The Gaarder essay: final thoughts
Andrew “Flytrap” Sullivan slams Jostein Gaarder as an anti-Semite calling for the “obliteration” of Israel and for Jews to “surrender.”
These are certainly misinterpretations of the furious, fire-and-brimstone essay I translated. The prophetic voice, speaking in the first person plural, explicitly recognizes the “internationally lawful” Israel of 1948.
True, the voice is at points unclear in separating policy recommendations from the expected bad consequences of ignoring same. In my reading, however, the message is that the Israeli state we know today is no longer sustainable, having forfeited its legitimacy in the eyes of the world:
This is an uplifting prospect, the prophetic voice suggests, for it signals the abolition of apartheid-like injustice:
Let us briefly pause for a historical sidebar:
The ensuing liberation struggle was predominantly non-violent yet eventually succeeded in ending oppression, with equal rights for all featherless bipeds entrenched in a new constitution. By no means did it involve the physical “obliteration” of South Africa. This is therefore an optimistic forecast, though as Robert Sharp and many others (including Norwegian debaters) rightly complain, it is not made explicit.
Later on, the prophet cautions that the demise of Israel in its current form could also come about in a darker way:
Thus, if Israel elects to continue its self-destructive policies of occupation and aggression, then the international community is not obliged to prop it up when the tables ultimately turn. This does not, however, amount to “calling for the obliteration of Israel.”
Furthermore, it is unclear to what ‘occupied areas’ refers. If this is simply the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Sheeba Farms, the Golan Heights, and so forth, then the statement is relatively unproblematic.
Otherwise, however — and arguably, in any case — the prophet should not limit himself to petition the victors to give the Jewish refugees free passage (plus “milk and honey”). He should councel letting them stay as citizens of a new and better state, be it called Israel, Palestine, or whatever. Possibly the author has here been tempted to echo his literary model:
Be that as it may, this is a serious flaw in Gaarder’s cri du coeur. And it is not the only one. Many critics, including yours truly, have noted how it lumps together a questionable construal of Judaic religion with the state of Israel. It is fair to say that Gaarder has hardly gone out of its way to avoid misunderstanding of his real intent.
Then again, as the Jewish Norwegian journalist Mona Levin — the essay’s fiercest detractor — agrees, that intent is not anti-Semitic.
One last point. Part of my own motivation for translating this piece was to show the extent to which Israel’s international image, outside of the American bubble, is in tatters. Before the ongoing demolition of Lebanon over two abducted soldiers and the engineered humanitarian crisis in Gaza, I doubt that it would have seen print in a major newspaper.
Accordingly, if one insists that it does reflect genuine anti-Semitism, then it also illustrates how Israel’s behavior qua self-declared “Jewish State” unfortunately makes fertile ground for such. As I put it in a previous post:
But that is of course a fact which Flytrap Sullivan and his ilk would never dream of acknowledging.
Update: Gaarder reflects on his essay in an interview with Aftenposten.
I don’t know which is worse your apology for Gaarder’s viscious anti-Jewish essay or your reading of modern history.
Israel can only be compared to South Africa by feverish Jew hating minds like your own.
There is nothing in the make up of the Jewish State which even remotely resembles the former South Africa. The Jews are not a race, Israel is a pluralistic society and there is no discrimination under the law.
Gaarder obviously belongs to the Norwegian class of Quisslngs. Let heim turon over his own country to the Jihadists if he wishes without turning over someone’s else’s country also.
The Jews have already experienced life without a State of their own and I doubt they will give up as easily as did the Norwegians to Hitler.
Comment by scribe — August 8, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
Nothing that even remotely resembles the former South Africa? Is that so?
Ask Nelson Mandela if he agrees, or perhaps his good friend Ronnie Kasrils. See also, without any further comparison, this recent post of mine.
And for your benefit, insults invoking Quisling’s name sound slightly less idiotic if you can spell it.
Comment by Sirocco — August 9, 2006 @ 12:36 am
to the author. if you are so humanistic why dont you offer some space for the 2 million palestinians in scandinavia, lets see how it deals with a bunch of refugees (remember how long theyve been refugees for, most refugee camps last only a a year or 2 max) who are willing to strap themselves bombs and blow themselves purposely targeting civilians. lets see how a problem free country like scandinavia would do when unprvoked two of its soldiers were kidnapped 8 killed and rockets falling in its city’s. im pretty sure they it would not even think that its “overreacting” and as for your lack of history, ive got news for you there has always been jews in israel before the concept of an arab or for that matter scandinavian existed. the jews got their country because half of their population was wiped out by antisemites like you who decided that jews are the source of all problems. all they ask for is a small peace of land amongst millions of arabs who have mostly the smae cultures and backgrounds as the palestinians. another point to make due to your ignorance in history is that arabs so called palestinians today, were offfered to stay in israel and get citizenship, but instead they chose to annhelate the state of israel 24 hours after it becaeme a legitimate state. they descided that then tough luck because if according to you history doesnt matter since it clearly proves we were there before these so called palestinians, it means you dont believe that anything realates a certain people to their country, including the arabs. to that i say israel won this land with its own blood being spilt to, non of these wars were wnated by israel they were all provoked by arab agression. icluding the six day war where i know that ignorants like you aregue that israel attacked first, well to that i answear that blocking the suez canal is an act of war. im dissapointed to know your lack of history knoledge after reading your books thinking they were brilliant, now me and many otheres will regard you as the very same racist you condemed the zionists. you talk of egyptian blood the jews “enjoy” on paasover well let me tell you that they do not enjoy but thank god for saving them from slavery and it is completely legitimate for them to hate the egyptians just as it is for them to hate the nazis. They are a nation that has gone through so much and all they ask is a small strech of land on account of no one, they have showed theyll allow the palestinians to live side by side but thats not enough. why because of people like you who encourage antisemitism, and helo the world forget 6 billion people. if you find the islamic jihad, an idea that it is fine to kill civilians in the name of god purposely and to be rewarded for it, including taking a plane and doing the unimagininable of ramming it into a building, over the israelis whom try to spare life on both sides of the battle (hizbollah kills israelis and lebanese by hiding amongst them meaning they have no value for anyones life) then you are seriously way dumber then a child whom understands that killing a civilian purposely is wrong. the History lesson is to long it wouldnt kill you to open a book on israeli history and see what they have done for humanity, the noble prizes the technological advancements and the aid they havce given other countries, then maybe youl understand a little bit of who the agressor is.
in conclussiosion i think you are a waste of sperm and you can go shove an israeli madae merkava tank up your ass because as long as the israeli flag stands there, your antisemitic ass wont rest. suck on that
Comment by ELiran gopas — August 9, 2006 @ 4:40 am
The Jewish state has proven itself to be the province of anti-semitic barbarians. The wild and mis-spelled posts on this page prove that even their most loyal helots have no longer any arguments to raise in their defense. The promise of Israel is over. They have, of course, become the Nazis of their nightmares. We must do everything in our power to reverse their paranoid megalomania, return the borders to 1946, return the water of the Golan, make Jerusalem a UNESCO city, and repatriate the Palestians to their rightful home. And we must prosecute the Israelis for war crimes, and make them clean up the oil spill and the depleted uranium. To do any less is cowardly.
Comment by Frank — August 9, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
Of course Gaarder’s rant is anti-Semitic. Anti-Zionism frequently, and in this case, certainly, has as its beating heart a long-standing caricature of what the Nazis famously called in film and elsewhere “Der Ewige Jude”–the Eternal Jew. This “Jew” was a construction of European Christianity–perhaps some of Gaarder’s spiritual or (for all I know) familial predecessors who gladly served with the 5th SS Panzergrenadier Division Wiking. These were thousands of ordinary Norwegians who proudly enlisted in the Waffen SS and who also likely understood the “threat” of the “Chosen People.”
After 1945, where did these Norwegians, their families, their churches, their media and social networks (and any other source of their Jew-hatred) go? Did their attitudes simply vanish? Or did they go underground, awaiting another time and place? Norway, like most of Europe, lives in a self-constructed fantasy of “resistance” and “Jew protection” during World War II. There is some truth in this, but also large and unchallenged lies. It is necessary to raise this because long ago, Europeans lost their moral standing to go after Jews, as well as the state–Israel–to which they off-loaded the Jewish camp survivors who they no longer wanted. Oddly, Palestinians have far more moral standing to criticize, and considerably less blood on their hands than Gaarder and his ilk. (Yes, it’s the Holocaust card being played again–and a thousand generations will not exhaust its moral urgency in the face of the collaboraters, appeasers, killers, and bystanders, and their successors, who simply yawned, or worse.
Gaarder’s spiel is just another restatement of the ancient Christian anxiety, first experienced during the days when the two faiths were actually competitors for adherents–that Jews regarded themselves as “superior.” This “Jewish arrogance” was what classic Christianity (and its more secular successors) were determined to expose and denounce.
If the EU proves anything, it is that the grandchildren of Petain’s Vichy, Franco’s Spain, Hitler’s Austria-Germany, Norway’s Quisling, Britain’s Mosley, (almost) ad infitum, are still imbibing from old wine, albeit filled in new containers.
Comment by yankee — August 9, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
Mandela’s letter to Friedman was interesting. Thanks for sharing it.
Comment by Gal — August 9, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
To everyone that still doesn’t know: Norwegians did neither hate jews during second world war nor now.
Comment by Monika — August 9, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
To everyone that still doesn’t know: Norwegians did neither hate jews during second world war nor now.
Comment by Monika — August 9, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
No antisemtism in Norway? Then who served in the 5th SS Panzergrenadier Division Wiking? Who manned the SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment 23 Norge? These Waffen SS units drew exclusively from Scandanavia and the latter unit drew exclusively from Norway. Did they volunteer for the SS because they they were Philo-semites? Or does Norway, as a bastion of Teutonic Christianity, have a past which, based on your post, it really hasn’t confronted? Monika, before you and your ilk start criticizing Israeli “war crimes,” first tell us about the contributions that Norway’s fine citizens made to the destruction of European Jewry, and later, the role Norway played in returning Jewish DPs to the countries and homes from which they had been “resettled.” Your post vindicates my mine. Thank you.
Comment by yankee — August 9, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
A final thought…both the Scandanavian Waffen units units saw extensive service in the heartland of the Holocaust, including Warsaw and Russia. You may not choose to remember, but Jews tend not to forget the identities of their killers. Never again.
Comment by yankee — August 9, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
So, yankee, no Europeans will ever be entiteled to have any opinions about the State of Israel?
…yeah, that sounds fair…
haha
Comment by Guttorm — August 9, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
Oh, not at all. Europeans can, and of course, will have opinions about Israel. The question is, what moral stature are they entitled to? One is fully justified in assessing EU reaction in view of a cultural antisemitism still very much alive in Europe; one can also consider the large and growing Muslim population in Europe that clearly offers incentives for the none-to-brave EU political establishment to engage in appeasment type behavior; one can consider the reliance of the EU on Middle Eastern oil.
By all means, let the EU have its “opinions.” But that opinion will, and should, wear the Holocaust around its neck like an albatross. The EU and its intellectual class may do as many moral gyrations as they please–but it will never, ever, escape from its legacy–which not only includes the murder of millions, but the refusal to resettle most Jews after the war. Most Europeans preferred having them as Israelis than as neighbors. Europe and only Europe is responsible for this. The only change is that the six million Jews in Israel aren’t going anywhere. So the grandchildren of the European generation that gave us appeasement, militarism and genocide are just going to have to deal with it. Sucks to be European,eh?
Comment by yankee — August 9, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
Yankee, I understand that you are adamant on changing the subject to what Norwegians did or didn’t do under Nazi occupation between 66 and 61 years ago, and then try to tar all living Norwegians with that brush. The tactic is of course familiar. Frankly, it bores me to tears.
But if you are a trained military historian as you claim on your website, then you should at least get the brush reasonably right, don’t you think?
Here’s a balanced historical summary of the whats and whys of the recruitment to Waffen SS.
“The subject of Norwegian volunteers in the Wehrmacht and SS has already been studied for years. This will be a very short version of the complex topic.
*
About 15 000 Norwegians volunteered to the Wehrmacht or SS during the years 1940-1945, and an estimate of 7000 reached the front lines in some way. (Some sources state 6 000, but the number of Norwegians joining the Wehrmacht while being residents in Germany, is unknown but believed to be about 1000)
Quisling, however saw this as a rather disappointing number, as he had visions of about 50,000 proud Norwegian soldiers, but one should bear in mind that “only” 11,000 volunteered to serve with the Allies, mainly the British. The Norwegian Police formations in Sweden, or the Merchant Navy sailors are not included in this number.
About 1000 Norwegians were killed in combat, or died in Soviet POW camps. Most Norwegians volunteered for the Waffen SS, but some did try their luck in the Luftwaffe, or the Heer, Kriegsmarine, NSKK, Organisation “Todt” etc.
There were many reasons why a Norwegian volunteer would want to risk his life by going to the front. The most common were:
- Disappointment with the Norwegian armed resistance during the German invasion, and the political circumstances that allowed such a weak and outdated defence policy.
- Disappointment with the King and Government going into exile in the UK, and the feeling of have being betrayed by the British and French during the German invasion.
- The fear of the communist threat from East, and the chance to take part in a ”Crusade against Bolshevism”
- The fact that Norway had capitulated, and this was seen by many as the only way to re-build a new national army.
Of course, many that joined were convinced nationalists, and believed in its international movement. Most were members of the right wing Nationalist party in Norway, ”Nasjonal Samling” (NS-National Unity), and a few were recruits from the Norwegian SS.”
Besides those mentioned above, there was also another major selling point for the recruiters, namely a pre-existing tradition of volunteering to fight for Finland against the Soviet Union during the First Winter War. This the Nazis exploited: Enlistees would sign up specificially for fighting in Finland but instead be deployed elsewhere on the Eastern Front. Desertation was not an option.
Anti-Semitism, by contrast, was hardly a recruitment drive to speak of.
If you believe anti-Semitism was so rife in Norway at this time — as compared to, say, in the US, where there were upper admission quotas for Jews at Ivy League universities in the 1930s — can you explain why Quisling’s party peaked at 2 percent of the votes? This was in the 1933 election, before it adopted a strongly anti-Semitic and pro-German platform. In the next parliamentary election it did even worse. Hell, Mosley in Britain was a success by comparison. (Indeed, most Americans who trot out Quisling to bash Norway are unaware of the fact that he was a puppet of the Nazi occupation, not a dictator with broad popular support like Hitler or Mussolini.)
And if ordinary Norwegians hated Jews so intensely, how come that fifty percent of Norwegian Jews were either hidden for the duration of the war or helped across to Sweden at considerable risk? I’m not excusing e.g. the collaboration of the police force in rounding up Jews, just refuting your false assertion about popular attitudes.
Of course, even by replying to your comments I have, in a sense, fallen into your diversionary trap. I’m sure that you know, deep down, how disingenious it all really is. The comment from Guttorm hits the pig on the snout.
Comment by Sirocco — August 9, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
You know, its interesting how pro-Israelis are criticized when they mention Europe’s past, while Israel critics - like a certain Norwgian cartoonist, recently - seem to take the Nazis as the first analogy that comes to mind.
That said, I personally wish the Holocaust to be kept of this discussion from both sides. I don’t see it as something to be lightly thrown around in some blog comments.
Regarding Gaardner’s article, I think it is plainly anti Jewish. The reason is the “chosen people” theme it takes. As if Israelis - who are overwhelmingly secular, you might want to check the huge Gay Pride parade in Tel Aviv sometime - take to Torah as some guide to life, giving them permission to kill lower humans. By this he not only argues the Torah give some sort of “license to kill”, but that Jews, since they are supposedly following the Torah, are by nature warmongers. This is not a new argument, certainly not in Europe.
Israel is being attacked, 200 rockets every day, by a side that IS religiously fanatic. I’d like to see Norway’s, or any other European nation’s, response to such an attack on its own civilians.
Well, regardless of the History (which I think Yankee does have a right to mention, as it seems Israel’s critics - a Norwegian
Comment by Nir — August 10, 2006 @ 9:16 am
“Many critics, including yours truly, have noted how it lumps together a questionable construal of Judaic religion with the state of Israel”(your words). -Sirocco, I think that a hypothesis that there could be such a connection should be studied seriously. The Talmud is full of hateful comments and opinions about “goyim” and several Zionist leaders have come up with racist statements about the Palestinians. Understandably it is more comfortable for a critic of Israel to entertain the notion that there is no such connection, but should fear of being labeled hold anyone back from finding out whether Talmudic hate possibly could have manifested in the political and military arena? Would this kind of study be necessary? Do “we” need it? And do we need it now? -Other questions entirely. But Sirocco, would you consider such a study to be a “questionable” undertaking?
Comment by Ragnar — August 10, 2006 @ 10:33 am