Swedes and Norwegians seething over comparison between 'Palestinian' terrorists and Anders Breivik
The Israeli ambassador to Sweden, Isaac Bachman, managed to touch off a storm by comparing the release of 'Palestinian' terrorists to an imaginary release of Norwegian mass murdererAnders Behring Breivik.
"The horrors that [the Palestinian prisoners] did, to put it in a
Scandinavian understanding, it's like what happened in Norway with
Breivik," he told SR.
"Imagine if Breivik was released as a gesture of some sort," he added,
explaining that Israel was not getting enough credit for agreeing to the
release. "Research has shown that these people will return to crime.
It's not easy to get public support for releasing these people."
"The comparison does not make sense," added Bjørn Ihler, who survived
the massacre by hiding on the southern tip of the island. "Breivik was a
solo terrorist whose actions were based purely on an unreal situation.
The situation in the Middle East is very different. There is a real
fight for Palestinian freedom going on."
Middle East expert Per Jönsson with the Swedish Institute for
International Affairs (Utrikespolitiska institutets - UI) also slammed
Bachman's Breivik comparison.
"The comparison with Brevik is insane in several ways. Breivik is very
special. These people that Israel is now releasing are freedom fighters,
murderers, and in some cases terrorists, but they are nevertheless
rather normal people," he told the Aftonbladet newspaper.
Rather normal? Really? Let's go back to the description of how Ronen Karamani and Lior Tubul HY"D (May God Avenge their blood) were found on that August night in 1990:
They were later found bound and murdered outside of Ramot in the northern end of the city.
The two youths, Ronen Karamani, 18, and Lior Tubul, 17, were last
seen Saturday night at the close of the Jewish holy day when friends
dropped them off on a main road leading north from Jerusalem.
They
had said they intended to hitchhike to the home of Tubul's girlfriend,
who lives in the northern suburb of Givat Zeev and was about to leave on
vacation in Eilat.
When the two youths did not arrive, police
were notified, and search parties were organized. Helicopters, trained
dogs and professional trackers took part in the search.
About 1:30
p.m. Monday, searchers found the bodies about 20 yards apart in a
ravine off the road. One bore about 50 stab wounds, witnesses said, and
the other's skull had been bludgeoned.
"The way they were tied
down, the way they were stabbed points definitely to a political
murder," Turner was quoted as saying. "There was no reason to think that
these two normal, good teen-agers were murdered for any criminal
reason."
Late Monday, police began a massive search for the
killers, believed to be Arabs who picked the boys up on the road. Nearby
villages were placed under curfew.
And recall this story from the Munich Olympic Massacre, funded by none other than Abu Mazen.
In
1996, I, along with other Munich orphans and three of the widows, were
invited for the first time to the Olympic Games in Atlanta. Before the
Opening Ceremony, we met with Alex Gilady. Gilady has been a member of
the IOC's Radio and Television Commission since 1984 and has been the
senior vice president of NBC Sports since 1996.
I have known Mr.
Gilady since I was a kid; in fact, I grew up with his daughter. He had
been supportive in the past regarding our plea for a moment of silence
during the Opening Ceremonies, so we arrived with high hopes. Gilady
informed us that a moment of silence was not possible because if the IOC
had a moment of silence for the Israeli athletes, they would also have
to do the same for the Palestinians who died at the Olympics in 1972.
My mother said, "But no Palestinian athletes died."
Gilady responded, "Well, there were Palestinians who died at the 1972 Olympics."
I heard one of the widows say to Gilady, "Are you equating the murder of my husband to the terrorists that killed him?"
Silence.
Then
Ilana Romano burst out with a cry that has haunted me to this day. She
screamed at Gilady, "How DARE you! You KNOW what they did to my husband!
They let him lay there for hours, dying slowly, and then finished him
off by castrating him and shoving it in his mouth, ALEX!"
Alex Gilady, as you might recall,
is an Israeli who led the Israeli media delegation at the 1972
Olympics. Avery Brundage, who was the IOC President who infamously said
in 1972 'let the games go on,' was a Nazi.
This is what Swedes and Norwegians consider 'normal'? You bet, as long as it is only happening to Jews. Then again, they don't appear to place too much value on their own lives either.
Breivik is currently serving a minimum 21-year prison sentence for
killing 77 people and wounding 242 others in a gun and bomb massacre in
Norway in July 2011.
21 years for murdering 77 people? That's incredible.
Flock Builder on how to conduct a National Referendum and simulation of the peace talks
Flock Builder explains how to conduct the National Referendum on
Israel's future and computer expert Geek Bizarre presents a computerized
simulation of the anticipated rounds of peace talks. Yes, it's the weekly LATMA update.
Son of Israeli living in Norway branded by anti-Semitic classmate
We all knew that the Norwegians are anti-Semites. They just proved it again. A Norwegian high school student whose father is an Israeli was branded by an anti-Semitic classmate at a year-end barbecue on Monday. And no one in Norway is likely to do a darned thing about it.
MIFF has gained access to a private cell phone image showing the result of the attack which took place at a school barbecue for the senior class, this Monday (June 11, 2012). The 16-year-old boy was enjoying his grilled chicken when a red-hot coin was placed on his neck by a fellow student, an ethnic Norwegian. The coin made a very visible burns on the boys neck.
- It was one of the regular anti-Semites [in the son's class] who heated the coin on the grill and pressed it onto the neck of my son. The red hot coin burned through to the flesh, the mother told miff.no on Monday night. On Tuesday afternoon she explains that a teacher observed the incident and told the culprit “you’re mad.” Yet no representative from the school made contact with the mother afterwards.
...
This fits into a pattern from the school, the mother said. Already in March 2010 she told NRK how school staff failed to intervene, but applied a policy of avoidance.
- I see this avoidance as a dangerous development among both ethnic Norwegian and immigrant groups. And that nobody, neither teachers or principals, intervene in this matter. There is a refusal to address these issues, it is too sensitive, she told the NRK at the time.
The interview from 2010, on Norwegian national news where the mothers identity was kept anonymous, is still available at nrk.no.
His mother told about “clear anti-Semitic harassment, expressed verbally and physically.”
- They say they are going to kill all the Jews, and use offensive language such as “Jewish pigs” and “Jewish satan” she added.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Wednesday, May 2.
1) Terror's enablers
After Anders Behring Breivik carried out his terrible massacre last year, columnist Roger Cohen knew who was at fault. In a column, Breivik and his enablers he wrote:
Breivik has many ideological fellow travelers on both sides of the Atlantic. Theirs is the poison in which he refined his murderous resentment. The enablers include Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, who compared the Koran to “Mein Kampf” on his way to 15.5 percent of the vote in the 2010 election; the surging Marine Le Pen in France, who uses Nazi analogies as she pours scorn on devout Muslims; far-rightist parties in Sweden and Denmark and Britain equating every problem with Muslim immigration; Republicans like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Representative Peter King, who have found it politically opportune to target “creeping Shariah in the United States” at a time when the middle name of the president is Hussein; U.S. church pastors using their bully pulpits week after week to say America is a Christian nation under imminent threat from Islam.
Everyone who was critical or cautionary about the rise of political Islam was an enabler. There was no subtlety in Cohen's blanket indictment. Peter King was as guilty as Marine Le Pen. But consider the following he wrote in a column he wrote two years ago, Hard Mideast Truths:
This, too, I believe: Through violence, anti-Semitic incitation, and annihilationist threats, Palestinian factions have contributed mightily to the absence of peace and made it harder for America to adopt the balance required. But the impressive recent work of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the West Bank shows that Palestinian responsibility is no oxymoron and demands of Israel a response less abject than creeping annexation.
The extremism that is regularly broadcast over the official Palestinian media is attributed to Palestinian "factions,' not to its government. Those who turn a blind eye to the incitement (what in the world is "incitation?") deserve a lot more blame for the lack of peace in the Middle East. Cohen, though, is content to blame "creeping annexation."
Now comes word from Norway that the creator of "peace studies," is a raving antisemitic lunatic. No major American newspaper has seen fit to report on Johann Galtung's pronouncements. Fortunately, as Ynet reports, at least publications in Norway have noticed:
Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet published in October an article by journalist John Faerseth, who attended one of Galtung's lectures at the University of Oslo, where he outlined his doctrine in front of a cheering crowd. Throughout the article, Fearseth slams Galtung, who is dubbed "the father of peace studies", saying the "findings" on which he bases his theories against Jews are "dubious" at best. Norwegian magazine Humanist published a correspondence between Galtung and Fearseth, in which Galtung claimed, as he did several times in the past, that the Jews control world media.
He hinted at links between Anders Behring Breivik’s attack on civilians in Norway and Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency. He suggested there was some truth behind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He said that Jews share some of the blame for what happened at Auschwitz — they had provoked the poor Germans under the Weimar Republic. He suggested that Jews control the American media and academic establishments. The list goes on and on — the kind of remarks that haters call “common sense” and “daring to tell the truth” but that sane people see as hatred, error and bile. Professor Galtung is 82 and perhaps these days like his soul mate Helen Thomas he expresses himself with more freedom and less restraint than in former times. And perhaps the mind is not everything that it once was. But his example demonstrates that the bacillus of Jew-hatred, responsible for centuries of folly and murder before climaxing in the Holocaust and the destruction of half Europe, has not been extirpated. Even among liberal academics who specialize in the study of peace, the flame of hate sometimes burns. There may be some who say that the Professor is not an anti-Semite; he is merely an anti-Zionist whose righteous passion against the sins of Israel drove him momentarily into some incautious language. And they will argue that such a peace oriented fellow could only have been stimulated to such passions by truly unconscionable activities on the part of “the Jews.” That is how such people often talk, and it is always contemptible, always dishonest, always a manifestation of a failure of either character or intellect.
Criticism of Israel these days is so uninformed and vicious (not to mention counterproductive) it's impossible not to ask if there's another motive behind it.
2) I'll take Israeli leaders for $200, Alex
Recently Tzippi Livni, the former head of Israel's Kadima party retired from Knesset. If you had been paying attention to the American media, though, you could be forgiven for being surprised.
Earlier this week, the New York Times reported, Former Israeli Premier Assails Netanyahu on Iran, about a speech disgraced former Prime Minister Olmert gave. A few months earlier, the Times also allowed Olmert to write Peace Now or Never to castigate Netanyahu for his handling of the peace process. With the attention given to these two ex-leaders of Kadima, you might not realize that Prime Minister Netanyahu is in a very strong position to be re-elected, possibly this fall. Barry Rubin writes:
Israel is apparently going to have elections this autumn and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will almost certainly win by a big margin. Understanding why explains a lot about the country that people think they know the most about but in fact comprehend the least. According to polls, Netanyahu’s Likud party may go from 28 to 30 seats in the 120-member Knesset. That may not sound like a big percentage but with around 12 different parties likely to win seats that margin would be sufficient. One key element in this equation is that the country is doing pretty well. True, it faces serious security problems but that’s the norm for Israel. Indeed, with no other trusted leader on the horizon, Netanyahu is the one most trusted to manage that dangerous situation.
I find it hard to believe that a Netanyahu-Mofaz-Lapid-Yechimovich government (with or without Lieberman and religious parties) would truly be any more or less cautious regarding Iran than the current Netanyahu-Barak-Lieberman government. Neither governing constellation is going to run headlong into direct military confrontation with Iran unless absolutely necessary. The result of the upcoming US presidential election in November has more bearing on whether Israel hits Iran than the result of any election in Israel. The same goes for diplomacy on the Palestinian front. Kadima, Labor and Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid praty may be declaratively more willing than Israel Beiteinu or Habayit Hayehudi to forgo and swap land in the West Bank, but they are unlikely to find themselves in government without Likud or all of the sudden discover a sensible Palestinian partner with realistic negotiating positions. The public is not going to support any more unilateral withdrawals, and nobody is withdrawing the IDF from Samarian hilltops or the Jordan Valley with an Arab “winter” raging around us. Economic and social policy? Summer protests and tent encampments notwithstanding, all public opinion surveys indicate that the public recognizes Netanyahu as the best economic steward for Israel at this time. His steady hand has helped Israel weather the global financial storms, and in the process he cut the middle class a few breaks too (like free early childhood education).
In a lecture at the University of Oslo, and in interviews in the Norwegian press and with Haaretz, Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung made anti-Semitic remarks, including the outrageous claim that the Mossad was behind Anders Breivik's murderous Norwegian rampage last summer, and praise for the anti-Semitic primer, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Galtung is known as the 'father of peace studies.' Among other statements, Galtung claimed that a possible connection exists between the terrorist responsible for the massacre of children in Norway last summer, and the Mossad. “The Jews control U.S. media, and divert for the sake of Israel,” wrote Galtung in an article published in Norway. He pointed out that one of the factors behind the anti-Semitic sentiment that led to Auschwitz was the fact that Jews held influential positions in German society. Galtung also recommended reading “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” – one of the most popular anti-Semitic texts in the world.
Professor Galtung, 82-years-old, is one of the founders of the discipline called “Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution,” as well as a founder of the international Peace Research Institute in Oslo. He is considered well-respected sociological researcher, has been awarded many prizes, and is the author of over a thousand articles and over a hundred books. Some of his work has also been translated into Hebrew.
Outrageous: Catherine Ashton compares murder of Jewish children in France with deaths of 'Palestinian' children in Gaza
Just when you thought things couldn't possibly get any uglier, Catherine Ashton takes it down another level. This is from a speech Ashton made on Monday at the high-level conference Engaging youth—Palestine Refugees in the changing Middle East Organized by UNRWA in cooperation with the EU and the Government of Belgium, Palais Egmont Bruxelles.
We are gathered here because we have recognised the potential of the youth of Palestine. Against all the odds, they continue to learn, to work, to dream and aspire to a better future. And the days when we remember young people who have been killed in all sorts of terrible circumstances - the Belgian children having lost their lives in a terrible tragedy and when we think of what happened in Toulouse today, when we remember what happened in Norway a year ago, when we know what is happening in Syria, when we see what is happening in Gaza and in different parts of the world - we remember young people and children who lose their lives. Here are young people who are asking not to be leaders of the future, but to be taken seriously as leaders of today. And it is to them that we should look and to them we should listen and it is to them that I pay tribute.
Yes, she compared the children of Gaza - who are used as (often willing, or at least their parents are willing) human shields by terrorists - to today's Jewish murder victims in France, to the murder victims in Norway from last summer, and to Assad's victims in Syria (I'm not sure what the Belgian reference is). No official reaction yet in Israel. But for those who read Hebrew, Yedioth (YNet's Hebrew side) has much more to say about it than that last link, and calls the statement offensive. It's that and more.
And one other sentence from Ashton's speech that ought to draw a strong reaction:
I argue that those quotes speak for themselves and we can't fail them. They do not look for excuses. We should not look for excuses either. When I was in Gaza, when I visited Palestine and the West Bank too, I saw the role that young people are playing in their communities and as I've already said on a number of occasions, especially the role of the young women, because the fate of women's rights in a sense dictates the fate of the future of the Arab Spring. Women who've been central to the changes that are taking place and will remain central. It's not just a political or moral issue, it's also an economic issue. The engagement of all people in the future is crucial.
Gaza, 'West Bank' and WHAT? I guess Ashton considers all of Israel, including the parts within the 1949 armistice lines, 'occupied.' And this woman is supposed to be part of the 'peace process'?
Larry’s dismissal is made all the more obscene by virtue of the light it sheds on the egregious double-standard that once-professional publication now employs in regard to conservative versus liberal opinion; I say that as someone who fondly remembers the fairly conservative op-ed editor of my own time at the Post soliciting op-ed pieces he openly disagreed with. Larry worries his post might end up on some Hamas website. This is yet to occur, and even if it does take place, it’s doubtful it would influence the decision of any young Palestinian whether to become a terrorist or not. By contrast, the writings of Jerusalem Post deputy-editor Caroline Glick were cited in the manic manifesto of Norwegian terrorist Anders Brevik in justification of the bloodbath he executed earlier this summer; unlike Derfner, Glick has yet to be shown the door.
Moreover, right after the Norway carnage the Jerusalem Post published an outlandish editorial suggesting the calculated, murderous rampage of a self-confessed xenophobe was an opportunity for Norway to revisit its immigration policy. The editorial was so beyond the pale the Post only put it up on the website with a disclaimer, and sparked such an outrage in Norway the newspaper had to spend another editorial on an apology; to my knowledge, all of those responsible for this serialised farce kept their jobs. Not so for Derfner.
Now, I’m not suggesting Glick and the author of that editorial (assuming they’re not the same person) should be fired for their opinions. There are many other reasons not to retain Glick’s services. Serious complaints of her conservative column’s ultra-liberal attitude to facts should be a warning sign for any reader; her suggestions regarding the possibility of an alliance between Israel and the Vatican, instead of fickle, fickle USA, are enough to give anybody pause; and as far as embarrassing appearances outside the Jpost go, her responsibility for a “satirical” clip showing a blackface minstrel Barack Obama singing to Israel’s destruction is hard to forget.
Yet Glick’s right to express even the strangest and most obsolete of opinion from the pages of what publication would have her remains in place and should not be infringed upon. Opinion is up there to be read, to be disagreed with and to be criticised; this is the fundamental principle of op-ed pages. The Jerusalem Post has obviously sunk so low and became wedded to Glenn-Beck-type readership so tightly it now applies this principle to conservative opinion only. Pity. It used to be a newspaper once.
Hello? It was a business decision! By Derfner's own admission, the Post had HUNDREDS of subscription cancellations because of what Derfner wrote. A newspaper is a commercial enterprise (unlike blogs which are written by true believers who toil in anonymity for free). Is the Post supposed to lose money to give Derfner a platform to spew his noxious venom at Israelis?
Caroline Glick is probably the most popular columnist in Israel and is certainly the most popular Israeli columnist among Israelis abroad. Given that the writer - Dimi Reider - acknowledges Glick's right to write whatever she pleases, what is the point of implying that she should be fired because Derfner was?
Reider may not like it, but the fact is that English-speaking olim are far more conservative than are Israelis or diaspora Jews. Unlike Haaretz, the JPost caters (or at least did until a couple of weeks ago) to that crowd.
Finally, Glick did not suggest that Norway revisit its immigration policy. Neither did Barry Rubin, who has also been subject to constant attack on the Post's editorial pages by representatives of the Norwegian government. Rather, Glick and Rubin suggested that Norway ought to do some introspection as to whether their support for 'Palestinian' terrorists was giving succor to those who would terrorize Norwegians. Norway still has not (or doesn't want to) get that point.
And for those wondering why Reider didn't mention Barry Rubin along with Glick, go here.
On Thursday, I blogged the latest rant by Norway's ambassador to Israel Svein Sevje. In Tuesday's JPost, Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld responded.
This expression of Israeli empathy was all the more impressive since after this tragic incident, hate-mongering directed at Israel by mainstream Norwegian society came again to the fore. Even if the Middle East was only one item on its agenda, the AUF camp at Utoya where Breivik murdered many can be characterized as an anti-Israel hate camp.
More information has since become available regarding how “successful” the demonization of Israel was at Utoya. When Breivik started firing some youngsters thought it was a demonstration of how Israeli soldiers shoot at Palestinian civilians. When I first read this story by German journalist Ulrich Sahm, it seemed unbelievable. I there upon contacted Sahm and he provided me with several sources for his story.
AUF is the youth movement of the Labor Party of Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. As a young man he also attended the camp at Utoya. Many Labor party ministers come out of AUF. It is now a breeding ground for Israel-haters, some of whom will become prominent in the Labor Party.
Someone on this blog keeps asking me whether Breivik attended Utoya as well. I am trying to find out.
The causes of terrorism are multifaceted but at bottom they have a common cause: namely a belief that violence is the proper response to policies that the terrorists disagree with. The other common cause is that terrorism has often been rewarded. Norway, for example, has repeatedly rewarded Palestinian terrorism against Israel, while punishing Israel for its efforts to protect its civilians. While purporting to condemn all terrorist acts, the Norwegian government has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism as having a legitimate cause. This clearly is an invitation to continued terrorism.
It is important for the world never to reward terrorism by supporting the policies of those who employ it as an alternative to reason discourse, diplomatic resolution or political compromise.
I know of no reasonable person who has tried to justify the terrorist attacks against Norway. Yet there are many Norwegians who not only justify terrorist attacks against Israel, but praise them, support them, help finance them, and legitimate them.
The world must unite in condemning and punishing all terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, regardless of the motive or purported cause of the terrorism. Norway, as a nation, has failed to do this. It wants us all to condemn the terrorist attack on its civilians, and we should all do that, but it refuses to live by a single standard.
Nothing good ever comes from terrorism, so don't expect the Norwegians to learn any lessons from its own victimization. As the Ambassador made clear in his benighted interview, "those of us who believe [the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel] will not change their minds because of the attack in Oslo." In other words, they will persist in their bigoted view that Israel is the cause of the terrorism directed at it, and that if only Israel were to end the occupation (as it offered to do in 2000-2001 and again in 2007), the terrorism will end. Even Hamas, which Norway supports in many ways, has made clear that it will not end its terrorism as long as Israel continues to exist. Hamas believes that Israel's very existence is the cause of the terrorism against it. That sounds a lot like the ranting of the man who engaged in the act of terrorism against Norway.
The time is long overdue for Norwegians to do some deep soul searching about their sordid history of complicity with all forms of bigotry ranging from the anti-Semitic Nazis to the anti-Semitic Hamas. There seems to be a common thread.
Here's an interesting video that might give some indication of where Anders Behring Breivik came from. The video is a bit long - 18 minutes - but it's worth watching in full.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Israellycool).
Norway has banned Kosher animal slaughter since before the Nazis
The Norwegian government may be sorry today that they messed with Caroline Glick. And although she explicitly did not ask for one, they might consider an apology. Glick gives us a contemporary history lesson about Norwegian anti-Semitism.
In a 2006 report on Jew hatred in contemporary Norwegian caricatures published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Erez Uriely noted among other things that Norway banned kosher ritual slaughter in 1929 – three years before a similar ban was instituted in Nazi Germany.
And whereas the ban on kosher ritual slaughter was lifted in post-war Germany, it was never abrogated in Norway.
As Uriely noted, Norway’s prohibition on Jewish ritual slaughter makes Judaism the only religion that cannot be freely practiced in Norway.
Fascism was deeply popular in Norway in the 1930s.
In the wake of the Nazi invasion, Norwegian governmental leaders founded and joined the Norwegian Nazi Party. Apparently, sympathy for Nazi collaborators is strong today in Norway.
As the JCPA’s Manfred Gerstenfeld noted in a report on the rise in Norwegian anti-Semitic attacks during 2009, two years ago the Norwegian government allocated more than $20 million in public funds to commemorate Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun [pictured. CiJ] on the occasion of the Nobel laureate for literature’s 150th birthday. As The New York Times reported, in February 2009, Norway’s Queen Sonja opened the, “year-long, publicly financed commemoration of Hamsun’s 150th birthday called ‘Hamsun 2009.’” But while Hamsun may have been a good writer, he is better remembered for being an enthusiastic Nazi. Hamsun gave his Nobel prize to Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels. During a wartime visit to Germany, Hamsun flew to meet Adolf Hitler at Hitler’s mountain home in Bavaria.
And in 2009, Norway built a $20 million museum to honor his achievements.
...
Israel’s dovish Kadima government only began the operation in Gaza because it had no choice. For months then prime minister Ehud Olmert sat on his hands as southern Israel was pummeled with unprovoked barrages of thousands of missiles and rockets from Gaza. Olmert was forced to take action after Hamas massively escalated its rocket and missile attacks in November and early December 2008.
While silent about Palestinian aggression, Norway’s government attacked Israel for defending itself. As Store put it, “The Israeli ground offensive in Gaza constitutes a dramatic escalation of the conflict. Norway strongly condemns any form of warfare that causes severe civilian suffering, and calls on Israel to withdraw its forces immediately.”
Two of Store’s associates, Eric Fosse and Mads Gilbert, decamped to Gaza during Cast Lead and set up shop in Shifa Hospital. The two were fixtures in the Norwegian media, which constantly interviewed them throughout the conflict, and so spread their libelous charges against the IDF without question.
Fosse and Gilbert never mentioned that Hamas’s high command was located at the hospital in open breach of the laws of war.
When they returned home, they co-authored a book in which they accused the IDF of entering Gaza with the express goal of murdering women and children.
Store wrote a blurb of endorsement on the book’s back cover.
...
It is a fact that the day before Breivik’s massacre of teenagers at the Labor Party’s youth camp on Utoya Island, Store spoke to them about the need to destroy Israel’s security fence. The campers role-played pro- Hamas activists breaking international law by challenging Israel’s lawful maritime blockade of the Gaza coastline.
Norwegians believe that terrorism is sometimes okay, especially when its targets are Israelis and it is perpetrated by 'Palestinians.' Anders Behring Breivik got that message. But he also decided that terrorism was okay at a time when it was wrong, even according to Norwegians. Instead of soul-searching, Norwegians are accusing. That is wrong.
UPDATE WEDNESDAY 12:09 AM
I just received the email below from reader Eliana:
Carl, the photo you're showing of Knut Hamsun is Max von Sydow who stared in a movie about the man.
The movie's name was "Hamsun" and it was produced in 1996.
On Friday, I argued that rather than looking inward in light of last month's double tragedy in Oslo and Utoya, Norway is looking for someone to blame. Unfortunately, the man in the picture at the top of this post just might be a leading candidate. I would bet that most of you will not recognize the name Peder Jensen, but you most likely will recognize his blogging alias: Fjordman.
Yesterday, after receiving legal advice, Fjordman chose to visit the police, reveal his identity, and answer any questions they posed. Contrary to media reports, the police did not “discover” him.
For the record: The Norwegian authorities had no idea who Fjordman was until he decided to reveal himself, of his own free will.
After his discussions with the police, he gave an interview to a media outlet, and then retired once again from public view.
An account of the police interview was published here. Then, later on this morning, the interview with Fjordman was published at VG (English version here). The same information was later published in Denmark. Almost immediately his real name was added to his Wikipedia entry, which had already been in existence for a number of years.
It’s no surprise to learn that he has gone into hiding — we’ve all seen what the “anti-fascists” do to people who hold opinions like ours, and Fjordman has to be one of their high-priority targets.
Unfortunately, in their continuing search for a scapegoat, the Norwegian police may be looking to implicate Fjordman in Anders Behring Breivik's murderous spree.
Norwegian police confiscated his computer Thursday, and even though he was questioned as a witness, he feels that the police are looking to implicate him.
- They won't find anything on my computer regarding any criminal matters or Breivik, he says.
Jensen has a masters degree in culture and technology from the University of Oslo, and has studied Arabic at the University of Bergen and the American University in Cairo. In his master's dissertation he wrote about censorship and blogging in Iran.
He has never been a member of any political party in Norway, and after completing his compulsory military service, he says he has never touched a gun.
After the terrorist attack and his blog being cited as an influence, Jensen says he will never use the alias «Fjordman» again.
If I were Fjordman, I would leave Norway and go live someplace safe, like Canada... or Israel.
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.
Rabbi Elazar Abuhatzeira, Leiby Kletzky and the Utoya massacre
Many tragedies have befallen the Jewish people over the last few months. Two in particular have caused particular consternation.
In Brooklyn three weeks ago, almost-nine-year old Leiby Kletzky was kidnapped and murdered by a man whom he trusted because he appeared to be Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) just like him. And last Thursday night in Be'er Sheva, Rabbi Elazar Abuhatzeira, one of the generation's pre-eminent Kabbalists, was murdered by a follower who was ostensibly seeking his blessing (picture from his burial last Friday above). In each case, the victim was murdered by someone whom he believed would not harm him because he was a member of his own community.
In between these two crimes, a 'normal Norwegian boy' named Anders Behring Breivik murdered 76 Norwegians, most of them while dressed as a police officer. It was reported, in the aftermath of the murders, that Breivik gestured to his youthful victims to approach him so that they would be safe, and then took advantage of them and shot them. They trusted Breivik because he was a Norwegian like them and would not harm them.
That's not all that dissimilar from the cases of Kletzky and Abuhatzeira, is it?
But the similarities end there. On Wednesday - one day before the Abuhatzeira family rose from shiva - signs started going up all over our Haredi neighborhood. The signs draw a parallel between Kletzky and Abuhatzeira and urge members of our community to look inward to discover why God took these two righteous people from among us. We understand that it is our community that spawned the two murderers who committed unthinkable acts. And we understand that God is punishing us for our shortcomings by taking two righteous people from among us.
The Norwegians are still looking for someone else to blame.
We are left, mouths agape, wondering whether an editorial like the one above would have been written a couple of months ago when David Horowitz was the JPost's editor-in-chief. I suspect not.
The editorial squarely condemned the attack, saying that “as Israelis, a people that is sadly all too familiar with the horrors of indiscriminate, murderous terrorism, our hearts go out with empathy to the Norwegian people.”
However, it also, inappropriately, raised issues that were not directly pertinent, such as the dangers of multiculturalism, European immigration policies and even the Oslo peace process.
“Your editorial, while insistently condemning the violence in Norway, shockingly and shamelessly attempts to offer justification for his extremist violent act of terror,” wrote Esam Omeish in one of many letters to the editor, several of which were published in the paper.
Steve Linde, the editor-in-chief, immediately posted the following statement on our website, JPost.com: “As a newspaper, The Jerusalem Post strongly denounces all acts of violence against innocent civilians. This editorial is not aimed at deflecting attention from the horrific massacre perpetuated in Norway, nor the need to take greater precautions against extremists from all sides.”
I did not read that JPost editorial as justifying the Norwegian terror attacks. But one would not be human if one did not wonder what might have caused a 'normal Norwegian boy' to become a mass murderer of his own people. While it might more appropriately have been done by Norwegians themselves and not in a JPost editorial, introspection after such a tragedy is a good thing and not an attempt to justify the act.
As Senior Contributing Editor Caroline B. Glick suggested in her column last Friday, the fact that Breivik’s warped mind cited a group of conservative thinkers including herself as having influenced his thinking in no way reflects on them.
“As a rule, liberal democracies reject the resort to violence as a means of winning an argument. This is why, for liberal democracies, terrorism in all forms is absolutely unacceptable,” she wrote. “Whether or not one agrees with the ideological self-justifications of a terrorist, as a member of a liberal democratic society, one is expected to abhor his act of terrorism. Because by resorting to violence to achieve his aims, the terrorist is acting in a manner that fundamentally undermines the liberal democratic order.”
In today’s paper, we are publishing an opinion piece by Norway’s deputy foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide, in which he thanks Israeli leaders “for their kind and comforting words” but expresses dismay over comments made by two Jerusalem Post columnists.
At the same time, he titles his column, “A time to heal.”
We echo his wish, and hope that the Norwegian government and people will accept the Post’s apology and forgive us for any offense or hurt caused by our editorial and columnists at this sensitive time.
Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister appeals for 'healing'... by attacking Rubin and Glick
In a comment in Friday's JPost, Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister, Espen Barth Eide, has appealed for 'healing' in the aftermath of Norway's terror attacks two weeks ago. But he has done so with a vicious attack on Barry Rubin (mostly) and Caroline Glick.
Many Norwegians, however, have been astonished by assertions recently made in The Jerusalem Post by two of its regular columnists, Barry Rubin and Caroline Glick.
For example, Barry Rubin wrote on Monday that “...the youth camp he attacked was engaged in what was essentially... a pro-terrorist program.”
According to Rubin, the camp was “justifying forces that had committed terrorism against Israel” by advocating an end to the blockade of Gaza and recognition of a Palestinian state.
Barry sounds exactly right to me. Of course, Barth Eide omits the fact that Fatah terrorists have participated in the Utoya camp for the last fifteen years. But leaving that aside, how else does one characterize the advocacy at Utoya camp of employing BDS against Israel in a bid to 'convince' it to remove its lawful blockade of an area from which thousands of rockets have been fired at it over the last ten years? Is that not supporting free access (and free access to weapons) for terrorists?
Rubin even implicitly blamed Norway’s Middle East policy for the attacks in Norway. He wrote, “If terrorist murders by Hamas and Islamists did not stop well-intentioned future leaders of Norway from considering them heroic underdogs, an evil local man could think his act of terrorism would gain sympathy and change Europe’s politics.”
This was, Rubin claimed, an example of the “Oslo Syndrome” whereby rewarding terrorists with political gains promotes more terrorism.
In other words, Rubin said that this terror attack, committed by a 'normal Norwegian boy' 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?
Rubin and Glick have also made much of the supposed statements by Norwegian Ambassador Svein Sevje to Ma’ariv, according to which he distinguished between the motivation behind terrorism in Israel and in Norway. Glick and Rubin are not alone in doing so. Several other Israeli media have latched on to this as well.
On this point, of course, it was not Glick or Rubin who was at fault. The ambassador was incorrectly quoted by Ma’ariv. He did not compare the motivation behind different terrorist attacks; he simply tried to answer a question about whether the terrorist attacks in Norway would change perceptions of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. He stated that many Norwegians see the conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territory in the context of the occupation and religious extremism, and that this view would probably not change after the events in Oslo and on Utoeya.
Funny that he hasn't quoted Glick yet. But let's look at what the Norwegian ambassador to Israel actually said:
Svein Sevje said in an Israeli newspaper interview Tuesday that while the Norwergian bomb and gun rampages that killed 76 people and Palestinian attacks should both be considered morally unacceptable, he wanted to "outline the similarity and the difference in the two cases."
Palestinians, the ambassador told Maariv, "are doing this because of a defined goal that is related to the Israeli occupation. There are elements of revenge against Israel and hatred of Israel. To this you can add the religious element to their actions."
"In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture," Sevje said, referring to suspect Anders Breivik, a Christian nativist who is opently anti-Islam and anti-immigration.
Whether the Maariv reporter (and I hope the reporter will come forward with a recording of the interview) misquoted Norwegian ambassador to Israel Svein Sevje, remains to be seen. But if the ambassador was misquoted, isn't it odd that it has taken from Tuesday, July 26 (the date of the interview) to Friday August 5 for someone to claim that he was misquoted? If he was misquoted, why was this allowed to stew for ten days? Maybe because it took the Norwegian Foreign Ministry ten days to think of that excuse?
But Barth Eide's gloss shows that he completely does not get what offended Israelis about Sevje's statements. Let's look at Barth Eide's explanation again.
He did not compare the motivation behind different terrorist attacks; he simply tried to answer a question about whether the terrorist attacks in Norway would change perceptions of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. He stated that many Norwegians see the conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territory in the context of the occupation and religious extremism, and that this view would probably not change after the events in Oslo and on Utoeya.
In other words, what Sevje really meant is that Norwegians will continue to sympathize with 'Palestinian' terrorism despite the fact that they have now experienced terrorism themselves up close and personal. Are we Israelis supposed to take solace in the fact that this is what Sevje really meant and not that Breivik's motivation differed from Hamas' motivation? Really?
What Barth Eide ought to do is to say that Norway will conduct some self-examination and consider how its own actions might have contributed to the perception of a 'normal Norwegian boy' that terrorism was an okay way to deal with those with whom one disagrees. That introspection ought to start with an examination of Norway's policies of support for Hamas and the 'Palestinian Authority.'
But of course, none of that will happen. Norwegians are holier than we are and they never make mistakes. Just ask any representative of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry.
Surprise: Breivik hated liberal Jews as much as Muslims
Anders Behring Breivik, the 'ordinary Norwegian' who murdered 76 people two weeks ago, had an overriding hatred of Muslims. But many other hatreds grew out of that one, including a hatred of liberal Jews.
The document, which Breivik distributed online just before his killing spree, covers many subjects, including the evil of women's liberation (there are 200 references to feminism and feminists). But it has one central focus: Islam and the Muslim menace. The words "Islam," "Islamic" and "Islamist" combined appear 3,360 times; the word "Muslim," 3,632 times.
Virtually all of Breivik's other ideas stem from this obsession: Feminism is bad because it saps Western civilization's (and its men's) ability to resist Islam; Israel is good because it is an ally in this struggle.
Moreover, Breivik's "Zionism" coexists with a virulent brand of selective anti-Semitism -- one that sees Jews as likely carriers of cosmopolitan, nontraditional values and targets liberal Jews for special loathing. In his discussion of Nazism, Breivik agrees that most German and European Jews in the 1930s were "disloyal" -- "similar to the liberal Jews today." Hitler's error, he believes, was to lump the "good" Jews with the "bad," instead of rewarding the former with a Jewish homeland in a Muslim-free Palestine.
As for the present, Breivik estimates that about three-quarters of European and American Jews, and about half of Israeli Jews, "support multiculturalism"; he urges fellow nationalists to "embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of" the Nazis. What to do with today's "disloyal" Jews, he does not say.
...
Meanwhile, in the anti-Israel camp, quite a few would gladly tar all Zionist views with anti-Muslim hate. Loonwatch.com, a website that focuses on exposing Islamophobia -- and has run intelligent, well-argued rebuttals of extreme anti-Islam propaganda -- has also posted items that portray such extremism as virtually part and parcel of Zionism.
Sometimes, such links are concocted. Last October, England's Jewish Chronicle ran an Internet poll on whether rabbis should work with the EDL. (The answer was a resounding no.) Anti-Zionist blogger Terry Greenstein and York Palestine Solidarity Campaign Chairman Terry Gallogly were caught bragging online about trying to rig the poll for the EDL in order to embarrass the Zionists.
Yes, some Zionists have made statements about Muslims that amount to bigotry, or at least to offensive generalizations. Disturbingly, comments defending Breivik's views have cropped up on Israeli online forums. Such ugly sentiments may be explained in the context of ethnic and religious tensions in Israel, but they cannot be condoned -- any more than anti-Semitism among Arabs and Muslims can be excused by resentment of Israeli policies.
Therein lies the rub: Talk of Zionism and Islamophobia inevitably raises the specter of the far more violent, vastly more rampant Jew-bashing rhetoric in the much of the Arab and Muslim media today.
Unfortunately, not many prominent Muslims have condemned this hate speech. Moreover, some Western leftists have excused Muslim anti-Semitism as a reaction to Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.
I think she's far too even-handed. On the Muslim side, I see a genuine desire to murder as many Jews as possible. On the Jewish side, I see mostly fear. But as to Breivik, I think she's right that his Zionism was totally insincere, and there's no reason we should admit people like that to our camp. Let them support us from the outside if they so desire, but do not seek their support.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store has attacked Professor Barry Rubin for allegedly labeling as 'pro-terrorist' the Utoya youth camp, at which 76 young people were murdered by a normal Norwegian boy. I'll come to Barry's response in a minute, but first let's look at what Store said (via Daily Kos, which takes the opportunity to pile on and bash Barry).
Rubin's claims are outrageous, and I'm not going to comment on them in any length. I will just say that the Labour Party and the AUF do not support terrorism in any way. They are not extremists.
You all know better than that. The Labour Party and the AUF do not support terrorism in any way... unless it's 'Palestinian' terrorism directed at Israeli Jews.
Svein Sevje said in an Israeli newspaper interview Tuesday that while the Norwergian bomb and gun rampages that killed 76 people and Palestinian attacks should both be considered morally unacceptable, he wanted to "outline the similarity and the difference in the two cases."
Palestinians, the ambassador told Maariv, "are doing this because of a defined goal that is related to the Israeli occupation. There are elements of revenge against Israel and hatred of Israel. To this you can add the religious element to their actions."
"In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture," Sevje said, referring to suspect Anders Breivik, a Christian nativist who is opently anti-Islam and anti-immigration.
If that's not supporting terrorism, I don't know what is.
1. Am I justifying the murders and saying they were well-deserved? Of course not.
I don't in any way believe such a thing. These were as I've said from the beginning terrible acts of terrorism. In the article you will see my explicit argument that nobody should be a victim of terrorism even if they support politically a group committing terrorism. Since my argument is that NO terrorism--defined as the deliberate murder of civilians as part of a conscious political strategy--is acceptable, why would I justify the cold-blooded murder of dozens of unarmed, non-violent people in Norway?
To justify it I would have to be saying that I supported the murder of young people because I disagree with their political views or those of their elders. That would be insane though, of course, that is precisely what actual terrorists do. And many "respectable" people wrote in various ways that the September 11 attacks on America were "well-deserved." That was precisely the kind of thing I had in mind as something dangerous and to be condemned when writing the article.
2. In short, since the entire purpose of the article is to urge a universal condemnation of terrorism and to ensure that it doesn't bear political profit, I had no intention of endorsing terrorism in this case! The point of the article can be simply stated as follows: It is a dangerous thing to empower or reward terrorism anywhere because that makes terrorism seem a successful strategy and thus encourages more terrorism. If you argue politically that terrorists are justified in the Middle East or, to put it a different way, that they aren't terrorists at all, you are making terrorism more likely to happen. It is tragic--not justifiable or deserved but horrible--that such people or such a country then becomes the target of terrorism.
...
4. If Hamas uses a strategy of terrorism and then gains Western sympathy and help, then Hamas and other groups will conclude that terrorism works. Thus, more terrorism will take place and more innocent victims murdered. It is not true to say that I claimed any group in Norway applauded terrorism against Israelis. They either did not define it as terrorism, did not take it into account as a factor to be considered, or supported groups despite the fact that they used massive terrorism. Indeed, Norway's ambassador himself said that people in his country viewed terrorism as only a response to occupation while the main newspaper attacking me repeatedly denied--and denies--that Hamas is a terrorist group.
5. I never said and don't believe that the camp in Norway was a terrorist training camp. A terrorist training camp is a place where people are trained to use guns, explosives, and various methods to stage military attacks and then escape afterward. What went on in the camp in Norway was purely conversational, theoretical, and political. That's obvious.
...
9. My goal is to reduce the frequency and effectiveness of terrorism and to reduce the number of victims. This article was written in that spirit--to save lives in future. It is based on 35 years of work on this issue and following it on a daily basis. When those who attack me--overwhelmingly one faction within Norway--insist that Hamas is not a terrorist group and thus distinguish between "justified" terrorism and "non-justified" terrorism they are doing what I'm being accused of doing. By the way, that is precisely the same way that Norway's ambassador to Israel characterized the view of people in that country (as I quote in my article).
Since Anders Behring Breivik murdered 76 Norwegians two weeks ago, there have been numerous accusations made of ties between Israel (as in the Israeli government) and various organizations of the European Right. Some of the ties are real, others involve individual MK's and not the government. Some of the European counterparts are legitimate conservative parties while others might better be considered part of the 'radical right.' Benny Weinthal tries to sort things out.
Prof. Barry Rubin, an Israeli Middle East expert and director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, said the depiction of connections between the Netanyahu government and the FPÖ is “very misleading.”
“The only real link that can be shown is one or two members of parliament [the Knesset] acting alone. Israel has boycotted the Austrian FPÖ – a point the article deliberately ignored – and there are no Israeli officials who have met with these parties in any direct way. The real story, then, is the exact opposite: how limited Israel’s contacts are with parties that proclaim they are pro-Israel,” Rubin said.
He continued that “a few months ago the Israeli Embassy in London took the unprecedented step of condemning the English Defense League. I’m not passing judgment on these different parties, but clearly there are hardly any ties between Israel and any of them, and that means both Israel’s government and major political forces in Israel.”
Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, an Israeli who has written several books on Norwegian- Israeli relations, said Europe is “in a totally confused situation.”
In contrast to the Spiegel report, Gerstenfeld does not see a unified politically right-wing movement in Europe. Besides the liberal and conservative Right, there are three types of right-of-center political organizations, he said. The Progress Party in Norway and Geert Wilders Party for Freedom are pro-Israel and stay away from anything that “smells of Nazism.”
Italy’s Northern League falls into a second category on the European Right. It is primarily a separatist movement.
The third component includes Belgium’s Vlaams Blok party, the neo-fascist Italian Social Movement, the British National Party, France’s National Front, and Austria’s FPÖ, which, according to Gerstenfeld, meet the standard of radical right-wing groups.
Gerstenfeld said the FPÖ, for example, along with other radical-rightist parties “are people on the European Right who think they can whitewash themselves with ties to Israel.
“Israel is in the forefront of the enormous totalitarian threat to all humanity coming to out of the world of Islam, which also threatens Muslim moderates, Europe and anything Western. Former prime minister of Spain Jose Maria Aznar also sees it this way and wrote an article saying that if Israel goes down, the entire West goes down,” said Gerstenfeld.
Read the whole thing. For those who have forgotten or who lump all of the European Right into one big group, you may want to watch this speech by former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, which I was privileged to attend last year.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
