Talk:Kåre Willoch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Norway Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Norwegian "å" letter

Is the Dano-Norwegian letter "å" visible for readers with an English keyboard or computer setup? Otherwise maybe Mr. Willoch's name should be "Kare" or "Kaare". --Jakro64 08:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-- It's very visible, but it's not possible to write directly. C.A. Jenson/krikkert

[edit] Vanunu/Antisemitism

The link provided by the anonymous editor (http://www.document.no/weblogg/archives/005149.html), does not accuse Willoch of antisemitism; quite to the contrary it warns him not to contribute to something he wouldn't want to be a part of. Hence, thre is no basis for saying that such accusations have made against him. Also, characterizing Vanunu as a "convicted traitor" is indeed NPOV. Vanunu was convicted of treason, and that is why Willoch wants to provide him with amnesty. --Leifern 17:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


"Jødehateren Kåre Willoch og hans venner må stoppes før jøder blir drept på Oslos gater." (Erez Uriely) [1] (Erez Uriely is leader of "Norsk Israel Senter", Norwegian Israel Centre)

Erez Uzriely has been expelled by the synagogue in Oslo, has been denounced by the Norwegian center against antisemitism, and gets no credit from any mainstream Israeli advocacy group. The fact that Vanunu has been offered a position as "rector" at Glasgow University is irrelevant to the fact that Willoch wants to grant him "political asylum" in Norway. It's the fact that Israel considers him a criminal that is the salient fact. Anyone who wants to read the controvery around Vanunu need only click to the article about him. --Leifern 11:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Still, Erez Uriely is a person who hold an opinion, and he frequently write articles in Norwegians newspapers and is well known to the general public and seems to enjoy recognition for his work (here he is seen with an under-secretary of state), and especially from the more extreme pro-Israel right wing in Norway (DLF, FOMI etc.). The Simon Wiesenthal Center supported Uriely after he was expelled from the Kristallnacht commemoration. Also, he is of course not the only one who has said Willoch is anti-semitic. Btw., which Norwegian center against anti-semitism are you talking about? The center Uriely represents call itself "Norwegian Israel Centre against anti-semitism". Its website is found at http://www.norskisraelsenter.no
Norsk senter mot antisemittisme, led by Christine Mohn. All you have to do is read the coverage of the latest Kristallnacht controversy. Erez Uriely is way out of the mainstream, and it would be libelous to imply that pro-Israeli groups routinely denounce Willoch as antisemitic. If you want to make the point that people question his motives, you can phrase something along those lines. Also, Vanunu can be described in many ways, such as "recently converted Christian," "David Ben-Gurion University graduate," "Moroccan-born," "Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist," etc. None of these is relevant to why Willoch wants him to be granted political asylum. The salient point is that Vanunu was convicted for revealing state secrets, a treasonous act in any country, also Norway. Please register and sign. --Leifern June 30, 2005 10:19 (UTC)
It is perhaps a little late, but that was not the salient point, and still is not. It relates to Norwegian involvement in, and Israeli nuclear proliferation, which is what Vanunu provided confirmatory and to a degree quantitative information on, to the rest of the world. I doubt that Willoch's reason turned on Israeli criminal law so much as on the obvious political impact and relevance of the offer. It is not an insignificant matter. Midgley 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Norway and) anti-proliferation

Is Norway against nuclear (weapons) proliferation? I have the impression it is. (Born out by this and other quickly Googled links [2] If so, the Vanunu offer would be a logical piece of foreign policy, and interesting in that way. Expert? Midgley 12:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but treason is treason. Vanunu was given security clearance and understood that he had to protect secrets regardless of his political views. In disclosing these secrets, he committed treason. He is not in trouble in Israel for his political views - there are plenty of Israelis who oppose Israel's nuclear policy - he is in trouble because he is a convicted traitor. Being convicted treason does not entitle anyone to political asylum. As for Norway's posture on nuclear arms, it has signed the non-proliferation treaty, like most Western countries - this does not distinguish Norway from any of the others. Willoch wants to harbor Vanunu because Willoch has some kind of irrational animus towardIsrael and would do anything to spite the country. --Leifern 17:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
He should have just followed orders? Midgley 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Israel is not violation of either international nor domestic law in a) pursuing a nuclear program (they have not signed the anti-proliferation treaty) and b) prosecuting and punishing treason. It is indisputable that he disclosed classified information and that he was convicted for it. --Leifern 19:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The CV of Mordechai Vanunu can be found in that article. It is not essential to the story of Kåre Willoch. And the above political debate hardly belongs on this talk page. Please refrain from using harsh language without giving references. --Eddi (Talk) 23:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The seizure of Vanunu from Rome was outwith Italian and EC law. It would have been dealt with under the Italian criminal law had any of the Israeli spies and kidnappers been caught in the act - they would have been imprisoned and under Italian law they would be called criminals. In an article about Norwegian politics I can see that calling Quisling a traitor could be taken as NPOV, but to insist that a citizen of another country be labelled - thus making a short part of the article longer - seems to me to be expressing a POV, and moreover a POV that belongs to another article. it also doesn't seem to help the article along - it adequately displays the hatred or contempt of the writer, but the article by WP convention is not here to help the reader understand the writer, but the subject. The subject is Mr Willoch, and by extension Norwegian politics... I can see that it is possible to construct an argument that Mr Willoch is acting not as a politician and a member of his party in pursuit of a domestic or international(note below) political aim or policy, but rather on his own initiative, and out of a dislike for Israel whether rational or not, but that is very WP:OR and lacks any citation given here. I suspect it of being false as well, because it would be a behaviour very out of character for a politician who had risen to prime minister. Accordingly, if it is asserted as the basis for an edit, it should definitely be checkable by other editors, using English language sources.
I can't speculate about Willoch's motives, but it is entirely clear that his involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict has nothing to do with his membership in the Conservative Party of Norway. The circumstances under which Vanunu was arrested are indeed controversial but have nothing to do with his conviction. The facts of the matter are beyond dispute. He was brought to trial and convicted of treason, and hence he is a convicted traitor. --Leifern 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
We could all speculate, and some have, but that doesn't make an encyclopedic entry. Adding the date of the event would be possibly encyclopedic, editorialising and WP:OWNing the article as an attack on someone from a different country, is not. Midgley 01:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. --Leifern 01:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: Ex-Prime Ministers tend to go international in their scope for various reasons including statesmanlike aspirations. Making a point in the same way as Glasgo University students did would be quite within that pattern of behaviour. "irrational animus" is fine, if it can be shown. Midgley 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Norway has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Willoch cabinet did not pursue nuclear non-proliferation as a particular issue beyond its adherence to the treaty. I could have rewritten the phrase to read "Willoch's cabinet, without stating so explicitly, maintained the Norwegian commitment to its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, just like its predecessors and successors." Willoch's interest in Vanunu post-dates by many years his (short) tenure as prime minister. --Leifern 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

5 years is a reasonable time as PM, in the UK it is a full term, although many PMs do continue to lead if their party gets re-elected. A relevant addition to the article would be why he did not serve longer as PM - if his party was ousted from power then that is one explanation, if the party remained in power but he was removed from leading it by internal politics then that would be another. (The PM box at the bottom gives this, but perhaps not as explicitly as would help.) And encyclopedic, and about the subject of the article, on whch it would be good to focus. Midgley 01:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
So there is another wanted addition to the article about this man - his party lost the because of what? By how much? And how does that compare to the common oscillation between parties in most States - does Norway rarely elect a conservative in which case leading the party to a single term in power is notable, or have the conservatives typically held power for two terms when they get in for one? The biography is not I think of KW as PM, so events such as visiting Palestine and changing his mind about Israel's foreign policy - as given in the reference in the article - and his environmental work which goes with the Nansen Institute which has some slight non-proliferation connection are relevant, but when a man has been PM, how he got there and how he left are somewhat biographical. Midgley 02:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Proliferation

Norway had provided heavy water in 1959 to Israel, also to India and France. The Israeli D2O went with an inspection agreement which permitted Norway to inspect Dimona, and to insist that a proportion of the Plutonium produced by Dimona be diverted to peaceful use. In 1988 Willoch, post-premiersip, and then Foreign Relations Committee chairman, rejected a compromise on this... that is a significant bit of what some might label "harsh criticism of Israeli policy" and others "work toward nuclear non-proliferation". The latter seems more informative, interesting and less clearly expressing a POV, since it doesn't even assert that minor states in unstable areas building nuclear weapons is anything but idea for the rest of us who don't live in them. On a Norwegian political basis, that looks like a move away from Norway's previous remarkably friendly sale of not very encumbered heavy water. The extent to which Willoch moved Norwegian foreign policy on nuclear non-proliferation is something I'd be interested in, and possibly something that people who have previously edited this article to inform readers might be able to add detail on easily. Midgley 03:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a 1993 reference. http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/speeches/1993/speech1.html
And a quote from it "it marked the first time anyone had pressured Israel into doing anything significant in its nuclear program that it did not want to do. The three-year controversy offers three important lessons:

The danger of secrecy. The 1959 sale of heavy water was ostensibly a peaceful nuclear export. There was no reason why it should have remained hidden until 1986. Norway has claimed that Israel wanted the deal to be secret to avoid scrutiny of Dimona; Israel has claimed that Norway wanted the deal to be secret to avoid embarrassment from the sale. Regardless of who is right, it is now clear that if the deal had been public from the start, Norway would have been obliged to inspect the water from the start, and Israel could not have used it to make plutonium for nuclear weapons." That is quite notable, and I suspect that Willoch may feel it significant. Offering Vanunu (assistance in getting) asylum if he manages to escape is probably an epiphenomenom of that, and it may be better mentioned in that light than made an issue on its own, but this seems to me as a foreigner wondering abuot Norway and the risks of a nuclear holocaust affecting us all a significant piece of this man's political life. Perhaps there are far more significant ones, but one would have to ask where they are in the article. I think there is soem more writing to do on him, and I think, looking back at the scrap over whether the article on a contemporary Norwegian ex PM shall be used to add yet another copy of the Israeli foreign ministry's preferred description of Mr Vanunu that there are several edts and comments that if they had not been made would not have discouraged people from getting on and writing it. Midgley 03:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Willoch's criticism of Israel has always been related to his view that Israel is bringing terrorism on itself through its policies toward Palestinians. His cabinet did not make any particular forrays in nuclear non-proliferation. It was a non-socialist coalition that in the Cold War era adopted a more hardline policy than the socialist governments that preceded and succeeded his. --Leifern 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse

Midgley recently reverted very well-documented and referenced pieces to a highly misleading and confusing version with absolutely no references. --Leifern 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF
Leifern has recently taken to lambasting me over wide areas of WP, on matters that have absolutely nothing to do with this page, as did the comment above. It seems to have followed an edit I made on a page he WP:OWNsMidgley 01:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Give me a break. You are the one who is filing complaints against me all over Wikipedia. All I have done recently is create a separate page that summarizes all your complaints against me and responds to me. I have welcomed you to comment on this page on its discussion page, but you filed an MFD for my defense. As for this article, your edits on Willoch try to make a connection between Norway's continuing signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and Willoch's support for Vanunu, when there is no evidence for such a connection. You deleted a number of referenced quotations and hold that a conviction in a court of law is a matter of opinion. In the meantime, your own assertions about Willoch are completely unreferenced. --Leifern 02:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Referenced quotations on this page? It is not clear to me that either this personal attack of many has any connection to this page - or what in connection to any other page you have in mind - don't reply here, you have already irritated another editor here, use the talk page of whatever article it is to comment on it, please, or take the advice that you have now received from more than one admin of using WP procedures to deal with whatever is on your mind. I have just read the history of this article, and note for anyone who has not that I didn't add Vanunu, and that the reference already given some time ago on the page is quite helpful. Midgley 02:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no personal attack, I have only commented on your recent edits. And you are the one who accused me of "lambasting, etc." all over WP on this page rather than talking about the actual article. I can not see that I have irritated another editor - I would have been fine with removing the Vanunu reference altogether, as I think it is a minor footnote in Willoch's life. --Leifern 02:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
"I have only commented on your recent edits". SO you are referring to several referenced quotations on this page? No.
You reverted an entire set of edits that were thoroughly referenced, replacing them with a version that had absolutely no references. That is what I am referring to. I explained it pretty clearly above. --Leifern 03:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have said I do not understand what this refers to - repeating it has not aided me in reaching that understanding. Is it this page - not the discussion page, tha article page, or some other page? WP now has just over a million of them. Midgley 04:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

"His government instituted a number of reforms to reverse social democratic policies that have proven to be durable. "

Doesn't work really - if they were reversed, they were thereby proved not to be durable. A simpler construction such as "His government reversed several social democratic policies which have not been reimplemented" would mean one thing, and

His government reversed several longstanding social democratic policies." Would mean another.

"Enduring reforms" would be a possibility, also.

I think I simply took that to be a revert, I suspect it was, with then some new edits added before it was saved. DOing it in stages and adding an edit summary might have avoided that impression. Midgley 04:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is "sometime" rather than "sometimes" a very important edit?

"Willoch earned a reputation as a sharp-witted, sometime acerbic politician. During his years in parliament and in various governments, he was respected by his political allies and opponents alike, but never gained the popularity of other prime ministers in his time."

I had altered it from sometime to sometimes, but this was reverted - I apologise if the copious references given explain why this is correct rather than a reversion. I'll leave that one, and I suggest that if the difference between translation of Governor and County GOvernor is important that might be put in a s a single edit... From a UK perspective I wodner if the translation here would be something like "Lieutenant-governor" who is the Queen's (HBM that is) representative in each county here. That is speculation, and I don't know what the American equivalent would be whch is probably the other referent - the nature and scope of the appointment is no mor clear from county governor than from governor, to me or AFAICS http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/system/ . Midgley 04:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Midgley, some of your translations are actually correct; but you should keep in mind that all official Norwegian titles, political subdivisions, etc., have official English translations already. These should obviously be used. --Leifern 02:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Which, being a reference useful for all non-Norwegian readers on teh English WP it will be useful to know the location of. Midgley 17:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanunu support source reference and text

"From:     Fredrik S. HEFFERMEHL 
*  NFR: www.nowar.no or IPB: www.ipb.org             *
*                                                                   *
*  Hon. President, Norwegian Peace Alliance            *
*  Vice President, International Peace Bureau         *
*  Vice Pres., I Assn. Lawyers Ag. Nuclear Arms        *
*  International Free Vanunu Committee                 *
To:     Midgley 
Subject:        Re: Vanunu: definite reference to Kare Willoch supporting his  application for asylum in Norway?
Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:16:46 +0100  (08:16 GMT)
...
> Is it possible to point me to one, please?
...

The source is a daily newspaper, Klassekampen, that on Oct. 12, 2004 carried the article below. The given excerpt translates as follows:

- Norway is partly responsible for Vanunu´s situation because of our naive heavy water support to Israel, says former prime minister Kåre Willoch to Klassekampen. In his opinion Norway has a moral obligation to offer protection to this Israeli citizen. Vanunu was released from prison in April this year after serving 18 years for revealing Israel's nuclear secrets while working at the Dinamo reactor. He was kept in solitary confinement for over twelve years. Norwegian heavy water was used to manufacture nuclear weapons at the reactor. Last Friday it became known that the Israeli nuclear technician had sought asylum in Norway.

- I would be surprised if he does not get protection, Mr. Willoch said.

Norwegian version:

- Norge er delansvarlig i Mordechai Vanunus situasjon på grunn av vår naive tungtvann-støtte til Israel, sier Kåre Willoch til Klassekampen. Han mener Norge har en moralsk plikt til å gi den israelske statsborgeren beskyttelse. Vanunu slapp ut av fengsel i april i år, etter å ha sonet i 18 år for å ha avslørt Israels atomhemmeligheter da han var ansatt ved Dinamo-reaktoren. I over tolv år satt han i isolat. Norsk tungtvann ble brukt til å produsere atomvåpnene ved reaktoren. På fredag ble det kjent at den israelske atomteknikeren har søkt om politisk asyl i Norge.

- Jeg blir overrasket hvis han ikke får beskyttelse, sier Willoch.

Midgley 15:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC) / translation completed by Eddi (Talk) 02:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from blog article

Throughout his long and illustrious political career, Willoch has made a great number of quotes on many subjects. His interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict also includes consideration of several topics; Israel's nuclear profile is one of them, and among the least covered. If you want to weigh in on the issue of Israel's nuclear arms, please go to the relevant articles on that topic. --Leifern 20:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So, an even-handed appraoch to the many subjects in his illustrious career - leave all of them out of the article, by removing the one that was in there, rather than adding any others. Is there any reason why this doesn't get a POV tag for being written from the POV of the Israeli embassy? Midgley 22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I grew up admiring Willoch; his son Dag was my roommate for three months in the military; I have read numerous articles by and about him; we have numerous mutual acquaintances; I have met the man. Everything I have written about him I have cited and referenced. I have no idea what opinion the "Israeli embassy" has about Willoch. Everything is factual and presented neutrally. I can't imagine he would disagree with anything that has been written here, though I think he would agree with me that his political career is broader and far more diverse than the article gives him credit for. --Leifern 00:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The Israeli embassy would appear to prefer that no mention of nuclear weapons appear; that Mordechai Vanunu's name never appear without their point of view (treachery) being attached to it regardless of context, and it appears, explicitly:-

"In a statement former prime minister of Norway Kaare Willoch praised the initiative and gave his warm support. Pointing to the fact that nuclear weapons may jeopardize Israeli security when other countries get similar capabilities, he added that "this is an important recognition of a man who chose to follow his own conscience and the loyalty to mankind". This is good, Mr. Willoch said.

At the official ceremony in Tromsoe on May 15, with the 1995 Nobel laureate Sir Joseph Rotblat as the main speaker, Meir Vanunu will receive the honors on behalf of his brother. An appeal by the University to the Israeli authorities that Vanunu was entitled to his freedom and should be released for the ceremony had been refused.

The Israeli embassy in Oslo yesterday denounced the decision in sharp language, calling it a peculiar action. " http://www.ialana.net/press_release.htm

But perhaps all the other policies and actions in the article are so much more significant to general readers of the English WP that they have driven out any mention of this matter. One of the benefits of links to famous people is that one could ask them direct questions. Midgley 00:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the press release that would lead anyone to believe that the Israeli embassy in Oslo would not have Vanunu mentioned. And the quote you refer to, Willoch lends support to something the University of Tromsø decided to do. So how many different quotes by Willoch should I find? There is no question that Willoch is critical to Israel, and his quotes are representative. And it is not a matter of opinion what Vanunu was convicted for. --Leifern 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I still struggle to see (from the artile as it stands) what he did that is notable. Many accomplishments, broader and more divrse, yes of course, but there isn't anything in there, and one item that seems to me encyclopedic is in the opinion of one editor something to remove at each opportunity. With no obvious improvement in the article, but in line with news-managmeent elsewhere. Willoch on non-proliferation gets a couple of hundred Google hits, Norway and non-proliferation gets a couple of million, so these are not negligible topics for a prime minister of Norway. For what policy should Google be asked to give many more hits? And why is that policy not in the article, and more prominent than the non-proliferation topics which have been removed, repeaedly? Midgley 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Willoch was prime minister of Norway among other ministerial posts, a leader of the Conservative party, and one of the most recognizable public figures in Post Word War II history. And you think this article is non-notable? --Leifern 11:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
But what did he _do_? He reversed some policies of someone else... which policies? Why? What were the elections fought on? The only information the article has contined about any actual individual acts or policies or opinions of the subject has been removed - so what is to replace it? Midgley 11:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A number of books...

Willoch, Kåre. Minner og meninger. I. Til slutten av sosialdemokratiets storhetstid - i 1965. 1988. NOK 150 Willoch, Kåre.. - Nævdal, Bodil. Dager etter dette. Et politisk portrett av Kåre Willoch. 1987. NOK 200 Willock, Kåre.. Debattskrift til Kåre Willoch 3. oktober 1993. Redaksjon: Børge Brende, Kristin Clemet, Erling Norvik og Svenn Stray. 1993. NOK 150

Among the attributes an author is notable for, are the subjects of their books, and even the titles of their books. Midgley 16:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supply side

There is no basis for the assertion that Willoch is or ever was a "supply side economist," or that anyone characterized him that way. Please see Supply-side economics for an introduction. --Leifern 17:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, and as much for the record as anything, when I added that capsule descriptor, I linked it to Supply-side economics. I'm not an oeconomist myself, but neitehr am I in the habit of linking an article to something the contents of which I neither have an apprehension of nor check. I this case both applied, as they normally would.Midgley 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see that you based your characterization of him on a summary of a New York Times article from 1981, not from the reference you made originally. The New York Times is not the definitive word on things, and Kåre Willoch has himself (notably in a 1986 interview in the now defunct Farmand) made it clear that he is not a pure-bred libertarian economist. --Leifern 18:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably mis-clipboarded. Well-spotted. I'd say I'd reported/intended to report the NYT's characterisation of him, which I suspect really only divides economists into two sorts, the supply-side and the demand-side. No doubt neither is found in the pure form in the real world, and also no doubt the particular economic views of a prime minister with an economics degree who is regarded as having been strong on economics deserve a deeper exposition. but every journey starts with a single step, and most books start with two words. The NYT is regarded as a paper of record, and has a responsible attitude to being told that they have misdescribed people, particularly I suspect prime ministers. if they have not corrected their description yet perhaps they might be invited to, or perhaps WP should include "rather thena the NYT's misleading characterisation of him as a supply-side economist, he was in office actually a ..." Midgley 18:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs

a picture.

Also his views on security, quite recently, would go well under a heading like "Post-Parliamentary Career" but less well under "post-Political Career".

And of course his statesman-like views on the Middle East and Norway's responsibility for nuclear proliferation are more political than post-political.

The article is coming on apace.

Maggie's, which has to be a model, dwells on her relationships with other world leaders. In her case Ronald Reagan is the key one. The article would usefully include information on the formative or politically significant relationships with other Scandinations and the US and UK. Was his relationship with the Israeli head of state different while PM than later? Midgley 18:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be fair

Willoch has a long record of sober critizism of Israel. Clearly, some pro-Israel people are trying to make him seem more extreme than he really is here. For instance: when he is quoted as saying that Israel is "creating terror" it sounds horrible, but his real viewpoint as stated in the source is the quite common assumption that the poverty and frustrated situation in the palestinian areas due to the occupation, will probably create more palestinian terror. Hardly very controversial? In the "ethnic cleansing" part, the one writing it has not bothered to look for the original statement, but he merly refers to the website of an hysterical pro-isralel fringe-organization. Given the short account of KW's voluminous contribution to this debate, it is really unfair to use sources like this. If you want to write anything about it, try to be fair and balanced (like fox news at least), look up his original statements, quote them in context, or take it somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia. pertn 07:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Sober criticism" Willoch's views are not. And his condemnation clearly go well beyond the Six-Day War [3]. The man is rapidly against Israel. I'm reverting. --Leifern 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
These passages that I have mentioned above are so clearly tainted by the fact that they are written by people that want to paint a picture of him as extreme. Clearly you are one of them. The phrase "condemnation of Israel" is actually quite meaningless, and says nothing about his political viewpoints. He critizises Israeli politics, mainly the occupation and the abuse of power. The sentence you propose is just a vulgarization of his statements, and it is clearly a vulgarization which is in line with what his opponents want to think of him. I am critical, and even willing to condemn, GW Bush's international policy, but I do not "Condemn the USA", and I certainly do not see it as the role of an encyclopedia to make such hostile simplifications of complex arguments. I am reverting back. If you REALLY want to make an issue out of your right to label his argumentation as "condemnation of Israel", go ahead and make my day! :)pertn 13:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason to think or suggest he is anything but sober, but oddly Leifern is right in choosing the root condemn rather than critic. Willoch, visibly, condemned Israel for actions in the West Bank and Gaza. "Condemnation of" is a stylistically poor way of going at it though. So, he was sober, and got in ahead of the rush. Midgley 21:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Willoch issues regular op-ed articles in which he questions basic tenets of Israel's right to exist, talking of "murderous policies" and "Jewish terrorists." I have in vain tried to find a single op-ed that he has written that does anything but cast Israel, its people, and leaders in a positive light. He condemns Israel. --Leifern 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with midgley here. I could accept the word condemn, as he certainly condemns violence and occupation, but I have a feeling that you should leave it up to someone else to write this, Leifern. Obviously you have a lot on your heart here. I think "willoch condemns Israel" does not at all give credit to the complexity of the arguments of this very eloquent politician. pertn 12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Eloquent like, well, forget about comparisons. I'll collect some of his quotes, and we can see what the right characteristic is. I'm incredibly disappointed that a politician I've so long admired has made hate and bigoted populism part of his repertoire, so I don't want him whitewashed. But it's got to be accurate, of course. --Leifern 13:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Just picked a summary from one of his op-eds. Sounds like an extremist condemning Israel and questioning Israel's right to exist, right? I Quote: "To me it is horrifying that Israel’s use of force strengthens religious fanaticism and extremism amongst hundreds of millions, and hereby increases the danger of a catastrophe for Israel itself. One has to end this hatred, but this can only be successful if Israel recognizes the right of the Palestinians of their own state in accordance with UN resolutions, and end all violence that is not warranted by international law and the human rights. There is no disagreement in Norwegian debate that one has to demand that the other parties in the conflict must do the equivalent, but one will not get anywhere if one demands that this must happen before Israel does the same. " (My translation) [4]pertn 13:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop whitewashing Willoch. In this oped [5] he talks about massacres committed by "Jewish extremists" even before the State of Israel was established, here [6] he invites a terrorist to lunch and talks about the West's betrayals in allowing the establishment of Israel, and here he blames Israel and its supporters for antisemitism [7]. To say that he condemns Israel is to be kind to him. --Leifern 11:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)