It’s good news. Dare I say, it’s great news. Here’s Ha’aretz (the typos are theirs:)
An academic boycott of Israel in Norway was averted on Thursday, when the executive board of the University of Trondheim unanimously decided to reject the controversial move. “The vote resulted in total victory,” said Professor Bjorn Alsberg, a member of the board of the Trondheim-based Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Alsberg, a chemistry professor, led a campaigned at the Norwegian city against the boycott.
Read the rest. Meanwhile, here’s a note from Kristian of the truly excellent NIJ blog, left in our comments, but deserving of the widest possible audience:
“What we just have seen is as rare as it is beautiful, with people standing up against an organized network of resourceful people who have been demonizing Israel for decades. This was a Norwegian thing and in the end, only Norwegians could solve it. Yet we could not have done so without all the international support. My heartfelt thanks to all of you.
Stay beautiful!”
Great news indeed. A re-affirmation of academic freedom and fairness.
The people who propose these boycotts know very little about the consequences of their actions. They know little about the legal, economic, or even educational ramifications. They are just motivated by hatred of Israel. They are truly pathetic bigots.
Good news, one battle won… but many more to go.
I wonder if they are going to get discouraged after this and the UCU defeat and just give up? Probably not.
What we just have seen is as rare as it is beautiful, with people standing up against an organized network of resourceful people who have been demonizing Israel for decades. This was a Norwegian thing and in the end, only Norwegians could solve it. Yet we could not have done so without all the international support. My heartfelt thanks to all of you.
Stay beautiful!
This is as expected, as I noted earlier, the boycott would never have been passed, as the people behind the suggestion fully knew. I think they feel they accomplished what they set out to do, which was to put a spotlight on the problem, and raise awareness.
But Norway is a strong ally of Israel, always has been and probably always will be. One of the reasons why Norway invest so much effort in trying to help broker a permanent peaceful solution in this area of the world.
Dear E.S
I take it you are a fellow Norwegian, which is why it surprises me to see you write that Norway is a “strong ally of Israel”. In what sense do you find this to be the case? Do you think this perception is shared at the Norwegian Storting and in Tel Aviv?
Kristian
Well, Norway have continually put their effort into a permanent solution, where Israel can live in peace as a normal nation rather than as a fortification.
Fremskrittspartiet (the Progress party), Norway second largest political party is a strong supporter of Israel, similarly Høyre (The Conservatives), Kristelig Folkeparti (The Christian democrats) and to some extent Senterpartiet (The Center) are biased towards Israel, and the layman religious movements are fiercely in support of Israel, with an almost blind faith in Israels politics.
So yeah, Norway is generally a lot more supportive of Israel than most European nations, and the South Americas, The Far East and Africa generally does not support Israel to this degree either.
Sure, The US is more supportive, but it is geopolitical reasons there as well. (Think oil.)
I have no idea what they think is Tel Aviv, with the current political leadership in Israel, I suppose nothing is “good enough” in their view. As for the Storting: Most other countries with the track record of Israel would be subject to a lot more critique than Israel receives.
E.S
The parties you mention are all in opposition. If we look at the political programs of the parties in government we see that the Socialist Left (SV) supports the Palestinian struggle against the occupation, grants the Palestinians the right to East Jerusalem as their capitol, emphasizes Israeli responsibility for the current situation and demands that Israel negotiate with the Palestinian leadership regardless of what party that may be. In the case of Gaza this is Hamas, who do not accept the existence of Israel and will wage war until the flag of Islam is raised over all of Palestine. SV accepts the right of return, which will effectively dismantle Israel as well as any two-state solution. SV has unanimously voted in favor of boycott of Israel. In January, Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen partook in a march under a placard saying “USA and Israel axis of evil”, see here: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3006339.ece
With regards to Labor and the Center Party they are less extreme, yet I cannot remember how either of the parties ever have demonstrated support to Israel, especially not to the extent that Norway way be called a “solid ally”.
Regarding your final point about “countries with the track record of Israel” you are quite wrong. Most countries with a far worse track record get of with little criticism at all. Sudan, North Korea and Russia are good examples, but there are far more. Look at any democracy ranking, for example the one by The Economist Intelligence Unit, and you see how many of them there are.
Regarding your final comment about how “nothing” is good enough for the current government in Tel Aviv, is not that a bit extreme?
Under the current government Norway is a solid ally of the Palestinians.
Kristian
“Most other countries with the track record of Israel would be subject to a lot more critique than Israel receives.”
Really, E.S.? How much criticism do the human rights records of the Sudan, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Hamas ruled Gaza, China and a dozen other countries whose human rights records is a horror show receive?
Has any university in Norway proposed a boycott over Chechnya of Russia, or of China over its treatment of minorities? Was any other country the target of a boycott?
Well, from where I stand, as a student, with a background from national student politics, I can see much stronger attacks on China (because of Tibet), Indonesia, Burma, Nigeria and Bielo-Russia, than Israel. If anyone is the eternal scape goat for all that is wrong in the world for the left winger, it is USA, not Israel.
And academic Boycotts of USA and boycotts of US products have been proposed at both the University of Oslo, and the University of Bergen, both places now have policies that say that there shall be non-American choices for instance of food, drinks, computers and so-on in the student shops.
The Students Union of Norway have a boycott on Burma, and no student traveling agencies like Kilroy and Tveter shall not offer trips there. ( In effect since 2006.)
As for Russia, she is our neighbour, and Norway have continuous talks with that nation, on among other things the state of free press and freedom of speech.
Pr now Norway have no trade with North Korea (i.e. a boycott) and there are restrictions on what can be exported to a number of nations. (Technology, weapons and munitions for instance.) So the claim that Norway JUST look at Israel’s breach of international law is ludicrous.
Ah typo in the last post, the correct is: “The Students Union of Norway have a boycott on Burma, and student traveling agencies like Kilroy and Tveter shall not offer trips there. ( In effect since 2006.)”
It sneaked in a “no” to much in the first version.
To E.S., Kristian, ganselmi and jdyer: first, a word of appreciation to all of you. It’s so rare that disagreements on the comment threads in this blog can be civil, so thank you for proving that it is possible.
Second, I note you are debating in the threads of two different posts. Please stay in this thread, as it’s the more recent. Your debate is worth following and I want to make sure our readers do so.
E.S., you provide evidence that Israel is not the only country to have been targeted for a boycott in Norway. And I note that on your own blog, you state your personal opposition to a boycott of Israel. Let me ask you then: under what circumstances do you think a boycott becomes a legitimate tactic?
I think we have to be realistic concerning pro-boycotters, to many of the most obsessive it is positively a way of life.
The AUT/UCU saga is an example, despite constant vigilance an amazing work from Engage on this matter pro-boycotters were rarely ever swayed by arguments.
Even when legal advice suggested that such a boycott of Israeli academics would be against both British and European antidiscrimination law, the pro-boycotters carried on.
As Jonathan Swift might have once said:
Which applies most aptly to anti-Israel cranks and most fanatical pro-boycotters.
Well, I will try to answer briefly. (I have in fact toyed with the idea to write a post on the very question if when they can be a viable option, I might now do it in English. )
As I see it boycotts can be either strategical, economical or symbolical.
The strategical boycotts are things like weapons embargoes, or regulations to stop computers or other technology fall into the hand of unfriendly, or unstable areas. Typically areas like North Korea, Iran, Iraq etc. Some will say Norway should not export heavy water, used in nuclear reactors, to states who are not one of the 6 original nuclear nations for instance, since that can facilitate a spreading of nuclear arms. I believe Norway nominally have a weapons embargo on Israel now. (But as our arms manufacturers can sell to the US, and they then can sell it on, it is more of a gesture.) the reason is that Israel is engaged in wars or warlike situations. The same has been a discussion regarding Turkey, due to the Kurd uprisings, but as Turkey is a member of NATO it was more difficult.
Economical boycotts are things like the boycott of South Africa during the Apartheid, or the aforementioned student boycott of tourism in Burma. It is meant to harm a government with a unacceptable policy, so they must relinquish control.
The last boycott is symbolic, it’s effect would be to show a displeasure with another nation, and is more a political instrument to signal “we need to talk”. Russia’s boycott of Norwegian salmon a few years ago was an example. An academic boycott of Israel would have been in this category.
Now, personally I find that the first category is something for the governments to decide, based on risk assessments and foreign policies. Economical boycotts can be either national boycotts (S.A. for instance), or a personal choice. “I as a consumer do not want my money to go to this nation”. For the latter part, I believe that anyone with a monopoly of services, like say student welfare organisations here in Norway. (Who generally have a monopoly on services on-campus) should see it as their goal not to make the choice for the consumer, but allow for free choice in all cases where there is a public wish for the opportunity to choose. I.e. have free-trade cola and coca cola, have both Israeli ans Spanish oranges etc. This will often mean a need to mark the place of origin, but this is almost compulsory anyway, people i Norway is used to knowing, and expects to be told, where the foodstuffs and consumer goods they buy are produced.
As for symbolic boycotts instigated by organisations and focus-groups I believe it is wise NOT to engage in such, unless it is a full consensus. I strongly believe it is much better to then just make people aware of the issue, and allow them to make their own choice. At most, issue a supportive statement for one of the groups. But again, if there is compulsory membership in a set organisation for instance, I would find it quite difficult to defend. As a liberal I believe in individual choice.
As for Israel, I believe that not selling weapons directly to Israel, as long as they might be used in irregular warfare, or against mostly civilian targets, is a signal worth sending. (Even if, as I said, Norwegian weapons can get through by different routes.) I also believe not selling materials or technology for use in the development of nuclear weapons is correct, insofar as Israel NOT being one of the nuclear powers from before the non-proliferation pact. As for other goods, I think that so long as a minority of Norwegians wants to choose to buy say oranges from other nations than Israel, because they disagree with Israels policy towards the Palestinians, that is a personal choice they should be allowed to make, and thus the point of origin should be marked. (And usually it is, as many Norwegian makes a point of choosing Norwegian produced goods if they can. Maybe not relevant for oranges, but say potatoes which we also import a lot of from Israel.) I don’t believe this really makes a difference overall, many Norwegians also show their support for Israel by deliberately choosing Israeli produce when given a choice, which again, I see no problem in.
I hope that answered you question? And I apologize if my English is a bit rusty.
I wonder where E.S. gets his information about Israel. Its “current political leadership” is to be found in Jerusalem; Tel Aviv has not been Israel’s seat of government for 60 years. But then, as Kristian has pointed out, he also doesn’t seem to know which parties are in government in his own country.
Thanks E.S. The problem with what you are arguing is that the notion of Israel as the only guilty party is taken as given. Anyone who seriously and honestly appraises the situation -
whether we are talking about the war 1947-48 or the Gaza conflict of 2009 - could not conclude that.
E.S
You write that as a student at NTNU, you see far stronger protests against “China (because of Tibet), Indonesia, Burma, Nigeria and Bielo-Russia, than Israel”. Even though I live in Oslo myself and only infrequently visit NTNU, I find great difficulty in accepting this. If protests against these countries are “far stronger” than protests against Israel, then one would expect to see far more attention over this as well as boycott proposals directed against these countries. Yet we do not.
Regarding the Trondheim region as a whole, let us remember that the most popular section of this years’ May 1st parade was not related to any of the countries you claim receive “far more” criticism than Israel, but the one dedicated to the cause of Palestine and in opposition to Israel. In LO leader Roar Flåthen’s May 1st speech he also singled out one single country for criticism and they were not the ones you mentioned, but precisely Israel.
Only yesterday in Oslo, 400 people marched in a demonstration against Israel. No other cause can consistently muster this kind of support.
You also write “If anyone is the eternal scape goat for all that is wrong in the world for the left winger, it is USA, not Israel.” I agree that the two of them are both favorite scapegoats of the far-left, yet we do not see demonstrations against and demonization of the US the way we see against Israel. Next time you are in Oslo, visit Parkveien and you will how there is visible security outside one embassy only - and it is not the embassy of any of the nations you mentioned. The thing is build like a fortress.
In Sri Lanka this autumn, theTimes online reported that up to 1400 people were dying pr week. That equals the complete death toll for the recent war in Gaza, even though it is far below the slaughter of Russia’s war in Chechenya and the genocide of Khartoum. Yet as Kjetil Wiedswang in Dagens Næringsliv commented, Norwegians did not seem to care (about Sri Lanka), perhaps because the war did not involve any jews (Wiedswang’s suggestion).
Initially you stated that Norway is a solid ally of Israel and probably always will remain so. Now you point to how there is “far stronger” criticism of other countries than of Israel. In neither case can I see that you have the facts to back you up.
Please forgive me E.S, but I do get the impression that you want to help contribute to Norway’s international reputation by disregarding key facts about how Israel has become the only country with which Norway has “strained” relations. If this is the case I understand you, but I do not believe the solution lies in altering the perceptions of foreigners. The solution must lie in making Norwegian foreign policy an instrument of Norway as a nation, rather than the Palestine-Lobby.
Best regards
Kristian Tau
E.S. you are definitely a good faith, honest debater, which is not common and which I deeply appreciate.
A I feel you misunderstand me. Israel is not the _only_ guilty party. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes.
But Israel do sit on most of the bargaining chips, and as a western democracy, it is in a position where common diplomatic channels are open.
While as the Palestinian areas have the infrastructure of a typical third world country. A rhetorical question: Just what can be boycotted from Palestine? They are recipients of humanitarian aid, and support to build a normal structure of government, and cutting out that would be a sure-fire way to get a humanitarian catastrophe. And just look to Somalia and see how a nation without a semblance of government deteriorates to pure, violent anarchy. Not something Israel would benefit from having as neighbour, I am sure.
And true, Israel maintains Jerusalem as the capital, and that is the site of Knesset, but almost all countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv, and that is the site for most international relations.
I think the problem with many pro-boycotters is their objectivity, lack of.
By objectivity, I mean that they cannot explain, using reason and logic, their criteria for selecting Israel and Israelis, for Boycott.
Bearing in mind that there are some 194 countries in the world, pro-boycotters are inevitably in a pickle, because any criteria that they do put forward invariably involves doubtful reasoning and subjectivity.
And naturally, people will question why out of 194 countries, Israel and Israelis are being picked on.
Finally, what is most apparent with many obsessive pro-boycotters is their lack of history, immense insensitivity and an inability to understand why Israelis might be offended by the word “boycott”.
Kristian; I am not sure what circles you move in, I can just affirm that in the student politics, USA is generally more of a target than Israel, especially in Oslo. (Trondheim, as you might know has not political lists, so the student democracy here is organized differently, with few ties to political parties.)
There is not that long since the last big “Stop the American war in Iraq”-protest in Oslo. There were anti-China demonstrations in relations to the Peking Olympics and proposals for a boycott of the Olympics, and while there was marked upswing in pro-Palestinian support last May 1., remember it was in the middle of the assault on Gaza, with plenty of media coverage. It would be only natural to expect that to reflect on John Q. Publics priority list.
I have no delusions of grandeur, and don’t seriously believe that I can do much in building Norway’s image either way, I just find the coverage a bit loop sided, since I know from national student politics that Israel is far from the top of the agenda among the regular youth in Norway. I suppose people notice news about issues they themselves are interested in, and then it might be easy to get blinded. I just state that the critique of Israel is not a singular occurrence, and that the country is not “singled out”, but rather is one of a number of countries which behave in a way that raises a vocal minority in calls for actions, be it demonstrations, resolution or boycotts.
As for “modernityblog”: I’m unsure why Israelis would be offended by the word “boycott” as Boycott was a British landowner who was targeted by Irish protesters in the 19th century, and thus the target of a tactic which then became known by his name. Please enlighten me!
Oh and Kristian: As I said, there have been proposals of boycotts against other nations, and some have been put in effect, others have ended in resolutions or policy changes. Just read the resolutions from the last 4 or 5 national students assemblies, and you find that Israel is not the “Big bad wolf” in the eyes of most students.
Boycott wasn’t a landowner. He was a landlord’s agent and he was targeted by tenant farmers grouped under the banner of the Land League, an organization which, with only very limited recourse to violence, managed to reverse British government policy towards small holders in Ireland.
Ah well, the main point was that it is a British surname.
“As for “modernityblog”: I’m unsure why Israelis would be offended by the word “boycott” as Boycott was a British landowner who was targeted by Irish protesters in the 19th century, and thus the target of a tactic which then became known by his name. Please enlighten me!”
E. S.
Jews in general are very sensitive to the boycotts (the origin of name not withstanding) because they have been the targets of ostracisms going back for hundreds of years in the Christian as well as the Muslim world: this particularly true during the Nazi years of the 30’s when Jews were boycotted all over Europe including Norway.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nPbr0XzlTzcC&pg=PA451&lpg=PA451&dq=norwegian+boycott+of+Jewish+stores+in+the+1930’s&source=bl&ots=dNxD_O91eM&sig=aV7BgVnosurR20aBv6lm-nmTTdI&hl=en&ei=Tn4AS5_wCsnOlAeNtOyaCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
See also this: “Why I Won’t Be Seeing the Fjords this Summer” By Bennett M. Epstein
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/norway.html
There are good historical as well as political reasons why Jews are so sensitive to any call for boycotts of the Jewish State.
ES you wrote:
“I’m unsure why Israelis would be offended by the word “boycott” as Boycott ”
You just made my argument for me, when I stated,
Perhaps you should read up on the subject of boycotts and Jews, before commenting, because clearly you are an intelligent individual but you lack the required sensitivity, the maturity and knowledge of history to understand why Jews, and others, find these proposals so offensive.
People, this has been a good debate so far. E.S. has made his points respectfully and soberly. He’s answered questions that were asked of him. You may disagree with him, but please - there is really no reason to be discourteous towards him by casting doubt upon his “maturity” or “sensitivity.”
Ben,
Fair enough, but if someone deliberately misrepresents my views (as E.S did) then I am entitled to question
1) whether or not they are serious
2) if they understand what is being written
3) don’t understand the topic, but feel the need to exercise some demons of their own.
etc
I feel those are legitimate points to make.
ES
I understand that your point is that in contemporary student politics, Israel receives the same amount of attention and criticism as other, comparable countries? This is really not easy to believe but since I do not follow student politics I am unable to prove you wrong. Can you recommend any papers or studies which prove your point? And believe me, I hope you are right about this.
Kristian
Modernity: Well I cannot find ANY information on why Jews /Israelis (Which in my book is not synonyms)would find the WORD “Boycott” offensive!
I think all targets of a boycott will find it somewhat rude or disrespectful, but that is kind of the point, especially with symbolic boycotts.
Kristian: As I said, just read the minutes from the National students assembly. (Due to the merger there have been changes on the homepage, but I believe they are still online at nsu.no)
Or for that matter, just browse the online libraries of the major students newspapers.
I don’t know if there have been done specific research into the pattern of student protests since the 70s.
And Modernity, please do not ask me to “read up” when you yourself seems unable to read what I’ve written both here, as well as on my blog, that I’m opposed to a boycott?
E.S., I don’t think Modernity accused you being a boycott supporter. Again, people, this is a good debate - let’s keep it civil and deal with what was actually said, not what we think was said. And, yes, that does apply to me too…
“Modernity: Well I cannot find ANY information on why Jews /Israelis (Which in my book is not synonyms)would find the WORD “Boycott” offensive!”
Amazing, history is replete with examples, the Internet is full of examples of boycotts of Jews and it is a pity that some Norwegians haven’t quite manage to learn to use the Internet or Google :)
Jews were boycotted in the 20th century in both Poland and Germany.
In Poland these boycotts were instigated by antisemites, long before the Nazis ever took power in Germany.
Boycotts of Jews in European countries were a prelude to physical attacks and pogroms on Jews.
Later on the Nazis instigated boycotts of Jewish businesses, which left the Jewish community in Germany progressively impoverished, culminating Kristallnacht, which I’m sure even students of the NTNU must have heard of.
The Jewish community in Poland was over 3 million before 1939, and yet who suffered incredible discrimination and open antisemitism, in Germany it probably amounted to about half a million, many of their descendants live in Israel and are fully aware of the history of boycotts.
So the word “boycott” probably doesn’t resonate with non-Jewish Norwegians, the British, or even Americans as they have never suffered from the consequences of those “boycotts”, but Jews have.
Please bear in mind each community has its own sensitivities, what might be offensive to a Norwegian wouldn’t necessarily offend a Spaniard and vice versa, and so it is with boycotts and Jews.
Anti-Jewish boycott have a long and nasty history, predating the 20th century and they ultimately end in the ostracisation of Jews within a society and many times in their murder.
That is why people are sensitive about boycotts, some people, some who understand history, some who are concerned to think beyond the obvious.
In the spirit of international friendship, these links might help explain matters:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_03408.html
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005678
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/judentum-aktenlage/hol/EncJud_boycotts01-ENGL-anti-Jewish.html
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/boycott.htm
In Ireland too, Modernity, there was anti-Jewish boycott as well as riots in the early 1900’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ireland#Limerick_Pogrom
All it takes is a couple of intolerant louts to start a pogrom and boycott.
“The boycott in Limerick in the first decade of the twentieth century is known as the Limerick Pogrom, and caused many Jews to leave the city. It was instigated by an influential intolerant Catholic priest, Fr. John Creagh of the Redemptorist Order. A teenager, John Raleigh, was arrested by the British and briefly imprisoned for attacking the Jews’ rebbe, but returned home to a welcoming throng. Limerick’s Jews fled. Many went to Cork, where trans-Atlantic passenger ships docked at Cobh. They intended to travel to America. The people of Cork welcomed them into their homes. Church halls were opened to feed and house the refugees. As a result many remained. Gerald Goldberg, a son of this migration, became Lord Mayor of Cork.”
Well, naturally I understand that Jews throughout history wrongly and unfairly have been subjects of discrimination. But your initial post made it seem like the word “boycott” was somehow offensive.
As I said, a boycott is not supposed to be taken as a compliment, but I think Israelis also understand that the reason for a boycott is somewhat important. To loose your driving license because your name starts with an M is unfair and discriminating, loosing it because you are a habitual speeder, and have amassed several fines for such, is not.
And that brings me to a second point which seems not to have been discussed. For a boycott to be just and legitimate it need to stipulate what it is meant to accomplish, and what steps must be taken by the boycotted party to have it lifted.
For the boycott of South Africa the terms was free elections and equal rights for all races. Most, if not all proposals of boycotts on Israel seem to leave this out, or they use round, unquantifiable wordings.
Now the closest I’ve seen was the demand that all nationals of Israel would get equal rights and not be subject to discrimination. Jews, Christians and Muslims. There is a certain image in the West that Israel has one set of standards for the Jews, while Palestinian Arabs living in Israel ends up as second rate citizens. With constant check points, the infamous “wall” etc. Now this might not be the case in reality. I haven’t visited Israel myself, though I would like to, even though I’m not a member of any Christo-Judean faith, so I have no first hand knowledge. But regardless, this will rub many Europeans the wrong way: Jews have throughout history been treated as second-class members of society in a lot of countries, and if they now treat other groups the same way in their own country it would just seems sadly ironic.
E. S.
“Well I cannot find ANY information on why Jews /Israelis (Which in my book is not synonyms)…”
Think again, E.S.
You can’t institute a boycott of Israel without affecting Jews.
Firstly, many Jews have deep connections to Israel.
Second, Jews in, say Norway, who would not go along with the boycott would be seen as pro-Zionist and hence “the enemy.”
Third, a boycott will awaken dormant anti-Semitic feelings now dormant.
Finally, anti-Semites will take advantage of the boycott to preach their message of hate. The boycott would legitimize their Jew hatred. This has already happened in part in England and elsewhere with right wing fascist parties joining the anti-Israel crusade.
All in all a boycott will make your society much more intolerant. And, as they say first they came for the Jews, then…..
ES brings up a good point. He points out how because of Jewish experiences with persecution and discrimination, some people may hold Israel to a higher standard of behavior than other countries. This is not uncommon, and I believe it goes hand in hand with the idea of suffering somehow ennobling man.
We sympathize with a man undergoing suffering. We identify with him and hope for him to overcome his trials. Since we identify with him, we believe that he is “good” in the same sense as ourselves, except he must be even better since his sufferings are greater than ours. If he then fails to satisfy our expectations of him by being less than superhuman, we become tremendously disappointed with him and demonize him. Not for what he has done as such, but for having let us down.
This is nonsense of course. One clings on to ones humanity in spite of brutality, not because of it.
E. S. “Well, naturally I understand that Jews throughout history wrongly and unfairly have been subjects of discrimination. But your initial post made it seem like the word “boycott” was somehow offensive.”
Not the word, the act of boycotting is offensive to most Jews. This has been said before, here, E.S.
“As I said, a boycott is not supposed to be taken as a compliment, but I think Israelis also understand that the reason for a boycott is somewhat important.”
I have no idea to which Israelis you are referring. Most Israelis I know think that there is a large dose of antisemitism behind the boycott proposals, especially in Europe.
“To loose your driving license because your name starts with an M is unfair and discriminating, loosing it because you are a habitual speeder, and have amassed several fines for such, is not.”
This analogy is interesting because the ultimate unstated aim of these boycotts is to delegitimize the Jewish State and ultimately abolish it.
“For the boycott of South Africa the terms was free elections and equal rights for all races. Most, if not all proposals of boycotts on Israel seem to leave this out, or they use round, unquantifiable wordings.”
The analogy with South Africa is both wrong and offensive, S.A. Israel is not an apartheid State and all citizens of Israel within the green line have equal rights. There is no law that allows for segregation. If you are looking for comparisons to S.A. try Saudi Arabia or even Iran with its religious apartheid system.
In any case, the boycott of S.A did not end apartheid. It made people feel good but did not achieve its aim. What changed South Africa was the fall of the Soviet Union and that country could no longer count on help from the free world to counter “the communist opposition.”
“Now the closest I’ve seen was the demand that all nationals of Israel would get equal rights and not be subject to discrimination. Jews, Christians and Muslims. There is a certain image in the West that Israel has one set of standards for the Jews, while Palestinian Arabs living in Israel ends up as second rate citizens. With constant check points, the infamous “wall” etc. Now this might not be the case in reality. I haven’t visited Israel myself, though I would like to, even though I’m not a member of any Christo-Judean faith, so I have no first hand knowledge. But regardless, this will rub many Europeans the wrong way: Jews have throughout history been treated as second-class members of society in a lot of countries, and if they now treat other groups the same way in their own country it would just seems sadly ironic.”
E.S. you need to do a lot more research before you write such factually incorrect nonsense.
Israel is a majority Jewish State, it is also a State in which its minorities are guaranteed equal rights. The Arabs on the West Bank are not citizens of Israel and hence do not fall under its laws. Hopefully at some point there will be a Palestinian State living side by side in peace with Israel.
This is what you should be working for and not taking one side against the other in this conflict.
Finally, there are plenty of countries in the world that still practice segregation yet you chose to target the only genuine democracy in the Middle East. This is ironic.
Thanks Jabob,
Irish history is so often neglected, I was hoping that E.S, as a European, would be more familiar with the example of Polish and German antisemitism, but clearly that isn’t the case.
I’ll leave it to you and Ben to debate the issues with him, frankly, I don’t have the patience.
“Irish history is so often neglected,”
not by the Irish it isn’t ;=)
Oh my, here there were a lot of misconceptions: I will trough to handle them all and set some records straight.
Jacob Arnon postulates:
“You can’t institute a boycott of Israel without affecting Jews.”
-True if you add the word “some” as most citizens of Israel is Jews.
“Second, Jews in, say Norway, who would not go along with the boycott would be seen as pro-Zionist and hence “the enemy.””
-Not necessarily, it depends on the form of boycott, unless it is a national boycott, it would not be illegal to not support it. And there is no chance in hell that there will be a national boycott. Incidentally, many Jews dislike the Israeli politics.
“Third, a boycott will awaken dormant anti-Semitic feelings now dormant.”
-I often see this statement, but no reasons why are given. The majority of South Africa’s citizens is black, did the boycott of South Africa heighten general racism?
“Finally, anti-Semites will take advantage of the boycott to preach their message of hate.”
-Possibly, it would be up to the rest of the community to set them straight.
“The boycott would legitimize their Jew hatred. This has already happened in part in England and elsewhere with right wing fascist parties joining the anti-Israel crusade.”
-No, broken logic. WHY would it legitimize their hatred of Jews? Jews are not identical to the state of Israel, 99% of the world understands this. And since when did the UK boycott Israel?? People usually understand that Israel ≠ Jews in general.
In his next post he makes the strange statement:
“This analogy (about speeding and driving licenses) is interesting because the ultimate unstated aim of these boycotts is to delegitimize the Jewish State and ultimately abolish it. ”
-No, again broken logic. Will you stop fighting straw men, and please refrain from putting words in my mouth? The “speeding tickets” in my analogy was the numerous UN resolutions against Israel.
“The analogy with South Africa is both wrong and offensive, S.A. Israel is not an apartheid State and all citizens of Israel within the green line have equal rights. There is no law that allows for segregation. If you are looking for comparisons to S.A. try Saudi Arabia or even Iran with its religious apartheid system.”
And Mr Arnon seems to misunderstand, S.A. Is used as an example, because the boycott is well known. The REASONS for the boycotts are NOT similar. Please read what I write and try not to invent viewpoints I do not have. And yes, the reason S.A. had to change their ways was just because the Soviet Union disbanded, as they had been a constant blockade-breaker. Without their support S.A. felt the real brunt of being a international pariah, and had to change their ways.
That you seem not to understand that I am not a spokesperson for the whole western world I won’t comment on, my analysis just takes as a given Israels current image in the west, not whether it is correct or not.
E.S., I am beginning to feel a little like Modernity, but I will try one more time:
You say by way of reply to my comment that: ‘The boycott would legitimize their Jew hatred. This has already happened in part in England and elsewhere with right wing fascist parties joining the anti-Israel crusade.’
“No, broken logic. WHY would it legitimize their hatred of Jews? Jews are not identical to the state of Israel, 99% of the world understands this.”
There is no broken “logic” since I didn’t offer a logical proposition.
Now, since most of the world Jews either live in Israel or will in a generation or so and since Israel is a Jewish State Israel does equal the Jews in the same way that Norway equals Norwegians. Your attempt to separate the Jews from their State is bizarre. Would you say the same of the Russians and their State?
It’s possible that you mean that the people in a country are not the same as their government, but this is not what you said. (There may be a problem of translation here.)
In any case, how do you know that, “99% of the world understands this.” Do you have any proof to support your allegation? I world suggest that to most people in the world Israel is Jewish in the same way that France is French. This is especially true in the Arab world which is why there is such a high level of antisemitism there and why antisemitic books like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is so popular there.
Why are you trying to separate Israel from the Jewish community? You do so in almost each and every paragraph of your reply.
I said: “You can’t institute a boycott of Israel without affecting Jews.”
You replied:
“True if you add the word “some” as most citizens of Israel is Jews.”
This is disingenuous since Israel has more Jews living there than any other country. Hence it is not just “some” Jews that will be affected but most Jews.
In any case, my point was that any boycott will affect the Jews in the country that is boycotting it as well as the Jews in Israel. I already wrote about this above and will not repeat myself here.
I said: “Second, Jews in, say Norway, who would not go along with the boycott would be seen as pro-Zionist and hence “the enemy.””
You replied: “Not necessarily, it depends on the form of boycott, unless it is a national boycott, it would not be illegal to not support it. And there is no chance in hell that there will be a national boycott. Incidentally, many Jews dislike the Israeli politics.”
Not necessarily is not a good enough answer. How do you know that “many” Jews in Norway dislike Israeli politics? And how many is many? Did you take a poll? Moreover, you are missing the point of what I have been saying: once Jews any where become the target it will affect all Jews even those stupid enough to go along with such a boycott.
You either don’t seem to know anything about the nature of bigotry or else you are playing games here.
One more example:
Me: “Third, a boycott will awaken dormant anti-Semitic feelings now dormant.
You “I often see this statement, but no reasons why are given. The majority of South Africa’s citizens is black, did the boycott of South Africa heighten general racism?”
This comparison is nonsense. The boycott of SA was against its white citizens who ruled the country and not the Black population there.
Most of your other comments are similar in nature. You discount any possible reintroduction of antisemitism. But history shows that the apposite will be the case. There is no case that I know of where a single segment of the Jewish people was attacked (be that segment religious Jews, Communist Jews, Capitalist Jews or even liberal Jews) and that it didn’t in time lead to an attack on all the Jews. This should be obvious to any Jew who knows anything about Jewish history.
You also claim that you are against any boycott of Israel:
“….you seem not to understand that I am not a spokesperson for the whole western world I won’t comment on, my analysis just takes as a given Israels current image in the west, not whether it is correct or not.”
If so why are you spending so much time defending the right to boycott Israel?
I will make this short and sweet:
Please answer the following:
WHY will a boycott of Israel mean it will be legit to hate Jews. You say it is, I say it ain’t. Please give me some stringent argument why people in general would think that a useless government in a nation means all citizens are worthy of scorn, and why that scorn should spill over to people who share the same religion as the said government.
(Bonus question: Is Jewish a denomination of religion or a denomination for ethnicity? I think, and most enlightened people agree, it is the first. )
Secondly, what in the world makes it likely that millions of American Jews will emigrate to Israel like you seem to believe? I find it about as likely as all Norwegian Americans in the US should suddenly emigrate to Norway.
Israel is A Jewish state, their wish to be THE Jewish state is a recipe for disaster. We must not allow the statement that the only place where Jews should live is in Israel be preached as a universal truth, THAT would be to legitimize those that wants to throw all Jews out of their country. (Quite a number in Russia and other parts of the old East block.)
And all I say that Israel is as much a legal target for a boycott as any other sovereign state. But per now I do not see any reason why such a boycott should be enforced or applied. Naturally I think whoever who wants to stop buying Israeli potatoes, US cola, or for that matter Norwegian oil, should be allowed to do so. Individual freedom of choice is a liberal necessity in a modern democracy.
ES, do you not find that too many Norwegians spend far too much time thinking about Israel?
Initially, when you claimed Norway was a solid ally of Israel and always would be, I thought you were out to gloss over the facts of Norwegian-Israel relations and just wanted to make our country look good. I no longer think this is your objective.
One day Norwegians will pay no more attention to Israel than to any other ME country and Sophie and I will be able to do something else with our time.
E.S. You asked a lot of questions. I’ll with your last comment first:
“And all I say that Israel is as much a legal target for a boycott as any other sovereign state. But per now I do not see any reason why such a boycott should be enforced or applied.”
I still don’t why you spending so much time defending the right to boycott Israel, if as you say you don’t believe in a boycott?
“Naturally I think whoever who wants to stop buying Israeli potatoes, US cola, or for that matter Norwegian oil, should be allowed to do so. Individual freedom of choice is a liberal necessity in a modern democracy.”
This goes without saying. People are free to buy whatever they want or whatever they can afford. No one is forcing them to buy any particular product from any particular country. If you want to drink Egyptian cola, or buy Syrian manufactured computer chips, be my guest.
“WHY will a boycott of Israel mean it will be legit to hate Jews. You say it is, I say it ain’t.
I (and some other posters have) already answered your question. However, this will be my last attempt at a reply. Any boycott of Israel will have to be enforced. There will be Jews who will not wish to abide by the boycott. These Jews will be seen as being Zionists and will be identified with “the enemy” The Jewish State. It’s that simple. This will start a round of accusations and recriminations against Jews.
If you don’t think this will happen you are living in a dream world.
“(Bonus question: Is Jewish a denomination of religion or a denomination for ethnicity? I think, and most enlightened people agree, it is the first. )”
No E.S. you can’t ask a question and then offer your own answers.
Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. I am not religious but I am ethnically a Jew. It’s not up to you or up to “enlightened people” to decide what I am. It’s up to me to decide what I am. Using leading terms like “enlightened” doesn’t add anything to your argument, btw.
“Secondly, what in the world makes it likely that millions of American Jews will emigrate to Israel like you seem to believe? I find it about as likely as all Norwegian Americans in the US should suddenly emigrate to Norway.”
I have no idea why ask this. I never said that millions of American Jews will immigrate to Israel. I think you must be referring to my point that in a generation or so the majority of Jews will be living in Israel. This is because of assimilation and not emigration, though there will be Jews who will undoubtedly immigrate to Israel.
“Israel is A Jewish state, their wish to be THE Jewish state is a recipe for disaster.”
I have no idea what you mean by “The Jewish State” as opposed to a Jewish State. As far as I know there is only one Jewish State. Do you think the US is a Jewish State?
“We must not allow the statement that the only place where Jews should live is in Israel be preached as a universal truth,”
This is nonsense. Jews will live wherever they want even if there is a Jewish State. Jews will also express a preference of they want other Jews to live. This is called freedom of speech. I also don’t’ know who the “we” is in your sentence above, do you? Who are you to decide that Jews should not live in their own State if they so wish?
“THAT would be to legitimize those that wants to throw all Jews out of their country. (Quite a number in Russia and other parts of the old East block.)”
No it wouldn’t legitimize any such thing. Many if not most Jews have already left the Soviet Union because of antisemitism. The largest number of Russian Jews now lives in Israel rather than Russia.
The cruelest thing I can think of is forcing Jews to live in an antisemitic country as you are trying to do in order to prove that antisemites don’t have the right to throw them out.
The fact that Israel exist means that they don’t have to that anymore.
This is my last reply to you, E.S.
Kristian: Agreed, to many Norwegians spend way to much time discussing Israel pro and contra.
Jacob Arnon: My point the whole time have been to explain why a proposal of a boycott of Israel is not a case of antisemitism run rampant, but just a normal response when a vocal minority feel a foreign nation does something that minority dislike. Same thing happened when Mr Haider was elected prime minister of Austria, or for that matter the proposals of boycotts of Morocco, due to the West Sahara. No one claims the latter is a result of hatred towards Arabs?
As for “enlightened” I tried to suggest people in the western world, in the Arab world the sentiment is quite different. As for a boycott and Jews not following it, I can pretty much guarantee that they will be alone in not doing so. As I said, and also explained in my blog post on the subject, unless it is a national boycott for security reasons or similar circumstances, it would not be illegal to not support it, and most consumers would not be bothered to check where the microchip in their new laptop, or juice in their soft drink was produced.
As for the “THE” Jewish state. Many countries have state religions, even Norway, which is fair and square. The problem is that when you say Israel is THE Jewish state it is indirectly a way of saying it is where all Jews should live. (E.g. Japanese is technically “The” Shinto state, that religion is almost exclusive to Japan, but they don’t market it as such.)
And I’m sorry I misunderstood you, but I cannot see why Jewish culture and religion is in the danger of being assimilated in for instance the US.
“Same thing happened when Mr Haider was elected prime minister of Austria”
Er, no, but I hate to say I told you so, being well informed on issues could be a disadvantage for a pro-boycotters.
And well done, Jacob, I salute your persistence :)
ES’s grasp of these issues is on a par with his knowledge of Austrian politics!
ES: Saying that Israel is “the” Jewish state is not in any way equivalent to saying it is where all Jews should live. Israel is the world’s only Jewish state; that is just a fact. Japan (to take your example) is the world’s only Japanese state; that is also just a fact, and no one thinks it is “indirectly a way of saying” that all persons of Japanese descent should go and live in Japan.
E.S. your answers to what was said to are complete inadequate and reveal a tremendous ignorance on the subject.
That you show a zeal for a subject you know so little aout makes me wonder what is it that motivates your passionate intensity about the subject of Israel and Jews.
For the benefits of readers unfamiliar with Austrian politics, Haider was never elected PM of Austria.
He was the Governor of the province of Carinthia until he killed himself after a drinking session, crashing his car.
Alan: Jews are the followers of a given religion, Judaism. Israeli are the citizens of Israel. Not all Israelis are Jews. And the majority of Jews are not Israeli. Unless we try to stick to this simple nomenclature, any discussion will be bereft with misunderstandings.
As for Jürg Haider who died in a car crash on his way to his mothers 90th birthday, I relied to much on memory. I should have checked up on the position he had. (Leader of FPÖ and member of the coalition government). Not that I really see what difference that makes for the point I was making, that Austria was faced with several boycott-attempts due to his rather ham-fisted speeches. (And now a days arguably mostly know for the theories that he committed suicide after a break up with him homosexual lover)
jdyer: feel free to specify what questions you feel I haven’t commented on? As for my interest in Israel: (I see you haven’t read my blog), When I was leader of the student welfare council in Trondheim back in 2006 I removed a one-year old boycott on Israeli goods, put in place by the SiT on the request of the students community, which is why I had to read up a fair bit on the whole matter.
Too bad the boycott didn’t happen. So many of you seem so happy yet you ignore the reality which, for the Palestinians, is so sad. Nor will it benefit Israel in the long run. I see nothing “beautiful” about the status quo and nothing but deceit in such comments as: “They are just motivated by hatred of Israel. They are truly pathetic bigots.” Being sick and tired of the current state of affairs, of the IDF boot being firmly planted on the Palestinian neck, of Israel’s continuous violation of international law, of no movement toward peace, is hardly the same as hatred of Israel and bigotry.