Talk:Jostein Gaarder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

I removed the section about his controversial aftenposten op-ed piece completely. It does not represent JG views fairly (though I see that an anonymous user made some improvements while I was deleting.... sorry mate). It also contains a factual error claiming that JG labels the jews' God "satanic" while what he writes is "sadistic". Someone has probably had their POV spectacles on while reading as well as while writing. I will check the sources and propose a more NPOV rewrite later on. If someone, for instance mr anomymous, will try to write a more balanced section, it would be nice. Pertn 10:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let us edit the section so it more fairly reflect his views, rather than simply deleting it. Such a strong wording as he came out with in the article cannot simply be ignored – especially from an author. For NPOV, I think the best is simply to quote directly as is now done. It is perhaps also noteworthy that this is not the first time JG has been criticized for having a strong anti-Israel position. Rune X2 10:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. In general I should have edited directly, but I had to check some sources and do some other work first. I deleted the whole section since it did not seem a serious attempt on a NPOV article. Hence it is a poor basis for further editing. I guess there are many contributors that would like to start afresh in stead and do a better job. Pertn 10:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You should probably read the article more thorougly yourself. You write that he has "previously" gone for the 1948 boundaries. He writes that in the article in question too.... "Vi anerkjenner staten Israel av 1948, men ikke den av 1967. Det er staten Israel som ikke anerkjenner, respekterer og bøyer seg for den folkerettslige staten Israel av 1948." Translation: "We recognize the state of Israel of 1948, but not the one of 1967. It is the state of Israel that does not recognize, respect and submit to the state of Israel from 1948 that pertains to international law."
The section about "Israel controversy" is mostly NPOV the way it is now and thus useless and misguiding to the reader. Remeber: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for politics. -- Cvik 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless there's an English-language source, this section is unverifiable and should be removed. Doctofunk 17:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In which way do you think it is not a neutral representation? It’s mostly just direct quotes from his own words.
Many articles on Wikipedia are documented with non-English sources. This is not a problem as long as there are enough speakers of the language. Rune X2 17:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


The article definitely needs a mention of this passage of Gaarders and his take on the Judanic notion of a chosen people:

"We do not believe in the notion of God's chosen people. We laugh at this people's fancies and weep at its misdeeds. To act as God's chosen people is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism.". ie. That he considers central Jewish dogma racist and a crime against humanity.

His mention of the Toranic "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." vers. the Christian "Do to others as you would have them do to you." - speaks for his comparison of the two religions.

To say that he states that accepts Israel’s right to exist and stopping there, is not including other central parts of his article. E.g. "We do no longer recognize the state of Israel", "The state of Israel does not exist" Rune X2 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In the English version of Gaarder's article, Judaism is mentioned in the following contexts:

  • to apologize for European behavior
  • to quote individual Jewish rabbis
  • in a general sense, as in "For we are human first of all -- then Christian, Muslim, or Jewish"

I don't see how someone can claim that Gaarder is criticizing Judaism in particular. He's criticizing the behavior of Israel, but to say for instance that he considers Judaism and archaic religion seems entirely unsupported by the article. Doctofunk 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Chosen people

Re. Doctofunk: "chosen people is not a judaistic idea and Gaarder does not label it as such (at least not in the english translation), though he does accuse Israeli of using it."

Chosen people is at the very centre of Judaism and Gaarder use it specifically with this in mind several times including the title. Of course his interpretation (as racist and a crime against humanity etc.) is drastically different than what Jews think of it. Rune X2 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The term chosen people does not appear in the wikipedia entry on Judaism. The idea has indeed been tied to Judaism, as well as to many other religions. My overall problem with this section is that it seems to include interpretation beyond what's obvious from Gaarder's article. Now granted I'm working off a translation and haven't been able to read the other articles (I speak no Norweigian), but it seems like this page is saying that Gaarder makes anti-Jewish statements, when I can't see any in the article that he's written. I'm not satisfied by arguments that say "this is what he meant when he wrote this" and instead concerned with his actual words. Doctofunk 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Read your own link:
"In Judaism, chosenness is the belief that the Jews are a people chosen to be in a covenant with God. The idea is not connected with tribal groupings as they are traditionally understood, as non-Jews are free to convert to Judaism.
The Jewish idea of being chosen is first found in the Torah (five books of Moses) and is elaborated on in later books of the Hebrew Bible. This status carries both responsibilities and blessings as described in the Biblical covenants with God. Much is written about this topic in rabbinic literature.
Judaism's teachings on being a chosen people are described in depth in Jews as a chosen people."
Read more here: Jews as a chosen_people
We need not specify he made anti-Jewish statements. Just cite his own words and let the reader decide. Rune X2 20:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm contesting the importance of chosenness to Judaism, not its existence. It seems that if the idea was at the very centre of Judaism, it would be included on the main Judaism page. Doctofunk 20:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well you did write that it was not a "judaistic idea". How important it is, is debatable. That it is a Judanic concept is not. Btw. chosenness is linked to from Judanism. "chosen people" + Judaism or Jew on Google will give you some 1.5-2 million hits. Are you seriously contesting that the title "The chosen People" is not specifically used as a reference to this Jewish (and Christian) notion? Rune X2 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
By not a judaistic idea I meant that it's not exclusively a Jewish idea. I agree that it is an inclusively Jewish idea. Sorry for the confusion. Doctofunk 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

It seems pretty clear to me that Rune X2s perception of the article is pretty much in line with JGs main critic, Mona Levin. JG has on several occasions denied that he is attacking judaism. I think Rune X2 should accept that an encyclopedia can not refer to this text primarily by an interpretation that the author himself has denied. He is attacking (rather clumsily in my view) the use of arcaic religious ideas to wage war and oppression by the state of Israel, and he claims that a state that does so, like the apartheid regime, has no right to exist. Pertn 20:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What he is doing is promoting the medieval form of antisemitism, in which Jews should accept the subservient nature of their existence. You can't one moment promote a wholly offensive point of view and then ask for a free card by saying that those offended shouldn't feel offended. His article is a classic example of New anti-semitism. He should tolerate being quoted in this article, and as reactions are made public, they should be documented as well. I'm all for maintaining NPOV, but if this article is his lasting legacy, that's fine with me. --Leifern 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Leifern, what you write here is just rediculous. In my view one has got to be quite paranoid to interpret the article the way you do, and I suppose your interpretation is only shared by fringe milieus of pro-israel fanatics. However, I support what you write about documenting the article and the reactions. But I also see clear tendencies of POV interpretations in the article in it's current form. Interpretations are clearly made based on assumptions of "underlying anti-semitism", and not on what the text and the author actually says. For instance, in a debate with M. Levin on NRK 1 yesterday he denounced the idea that he is anti-semite as rediculous and said that he would ML in the fight against what she described as a growing anti-semitism in Norway. Pertn 08:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
What he intends to do is debatable. I propose we should try to avoid any interpretation at all, that we should primarily let the article speak for itself and let the reader make of it what he wants. But since we can’t quote the whole article we’ll have to single out the central and controversial paragraphs. To me, this is the denial of Israel’s right to exist (in its current form) (repeated several times) and his description of the Judanic concept of a chose people. Rune X2 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we don't know what goes on the man's brain, but we should not take his assurances that he's not antisemitic at face value. In this day and age, nobody (well, hardly anybody) would admit that antisemitism motivates them; and most people aren't even aware of their own biases. --Leifern 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beep

An article from the Aftenposten is said dated September 2006. We are only in August. Please someone check this. --193.56.241.75 06:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is biased?

Pertn - I noticed you claim my update is biased. Merely posting a translation of what he has said which the many feel is anti-judaism and an attack on Jews and Judaism in itself, cannot be viewed as being biased. I believe the excerpts are correctly translated; please point out what is incorrect and I will fix it.

Your version is unbalanced, and does not represent a fair account of what JG tries to convey. Though it is fair to provide citations, it is quite clear that the citations you provide are selected to give a certain impression.
Also this passsage can hardly be said to be neutral or based on a sympathetic understanding of the article "while at the same time attacking jews and judaism" . If you want to critizise him, do it somwhere else. This is an encyclopedia. There is also an inaccuracy pertaining to him accepting the 1948 state, that is more precise in the version I will put back in.
I am reverting to the last version. It is not very good, but more fair than yours.
Pertn 08:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason there is is a controversy at all is based upon statements in his op-ed. On Norwegian radio yesterday (NRK P2 Nyhetsmorgen 7th August 07:45), he stated that he had carefully evaulated every word and even run the text by friends, colleagues and mideast experts.
In an encyclopaedia it is proper also to mention the *basis* for a controversy, not only to mention that there is one. Unless the basis is mentioned, the reader cannot evaulate for himself what the mess is all about.
I therefore change the text back to my original proposal.
NomenNescio 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


This latest version is somewhat better, but it does not provide balanced information about what his article contains. It focuses on the stuff that can be interpreted as anti jewish, but ignores his strong humanistic stance. JG has made such misconceptions possible by the article's confusing form, but WP should try to be balanced here. I hope someone will try to balance it. As it is now, I am a bit tired of doing a revert war with people who clearly have an agenda against JG.... And I don't agree with him enough to continue. If the article is not improved, I will propose a NPOV tag later on.Pertn 10:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The controversy isn't about his critizism of Israel or Israeli policy; such critizism is definately in its right place. The fact that JG has critizised Israel is not newsworthy by anyone's standards. What *is* newsworthy is the part of his op-ed which critizises the Jewish religion and followers of the same. Portraying this in the article doesn't mean that someone has an agenda against JP. As mentioned before: Let's find a way to agree on a text which explains what this controversy is all about.NomenNescio 11:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
To me it seems that many has an agenda in trying to make JG's article as aggressive as possible. He has himself repeatedly renounced the reading of the article as anti-judaism and so on. his text is confusing, and you are presenting your interpretation of it.... Clearly the article is an expression of the values of humanism against the militant use of religion. I'll write something about that. hang on. And I agree, we should be able to make an ok version here.
Then you propose to write *your* interpretation of the article, rather than merely quoting it :-)
How about if we add more excerpts or even translate larger parts...
The section is not my interpretation, but I find it an almost acceptable compromise. I feel able to be quite NPOV in this issue. (that is MY point of view, of course.) I do not at all subscribe to Gaarders article, but I find many of the reactions hysterical. My issue here is to make sure that these reactions do not obscure the facts and prevent people from having the opportunity to make up a mind of their own. From all the interviews and comments after the piece, it is clear that JG did not (or do not now, at least) wish to attack judaism, and that he first and foremost tried to express an outrage towards Israel's politics. This should be taken into consideration (but not by face value) by anyone trying to interpret the article. Pertn 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important parts still missing in part about Israel controversy

First of all, Gaarders purpose behind the article is not answered in the text. (According to himself, it was written as a wake-up call to Israel). Second. One must add that it is his prophecy and that he said it's not the way he WANTS Israel to become, but the WAY he thinks it MIGHT become (if Israeli policy is not changed). Because this is a judgement prophecy he writes "We" and not "I" throughout the article. Example "We do no longer belive in..." or "We do no longer recognize...". It's not ment as the present situation but his prophecy for the future situation. Without writing that this is his prophecy, the content of his article will be interpreted completely different. One cannot fully understand the article without reading the interview with Gaarder released three days before the Internet-edition of the article (same day as the paper edition?), by the very same paper (Aftenposten). Condemens Israel (Aftenposten).

I started to write it when I edited the article 7 august version, but it was reverted as POV (no POV-reason given to this date).

Cvik 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cvik. The revert of your alledged POV was clearly a POV revert. I think you should include the passages that are missing now into the present edition. Espescially the part referring to the comments he made in the interview. Pertn 19:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how Gaarder's use of the word "we" implies anything about the purpose behind his writing. If you want to cite sources that clarify Gaarder's position, feel free, but I'd be careful to avoid original interpretation. Doctofunk 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The use of the word "we" is a major point. Remember that the text is a judgement prophecy. In the interview published together with the op-ed he even says it's not the way he wants it to turn out, but the way he fears it will turn out. The use of the word "we" indicates that "everyone" will have the opinions in the op-ed in the future. That is, if the prophecy comes true, and Gaarder is afraid the prophecy will come true unless Israel changes it policy - thus the reason why he claims the purpose of the article is to serve as a wake-up call to Israel. This is the whole point of the op-ed, as explained by Gaarder numerous times.

intercept 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaarder's position should be fairly clear; he has stated that he means every word, but not necessarily in the way they have been perceived. The controversy is not over what he has meant and/or the intended opinion of the author, but in fact, over what the words have ment to society in general and to Jews in particular. I believe this is fairly well portrayed in the WikiArticle as it stands now.
NomenNescio 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The interview mentioned by Cvik on the same day, in the same newspaper (or at least on the web-version) does IMO clarify some of the purpose of JG's writing. He states that he has written as the prophet [Amos (prophet)|Amos], as a "judgment" not because "he wishes it, but because he percieves it will happen". If someone with better editing skills than me, and a good grasp of both norwegian and english could bring that information into the article, I really believe it would shed more light on the issue. Hornblower 15:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It would add to explain what his intensions were, but again, the controversy is NOT over his intensions - they may have been the very best. The controversy is over how hiw words were perceived, by those mentioned (members of the Jewish faith, in Norway in particular). Same goes for the Muhammed-cartoons: Little did it matter to the havoc they caused, that the intensions were far from that to insult moslems. Then - when writing an article about the controvery of the drawings, mentioning the artists real intensions are but a distraction.
NomenNescio 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Mr Nomiesco. I agree in parts of what you say here, but when people again and again (and again) interpret his INTENTIONS as beeing anti-semittic, it is important for the context to add these remarks. The whole debate is about this (in my view rediculous) notion that JG's article is can be interpreted as a sign of som "underlying" anti-semitism. So: People would very much like to speculate about the psycological motivation behind what he writes. For Gods sake, let the man have a say in it! Pertn 06:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
His intentions and assurances that he is not anti-semitic is already given a very large part of the section – about half or so (and the whole is already rather bloated). However Gaarder is not a stumbling amateur. He's an experienced author, and he know perfectly well how to make his words convey exactly the sentiments he feels. So if he is not Anti-Semitic no amount of quoting from his own words will show him to be. The important thing is, that the parts describing the op-ed, are not mixed up with later retractions or detailing. Rune X2 07:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but the statement in question was in an interview published in the same edition of aftenposten. That means it is a part of the context in which the piece was originally printed. It goes to show that he did not say these "I'm not an anti-semite" things AFTER the critizism. One should not include other people's speculations about his underlying motives (that he really hates jews, but does not say) without including his statement about this. And I disagree: JG is a stumbeling amateur. Pertn 07:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
We have an interesting situation here: There are those who seem to believe (or want) that the controversy merely is over his blast of Israel, and wants to justify it by adding softening references. Others, however, are of the opinion that the controversy is not so much over his blast of Israel, but over the fact that the text can be perceived as being anti-semitic. The first group tries to soften this by adding statements all over the place denying antisemitism. The question remains: How can we get an article which in an objective way describe the clear facts: "JG published an article, which he says was run by "countless people", from a motif to "wake up" Israel. He did not mean to upset Jews in general. Parts of the article did, however, upset Jews, and is by many seen as anti-semitic retoric". Perhaps we should divide the article in two clear sections, one about the condemnation of Israel, adding the external references who support that, including those from jews saying that such critizism is OK, -and a second section dealing with what many perceive as antisemitic. In the latter section, we can have the references where he says that he is not anti-semitic, and expand on the issue at heart, namely the *controversy* this has caused. Waddayasay`guys?
NomenNescio 08:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Pretty good idea. I agree with your interpretaton of it all to a certain extent, though I would rather say that there are more than two viewpoints involved here. I personally would like to "soften" it, not because I mean the controversy is about his blast of Israel, but because I want to understand what he writes IN CONTEXT (including his other statements) and not word for word (as the devil reads the bible). I also think there is a active group of people, mainly right wing Israel-supporters, who actively want to label Israel-critics as Anti-semites, and hence look for any opportunity to label any dangerous person as anti-semite. (These are probably the people who wanted to include the anti-semitism discussion in the Norwegian article about kåre Willoch.) An argument I have more respect for, is the fact that some jews did not have such motives, and probably was offended anyway, and that he should know that it might happen. SOme might mean that, no matter his intentions, he should have understood that it could hurt. This is a well known discussion about racial slur. If I say nigger, but with good intentions, people can still get hurt. In my view, to understand and document the intentions is important, but it does not neccesarily aquit him from the fact that he is responsible for hurting other people.
OK. enough rambling. I agree that you can try to split the article as you propose.
Funny you should mention Willoch :-) -The guy has his views and have voiced them in private. What he says in the public debate is another story, but wth...
This debate is tragic. I will give an example: If someone says
"Israel should stop killing innocent palestinians. Israel molests palestininan babies every day. It must stop. This hadn't happened if the imperialistic Jews all perished during WWII".
Then someone says: Hey, that's anti-semitic. The author (or someone else) then says "Every time someone critizises Israel, the "anti-semite" or Holocaust story is here again."
Looking at the above scentence, it can actually be perceived as being fairly objective, but the problem here is clearly mixing Israel's policy with Judaism and Holocaust. From an objective POV, the statement can also be anti-semitic, *even* if the author keeps saying otherwise. IMO that's the story here. Gaarder has used clear and concise anti-semitic slander, he even used the "endlösung" term. Perhaps it is correct that the guy isn't anti-semitic, perhaps he's just an ignorant fool but a helluvagood writer. The controversy still remains over how the piece is perceived, and it helps very little if additions about "What I really ment was..."
NomenNescio 12:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What you write here is just nonsense. I find your innuendoes against willoch ignorant and offensive as well. Luckily this is not a discussion forum. It is an encyclopedia. So I do not have to discuss it with you, unless you are willing to make such ridiculous points in the main article. Pertn 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaarder withdraws from further debate

According to this site, mr Gaarder has decided to withdraw from all further public debate regardring the issue about his article, because of the reactions to it. NRK: Gaarder trekker seg fra debatten (Norwegian) imi 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel, etc.

I was the first one to enter information about the recent controversy, but I have to say that this is taking up way too much space on this article. My preference would be to create a separate article on the controversy that includes a link from here. After all, this has become bigger than Gaarder himself. --Leifern 10:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's blocking out everything about the writer Gaarder --imi2 10:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur completely. This article is not about the current controversy, this article is about Gaarder. The creation of a seperate article on the controversy is IMHO the best solution. --Iafrate 13:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Gaarder is an important author and philosopher. His work is uneven in my opinion and several of his books for young people are much better than 'Sophie's World' for which he's best known internationally. He deserves a biography which includes a link to the present controversy, not an article which is entirely dominated by it. (I'm a school librarian in Bergen. Can't find my login info just now.)

[edit] How to stop vandalism on this article?

There have been a lot of vandalism and writing in propaganda and wrong information on this article lately... --imi2 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rune X2

How do you mean that JG "condems Judaism"? Is that the only way to interpret what he writes, or it is a POV interpretation on your behalf? (which by the way, does not concur with JG's own). I find your changes here unencyclopedical. It seems you have an issue here besides making a good encyclopedia. pertn 11:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have being trying to strike a balance from the beginning and also bring in other material to the article, to make the issue of Israel and Anti-Antisemitism seem less prominent. However, to characterize the current issue as one of merely “condemning Israeli politics” is to complete miss the point – and in fact, I'd consider it to be trying to present a biased and sanitized version of the events, since criticism of Israel never was the controversial issue, his condemnation of Judaism was. The article need to state this in the intro. Rune X2 11:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The term "condems judaism" is POV. You have to source it. I have not seen anyone using this phrase. Also, no one has called him racist. Only a few has called him anti semite (and only in vague phrases as, "looks like anti-semitism" and so on). The case is that his article condemning israeli politics and violence (by his own repeated statements, even accompanying the op-ed this is what he wanted to write about) there were passages that many percieved as critical of judaism and jews. It is important that this short introduction does not give a false impression, that these fringe statements about his motives are highlighted. Most of his critics have not called him anti-semite, racist but critizised the fact that his critizism og Israel can be percieved as such and that he makes a muddle of it all with a religious language and so on.

pertn 12:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying: critics are saying he is condemning Judaism is not pov. However completely leaving out this crucial point, is mischaracterizing the whole issue and in reality very POV, in accepting as fact the group that insist that the whole issue is merely a cook up by Israel apologists trying to derail any criticism of Israel. His critics of Israel is not the controversial issue, his (misinformed) critics of Judaism is. Again the intro needs to state this. Not necessarily that he does condemn Judaism – but that his critics sees him as doing it.
Many have called him racist. More have called him Anti-Semitic – in fact that seems to be the consensus both in Norway and in Denmark (the places I've been following). And that you designate them as merely “fringe statements” shows you as having an agenda more than me. People from “Odd-Bjørn Fure, renowned Norwegian historian and director of the Oslo Holocaust-centre” to Dr. Shimon Samuels director of the Simon Wiesenthal center (“[Gaarder] regurgitates this concept's classic anti-Semitic definition as "arrogant and domineering.") have called him on his Antisemitism – while absolutely no-one has said he is not entitled to criticize Israel's policies.
Now I try to work your objections into my additions. While you merely keep reverting. This is not a way to cooperate in an article. Rune X2 12:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


You say many have called him racist. No source. As regards anti-semitism, you are poorly informed I think. You should check the main article. Fure critizises him strongly but does not say that he is a anti-semite: "[...] Gaarder uses a language which contributes to lowering barriers in the description of Israel and Jewish culture. [...] Gaarder has crossed a line, but I don't think he realizes it". Shimon Samuels has said something more in that direction, but it should be noted that this figure actually called the County of Sør-Trøndelag in Norway anti-semites and rambeled about Quisling and so on in another case (about a proposed boychott of Israeli goods. In THAT case it is clear that he used the anti-semite label in a case that was solely about Israeli politics). http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=111801
Anyway. My main point is not that it is only Israel-apologists who critizise him. Of course that is not true. But I feel you lack prescision in your conception of this. You say: "More have called him Anti-Semitic – in fact that seems to be the consensus both in Norway and in Denmark (the places I've been following)" My impression is clearly that he has been critizised for mixing things up, using a language that "lowers the standards and can be percieved as antisemitic" and so on more than that someone really sees him as an antisemite with an antisemitic agenda. Don't you agree?
I would like to give the readers a balanced view of it all. I am sorry if my reverts offended you, but the way you wrote (among other things) implied an interpretation of the op-ed that does not concur with JG's own statements that accompanied it. I'll promise to read twice before I revert (or not) next time, since you say you are even more balanced than me.
So please do propose a compromise. pertn 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] About last revert

The anonymous user and mr Moshe (etc) seem uninformed and clearly interested in presenting a biased version of the controversy. Though I understand that someone want to attack mr Gaarder, I suggest you do it elswhere. I am sorry I had to revert Leifern as well, since he had edited on top of these POV edits, cause he seems to be interested in writing a serious encyclopedical article about this (and quite competent as well). pertn 18:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


pertn, your version misses or subdues the two major points in the Gaarder controversy. After all articles condemning Israel are very common in European press and usually they do not create such controversy. But Gaarder has added two points to the usual criticism of Israel and those points have caused the uproar against his article:

1. The explicit denial of Israel's right to exist if it doesn't change its policy.

2. The antisemitic "state of mind" of the article. Here are some quotes which bring negative images from ancient Jewish history that have nothing to do with current Israeli-Arab conflict:

"We don't believe that Israel grieves any more for the forty killed Lebanese children than it has wailed over the forty years spent in the desert three thousand years ago."

"We note that many Israelis celebrate such triumphs in the same manner they once cheered the plagues of the Lord as "fitting punishment" for the people of Egypt."

"It wasn't the Pharisee who helped the man who lay by the wayside, having fallen prey to robbers. It was a Samaritan; today we would say, a Palestinian".

And also an explicit description of Judaism as archaic national and warlike religion: "We do not recognize a state founded on anti-humanistic principles and on the ruins of an archaic national and warlike religion."

So what you would like to see is a reference that states that the article IS anti-Semitic, and not only has been perceived as such? I think that this is very problematic, since he both in the article and other places has stated that it should not be interpreted this way. Hence, both your and his POV of what the article states is represented. I can not accept a change that tries to overrule this ambiguity. It is possible that one could strengthen the aspects you propose a bit, but remember this is merely an appetizer for the main article. He clearly stated, even in the accompanying interview that his intentions were to critizise the war.
Also. His denial of Israel's right to exist to is way more complex than how you put it. This complexity is discussed in the main article. I do not believe that one should present one view of it in this short section. I will revert your changes unless you make some quick fixes yourself. You should also get a user name, so we could more easliy recognize your contributions. pertn 13:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how statements like the ones I quoted above can be interpreted in a non-antisemitic way. Please enlighten me.

[edit] Deny Israel's right to exist?

I removed that statement unless it can be sourced. Thanks..--Tom 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about my last edit

I changed a passage that seemed to imply that gaarder did not really deny the allegations of anti-semitism, but merely blamed it on his outrage. That is incorrect. He has made it pretty clear (even in the interview accompanying the op ed) that he is not an antisemite. People may speculate that he may be one, even though he says he is not, but that is anoher story. pertn 20:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

He certainly argued that he wasn't antisemitic, but he didn't prove that he wasn't one. People should certainly have the benefit of the doubt, but after a rant of this nature, the burden of proof shifts. --Leifern 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with all of your argumentation, but I agree with your change. Refuted wasnot the best word. pertn 18:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What seems clear is that Gaarder has tarnished his own standing with posterity. Millions who would never have heard of him otherwise will think of him either as a Fearless Truth-Teller or a Vile Little Quisling Nazi. Whatever else he may have written on other topics---much of it, I am sure, quite admirable-- will be lost in the mists of time. Foolish man, to have written his own epitaph in this way!

[edit] Gaarder's folly

What seems clear is that Gaarder has tarnished his own standing with posterity. Millions who would never have heard of him otherwise will think of him either as a Fearless Truth-Teller or a Vile Little Quisling Nazi. Whatever else he may have written on other topics---much of it, I am sure, quite admirable-- will be lost in the mists of time. Foolish man, to have written his own epitaph in this way!