I’m not exactly sure, either. Maybe anti-Semitism is inapt. But isn’t there a sharp line between criticizing or condemning the actions of a democratically elected government (which will be replaced when elections next come around — rather different from Saddam or Taliban) and rejecting the legitimacy of the very state? I doubt that any notion of being God’s elect is especially pressing on the current crisis, and is theologically complex besides, so it does ring like a vile sort of bait. And “we laugh at this people’s fancies”? Really? He laughs? Exactly how is it fair to weep at “this people’s” misdeeds? (By which, presumably, he means not the current government, or the ruling party, or its voting bloc — not clearly even Israelis — but the Jews.)

To “act as God’s chosen people” is an imprecise way to phrase something rather complicated, something that could be construed positively or negatively, but for better or worse it’s something of an article of faith for religious Jews. If he had said (as some people certainly would), “[To believe that all non-Christians go to Hell] is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity,” would you be comfortable calling him anti-Christian?

Robbie: Thank you, that’s very good. Your focus on the phrase “God’s chosen people” certainly helps me understand how Gaarder’s criticism might seem like an attack on the very nature of Judaism.

Certainly, you helped me realize that I made several inferences about Gaarder’s intent which are not necessarily true.

1) I inferred that by “this people’s” misdeeds, he meant the collective actions of the nation of Israel during its modern epoch.

2) I inferred that he meant for a nation to act “as God’s chosen people is… a crime against humanity”.

But you certainly convinced me that it would be possible to argue that if self-definition as “God’s chosen people” is an essential aspect of Judaism, Gaarder is therefore anti-Jew in the same way that a person might, as you say, be anti-Christian.

I guess it seems to me, though, that anti-semitism comes across as a claim about racism, rather than being against a belief.

I don’t see the difference between criticizing a democratic government and a despotic one. I very much prefer a democratic one, and love the concept of the people voting them out if needed, but as criticizing go, same same. (It is a slight bit ironic though, that the country that likes to call itself “the only demoracy in the region” work so hard to destroy the other two democracies it borders to?)

Personally I support Israels right to defend itself, but believe it is very much out of proportion (btw, how many thousands Palestinians have they kidnapped again?)

I also believe Gaarder should have been more caredul in his wording, but his intentions are very good, and if one reads the entire text, one can not believe him an antisemite. He should have known though, that single sentences will be empahzised and used against him, and he should also be wary of those actual antisemites out there that might be encouraged.

Gaarder is a good writer, a genuine kind lover of people of creeds and religions and a wise man with deep knowledge about religion, but he is naive as to how the debate works, how he would be attacked and when to conduct literary experiments.

Should he have written it differently? Yes. Is he an antisemite? Absolutely not. Is this debate a stupid derailing when Arabs, Jews and others die every day in an avoidable war in the Middle East. Yes.

I didn’t mean to suggest that democratic governments shouldn’t be criticized; but, rather, that there may be a worthwhile distinction between criticizing the government and condemning the legitimacy of the state itself. I think the fellow was doing the latter.

A word from a young German:

Needless to mention for Gaarder that Europe, and Germany in particular, has a deep responsibility for ” the plight of the Jews”. I hope the horrors of holocaust will never be forgotten and will stay in peoples minds all over the world as a warning.
What Gaarder aims at in his essay though, has nothing to do with anti-semitism, or trampling at a people’s religious rights. He simply states that no nation has the right to behave in the way Israel has done since robbing palestanian land. How would you feel, if somebody suddenly stood in your backyard with a huge armored tank, claiming the land that your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers have lived on? This has nothing to do with religion. This is not about fundamental beliefs. This is about greed - plain and simple greed. And by the way: Who gave Israel the right to contaminate vaste areas of the Mediterranean by bombing libanese oil reserves? There are millions of people in neighboring countries whose very existance depends on a clean sea, since they earn their living with tourism, fishing etc. These people have nothing to do with this war that Israel started. Many countries including even Norway and my country have offered help to save the Mediterranean from its biggest environmental disaster ever. And what was Israels reaction to that offer?Israely military officials tell them that they may try and clean up the mess that was caused by Israely bombs, but that nobody can not guarantee for their security while doing so. In other words: Feel free to come and help, but there’s a high possibility that we will shoot you.

I really do not care, whether these arrogant people are Jews, Christans, Arabs or anything else. I just want somebody to stop their murdering and marauding with whatever means necessary.

I’m curious what Mr. Gaarder sees as the criteria for forfeiting legitimate nationhood. He makes it sound as if being a nation is a privilege of good behavior and can be revoked for misbehavior. I do not mean to be coy, but what nation active for any stretch of time can claim a clean record? Ask native americans and mexicans if the U.S. is legitimate by Mr. Gaard’s implied standards. Whether Israel is a good citizen in the world community seems independent of whether it is worthy of recognition as at all citizen.

Pollack: Gaarder explicitly stated he recognized and supported the existance of Israel.

What he criticized was:

-Israel’s behaviour, which he thought didn’t warrant out recognition (as in recognition for doing something good). He wasn’t very good at making this distincion clear in the first text, but issued a clearification.

-Israels claim to any territories they didn’t already have in 1948. Israel of 1948 size OK, Israel of 1967 size, partly stolen.

I understand people who support Israels right to defend itself, even those who believe the force is warranted, which I don’t. In a historical context, it is understandable that Jews want a strong defence, although I personally think they are too trigger happy.

I understand those who support a wall/fence that I myself oppose, on the grounds of their belief that Israeli citizens will be safer.

I do not, however, understand how any sane person can defend the settlements and the placement of the so-called-security-barrier far outside Israeli borders. That is theft, violent land theft, and inexcusable. It has also fed extremism, and this evil and unneccessary policy has led to the death of many a Jew and Arab civilian alike.

Mr. Hansen:
He says, “We do no longer [sic] recognize the state of Israel.” He says, “The state of Israel in its current form is history.” That’s not, “The Likudniks need to go.” That’s “the state of Israel” and “history.” I don’t know what the “current form” means except democratic/parlimentary government of a Jewish state. I doubt he means to eliminate representative government there, so one is left with what sort of change? He says, “We laugh at this people’s fancies and weep at its misdeeds.” He simplistically alludes to a basic but complex tenet of religious Judaism and calls it racism, and a crime against humanity.

He does say that it WAS “historically and morally” necessary to establish a Jewish homeland, but I think he’s otherwise rather unambiguous. Maybe he backpedalled or further qualified himself. I don’t care, really, and am not so offended or invested in the debate to look further. I’m just commenting on the original post to this blog.

It seems worthwhile to me to check one’s language for clarity of intent, lest one slip and say something like, “I personally think [the Jews] are too trigger happy.” (Recall that only somewhat more than a third of the world’s Jews live in Israel (almost half as many live in New York), and even many of those who are there are quite a lot more liberal than their government.)

Mr. Pollack;

It appears to me that you are reading sentences out of context.

Gaarder initially says, as you say, that he will not acknowledge Israel in it’s current form.

Later on he reveals that by “current form”, he means it’s borders.

As previously quoted:
“We recognize the State of Israel of 1948, but not the one of 1967. It is the State of Israel that fails to recognize, respect or defer to the internationally lawful Israeli state of 1948. Israel wants more - more water and more villages.”

As you might or might not be aware of there are still unfulfilled 40-year-old UN resolutions ordering Israel to withdraw from occupied territories.

As this has not been done it most certainly gives legitimacy to the notion of not acknowleding Israel in it’s current form.

This is further emphasized by the fact that Israel was created by an UN resolution.

Re trigger happieness: Very sloppy language, I apologize. I did mean the Israeli government / the IDF, but added to the sentence before publishing, without checking properly how it turned out. My bad, and an ugly bad as well.

Ruud replies well to the other comments.
There are parts of Israel that is Israel proper, and there are parts that are cynically stolen from others by state sponsored extremists.

It is very unfortunate when the term anti-semite is thrown around, like done by Dr. Shimon Samuels of the Wiesenthal Centre, claiming Gaarder is antisemitic, ill and/or “evil”. Antisemitism is real (historically and currently) and dangerous, but frequent and improper use makes the term in danger of becoming void of meaning. The Israeli state is not doing anyone any favour by labeling their critics antisemitic, with the exception of the antisemites.

In a interesting twist, Dr. Samuels managed to imply that Gaarder has Alzheimers, and had to aplogize to people with Alzheimers. I’m not sure if I believe his apology though, I still think he might have a genuine hate towards Alzheimer patients.

Technically, Gaarder doesn’t say exactly what you’re claiming, Mr. Ruud:

“There is no turning back. It is time to learn a new lesson: We do no longer recognize the state of Israel. We could not recognize the South African apartheid regime, nor did we recognize the Afghan Taliban regime. Then there were many who did not recognize Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the Serbs’ ethnic cleansing. We must now get used to the idea: The state of Israel in its current form is history.” (Italics mine.)

This doesn’t entirely destroy your point, but we should be clear that Gaarder first says that he (with an unspecified number of unnamed parties) no longer recognizes the state of Israel. Period. He compares it to the South African Apartheid regime and the Taliban regime which are, so I think the argument goes, wholly illegitimate. It is only at the end of the paragraph that he brings in the phrase you point out: “in its current form”. And, frankly, I’m not entirely sure that he’s referring merely to Israel’s borders.

But poor Mr. Pollack, whose occasional visits to this blog I find very flattering, is certainly being pressed to defend something he didn’t sign on for. His original intent, I think, was merely to explain how one could possibly regard Mr. Gaarder’s statements as anti-semitic.

As to the larger questions brought up:

The question of Israel’s legitimacy is a strange and difficult one for me. Even Gaarder seems entirely ready to grant that the creation of the state of Israel was “morally and historically necessary”, something I’m far more uncertain about than he. In what way is the creation of a new nation in the middle of foreign ground to which one has a distant historical claim an obvious remedy for the violence of the Holocaust? That said, once the state has been created, I am much more likely to grant the state huge amounts of lattitude in ensuring its own survival. Israel has survived, and survived well—I’m uncertain how much better behaved a nation could be and still survive under Israel’s set of circumstances, but I may be naively cynical in that question. (I think, by the way, that naive cynicism is not a contradiction in terms at all.)

Thank you, by the way, to everyone who has taken time to comment on this entry—I appreciate getting the chance to read your perspectives.

“It is very unfortunate when the term anti-semite is thrown around, like done by Dr. Shimon Samuels of the Wiesenthal Centre, claiming Gaarder is antisemitic, ill and/or “evil”. Antisemitism is real (historically and currently) and dangerous, but frequent and improper use makes the term in danger of becoming void of meaning.”

This is exactly my concern, and what bothered me so much about Andrew Sullivan’s original post.

Nate;

While I agree with you that he initially (or in the ingress) does not specify that it is in it’s current form he can no longer recognize Israel, I still feel that it is implied even then by the fact that he says “we can no longer …”.

Further down he says “in it’s current form”, and even further down he explains what it is he cannot ackknowledge.

That aside;

Do I believe Gaarders chronicle was harshly worded? Yes.

However, I do not see how see how it can honestly be interpereted as anti-semistic by anyone (unless aforementioned someone is reading small exerpts put togeather out of context entirely).

Garder repeatedly states (rather explicitly) that this by no means is an attack on the civilian population (or people) of Israel, but rather on Israeli politics and acts of war.

This is even given it’s own paragraph.

Still, the first public reaction to the chronicle (in Norway) was by Mona Levin (Norwegian author/journalist who also happens to be a jew) stating that it was the worst thing she had read since “Mein Kampf”.

This is counter-productive, and also, I think, the main reason for the sheer size this debate has escalated to.

Can one not publicly disagree with israeli politics without beeing accused of nazism?

One of the next follow-ups was of course the letter written by Dr. Shimon Samuels claiming that Gaarder is seriously ill with malice and/or alzheimers. After reading this letter the feeling I was left with was a bad taste in my mouth.

(In my opinion) the man is arguing without arguments. Making statements without facts. Stating without doubt that Gaarder is an anti-semite, that “Gaarder is obsessed with …”, and that “Gaarger yearns to extinguish the light of Jewish sovereignty”.

Not once do I see him attempting to explain or rationalize theese statements (assumptions? accusations?); only build on them. Nor does he state this as something he thinks, belives or interperets, but as what is.

This, in my opinion, is what creates
hositility, and breeds conflict.

Nate is certainly right (and I appreciate his reminder) that I did not quite sign on for quite all this. And I think his response is otherwise apt as well.

When condemning the legitimacy of a state, it seems reasonable to weigh your words well, especially when you happen to be a widely-known writer. It did sound to me that his condemnation was a bit deeper than merely of the post-67 borders, and if it weren’t, he could very easily have written it differently — and on such a sensitive issue, one might expect him to have weighed such nuance rather carefully.

Even so, it seems to me that the principle justification for accusations of anti-Semitism has nothing at all to do with the modern state of Israel or its policies or borders, but with his very harsh words about Jewish belief in being divinely elect. It’s important to note, I think, that believing as a religious Jew that the Jews were chosen by God does not require belief in any special political privileges. Mostly it requires adherence to Torah. But the gentleman conflates Judaism with the actions of the Israeli government. It’s an easy conflation to make, perhaps, since the latter as a foundational principle involves the former, but the conflation is nevertheless inaccurate and dangerous. He describes a simplistic and misconceived Judaism in harshly negative terms. He does not merely condemn the use of an article of Jewish faith for political purposes (which would be a canard, anyway); he condemns the very article of Jewish faith. That, by definition, is a kind of anti-Judaism, and the ordinary though inapt word for that in English is anti-Semitism. Yes, it is a religious prejudice rather than a racial or ethnic one, but all the same.

And regarding the old platitude about mis- or over-use of a word emptying it of force or meaningfulness, I personally doubt there’s much danger. A well-placed “fuck” can still drop jaws, after all, and that one’s been getting pretty heavy rotation for decades (113,000,000 hits on Google: six or seven times as many as “anti-semite” and “anti-semitic” combined). I don’t think we’ll be any slower to notice hatred or intolerance because an old word is tired and worn-out. There are better words for it, anyway.

Guys,
It’s about 23:30 at night and I am too tired to formulate even the 2 cents that I wanted to add but I will get back to you on this one. It took me 22 years of my life to understand, but I finally started to reconcile at least my views with the existence of the state of Israel, the unethical things that they do often times, the ethical things that they do for which they don’t get recognized, my not having served in the army and other fun stuff like that. I don’t mean to be too rude but I exhausted, and worried, and think that too many people try to express views on things that they really don’t understand. As I write this both my younger brother’s are in Israel, on the broder, where the missiles are landing. So is my mother. And as an interesting twist to give you an idea of how fucked up this is, my Grandmother is Lebanese, which makes me 1/4 lebanese… you do the math. Good night sorry to crash the party I really didn’t mean to hurt anyone but this is the kind of thing that I can’t quite walk away from without saying anything yet at the same time know that I don’t have the strength now to say what I feel needs to be said.

- Roy

Roy: I’m not sure what to say, except that I really would be interested in hearing what you have to say on this issue in more detail if you have the time or interest. It’s certainly very important that we never forget that these are all real people that we’re talking about. Anyway… I hope and pray for your family’s safety.

I’m a european jew. I’ve been living in Israel for 2 years. I did not want to come here. But my life there was getting unbearable because of antisemitism.
Maybe I can come back some day. I wish I can. But today it seems impossible to me. It’s far too frightening for a jew to live in Europe. Europe is antisemitic. No doubt about it.