The Oslo Syndrome (another wacko piece from JPost, by Barry Rubin)

[shaayecanaan]

"One of the most sensitive aspects of the murderous terrorist attack in Norway by a right-wing gunman is this irony: The youth camp he attacked was engaged in what was essentially (though the campers didn’t see it that way, no doubt) a pro-terrorist program.

The camp, run by Norway’s left-wing party, was lobbying for breaking the blockade of the terrorist Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, and for immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, without that entity needing to do anything that would prevent it from being used as a terrorist base against Israel. They were justifying forces that had committed terrorism against Israelis, killing thousands of people like themselves.

Even to mention this irony is dangerous, since it might be taken to imply that the victims “had it coming.” The victims never deserve to be murdered by terrorists, even victims who think other victims “had it coming.” This is in no way a justification of that horrendous terrorist act. It’s the exact opposite: a vital but forgotten lesson arising from it that can and should save lives."

Call it the Oslo Syndrome.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?ID=231838&R=R1

The talkbacks are quite to the point.

[Peace Patriot]

1. I am agog. They are holding children--average age 16--responsible for policies of

the Labour Party in Norway that they disagree with? They are calling a summer camp for leadership training a "pro-terrorist program"? They are USING the horrible deaths of these children as an EXCUSE to make this point against the Labour Party? They can't get anywhere convincing the Labour Party to do agree with them, so they're taking it out on these dead children and their surviving parents and brothers and sisters and friends? The funerals are not even over yet!

Their words are as appalling as those written by the psychotic nazi who slaughtered these children. They should be ashamed. And they really, REALLY need to apologize.

I can't believe that they really want to equate themselves with this mass murderer and his "Knights of Templar" fantasies and his gruesome skinhead "philosophy." But that is what they have done. And I hope they recognize this and retract this article. If they want to maintain any credibility as an advocate of Israel among those of us who support Israel but don't support Israel's rightwing government, they will. They will apologize and retract it. I truly hope they do. I am not all that familiar with Jerusalem Post articles. I hope this is not typical. And if they don't retract this, I will never read them again. It is sickening.

[oberliner]

3. The Jerusalem Post has a circulation of about 15,000 in Israel

For some reason the poster of the OP is trying to make them out to be one of Israel's "leading newspapers" by reprinting their op-eds on what now appears to be a regular basis.

[Jefferson23]

4. Point out to me where he states or implies this is one of Israel's leading newspapers in this OP n/t

[oberliner]

5. "Whoever thought that 50 years on, Israel's leading paper would be urging..."

Whoever thought that 50 years on, Israel's leading paper would be urging the Europeans to protect their unique culture and values?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=359247&mesg_id=359258

[Jefferson23]

6. LOOK and read what I asked you please in post # 4. In THIS OP. n/t

[oberliner]

10. It was from the other JPost OP from the same poster a few days ago nt

[Jefferson23]

14. And you think that justifies conjecture in this OP, poor form oberliner.

He did not argue your findings, yet here you are assigning it again and falsely so.

[oberliner]

15. Why post RW editorials from JPost?

I don't understand the point.

[Jefferson23]

16. Changing the subject is not becoming of you. Nonetheless I would think it would

be obvious why he posted it. JPost is not the equivalent of FrontPage Magazine, although if they keep
this up they may be turning a dark corner. Barry Rubin is used here and referred to as a liberal, frequently, and I have been informed
recently he is a liberal in the vein of Obama, but not like Kucinich.

If you do not find value in the discussion, that's fine but here you still remain.

[oberliner]

20. What is the subject? I am trying to explain my comment and objection

It's not obvious. And I don't know what FrontPage Magazine is but JPost has lots of people writing op-ed pieces who ought not to be taken seriously here on DU (and aren't in Israel).

Barry Rubin is used here by maybe one poster and is not referred to as a liberal frequently. The number of posters who have called him that number 2 or 3 at the maximum.

I find value in this discussion if it helps anyone who might be reading this to understand that JPost is not widely read in Israel and that Barry Rubin is obsessed with "Islamism".

[Jefferson23]

25. It is obvious to me you did not accept that he accepted your findings

of JPost not being a leading newspaper yet you felt it necessary to falsely tell the other poster he was
doing just that.

David Horowitz's magazine, online.

That is your opinion that Rubin is not taken seriously in Israel, unless you can support that, please do.


You: I find value in this discussion if it helps anyone who might be reading this to understand that JPost is not widely read in Israel and that Barry Rubin is obsessed with "Islamism".


He did not make that claim in this OP, you brought it up.

[oberliner]

26. You are right

I thought his posting of another op-ed of similar provenance from the same source was in a sense a means of asserting that JPost is more significant than it is. Look at the response from the other poster who seemed to think it was a major newspaper. But, I've decided that I will drop all objections to posts from JPost from now on, so these pleasant exchanges are at an end.

Thanks for the info on Front Page Magazine - I do recall now what it is now that you've mentioned Horowitz.

And of course he did not make that claim in this OP, I brought it up specifically because he didn't (and wouldn't).

[Jefferson23]

27. You may be presuming the other poster is not familiar with JPost.

Again, your opinion JPost needed to be a leading newspaper of significance for anyone to
express legitimate concern about them publishing the OP.

Bringing it up because he did not and would not, thanks for that admission.

Of course it is entirely up to you what you object to and to whom about editorials of this nature, their supporters
who list them as credible or object to those who post them for exposure...your choice.

[shaayecanaan]

9. You never had a problem with the Jerusalem Post before...

I would also remind you that pieces by Barry Rubin are posted here quite regularly by our right-wing friends, although the claim is often made that somehow Rubin qualifies as a liberal.

[oberliner]

12. They have a few moderate even somewhat LW writers that I find interesting

The two you posted, however, are not among them.

Let me ask you something - how is what you are doing here different from what MEMRI does?

[shaayecanaan]

17. I don't have a problem with what MEMRI does...

and I can hardly object if they want to show the world Farfour the talking mouse.

But I suppose the difference is that I don't know that many people would defend Farfour on this forum, whereas I see that some here are stepping up to the plate to defend Rubin.

He's an "Obama-type liberal", apparently.

[oberliner]

18. I think the number of people who defend Rubin here is pretty miniscule

You certainly can't say you've seen me do such a thing.

We are talking about 2, maybe 3 posters, tops.

[shaayecanaan]

21. The number of people who post here regularly is pretty miniscule...

and I dare say the number of people who bother reading is pretty miniscule as well.

Put aside those 2 or 3 posters and I would wager that you're the only person left in your tent with any credibility at all, aside from Shaktimaan, who also generally appears reasonable.

[oberliner]

23. We are a pretty small community - 'tis true

And now that you've paid me that compliment (mild though it was!) I am loathe to continue making a stink about whether or not it's a good idea to post RW op-eds from JPost.

Personally, I think that far too many pundits are attempting to use the tragedy in Norway to advance their ideological agendas. It find it more than a little unseemly, to say the least.

Though the comments from the Norwegian ambassador to Israel didn't really help matters at all.

In any case, I still have a hard time thinking of that awful scene without becoming overwhelmed with sadness and anger.

[shaayecanaan]

29. I agree with you in relation to the Norwegian ambassador...

he probably could have used better words, or not used words at all.

[LeftishBrit]

33. Fully agree, especially on your last sentence.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Well said, Obie. I totally agree with what you said...

Especially the last line, which described exactly how I feel. It's posts like that which put you head and shoulders above others who I consider to be Team Israel (apart from Shakt and Aranthus, who are reasonable people who along with you I feel that I share some common ground with despite our disagreements). Those who are using the mass-murder to tout their ideological agendas are probably playing right into the hands of the perpetrator of the attack, who'd be very happy to know what he did is being used to cause friction and disunity...

[King_David]

60. Bizarre that some people saying such things about Oberliner had him on ignore for the longest time,

and not that long ago.


Doncha think ?

On the Team -not-Israel (to use your nomenclature) from the southern hemisphere side I consider shaayecanaan the only one who can post without subtle and personal insults most times.

Agree?

[bemildred]

65. No sense of irony I take it? nt

[King_David]

67. Yes , that is the point. NT

[bemildred]

93. Your point is that you have no sense of irony?

Belaboring other people for being nasty and hostile?

[Violet_Crumble]

68. I've got no idea what yr talking about

Nor what yr problem is but that's quite a nasty post

[King_David]

69. It was in response to nastiness.

Only 3 reasonable people on 'team Israel' kind of nastiness.


But I will leave it at that.


(I will not go on with this,thankfully ;) )

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Nothing I said was nasty at all

I was even more generous than Shaay, who only listed two people as having any credibility. It obviously upsets you that I didn't include you as someone I find reasonable and find common ground with, and while I did forget to mention one other regular who I forgot in my post, I'd be lying if I said it were u. I'm sure someone somewhere thinks yr awesome if that's any consolation.

My apologies for daring to talk about the respect I have for three or four posters in Team Israel. I didn't intend anything but to pay those individuals a compliment and hope they took my compliment in the way it was intended.

[Jefferson23]

22. I have not seen you defend him. His supporters are quite visible here and I think you

would agree regulars are a small group here to begin with.

[oberliner]

24. Yes - true

I sometimes delude myself into thinking that far more people are reading these exchanges than actually are.

[Jefferson23]

2. Yea, but I have been told that Barry Rubin is a liberal, lol. Liberal's are not bigots

nor apologists for crimes against Palestinians blah, blah, blah.


This is one defensive statement: "Nevertheless, many people gave him the idea that terrorism would change minds, and bring victory. They weren’t those whose blogs he quoted a few times in a 1,500-page manifesto, and who explicitly rejected violence. It was the successful terrorists and their Western enablers who gave him the tactic he implemented."


The bigot is feeling some heat perhaps.

[Mosby]

7. he is a Liberal - an Obama type liberal but not a Kucinich or Sanders type.

[Jefferson23]

8. An Obama type liberal, now there is a new one. Thanks. n/t

[Mosby]

13. your welcome. (nt)

[shaayecanaan]

11. As much as I have been disappointed with Obama in recent weeks

I find it a stretch to believe that he would ever endorse a mealy-mouthed defence of terrorism such as this.

[LeftishBrit]

31. An Obama type liberal?

Whenever he mentions Obama in any of his articles he is highly negative about him. And this is not just recent disillusionment, or a tendency to criticize any incumbent president; here's what he wrote in 2008 (yes, I'm breaking my own rules in linking to American Thinker):

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/scary_signals_obamas_ideology.html

ETA:

Or see this article, some of which is just woffle, but which includes what seems to be support for Sarah Palin (not mentioned by name, but fairly identifiable by the description):

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/detecting_real_heroes_1.html

[azurnoir]

32. wow that is pretty bad a snip from his 2008 Obama rant

But no, he just puts in a few clichés as if to highlight his belief that he can get away with anything and still keep gullible Jewish voters.

When, however, there is something distinctive it is negative intentions disguised as idealism. The statement says:

"Still, there is no greater gift America can give to Israel -- no better way we can salute our Israeli friends on this important anniversary -- than to redouble our commitment to help Israel achieve its goal of true security through lasting peace with its neighbors. The United States does Israel no favors when it neglects opportunities for progress in Arab-Israeli peacemaking.

"Israelis can always count on the United States to stand with them against any threat, from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran, and to ensure that Israel has the means to defend itself. Israel has real enemies, and we will face them together. But standing with Israel also requires America to do everything it can to reduce and ease the conflict with the Arab neighbors. To do any less would be to prevent Israel from achieving its full, extraordinary potential."


Obviously, peace is good. But it is no longer the Oslo era. Things should have been learned. A combination of factors, notably Hamas, makes the chances for peace quite low, a point unrecognized in the statement. And despite the fine, carefully worded sentence the subliminal message screams out: Pressure Israel for its own good AND peace at any price.

[shira]

34. More like Euston Manifesto type liberal. And let's not pretend folks on both sides of I/P have...

....no issues with the way Obama is handling I/P.

[LeftishBrit]

43. Well, I certainly have a number of issues with the Euston Manifesto...

Especially with regard to the continued support of several key members for the war in Iraq. However, the Euston Manifesto does have one very positive key feature: it is explicitly economically progressive. The manifesto supports social and economic equality; the war on poverty at home and abroad; and describes trade unions as "bedrock organizations in the defence of workers' interests and are one of the most important forces for human rights, democracy-promotion and egalitarian internationalism."

By contrast, while Rubin does not seem to treat economic/public services issues as his top priority, when he does say anything about them it always seems to be right-wing. E.g. he refers to the Netherlands as having a ‘bloated welfare state’, an expression, which when used without qualification almost always indicates an economic right-winger; and he says in one article:

http://www.anatoliadaily.com/irst/index.php/authors/23-all-articles-of-barry-rubins/112-why-liberals-and-democrats-should-oppose-obamas-policies

‘Why should real traditional liberals and Democrats accept an economic policy that so distorted Keynesian economics, which never proposed ruinously unlimited debts based on totally unproductive spending?’

‘Unproductive’? Says who?

The Euston Manifesto writers are British and, though pro-American in general do not seem very preoccupied with the details of American elections. However, I can pretty well guarantee that they would *not* defend Sarah Palin. Most seem to be linked to the Labour Party, even if generally its more right-wing, Blairite wing.

Of course, I don’t pretend any such thing. People on either side of the issue often tend to think that Obama supports the other side. However: a liberal, however opposed to a particular policy of Obama’s would *not* describe him as ‘far left’, as Rubin does in the article linked above; nor would they regard the election of ANY contemporary Republican as an acceptable solution.

In fact, I don’t see *anything* liberal about Rubin, and am very puzzled about why people say he is. Maybe he used to be liberal and changed; or maybe when he’s called ‘liberal’ he’s being compared with the extreme Christian Right. And it is *not* because he’s pro-Israel that I’m saying this; neither being pro-Israel nor pro-Palestinian is progressive in itself, and both sides often invoke right-wing allies. The following that I posted a couple of years ago may be relevant here: I do feel that Rubin has done several things in the first category.

If
You might be letting pro-Israel sentiment interfere with progressiveness, if:


You would consider voting for a Tory or Republican if they appear more pro-Israel than their opponent

You are inclined to scapegoat ethnic minorities and immigrants as the main cause of antisemitism, or to assume it's a recent development due to 'political correctness'.

You can see Palestinians, or Arabs more generally, only in terms of their being 'Israel's enemies', and not as human beings with their own rights and needs.

You consider that the agendas of right-wing pundits such as Melanie Phillips or Daniel Pipes may be at least partially valid, because they have defended Israel.

You support the Occupation, or worse, aggressive war to crush Arabs/ Palestinians/ 'Islamofascists'.

Your support for Israel tempts you into making common cause with Christian Zionists or with RW American or allied hawks.



You might be letting pro-Palestinian sentiment interfere with progressiveness, if:

You think that antisemitism is caused by bad actions by Israel or its supporters.

You don't apply the same standards of criticism to the Muslim Right as you do to the Christian Right.

You seem Israelis or 'Zionists' as monolithically bad, or responsible for many of the world's evils.

You consider that the agendas of right-wing pundits such as Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan may be at least partially valid because they have criticized Israel.

You support or justify terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

Your support for Palestine tempts you into making common cause with anti-Israel xenophobic isolationists, or with hardline Islamists

[shira]

46. David Hirsh is a signatory to Euston....

So is Nick Cohen.

I'd imagine Bernard Henri Levy would be too. Then again, Melanie Phillips is a signatory as well.

Wide range of views there, wouldn't you say?

[LeftishBrit]

49. Melanie Phillips is a monster of pure indescribable evil

However, there is no evidence that the main signatories of the Euston Manifesto actively sought her support; and they should not be held 'guilty by association', unless they actively sought her support. I also doubt that she read the whole thing, as I can't imagine her endorsing the economic views expressed.

I like David Hirsh; don't care for Nick Cohen, for reasons that I've given before; would never sign the Euston Manifesto itself especially due to the ambiguity at best about Iraq and similar interventionism - but I would not equate it with the infinite vileness of Melanie Phillips.

[shira]

52. Here's what Melanie Phillips and Bill Kristol wrote about Euston...

Phillips
Good stuff. There are items in this document that I don’t agree with, but it’s great to see such a brave statement of decent principles and an open denunciation of the left for being on the wrong side of history. Such a challenge from within its own ranks is essential if the left is ever to stop causing so much lethal damage to the west. Let’s see what kind of reaction the Eustonians now get from the comrades.

Kristol:
The signatories of the document are liberals and progressives. They make clear their commitment to domestic and economic policies with which we at The Weekly Standard heartily disagree. But in the fight against tyranny and terror, against secular dictatorships and Islamic jihadism, is it too much to hope that decent liberals and conservatives could make common cause? We think not, and we hope that this clarion call from overseas might contribute to a rebirth of political courage and moral clarity on the American left as well.

[LeftishBrit]

58. Well, they seem to be mainly taking a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' view

However, decent liberals must NEVER make common cause with such poisonous snakes. It happens on all sides - some antiwar people are prepared to join hands with the likes of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, for instance. It is always dangerous.

[shaayecanaan]

70. I can't see any of the Euston signatories endorsing a statement that a Labour summer camp

is a pro-terrorist training program, even as much as I dislike Nick Cohen. I certainly can't see Professor Geras endorsing such a view, he is a decent person despite his views on foreign policy.

I would note that Mr Rubin seems always to aim such epithets at left wing parties and very rarely at the right.

[Mosby]

40. Yeah I know how Rubin is with Obama

I have read quite a number of his pieces. I think Rubin at times does not understand that the Obama admin needs to do it's due diligence re IP and improving America's relationship with the Arab and Muslim world. Clearly the admin early on took a bit of a schizophrenic approach to the IP conflict as evidenced by having competing ideological camps, one led by Mitchell and the other Ross.

Posters upstairs are claiming that Obama is a republican and/or a DINO which I find ridiculous, that is where my comment was coming from. It doesn't appear to me that Obama gave up much of anything in the debt ceiling deal, which makes the attacks even stranger.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I was told the same thing only a day or two ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x359302#359308

[Jefferson23]

39. Relying on a label doesn't tell you much, I think you would agree.

It is used in this case as a shield, although a poor one.

[shira]

48. It's okay, libs think the same way about certain "Progressives" who use that label as a shield. NT

[Jefferson23]

50. Yes and why I said labels can be meaningless..don't necessarily tell you much.

I suggest you end the use of such tactics.

[shira]

51. You're lifting my arguments. I've been calling for the end of such tactics for awhile now...

You know very well what I think about so-called progressives and humanitarians who are for the right to terrorize, be antisemitic, demonize, etc...

[Jefferson23]

53. No shira, I think you understand the reliance you have on such labels and

it is not as you suggest.

You use labels to cover for your threads and arguments, you seem to believe you can
justify the OP's you post with, for example: "but Rubin is a liberal"..thus the content of his
OP lends credibility. At least in your eyes it does, that is the tactic I am referring to.

I have not seen any evidence this helps you form a convincing argument, although it
does seem to provide you with some level of comfort.

[shira]

54. You're projecting again. Here's some required reading for you and yours...

Why Are Rich White "Left-Wingers" Megaphones For The Third-World Far Right?
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-are-rich-white-left-wingers.html

Canada In Palestine, fascists on campus.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/23/terry-glavine-canada-in-palestine-fascists-on-campus/


I find it hard not to LOL when leftwing megaphones for the 3rd world far right dare to accuse others of being rightwingers.

[Jefferson23]

55. I'm not projecting anything. I have described your tactics.

You're certainly free to continue the reliance on them but I think
you might want to reconsider.

I do not begin any OP with, here is so and so, he is a liberal, a progressive...so believe him, he has
a valid argument.

I think it is fair to consider an individual's body of work, how that is measured and by whom..there can be legitimate
disagreements about such conclusions.

[shira]

56. But you don't see that you use the very same tactics to defend Norm Finkelstein, for example?

That's appeal to authority every bit as much as what you're accusing me of doing.

Do you really think someone with Finkelstein's views can rightly be considered liberal, progressive, or leftwing? Or better, more progresssive/leftwing/liberal than Barry Rubin?

[Jefferson23]

57. No, not at all. I do not preface nor defend on rebuttal his work with, he is a progressive,blah...

His work stands on its own, you want to argue against his findings, be prepared
to fight it on the content.

You rely on the label alone, that is the shield I spoke of earlier.

[shira]

59. Neither of us should have to rely on labels alone. I'm more than willing to defend content based...

...on its merits.

You, however, have routinely resorted to ad hominem attacks rather than make a case against certain views. On many occasions, I have posted articles and as a response, you post an ad hominem kill-the-messenger-wiki-article without even attempting to argue against the viewpoint being advocated.

How's about from now on we drop the labels and argue content only?

[Jefferson23]

61. You'll have to provide support for your claim that I use a label defense shira.

That will take up a great deal of your time because it does not exist
in the manner you suggest.

My sarcasm is just that, mine..I do not expect you to appreciate it nor anyone else for that matter. I do not
read all your positions, true, over time I find them less than credible.


Most often I believe I end our conversations with a note to express we are merely going around in circles, so
the back and forth ends. People decide the veracity of each post shira, if they are even interested enough to
read each argument. I nor you control the outcome, we can only present our positions. I think we can at least
agree on that.

[shira]

62. What do you call this from 12 days ago?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=358683&mesg_id=358796

That's called appeal to authority and it's a logical fallacy.

No better than what you're accusing me of doing.

[Jefferson23]

63. Again, there is no defense based on liberal, progressive labels, that is a defense

of his body of work, the CONTENT. If you do not see nor appreciate the difference,
well, quite frankly...I can't help you.

[shira]

64. You're using a logical fallacy and not arguing for/against the merits of a case.

Tell you what - I'll stop labeling people as liberals and you stop with the logical fallacies.

We'll both argue the content from now on.

Deal?

[Jefferson23]

66. You can begin arguing the content any time you like. You were

offered academic support for a body of work which you questioned. You were also offered information to reveal, who I
believe is a bigot. His reputation precedes him in his participation in a baseless propaganda film. If you do not find
yourself in agreement with my conclusions that is fine, but past work of an individual is a relevant argument.

I did not shape my arguments on whether he is a conservative, nor a liberal, nor any such tactic.

[bemildred]

19. Bizarre. nt

[riverwalker]

28. Wolf Blitzer worked for JP for 17years

He was correspondent for Jerusalem Post from 1973-1990. Mentioned only to point out, the paper does have influence. Their recent published opinions on Norway have been abhorrent, and repulsive.

[LeftishBrit]

30. This is just sick and horrible.

This and other similar articles remind me in some ways of the Ward Churchill article about 9-11, which quite rightly shocked people.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. I agree. It was disgusting...

I'm disgusted by sick diatribes like the OP. Here's something I read this afternoon that I thought was a good antidote for such venom...

'Dear Anders Behring Breivik ... you failed'

A 16-year-old survivor of Norway's shooting rampage has written a heartfelt open letter to his attacker, telling him: "You failed."
"You describe yourself as a hero, as a knight. You are no hero," Ivar Benjamin Oesteboe, who lost five friends in the shootings, said in the letter addressed: "Dear Anders Behring Breivik."

"But one thing is certain, you have created heroes. On Utoya on that warm July day, you created some of the greatest heroes the world has seen, you united the people of the world," the teenager wrote.

"We are not responding to evil with evil as you wanted. We are fighting evil with good. And we are winning.

"Maybe you think you've won. Maybe you think you've destroyed the Labour Party and people around the world who stand for a multicultural society by killing my friends and fellow party members.

"Know that you failed," said the letter posted on Facebook and published yesterday in Norway's Dagbladet newspaper.

On July 22, the day of the attacks, Ivar hid with others on the island's shore when he heard the first gunshots. They thought Breivik, who was dressed in a police uniform, was there to help them.

"We called out to him, waving our arms. He was there, trying to reassure those around him. All of a sudden, without batting an eye, he turned around and started shooting at people in the water," he said.

The young man survived by running towards police who arrived on the island at 6.25pm, about 80 minutes after the shooting rampage started.

"You have united us ... You have killed my friends, but you have not killed our cause, our opinion, our right to express ourselves. Muslim women have been hugged by Norwegian women in the street in sympathy ... Your act has worked against its purpose. We have created a community," he told his attacker.

"You deserve to hear how your plan worked. A lot of people are angry, you are Norway's most hated man. I am not mad. I am not afraid of you. You can't get to us, we are bigger than you."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/dear-anders-behring-breivik--you-failed-20110802-1i8u8.html#ixzz1TsDfizG7

[shira]

35. OMG folks, just read the last 6 paragraphs of the article!

Rubin also wrote about this a week ago...

11. Are people who have written responsibly about Islam, Islamism, and left-wing actions responsible for this attack? No. But if anyone wants to make that argument blaming such writers, then who among them are responsible for terrorist attacks by Islamists? Are those who slander, lie, and preach hatred against Israel thus responsible for terrorism against Israel? I would say that’s worth considering, especially because those who then launch such attacks know that they will have widespread sympathy and support, along with the prospect of political gains.

12. Indeed, that is a significant reason why more left-wing revolutionary groups in the West and Islamists in both the West and Middle East launch far more terrorist attacks. They can rationally expect that this violence will bring them political success. Any person on the other side who thinks that almost certainly must be mentaly deranged or at least driven by hatred rather than political calculation.

What the Norwegian ambassador said - as ridiculous as that was - is pervasive political thought among an alarming number of "progressives" today. It's why thousands of rockets on Sderot citizens elicited no international outcry for over 7 years. Those firing the rockets felt they had political support from "progressives" to keep doing so...

Shame on those who are indifferent or sympathetic to any terrorist acts.

[Mosby]

41. Rubin has posted a reply

I have just discovered (from a letter written by someone in Norway who likes my article, "The Oslo Syndrome," that without my knowledge or permission the article has been published by a newspaper there, dagbladet.no. The newspaper links to the GLORIA Center and Jerusalem Post sites along with a translation into Norway's language here:

http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/08/01/nyheter/anders_behring_breivik/terrorangrepet/terror/israel/17521025/

I have received four letters from Norway shocked and angry that I allegedly wrote that the victims of the terrorist attack in Norway were terrorists or supported violence. That was not in any way my intention nor did I do such a thing. These people misread my point--perhaps because they were expecting that is what I was going to say.

And that's why I wrote the opening three paragraphs to make it crystal clear. Read especially the second paragraph where the issues is stated clearly:

"One of the most sensitive aspects of the very sensitive subject of the murderous terrorist attack in Norway by a right-wing gunman is this irony: The youth political camp he attacked was at the time engaged in what was essentially (though the campers didn’t see it that way, no doubt) a pro-terrorist program.

"The camp, run by Norway’s left-wing party, was lobbying for breaking the blockade of the terrorist Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip and for immediate recognition of a Palestinian state without that entity needing do anything that would prevent it from being a terrorist base against Israel. They were backing and justifying forces that had committed terrorism against Israelis and killing thousands of people like themselves.

"Even to mention this irony is dangerous since it might be taken to imply that the victims “had it coming.” The victims never deserve to be murdered by terrorists, even any victims who think that other victims of terrorists “had it coming.” This is in no way a justification of that horrendous terrorist act. It’s the exact opposite: a vital but forgotten lesson arising from it that can and should save lives in future."

So does that sound like support for these dreadful murders?

My theme is: These people were victims of a horrendous terrorist attack. But if people cheer and help terrorist groups (even if they don't understand that they are terrorist, perhaps because their media and leaders haven't told them so or even told them the exact opposite) they make terrorism more successful and thus attractive as a strategy. That was the point of the article. I hope nobody will distort my words.

Now if only the media and various political leaders in Norway and elsewhere stop acting as if its justified when Israeli kids are murdered by terrorists we might actually make some progress against all those extremists who are practicing--and rationalizing--terrorism.

Then I discovered that a newspaper in Norway translated--without my knowledge or permission--alleged parts of my article into Norwegian. It claims that I wrote:


"Ungdomsleiren han (Anders Behring Breivik) angrep var i bunn og grunn en terrortreningsleir."

which means in English: "The youth camp (Breivik) attacked was basically a terrorist training camp."

I should add though that the newspaper did link to the English-language original so anyone could check it, if they were good enough in both languages. But the newspaper also told its readers what to think. Every time I referred to Hamas or other groups as terrorist the newspaper put that in quotation marks, as if that is how it was in the original.

And it helpfully "explained": "Rubin er avslørt som langvarig Israel-lobbyist, som får betalt for å fremme Israels sak." And that means: "Rubin is exposed as a longstanding lobbyist for Israel, who is paid for promoting Israel's cause," There are a number of untruths in that sentence but I think you catch the drift

This kind of distortion is an attempt to spread hate, perhaps inspiring some future terrorist. But of course I now merely (once again) join the ranks of those who are being slandered and their words distorted as "respectable" newspapers make propaganda with no regard to truth.

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/08/norway-reacts-to-oslo-syndrome-article.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Rubinreports+%28RubinReports%29

[Jefferson23]

42. Talk about digging a hole even deeper for yourself..sheesh. n/t

[Mosby]

44. I haven't stated my thoughts about Rubin's "Oslo Syndrome" piece anywhere on this thread

[Jefferson23]

45. I was referring to Rubin, Mosby. n/t

[Mosby]

47. Oh, that makes sense.

Rubin does seem to be doubling down.

[shira]

72. Barry Rubin responds again:

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2011
The "Oslo Syndrome" Article For Those Who Want to Know--And Tell--The Truth
Note to readers: I have written this as a preface placed at the start of my article on "The Oslo Syndrome." I am also putting it here to make sure that those of you who want to see it can do so:

This article is being distorted by various people and places into supposedly saying things that I in no way believe so let me address that.

1. Am I justifying the murders and saying they were well-deserved? Of course not. I don't in any way believe such a thing. These were as I've said from the beginning terrible acts of terrorism. In the article you will see my explicit argument that nobody should be a victim of terrorism even if they support politically a group committing terrorism. Since my argument is that NO terrorism--defined as the deliberate murder of civilians as part of a conscious political strategy--is acceptable, why would I justify the cold-blooded murder of dozens of unarmed, non-violent people in Norway? To justify it I would have to be saying that I supported the murder of young people because I disagree with their political views or those of their elders. That would be insane though, of course, that is precisely what actual terrorists do. And many "respectable" people wrote in various ways that the September 11 attacks on America were "well-deserved." That was precisely the kind of thing I had in mind as something dangerous and to be condemned when writing the article.

2. The point of the article can be simply stated as follows: It is a dangerous thing to empower or reward terrorism because that makes terrorism seem a successful strategy and thus encourages more terrorism. If you argue politically that terrorists are justified in the Middle East or, to put it a different way, that they aren't terrorists at all, you are making terrorism more likely to happen. It is tragic--not justifiable or deserved but horrible--that such people or such a country then becomes the target of terrorism.

more...
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/08/oslo-syndrome-article-for-those-who.html

[Jefferson23]

73. Apology to Norway By JPOST EDITORIAL

We hope that the Norwegian government and people will accept the 'Post’s apology and forgive us for any offense or hurt caused at this sensitive time.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=232535

[shira]

74. This apology isn't related to the Rubin article. n/t

[bemildred]

75. Comment: A time to heal?

By ESPEN BARTH EIDE
08/05/2011 06:10

---

For example, Barry Rubin wrote on Monday that “...the youth camp he attacked was engaged in what was essentially... a pro-terrorist program.”

According to Rubin, the camp was “justifying forces that had committed terrorism against Israel” by advocating an end to the blockade of Gaza and recognition of a Palestinian state.

Rubin even implicitly blamed Norway’s Middle East policy for the attacks in Norway. He wrote, “If terrorist murders by Hamas and Islamists did not stop well-intentioned future leaders of Norway from considering them heroic underdogs, an evil local man could think his act of terrorism would gain sympathy and change Europe’s politics.”

This was, Rubin claimed, an example of the “Oslo Syndrome” whereby rewarding terrorists with political gains promotes more terrorism.

Rubin and Glick have also made much of the supposed statements by Norwegian Ambassador Svein Sevje to Ma’ariv, according to which he distinguished between the motivation behind terrorism in Israel and in Norway. Glick and Rubin are not alone in doing so. Several other Israeli media have latched on to this as well.

On this point, of course, it was not Glick or Rubin who was at fault. The ambassador was incorrectly quoted by Ma’ariv. He did not compare the motivation behind different terrorist attacks; he simply tried to answer a question about whether the terrorist attacks in Norway would change perceptions of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. He stated that many Norwegians see the conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territory in the context of the occupation and religious extremism, and that this view would probably not change after the events in Oslo and on Utoeya.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=232584

[shira]

76. The Norwegian ambassador was not misquoted and his view is THE problem...

He said - and many here agree with him - that Palestinian terror is a result of the occupation.

He justified terror.

Just like many folks have done over the years WRT terror attacks on Israeli civilians. Amira Hass, of all people, wrote about this hypocrisy:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-sanctity-of-the-soaring-qassam-1.351249

In the binary thinking of those who oppose the Israeli occupation (Palestinians, Israelis and foreigners ), public criticism of the tactics used in the struggle of an occupied and dispossessed people is taboo. It is as if criticism would create symmetry between the attacker and the attacked. To a large extent, this taboo has been broken with regard to the Palestinian Authority: Many opponents of the occupation have no qualms about portraying the PA as a collaborator, or at least as the captive of its senior officials' private interests. But when it comes to Hamas' use of arms, silence falls. As if there were sanctity in the Qassam soaring high into the sky, only to fall amid the clamor of Israeli propaganda.

The Goldstone report - so widely reviled by Israelis, but endorsed by the Palestinians - actually did force Palestinian human rights organizations to accept the application of the term "crime" to Palestinian rocket launches at Israel's civilian population, both before and during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2009. In other words, it forced them to distinguish between the Palestinians' right to defend themselves (albeit unsuccessfully ) by force of arms against Israeli military assaults and their lack of right to put on an act of being an army, one that targets civilians, and thus provide Israel with more ammunition for its victim show. But this distinction is not in use for whatever doesn't appear in Goldstone's report.

Though they didn't denounce those 50 mortars, Palestinians who are not Hamas supporters did give them a political interpretation. This wasn't "the attacked party's right to respond" (or, more accurately, the fly's right to play Ping-Pong with the elephant ), but a clear message to young Palestinians, reinforced by the brutal suppression of their demonstrations: You aren't in Cairo or Tunis, so stop pestering us with theories about a smart popular struggle in our emirate.

But the neighbor/occupier to the east is crazy. It's wrong to provide it with pretexts that would enable it to once again put Gaza's children and old people through an ordeal like Cast Lead, or even one half as bad.

So for all those who demonstrated in support of the Gazans when they were trapped under Israeli fire, all those planners of past and future flotillas, this is your moment to raise your voices and say clearly: The Qassams merely feed Israel's madness. It is not the Qassams that will ensure the Palestinians, both in and out of Gaza, a life of dignity. It is not the Qassams that will topple the Israeli walls around the world's largest prison camp.

This goes for the Norwegian ambassador as well.

Hypocrite.

[bemildred]

77. So you feel that the JPost apology is unwarranted?

And Rubin should have stuck to his guns?

[shira]

78. The JPost apology wasn't WRT to Rubin's article, but rather Glick's which was bad. n/t

[bemildred]

79. So Rubin just has a "translation problem"?

:rofl:

[shira]

80. So JPost did not apologize for Rubin's post, right? n/t

[bemildred]

81. So you feel the JPost apology was unwarranted?

And Rubin should have stuck to his guns?

[shira]

82. Umm, what apology? Am I wrong in thinking the JPost apologized only for Glick's article?

Rubin has nothing to apologize for WRT the Oslo article he wrote.

If he had written it in the way you're misrepresenting it then an apology would definitely be due.

[bemildred]

83. The apology in post #73, that apology. nt

[shira]

84. Yeah, that was for Glick's insane article here...

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=230788

[bemildred]

86. Are you sure???? nt

[shira]

87. Didn't read all the way through....

I don't have any problem at all with JPost's apology.

It's definitely called for WRT Glick's article. Rubin's article is another matter IMO. The fact it's outraged many is reason enough for the apology, whether warranted or not.

Where were you, BTW, when Sweden's foreign minister and others didn't believe an apology was in order WRT the organ stealing allegations?

[Violet_Crumble]

88. There's a massive difference between the two situations you refer to...

In this case, it's the newspaper that printed two offensive articles apologising to the people of Norway. In the other, it was the Israeli government demanding an apology from the Swedish government for something that a Swedish newspaper had published...

[shira]

89. Good point, but did the Swedish paper ever apologize? I don't remember that happening. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

90. I don't know if they did or not...

Personally, I think the newspaper should have. When it comes to the apology from JPost, I think that there was no demand for an apology and that it was done without any demands makes the apology all the more genuine...

[shira]

91. I agree and think JPost did the right thing. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

92. I read it all the way through...

all the way to the bottom where it says this:-

"In today’s paper, we are publishing an opinion piece by Norway’s deputy foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide, in which he thanks Israeli leaders “for their kind and comforting words” but expresses dismay over comments made by two Jerusalem Post columnists.

At the same time, he titles his column, “A time to heal.”

We echo his wish, and hope that the Norwegian government and people will accept the Post’s apology and forgive us for any offense or hurt caused by our editorial and columnists at this sensitive time."

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=232535

I think its clear that the two columnists referred to were Glick and Rubin, and that the Post was apologising for the comments of both of them, which is entirely appropriate.

On the other hand, you've now claimed to endorse both Rubin's "pro-terrorist" statements as well as this editorial apologising for them. Some people would call that inconsistent.

[shira]

94. I said the apology is a good idea regardless...

When one genuinely offends someone else - even if they're 100% correct and attempt to be as tactful as they can possibly be - the right thing to do is apologize.

You think the Swedish newspaper should have apologized after the organ harvesting claims?

[shaayecanaan]

95. You said you "didnt have a problem with anything in the article"

but you still support an editorial apologising for it. Sounds like a mealy mouthed cop out to me.

The Aftonbladet article was sloppy journalism, and I certainly would have apologised for it, notwithstanding the later revelations that Israel's chief pathologist was indeed harvesting organs from Palestinian bodies during the time alleged by Aftonbladet (around 1992).

[Jefferson23]

85. Yes, JPost did just that, 'columnists', two. Plural, not just Glick.

**In today’s paper, we are publishing an opinion piece by Norway’s deputy foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide, in which he thanks Israeli leaders “for their kind and comforting words” but expresses dismay over comments made by two Jerusalem Post columnists.

At the same time, he titles his column, “A time to heal.”

We echo his wish, and hope that the Norwegian government and people will accept the Post’s apology and forgive us for any offense or hurt caused by our editorial and columnists at this sensitive time.


Duly noted you believe he has nothing to apologize for.