Image 01 Image 03

Norwegian Ambassador makes a terrorism distinction without a difference

Norwegian Ambassador makes a terrorism distinction without a difference

These statements by Norway’s Ambassador to Israel are deeply troubling, particularly at this time (via Israel Matzav):

Norway’s ambassador to Israel drew distinctions between the Oslo and Utoeya massacres and Palestinian terrorism.

Svein Sevje said in an Israeli newspaper interview Tuesday that while the Norwergian bomb and gun rampages that killed 76 people and Palestinian attacks should both be considered morally unacceptable, he wanted to “outline the similarity and the difference in the two cases.”

Palestinians, the ambassador told Maariv, “are doing this because of a defined goal that is related to the Israeli occupation. There are elements of revenge against Israel and hatred of Israel. To this you can add the religious element to  their actions.”

“In the case of the terror attack in Norway, the murderer had an ideology that says that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is forgoing Norwegian culture,” Sevje said, referring to suspect Anders Breivik, a Christian nativist who is opently anti-Islam and anti-immigration.

Unlike European Union states, Norway has engaged Hamas and often been fiercely critical of Israel, to Jerusalem’s dismay.

While Sevje voiced sympathy for Israeli terror victims, having experienced “the inferno” of such attacks during his posting, he saw little chance of Norway reviewing its Middle East policies.

“We Norwegians consider the occupation to be the cause of  the terror against Israel,” he said. “Those who believe this will not change their mind because of the attack in Oslo.”

He added, “Can Israel and the Palestinians solve the problems without Hamas? I don’t think so.”

While the Ambassador does say that Palestinian terror attacks also are “morally unacceptable,” he implicitly justifies them by making a distinction which makes no difference.

Is deliberately targeting a busload of civilians with a suicide bomb out of “revenge,” “hatred” and “religion” really more justified than shooting up a summer camp of civilians in order to preserve “Norwegian culture”?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



“Is deliberately targeting a busload of civilians with a suicide bomb out of “revenge,” ”hatred” and “religion” really more justified than shooting up a summer camp of civilians in order to preserve “Norwegian culture”?”

I’d say there isn’t any functional difference. Culture includes such things as attitudes of revenge, hatred, and religion.

The use of such attacks outside the forces of a recognized independence movement (cf. Law of Nations, Laws of War, Geneva Accords), or State… and moreover primarily targeting civilian citizens as opposed to military and civilian functionaries and facilities is what (in my mind) divides the terrorist/criminal from the real revolutionary.

Separating the criminal from the terrorist… I’m not sure that at their heart that one is much different from the other besides scale and motive. Both use essentially the same methods (force, threat of force and other intimidation) against the same targets ( the everyday citizen ) to achieve their goals whether they are pecuniary or allegedly political.

For those reasons I think the attacks in Israel by Palestinians and the summer camp shooting have more in common in motive and execution than differences.

Sounds to me like the Israel MFA should be declaring this “diplomat” persona non grata.

That statement cuts right to the heart of what is intellectually reprehensible about global multiculturalism imposed by an unelected elite without first achieving a consensus among the citizens of the various “reverse-occupied” countries. It’s just forced busing on a global scale.

Immigration has to be based on national interests, not the desire for a one-world “multicultural society” by the world’s elites. That is why we have countries in the first place. We ARE different cultures populated by people with different values and shared views of how they want to live their lives. “Tolerance” only works to a point. It obviously is not working.

I find this more then deeply troubling…the whole world seems to be going insane.

Bruce Bawer has pointed out several times that Norway’s “elite culture” (including her political elites) are hard Left and Antisemitic. This would seem to be an illustration of that.

Let’s see if I understand the ambassador correctly:

The Oslo killer is anti-immigration, especially anti-Arab (as he presumes Israel is also), and therefore morally wrong; while the Palestinian killers are anti-“Israeli occupation [of Arab lands]” (as is he, the Norwegian ambassador), and therefore morally justified.

I think I see a difference in that distinction, and a very, very troubling one at that.

Juba Doobai! | July 26, 2011 at 7:03 pm

No deportations, I guess. Carry on.

It seems that Islam endorses the violence. At least, there is something in their religious indoctrination that justifies killing innocent people. Therefore, the logical assumption would be condemnation of the religion and that a global society would insist that the religion become more peaceful in order to continue a normal relationship with with the rest of the world. Otherwise, what is the difference between Islam and the KKK at its worst? We condemn the KKK and do not endorse or try to explain their actions.

The Oslo killer clearly is nuts and uses religion as justification in deference to the Muslim terrorist who feel that religion compels them to act and that they will receive a reward for doing so.

I would feel that with the consistency of terror generated by Islam over the last 70 years, that a problem exist with this religion which should call for international concern and prejudice.

Note that both the Oslo killer and McVeigh reacted to government policy with an effort to carry the fight to the politicians. This seems to scare the politicians more that the Islamic terrorist who prefer softer target with less political value.

    >>Note that both the Oslo killer and McVeigh reacted to government policy with an effort to carry the fight to the politicians. This seems to scare the politicians more that the Islamic terrorist who prefer softer target with less political value.

    This is a distinction I agree with entirely. I believe that is why the response (all those protests) to the US going overseas to “take the fight to the enemy” via George Bush bothered the Europeans and the left so much. I suspect terrorism is a problem only when it affects politicians, and some of the elite, not the soft targets of the general public.

    And I wonder where the money comes from to carry out these horrible acts….

Ambassador Seyje is either nuts or whistling in the dark whilst going past the cemetery. I’m with Pasadena Phil on this, with the added caveat European Elites are most likely unconsciously suicidal as to multiculturalism issues, and unfortunately the situation will only improve when most of them achieve room temperature.

Juba Doobai! | July 26, 2011 at 7:44 pm

david7134, there is no “seems” about it. The Koran of Islam tells them the time will come when the trees and rocks will cry out and say there is a Jew behind me. They are to kill him. Islam offers Jews, Christians, etc this: convert, pay a discriminatory poll tax and be a second class citizen, or die.

It is not the “religious indoctrination.” It is the Koran. That is why as long as Islam exists, Muslims will kill Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc.

It is a religion based on murder. Ask the Jews of the Beni Hasan (?) tribe who lived in Mecca (or is it Medina). Mohammed made a pact with them. He lied = taqqiyah. He slaughtered them. Now Jews who once owned parts of what is now Saudi Arabia are not welcome and are likely to be slaughtered.

Look at the festival of Hussein. It’s all about blood. Islam is a bloody ideology because the Koran demands blood. When you have a cult in worship of a demon, you wind up with blood.

The Oslo killer is no Christian. Let’s end that fiction. He may have said he is (the police officer said it), but he has no idea what the term means.

Was Ambassador Sevje in that crowd that chanted “Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas!”? Or did a prior engagement painting swastikas on synagogues keep him away?

I had another thought on this matter. During WWII the people of Norway went out of their way to try and screen Jews from the Nazi’s. They organized points of exit to Sweden and they even protected that homes and businesses for several years till the people could return. Of ther people that could not get away and were sent to the camps, the government of Norway put extreme pressure on the Germans to account for their citizens. This kept many out of the death camps and resulted in more Red Cross efforts to keep in touch and provide better food. So what happened to them?

They need to stop calling this guy a Christian, he is a “cultural christian” which is distinctly different. He is more like the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who believes in cultural aspects of christianity, but is otherwise an atheist.

Speaking of genocide-loving Norwegians, how about this praise for bin Laden?

LukeHandCool | July 27, 2011 at 4:35 am

What the hell is in the water in Norway lately?

The Norwegian shooter is insane.

Palestinian terrorists are evil.

You can plead insanity … but you can’t plead evil.

So, in answer to your question:

“Is deliberately targeting a busload of civilians with a suicide bomb out of “revenge,” ”hatred” and “religion” really more justified than shooting up a summer camp of civilians in order to preserve “Norwegian culture”?”

Nope. And implying otherwise is … just insane.

LukeHandCool (who, if he keeps throwing his hands up in disbelief at the European ruling elite’s screwy anti-Israel bias any more … might just start flying).

bleached cat | July 27, 2011 at 10:34 am

Could there be some kind of has-been, never-been psychology at root of blaming terrorist attacks on whom they’re inflicted, if they’re mounted against successful, dynamic countries and peoples that the rest of the world has decided can never be victims, only perps, by dint of their social-techno-economic success?

IOW, the US, Israel and to a lesser extent the UK are the cause of Everything, according to the resenters and terrorist apologists who seem to be convinced they’re not in control of their own fates in big and constructive ways and so lash out with contorted moral logic to justify hating the ugly Americans, dirty Jews and colonialist bad teeth Brits who have done the destiny thing well. Their envy and spite might be a back-handed compliment, but one we could live without. Just sayin’.

[…] A number of bloggers have weighed in, including: Elder of Ziyon, Doc’s Talk, Israel Matzav, My Right Word, JoshuaPundit, CAMERA Snapshots and Legal Insurrection. […]

Lots of things I can say but I’d be “preaching to the choir”

* In looking at 2012 Primary Candidates, although “Its The Economy” is the major element, Israel is key. Without reference to Israel if the candidate knows where Al-Andalusia is and it’s relevance to the Madrid bombings, then there is a chance he understands why Israel and it’s Jewish, Christian, and Muslim citizens is a non-negotiable issue.

* interesting note is

* the second interesting note is
– Robert Spencer and David Horowitz

Al-Andalusia –

Is what is today Spain, Portugal, and France south of Tours,

and is what the Spanish took back at the completion of “The Reconquista” in 1492.

Don Quixote was a parody of the Armored Horse Cav elite that fought the “Reconquista” a century and a half later.

In todays world, Al-Andalusia [Spain and Portugal], Israel, and India are all in that boat. Excepting Indonesia, there exists more Muslim citizens in India as citizens than in all the rest of the islamic countries of the middle east and Africa, and of course there are Muslim Israeli Citizens as well as Muslim members of Knesset.

What was it Chamberlain said as he came back from talks with Hitler again? Peace in our time?

Interesting observation from the Jerusalem Post on the American Thomas Friedman vs Mark Levin “Radio Feud”

….noting that I’m not a reader of The New York Times and don’t plan to start now.