal act, hence UNSC 242 being a chapter 6 type resolution as opposed to a chapter 7 that demanded Hussein’s full removal from Kuwait. Israel’s presense within the disputed territories and eventual withdrawal is through negotiations only, and in the case of Gaza, a unilateral decision of its choosing.’
The World Court has ruled that Israel’s settlement of occupied lands (the issue) is illegal as do scores of UN resolutions. The suggestion that the borders have to be settled through negotiation is self evident; however it does not imply that Israel has rights to any of those territories. It is the Palestinians’ to trade as they see fit. They have sovereignty over them.
The reason why we haven’t had a Chapter 7 resolution is because of the US veto, not because of any inherent legality of the Israeli position.
‘Also, Israel has shown it’s willingness to vacate territory won through war by negotiations as in the Siniai peninsula as well as from the just mentioned, Gaza Strip. Be reminded again, the UNSC resolution call for a negotiated settlement by the parties in question, you however conveniently just mention ISrael, as if their os only one party to the conflict.’
You conveniently forget that the Arab Peace Plan based on Resolution 242 and endorsed by all members of the Arab League and implicitly by Hamas (if an open referendum of Palestinians so decides) has been on the table for nigh on a decade.
Of course Israel sees itself dealing with a phantom because it refuses to acknowledge Palestinian sovereignty over the Occupied Territories believing it has a claim on them. If that be the case then Palestinians have a claim on Israel.
‘During the height of the Oslo process, at a time when more land was being handed over to the Arabs for self rule, the level of terrorism was at its heighest as well. Regardless of how many settlements there are, it doesn’t give anyone the right to brutally butcher children in their beds and cut babies out from the bellies of their mothers. Why is it you types believe that a trailor on a hill in Judea, is a roadblock to peace, while the brutal burders of Jews by Arab terrorists shouldn’t be allowed to stop the peace process?’
That is simply not the case. In November 2004 Clinton challenged Bush to persevere with peace making saying that in ‘seven years of progress toward peace’ [in the Oslo process], ‘there was one whole year when, for the first time in the history of the state of Israel, not one person died of a terrorist attack, when the Palestinians began to believe they could have a shared future.’ Clearly Clinton thought if you gave the Palestinians hope they would respond. Naively the Palestinians thought they were negotiating on Resolution 242; Arafat could not have sold anything less to his constituency. Settlement building on other people’s land IS the problem.
When it comes to butchering women and children one doesn’t have to look much further than Deir Yassin. I’m sure you know the gory details. And far, far more children were butchered in their beds and babes torn from their mothers’ bellies in Deir Yassin than in Israel’s settlements That was real systematised directed terror: aimed to shift the Palestinians from their villages: ethnic cleansing of the worst Bosnian Serb type. It is obscene for Israelis to lecture anyone about the absolute categorical evilness of terror.
‘Zahar calls for the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel, Leiberman called for the exchange of populations (in areas of the future new border) in a peace deal, there is no comparison, other than Arabs and Jews being mentioned by both. Israel in fact has withdrawn from much of ancient Judea and Samaria, the PA controls politically over 90% of their own land. What defines an area as occupied, is the political element. ‘
Ronald Reagan called for the destruction of the Soviet Union. That did not mean he advocated the extermination of Russians just the defeat of the Soviet system and its ideology, That is what Zahar is calling for with the elimination of Zionism. If Reagan could wish it for Communism, why should not Zahar for Zionism? That is not to advocate genocide as Zionists are fond of conflating.
The PA does not fully control nearly 90% of their own land; it’s nearer 40%. What defines an area that is occupied is operational control.
‘Again, Israel is legally occupying whatever land its currently on in strict reading of international law. Chapter 6 UNSCR 242 underlines that legality.’
Oh really? Funny that the World Court ruled unanimously with one abstention (US which would have ruled with it on the question of settlements) against Israel establishing permanent settlements in the occupied territories. No credible international jurist considers that Israel has a case to settle Palestinian land.
‘ Your straw man argument of the anti-Semitism claim, doesn’t hold water as well. Rubin didn’t claim an intrinsic right to all of ancient Israel, just to the parts that they legally agree upon with the Arabs in a negotiated settlement. Stop lying. Norman Finklestein is a disgrace, he’s not a professor and was rightfully denied a seat in a serious learning institution. Your historical revisionism is seriously flawed, any serious scholar will tell you that Finklestein’s ‘sholarship is a trustworthy as Gnome Chumpsky. What a laugh. How can expect to get aweay with that one. seriuously? The region of Palestine was essentially a wasteland due to Ottoman user/ lender policies that habitually depopulated the region. The archives show the Ottomans repeatedly foricbly or through bribery repopulating it with people from all over its empire.’
Rubin may not have claimed an intrinsic right to all of ancient Israel, just the choicest bits that Israel doesn’t currently own. Israel still hasn’t got it that with Resolution 242 the music has stopped. No more territorial expansion. It’s why it has been involved in such a protracted exercise in temporising in order to create ‘facts on the ground’ thereby acquiring the extra territory it feels it is entitled to. And why now with the imminent recognition of a Palestinian state it is terrified that all the territorial concessions ratcheted out of the Palestinians over the years will be lost as the reset button is pushed on the peace process.
You will have to do better than magisterially dismissing Finkelstein so cavalierly. He clearly showed that Dershowitze had plagiarised Joan Peters by repeating her literal mistakes in his book the Case for Zionism. Peters’s book From Time Immemorial has been exposed as a fraud. Populations were much smaller in the 19th century. That does NOT mean that the lands were not owned and cultivated.
‘About Israeli law, no other supreme court in history is allowed to be petitioned by civilians, and have their cases heard before it like in Israel, which has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Arabs living in the disputed territories. Also, it’s highly ridiculous of you to even bring it up, especially in the Norwegian context when its own courts entertain sharia law, with more and more of its immigrant muslims living under a different set of laws than ethnic Norwegians. Given the chance, the radical extremist Leftist government of Norway would allow for sharia courts to have offical parity with its own rule of law.’
What the hell has Sharia Law in Norway to do with the application of racist laws (yes laws and regulations promulgated under British rule – the ones that serve Israel’s colonialist interests – are still on the statute books) in the occupied territories which allow settlers to attack and sometimes kill Palestinians with an over lenient interpretation of self defence while tolerating settler harassment of the indigenous population. The Israeli legal system endorses the forcible eviction of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem (against international law). This does not serve justice; it serves the political agenda of the Israeli government.
Just switch Zionist for Jew as the Arabs do then you get the picture.
Oh come on, that is utterly unacceptable, not least because there are so many Jews who do not accept the injustice being done to Palestinians in Israel’s name.
Just answer my points and refute them if you can without degenerating into ad hominem attscks.
You call your scribbles……. points? I don’t , they’re scribbles without a valid point.
I have already refuted your baseless points, in which you offer yet more baseless points without factually refuting my response. Ad hominem attacks? Get real.
I think we can say you have retired hurt.. at least your intellectual amour propre!
By the way I tihnk you meant to say ‘Just switch Jew for Zionist’ didn’t you?
Nope, just realizing i’m debating a drone, no matter the facts, you’ll just stick your fingers in your ears and say bla bla bla. The readers of this blog will come to the same conclusion as I. You’re a drone, no thinky, just bleaty.
No, you purposely choose to ignore my central point about the nature of terrorism.
Of course terrorism is utterly reprehensible and most times self defeating. But it invariably has causes and it is often reverted to because the perception holds that there is no other way to relieve oppression and achieve justice.
I know we have different ideas about justice. You for instance believe Palestine belongs to the Jews and the modern inhabitants are interlopers to be evicted like squatters or they should at least recognise the superior rights of the Jews. I think 78% of Palestine for Jews is a bloody good deal – as do the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world – even if the deal imposes a terrible injustice on the Palestinians for which we are all collectively responsible. They, the Palestinians, have at least accepted it, something you studiously ignore.
It’s the height of chutzpah for Zionists like yourself to lecture the world about the iniquities of terrorism when the creation of Israel is perhaps the best example of terrorism achieving its political aim: the blowing up of the King David Hotel which tipped the British into scuttling from Palestine and the assassination of Count Bernadotte which persuaded the UN to support a Partition Plan in 1947 fatally more favourable to the Jews than the facts warranted.
But what goes round comes round comes round as they say.
No I did not ‘ignore your point on terrorism’. I answered about terrorism, it’s illegal under international law (something BTW that you frequently point to), you cannot intentionally target a civilian population that has no significant military value, it’s as simple as that. You disagree, fine disagree, but it doesn’t change the facts.
I believe that the state of Israel belongs to the Jews, with the disputed territories to be negotiated in any eventual peace deal, but only after the arabs give up their war. Palestine is a region, like Scandinavia, the Jews have never demanded all of it, which includes Trans-Jordan cum Jordan. Get your facts straight.
The Arabs are responsible for their failures, and refusal to accept a state in return for ending the conflict once and for all. There’s enough blame to go around for all, it’s just that people like yourselves love to cast the Jews as being 100% to blame, while casting the Arabs as 100% victims as if they haven’t done a damn thing to warrant any blame during the entire 60+ years of the conflict. Come off your high horse.
The Irgun’s terrorism has been widely condemned by Jews over the decades, the Arabs name streets and youth camps for them. Also the Irgun notified the Brits of the bombs planted ahead of time, Arabs just waltz in and blow people up…big difference.
No I did not ‘ignore your point on terrorism’. I answered about terrorism, it’s illegal under international law (something BTW that you frequently point to), you cannot intentionally target a civilian population that has no significant military value, it’s as simple as that. You disagree, fine disagree, but it doesn’t change the facts.
I should have been more precise. You did not answer about the causes of terrorism. Terrorism is morally wrong and it is rightly outlawed under international law. I also think that targeting civilians is not only morally execrable, it is invariably self defeating. What sticks in the gullet though is the Israelis having the chutzpah to lecture us about terrorism when as I have said Israel stands out as a state that has gained major political advantage from acts of terror.
‘I believe that the state of Israel belongs to the Jews, with the disputed territories to be negotiated in any eventual peace deal, but only after the arabs give up their war. Palestine is a region, like Scandinavia, the Jews have never demanded all of it, which includes Trans-Jordan cum Jordan. Get your facts straight.
‘The Arabs are responsible for their failures, and refusal to accept a state in return for ending the conflict once and for all.’
It’s axiomatic that the Zionists believe that the state of Israel belongs to the Jews. What you fail to give me and others like me credit for is that by accepting Resolution 242 we recognize Israel – WITHIN ITS JUNE 19676 BORDERS. That includes the whole of the Arab League which has signed up to the Arab Peace Plan which been on the table gathering dust for well nigh a decade. What the hell do you mean therefore by ‘there can only be a peace deal after the Arabs give up their war?’ You have extraordinary amnesia when it comes to Israel’s belligerency given its remorseless settlement building. You really don’t seem to get it The Israelis have no rights to the Occupied Territories at all – which is why there is now a blind panic in Tel Aviv at the prospect of Palestine being declared a state, because then there will be a legal owner with title to all those territories that Israelis have assiduously described as belonging to no one. Israel has of course been battling furiously to stop the Palestinians having a state and being afforded the kind of legitimacy that Israel has enjoyed since 1948 for precisely this reason.
‘There’s enough blame to go around for all, it’s just that people like yourselves love to cast the Jews as being 100% to blame, while casting the Arabs as 100% victims as if they haven’t done a damn thing to warrant any blame during the entire 60+ years of the conflict. Come off your high horse.
‘The Irgun’s terrorism has been widely condemned by Jews over the decades, the Arabs name streets and youth camps for them. Also the Irgun notified the Brits of the bombs planted ahead of time, Arabs just waltz in and blow people up…big difference.’
I couldn’t agree more that there is enough blame to go round. The Arabs have done bad things. But the way the Israeli propaganda machine has it Israel has from the outset been set upon by the Arabs – and that is a wicked over simplification. The ‘new’ historians have chronicled Israel’s war of independence and the idea that the Jews were ‘attacked’ by the combined might of the Arab world ignores the fact that the Jews had already ethnically cleansed large numbers of Palestinians before the Arab armies appeared on the scene (and that in response to the ethnic cleansing). And then there was Suez. No Zionist really likes to talk about Suez. And the ’67 war about which there is a very famous quote from Dayan (always engagingly frank) which I won’t bore you with here that gave chapter and verse as to how the Israelis provoked border incidents with the Syrians in order to get them to react and then seize more land.
I agree there is a tragic dimension to the whole conflict, for if the Jews were to have a state it could not have been created without the shedding of much blood and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. And if they had lost they would indeed in all probability have been thrown out or had to live in an Arab state. I wonder though whether people like yourself truly understand what the Palestinians have been required to give up – perhaps you feel that this has been the lot of Jews over the centuries so why shouldn’t it happen to the Palestinians. The difference is the Palestinians did nothing to the Jews beyond being in the way.
I just don’t think Zionists have done much truth and reconciliation. The Irgun’s terrorism might have been ‘widely condemned by Jews over the decades’ but by Jove did Israel benefit from it. Not only benefited from it but elected two of its erstwhile terrorist leaders to become Prime Minister. There were recently attempts to have the anniversary of the blowing up of the King David Hotel made a public holiday. One man’s terrorist is very much another’s freedom fighter n’est ce-pas? Even today we have Rahm Emmanuel’s father, (whose specialty was blowing up buses) spouting the most disgusting racist guff about Arabs. And Tzipi Livni’s ‘freedom fighter’ father, which might explain (something in the genes) why she has a potential war crimes rap on her and can’t visit the UK after her disgraceful comments (which were worthy of Saif Khedaffi) on the eve of the Gaza invasion which was to kill 0.1% of the population of the Strip, over 300 of them children.
As to the Irgun alerting the British ahead of time. Ah well there are different shades of terrorism now. I think you’re getting into deep water. I simply can’t understand why Zionists think their actions have to be judged and thus excused by a different measure from the rest of mankind.
Keep it short or don’t run you sentences together, it makes it difficult to read.
AM : “You did not answer about the causes of terrorism.”
It matters little what excuses you give, or the mohammedan for that matter, for committing heinous acts of murder. It’s immoral and against the law. Case closed.
AM: “I have said Israel stands out as a state that has gained major political advantage from acts of terror.”
As I stated before, The overwhelming majority of Jews condemned the acts of the Irgun and stern gangs, with Ben Gurion blowing up one of their weapons shipments on the shore of the Mediterranean, when they could have been used to help defend the nascent Jewish state. Arabs on the other hand worship terrorist suicide bombers as stars, martyrs and are celebrated in youth camps and schools etc..
MA: “It’s axiomatic that the Zionists believe that the state of Israel belongs to the Jews. What you fail to give me and others like me credit for is that by accepting Resolution 242 we recognize Israel – WITHIN ITS JUNE 19676 BORDERS. ”
There is no such thing as 67″ borders, but a Green Line, a point where hostilities ended. The actual borders are yet to be defined. You appear ready and willing to settle for 67″ Auschwitz borders, and it isn’t going to happen. So no credit is forthcoming.
MA: “What the hell do you mean therefore by ‘there can only be a peace deal after the Arabs give up their war?’ You have extraordinary amnesia when it comes to Israel’s belligerency given its remorseless settlement building.”
If you equate a Jew building his home in his ancestral region of Judea and Samaria as an act of war, then there is little to talk to you about. You’re off your rocker. Also, you keep insisting that the Palestinians are the legal owners of disputed territories. Really? Tell me the exact name of the “high contracting power” of those territories, with links to factual, credible websites that bear its name. I’ll save you the time, there isn’t anyone other than the Jewish state, hence the chapter 6 designation of UNSCR242.
MA: “The ‘new’ historians have chronicled Israel’s war of independence and the idea that the Jews were ‘attacked’ by the combined might of the Arab world ignores the fact that the Jews had already ethnically cleansed large numbers of Palestinians before the Arab armies appeared on the scene (and that in response to the ethnic cleansing).”
The new historians have been proven to be hacks, pseudo scholars, who have only further muddy the waters and poisoned minds like yourself. Pity, the truth is bare to be seen, Arab leaders demanding, calling, beckoning their own people to leave the areas in order to finish off the Jews once and for all. This is the very last post to this article.