Norwegian university holds pro-Palestinian anti-Israel seminars

Source: Norway, Israel and the Jews : NTNU seminars on the Middle East – based on research or bias?

NTNU [Norwegian University of Science and Technology], a prestigious Norwegian university, is this autumn offering a series of seminars on the Middle East. Seeing as how it’s NTNU one would normally expect only the best. Yet the series of seminars as a whole appears rather unbalanced. Clearly we will hear the Palestinian narrative, but who is there to provide the audience with Israel’s perspective? The fact that Ilan Pappé is Jewish is certainly no guarantee.

Seminar 1: Violations of international law, humanitarian rights and the Geneva convention in the wars of the Middle East? By senior researcher Cecilie Hellestveit, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo.

Readers of this blog are familiar with Cecilie Hellestveit from back in February 2009, when Islamic cleric Yusuf-al-Qaradawi of the European Fatwa Council was translated in Aftenposten as having said the following:

"Throughout history Allah has sent people against the jews in order to chastise them for their corruption. The last chastisement was implemented by Hitler. By all what he did to them, even if they have exaggerated this matter, he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. By the will of Allah, next time this will happen by the hands of the faithful."

Cecilie Hellestveit disagreed with Aftenposten’s translation. In an article in Morgenbladet the following week, she claimed that Qaradawi’s statements had been interpreted "out of context" and that read properly, Qaradawi’s statement "... is clearly rhetorically closer to JFK’s Ich bin ein berliner than with Hitler’s Der ewige Jude".

While translations often will be contested, and rightly so, the difference between Aftenposten’s and Hellestveit’s interpreations is vast and certainly ought to be examined more thoroughly. In a letter to the following edition of Morgenbladet, this is what psychologist Ragnar Kværness does, asking: "What makes a peace researcher – attached to Center for Human Rights – attempt to make hateful extremists such as Qaradawi into what she calls "wise old men in wheelchairs'?" While this one incident certainly does not make Cecilie Hellestveit unfit to speak at an NTNU seminar, it does make it obvious that her presence needs to be balanced by the presence of speakers who are less accommodating of Israel’s enemies.

Seminar 4: Ethnic cleansing of Palestine – a premise for the construction of Israel? By Professor Ilan Pappé, University of Exeter.

Ilan Pappé is increasingly popular in Norway, as we noted in this post. Yet his perspectives on the war of 1948 are hugely contested, not least by Israeli historian Benny Morris who is internationally recognized as being one of the leading authorities on the refugee crisis of 1948. The difference between the two is basically that while Mr. Pappé regards the Naqba as the direct consequence of a willed and planned ethnic cleansing which the Arab states attacked in order to stop, Mr. Morris sees the Naqba as the unintended consequence of an Arab war of aggression. These two different interpretations of the same event set the state of Israel in two vastly different roles. In selecting Ilan Pappé as a speaker NTNU is providing one of the interpretations with legitimacy, while completely disregarding the other. How is this justifiable?

Seminar 5: Norway’s role in the Israeli – Palestinian conflict Wednesday 2nd. Professor Hilde Henriksen Waage, University of Oslo

Professor Waage is the person who in Aftenposten on March 30th claimed that "For a long time something similar to a smear campaign has been conducted against Norway as the most anti-Semitic country in Europe". This claim was made after the Jerusalem Post had published an erroneous article on anti-Semitism in Norway which claimed, among other, that Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen had participated in a march on January 8th where she had cried "Death to the Jews". While this erroneous article indeed placed Norway in a bad light, one article alone does not a smear campaign make. Yet Professor Waage had no other evidence to exhibit, nor was she called upon to do so. If Professor Waage can make one single article into an entire "smear campaign", can she be trusted to give a balance view of the complexities of the Arab-Israeli conflicts? (More on Professor Waage)

Seminar 6: One state, two states or federation – solutions to the conflict in the Middle East? Director Nils Butenschøn, Norwegian Center for Human Rights, University of Oslo.

When Nils Butenschøn ran for leadership of Palfront in 1976, he did so with the intention and strategy of winning "entire parties and organizations for Palestine" (here). In the words of Tarje Vågstøl’s dissertation on the history of the Palestine Movement in Norway: "The strategy was to start 'at the left' with NKP (Communist Party of Norway) and SV (Socialist Left), and then move towards the union movment and Arbeiderpartiet (Labor)". Vågstøl also narrates how Mr. Butenschøn laundered money for the PLO, telling of "... an intricate system which involved suitcases filled with thousand-kroner notes, all so the money could not be traced to the PLO". Mr. Butenschøn furthermore arranged a meeting between the PLO and the Black Panthers.

Regarding the exact topic of Mr. Butenschøn’s NTNU seminar: "One state, two states, or federation", his stance is exactly what it was when he introduced it to Norges Unge Venstre – a replication of that of Arbeiderpartiets Ungdoms Fylking’s (Labor Youth Wing) "… a progressive Palestinian state where all ethnic groups can live side by side under full equality". While Mr. Butenschøn has every right in the world to his views on how Israel should solve her problems, it must be evident from his personal history that he is a dedicated defender of the Palestinian cause more than an objective academic.

NTNU presents the seminars with the following words: "It is difficult to fashion a consistent, well funded and coherent understanding of the field (The ME conflicts). Media will never be the venue for deep thought and research-based deliberation. Thorough contemplation is something the universities must assume responsibility for. This is a contribution from NTNU".

If NTNU seriously can present the above-mentioned as speakers for a balanced seminar-series, we would very much like to see how a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel seminar-series would look like. NTNU’s rector Torbjørn Digernes would be well advised to have a closer look at what passes for "research-based" at his university.

More on the seminars :

NTNU invites Zuckermann to speak ("who on the German radio has claimed that 400 000 people were killed during Cast Lead. Read more here: German Radio Denies Gaza "Big Lie" Accusation. Notice that although Zuckermann afterwards claimed he had made a mistake, the German radio channel refused to alter the recording.")

- NTNU students protest biased seminars
- NTNU rector Torbjørn Digernes: "Seminar series is praiseworthy initiative"
- SPME: NORWEGIAN ACADEMICS CALL FOR ISRAEL BOYCOTT
- Ilan Pappé dismisses Digernes’ objectivity-defense:"We are all political"
- Stephen Walt recommended by Bin Laden, speaks at NTNU
- Criticism builds against unbalanced NTNU seminars
- NTNU student to dean: "We will not give in"
- Israeli weekly on NTNU
- Dignernes’ blog down after SPME article
- NTNU: A NORWEGIAN HATE UNIVERSITY
- Morten Levin and the serpent’s egg
- Why should Digernes resign ?

Ahmadinejad did not cross EU 'red line' with UN speech, says Sweden (EU presidency)

"Earlier this week, the European Union presidency issued a statement condemning Ahmadinejad for his statements on the Holocaust and on Israel, saying such remarks "encourage anti-Semitism and hatred"."

With such lack of coherence, no wonder there is huge disapppointment in Europe with the EU. It is impossible to know what Europe really stands for.

STOCKHOLM (AFP-EJP)--- Sweden, the country which chairs the EU, Finland and non-EU Norway stayed in the room when Ahmadinejad spoke at the UN.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not cross the "red line" that would have prompted a walkout by all EU states in his speech at the United Nations, the Swedish foreign ministry said Thursday. "There were certain criteria set for when the EU would leave the room and those criteria were not fulfilled," spokeswoman Cecilia Julin said.

Sweden currently holds the rotating EU presidency. The criteria agreed in New York before the Iranian leader spoke included denying the Holocaust and calling for the annihilation of Israel, which Ahmadinejad avoided doing this time. Even so, a number of EU states did walk out when Ahmadinejad attacked Israel, including Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary and Italy.
"We're not commenting on who left or who didn't leave," Julin said. "I think there were other reasons for other countries that decided to leave."

In his address, Ahmadinejad again took aim at Israel but without mentioning the country or Jews by name, referring only to the "Zionist regime." He accused Israel of "inhumane policies in Palestine," including genocide, and seeking to "establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the US, to attain its racist ambitions."

Suggesting there was a Jewish conspiracy, Ahmadinejad added: "It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks." He accused Jews of seeking to "establish a new form of slavery and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the US, to attain its racist ambitions."

Israel had called for a boycott of the speech, and was not present when the Iranian leader spoke.
Canada heeded the boycott call, while delegations from Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, New Zealand and the United States also left the room as Ahmadinejad began to rail against Israel, a European source said.

Earlier this week, the European Union presidency issued a statement condemning Ahmadinejad for his statements on the Holocaust and on Israel, saying such remarks "encourage anti-Semitism and hatred".

Swedish author Henning Mankell on Israel apartheid

"The comparisons to apartheid - or, more radically and these days more typically, to the Nazis. The comparison to the Nazis began to emerge in the 1970s in Western Europe and also in the Arab world, and by now it is pretty much everywhere you look." (Paul Berman, Z Word)

"What we are now experiencing is a repetition of the despicable Apartheid system that once treated Africans and coloured as second-class citizens in their own country. [...] those who advocate a two-state solution have not got it right." (Henning Mankell, Swedish writer, 2009)

Source: Swedish newspapaer Aftonbladet's cultural section (Stoppad av apartheid)

"About a week ago, I visited Israel and Palestine. I was part of a delegation of authors with representatives from different parts of the world. We came to participate in the Palestinian Literary Festival. The opening ceremony was supposed to take place at the Palestinian National Theatre in Jerusalem. We had just gathered when heavily armed Israeli military and policemen walked in and announced that they were going to stop the ceremony. When we asked why, they answered: You are a security risk.

To claim that we at that moment posed a viable terroristic threat to Israel is absolute nonsense. But at the same time, they were right. We pose a threat when we come to Israel and speak our minds about the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian population. It can be compared to the threat that I and thousands of others once were to the Apartheid system in South Africa. Words are dangerous.

That was also what I said when those who organized the conference had managed to move the whole opening ceremony to the French Cultural Centre: – What we are now experiencing is a repetition of the despicable Apartheid system that once treated Africans and coloured as second-class citizens in their own country. But let us not forget: that very apartheid system no longer exists. That system was overthrown by human force in the beginning of the 1990’s. There is a straight line between Soweto, Sharpeville and what recently happened in Gaza. [...]

What I saw during my trip was obvious: the state of Israel in its current form has no future. Moreover, those who advocate a two-state solution have not got it right."

Read the whole piece HERE
____________
Norway, Israel and the Jews write about Swedes:

"Swedes think Norwegians are a bunch of undisciplined cowboys. Meanwhile Norwegians see Swedes as being overly prim-and-proper and obsessed with going by the book. This prejudice is not entirely unfounded. Norway was never feudal the way Sweden was, neither was Norway industrialized, nor was Norway ever a military power as Sweden was. In short, Obedience was never beaten into Norwegians the way it was in Sweden. The political consequence is that Sweden does not challenge its political establishment but sticks to the Social Democrats (and every now and then the Moderates). Meanwhile in Norway’s 2009 election (Yesterday) the Progress Party got 22,9 percent of the votes. Troubling as the situation in Norway may be, it is generally worse over in neighboring Sweden – they are fearful of questioning authority.

____________

Israeli video pokes fun at Scandinavians' sense of self-righteousness
Abba in Latma's Studio (English Subs)

- Kristoffer Larsson, a Swedish theologian, backs Israeli organ theft claim
- Aftonbladet: behind the banner 'freedom of press', by Lisa Abramowicz

Kristoffer Larsson, a Swedish theologian, backs Israeli organ theft claim

"Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman managed to tacitly draw the attention to—you guessed it!—the Holocaust [...] Lieberman’s Swedish counterpart Carl Bildt blatantly refuses to cave in [...] Ostensibly, Israel is using the article to get a message across: Sweden is an anti-Semitic country. They are set to pressure the Swedish government until it condemns the ‘blood libel accusation’. All of a sudden everyone is discussing good old anti-Semitism instead of Israel’s state terrorism and its apartheid policies towards the Palestinian people."

Source: article "The Organ Theft Affair" by Kristoffer Larsson (Kristoffer Larsson is a Swedish theology student occasionally commenting on political issues. He works with the Bethlehem-based International Middle East Media Center and is a Director of Deir Yassin Remembered.)

"Swedish photojournalist Donald Boström has really infuriated the Israelis and its supporters. On August 17, Sweden’s most widely circulated newspaper, Aftonbaldet, carried an article by Boström entitled "Our sons plundered for their organs."1

The usual suspects immediately cried "anti-Semitism," claiming that the old blood libel accusation has been brought to life again.2 The Israelis have even threatened to sue him. Such reactions were anticipated, however. Innumerable hate mails have found their way into Mr Boström’s inbox since the publication, including death threats. More surprising is that Sweden’s ambassador to Israel, Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, issued a condemnation of the article. It was "as shocking and appalling to us Swedes as to Israelis," the ambassador claimed in a press release that was later withdrawn, having attracted criticism from the Swedish foreign ministry as well as from the government.

On top of that, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded that the Swedish government renounce the article, something which would be unconstitutional in Sweden. A statement from Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman managed to tacitly draw the attention to—you guessed it!—the Holocaust: "It is regrettable that the Swedish foreign ministry does not intervene when it comes to a blood libel against Jews, which reminds one of Sweden’s conduct during World War II when it also did not intervene." (I would urge Lieberman, himself a hard-core racist, to read Lenni Brenner’s excellent 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis.)

Lieberman’s Swedish counterpart Carl Bildt blatantly refuses to cave in: "As a member of the Swedish government, acting on the Swedish constitution I have to respect freedom of speech, irrespective of the personal views that I might have." His boss, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, also rejects commenting on the article. Bildt is expected in Israel in about a week’s time, but Israelis are threatening to cancel his trip.

Despite all the fuss, this isn’t the first time Donald Boström publicly vents suspicions about Israelis stealing organs from Palestinians. One chapter of the book Inshallah: konflikten mellan Israel och Palestina ("Inshallah: the Conflict between Israel and Palestine"), edited by Boström and first published in 2001, was an account of what happened to a 19-year-old Palestinian boy. It includes the photo now published in Aftonbladet. Donald Boström decided to shed new light on the affair following the mass arrest in New Jersey of people involved in illegal organ trade that included a shockingly high number of Rabbis.

Read the whole piece here

SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST SCANDOS! ISRAELIS POKE FUN!

US 'concerned' with Goldstone report

"We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining the council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable." (Susan Rice)

Unfortunately (predictably), no such reservations and concerns about the Goldstone Report were voiced either by the European Union or by European governments.

Source: article by E.B. Solomont, TJP

The United States expressed grave reservations Thursday with the findings and recommendations of a UN report that accused Israel of war crimes during the Gaza conflict and left open the possibility of prosecution at The Hague.
"We have very serious concerns about many recommendations in the report," Ambassador Susan Rice, the permanent US representative to the UN, told reporters following a closed Security Council meeting.

The nearly 600-page report, presented on Tuesday by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and recommended that if no appropriate independent inquiry takes place in Israel within six months, the Security Council should refer the matter to prosecutors at the International Criminal Court.

"We will expect and believe that the appropriate venue for this report to be considered is the Human Rights Council," Rice said on Thursday, in the first official American response to Goldstone's report. "We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining the council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable." [...]

Several members of Congress issued sharp condemnations of the Goldstone Report, which they said ignored Israel's need to defend itself against terrorism.

"In the self-righteous fantasyland inhabited by the authors, there's no such thing as terrorism, there's no such thing as Hamas, there's no such thing as legitimate self-defense," Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said in a statement. "Certainly, the United States should do all that it can to ensure as little time as possible is wasted on this distraction from the real work of making peace," he said.

In a similar vein, a joint statement by Reps. Shelley Berkley of Nevada and Eliot Engel of New York staunchly defended Israel's right to defend itself against rocket and mortar attacks from the north and the south.

"Israel took every reasonable step to avoid civilian casualties," they wrote. "It is ridiculous to claim that Israel did not take appropriate actions to protect civilian populations."

- Goldstone Report: 575 pages of NGO "cut and paste"
- Goldstone´s sins of omission

Why did Ken Loach boycott Melbourne and not Cannes ?

"Why Melbourne and not Cannes? Perhaps because Cannes is a large film festival with an extensive media exposure and the financial issues are too important for even such a committed filmmaker as Ken Loach to ignore, whereas Melbourne is a small film festival where it is easy to play the militant game and perform a great lesson-giving act."

Unauthorised translation of an extract of a piece (Israël, cible de Ken Loach) by Ariel Schweitzer published in Le Monde

"We learned this summer that filmmaker Ken Loach, who was presenting his latest film, Looking for Eric, at the Melbourne Festival, in Australia, had decided to withdraw. Loach wanted to protest against the screening of an Israeli film, The Meaning of Life for $ 9.99, and the fact that travel expenses of the author, Tatia Rosenthal, were being defrayed by an Israeli public institution. Previously, Loach had asked the festival director, Richard Moore, to refuse Israel's financial contribution. Faced with the refusal of the latter, who described Loach's request as "blackmail", the English filmmaker chose to boycott the event. [Melbourne film festival rejects Ken Loach anti-Israel pressure]

This is not the first time that Loach resorts to this method. In May, he succeeded in convincing the management of the Edinburgh Festival in Scotland to refuse the participation of another Israeli filmmaker Tali Shalom-Ezer, whose trip was to be paid by the Israeli embassy. After a lengthy debate, the director came to the festival, but she had to pay for her own travel costs. [Edinburgh film festival refuses Israeli grant due to pressure by Ken Loach]

Ken Loach is free to screen his film where he pleases. It is also his right to protest against the State of Israel and its occupation policies. The problem is the method chosen. For if one follows the Loach's logic, it is reasonable to question the filmmaker's decision to boycott the Melbourne Festival and not, for example, the last Cannes Film Festival where he came to present the same film, Looking for Eric. Indeed, five Israeli films (three long and two short films) were screened at Cannes this year. All supported by Israeli public funds and whose presence at the festival was also supported by institutions in the country.

Why Melbourne and not Cannes? Perhaps because Cannes is a large film festival with an extensive media exposure and the financial issues are too important for even such a committed filmmaker as Ken Loach to ignore, whereas Melbourne is a small film festival where it is easy to play the militant game and perform a great lesson-giving act."

- Ken Loach: "self-proclaimed Jewish State" is greatest instigator of anti-Semitism
- Marxist Film Director Says Antisemitism is "Understandable"

Norwegian scholars call for Israel boycott

Source: SPME Emily Tall, University of Buffalo, and Manfred Gerstenfeld

Twenty-one Norwegian academics at the University of Tromsø have signed a call for a boycott of all Israeli academic institutions. The initiative calls for the University to “establish an academic boycott of Israel,” of Israel’s “institutions of education, research and culture, and the institutions’ representatives, regardless of religion and nationality.”

The University of Tromsø has 9000 students and is known in Norway as the “peace university.” It was a leading force in Norway during the massive boycott of the Apartheid regime in South Africa. The city of Tromsø has a twinning relationship with the city of Gaza and inhabitants of Tromsø turned out in good numbers for a Gaza demonstration in January.

The boycott call comes at the same time that the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim has begun a series of lectures on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The lectures are supposed to build a “broad perspective.” The list of speakers includes the American Stephen Walt and the Israelis Ilan Pappe and Moshe Zuckerman. The latter claimed initially on German radio that 400,000 people were killed during Operation Cast Lead. These names and those of several Norwegian anti-Israeli lecturers leave little doubt about the pro-Palestinian thrust of the series.
________

NTNU rector Torbjørn Digernes: “Seminar series is praiseworthy initiative”
NTNU is one of Norway’s most prestigious universities. This autumn the university is presenting a series of seminars on the Palestine-Israel conflict where all of the speakers, as well as the members of the organizing committee, are known adherents of the Palestinian narrative. Why is the Israeli narrative not given equal attention? Is Israel so fundamentally evil that her perspective is irrelevant? NTNU rector Torbjørn Digernes says that all speakers at the seminar are required to be objective, and that he as rector stands by the decision to host the seminars.

Unauthorized translation from NTNU’s Rector’s Page: HERE
(Norway, Israel and the Jews blog)

Anatomy of a media manipulation, Manfred Gerstenfeld