‘Political language – and, to varying degrees, this applies to all political parties, from conservatives to anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder sound respectable.’ (George Orwell)
The Decline of Europe
Islamist riots (referred to by the Norwegian media as student revolt), which are supported by the radical left and are creating violent unrest on Europe’s streets, is confronting European leaders with the stark realities. It is becoming increasingly difficult to divert attention from the domestic crises by singling out Israel and the Jews as the root of society’s problems.
As leading colonial powers, France and Britain drew new borders in the Middle East and North Africa based on their own geopolitical interests, often through alliances with selected Arab elites and clans. This arrangement deprived the Jewish people of control over large parts of their homeland, which dates back more than 3,500 years, whilst other autochthonous ethnic groups, including Kurds, Copts and Berbers, were largely sidelined. Today, these former superpowers are characterised by internal tensions with the very forces they themselves once helped to strengthen.
Later, they embraced the KGB’s invention, the ‘Palestinian state’, and subsequently accused the Jews of occupying their own land. This fabrication forms part of Norway’s failed Middle East policy. Jewish shops and the synagogue that were vandalised by the mob in France show once again that Jews are not safe anywhere other than in Israel – yes, the very same Israel that tops Norway’s list of foreign policy priorities.
The true sources of anti-Semitism
Although, in a European context, Norway still appears to be a relatively safe and peaceful society for the Jewish minority, many nevertheless choose to conceal their identity. The ability to wear visible Jewish symbols in public without being harassed is currently perceived as difficult.
When key political leaders criticise Israel without directing a corresponding systematic criticism at Hamas, this contributes to an understandable unease amongst many Jews regarding where the boundaries of legitimate political criticism actually lie. Both the one-sided media coverage and the disproportionate political criticism have a marginal impact on Israel as a state, but they create a social climate here at home under which the country’s Jewish minority finds it increasingly difficult to live.
There is little to suggest that Norwegian stakeholders are sufficiently aware of the consequences of endorsing a one-sided, condemnatory narrative about Israel. Although there is considerable scope for political criticism of Israel in Norway, the main challenge lies in the fact that this criticism is not necessarily always free from anti-Semitism. The correlation between radical hostility towards Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes is empirically well established, despite persistent tendencies to redefine reality in order to legitimise one’s own position.
The Norwegian public debate thus encompasses both genuine political critics and actors driven by anti-Semitism – including the delegitimisation of Jews’ right to national sovereignty, which should be understood as a manifestation of hatred of Jews, for anti-Zionism is synonymous with anti-Semitism. It has been documented that anti-Semitic attitudes occur in Muslim communities, but these marginal groups of radical Islamists do not, on their own, have the capacity to influence attitudinal patterns amongst the general population. Nor does a handful of neo-Nazis.
The HL Centre’s surveys of attitudes towards Jews, and how the Jewish minority itself experiences the situation – particularly following the massacre on 7 October 2023 – paint a disturbing picture of societal developments, without this having triggered adequate political countermeasures. Admittedly, the government is drawing up ‘action plans’ against anti-Semitism, but these fail to address the real causes of the ever-increasing anti-Semitism in our society. The fact is that it is not primarily a grassroots phenomenon. One may question the extent to which there is a genuine willingness, across the political divides in the Storting, to tackle the true origins of prejudice head-on.
Satire as an alibi
Today’s Norwegian mass media display, in certain respects, a degree of political conformity reminiscent of conditions in the Soviet Union. When press subsidies were introduced in 1969, the aim was to ensure a diversity of perspectives in the newspaper landscape, so that citizens could form their own independent views. In practice, the scheme has had the exact opposite effect, which is particularly evident in media coverage of the Middle East. In the wake of the October Massacre, NRK’s coverage of the war in Gaza has been characterised by a selective approach, in which repeated editorial angles over time have helped to blur the distinction between victim and perpetrator.
This development appears to cross ethical boundaries. When the state broadcaster defines its features, for example, as ‘satire’, it appears as though all restrictions are lifted – even when the message is aimed at children and young people. The Press Complaints Commission (PFU) acquittal of the controversial segment in NRK Satiriks in 2019 sent a signal that anti-Semitic tropes can be freely disseminated. This was despite the fact that, as early as 2016, NRK had been forced to apologise and remove an animated video produced by the same individuals, in which students on a guided tour of a concentration camp ask whether a crematorium furnace full of ashes and the remains of a human rib can be used to make pizza. The satirical programme Nytt på nytt has, on repeated occasions presented segments tinged with prejudice. For the Jewish minority, this form of «satire» is not perceived as humorous, but rather as a burden that exacerbates insecurity and fear.
The systematic jibes directed at Jews in Norway and the rest of Europe shape the attitudes of a public that often lacks corrective sources of information. In Norway today, we are seeing Jews once again being associated with classic anti-Semitic slurs and portrayed as enemies of society. Not even the October Massacre has curbed the extent of anti-Semitism; rather, quite the opposite. Neither NRK nor the rest of the media would have been able to perpetuate such one-sided portrayals of Jews and Israel over time if the funding authorities had set clearer requirements for objectivity and balance.
A multi-front campaign against the Jewish state
Norway’s long-standing attempts to convert petroleum revenues into diplomatic influence as a ‘nation of peace’ have, in reality, failed. These efforts have largely given way to an increasingly confrontational policy towards Israel. This approach has manifested itself on several fronts: the UN, the International Criminal Court (ICC), terrorist organisations, the ‘peace industry’, various radical organisations fighting against Israel from within, the media, the Church of Norway, the Storting, the Royal Family, boycott initiatives and bills aimed at banning trade with Jewish businesspeople in parts of Israel. And finally, the awarding of Peace Prize to Navi Pillay, a prominent opponent of Israel who has sought to stretch international law in order to substantiate allegations of a genocide that has never taken place.
None of this benefits Norway or contributes to peace in the region.
The fact is that the Jewish state is the Middle East’s only true democracy and the only actor in the region that complies with international conventions and treaties. Nevertheless, Norway, in tandem with UN bodies and others, continually levels accusations against the country regarding &‘illegal occupation’, ‘illegal settlements’, ‘violations of international law’, ‘war crimes’ and ‘genocide’ – by misusing international law to delegitimise the State of Israel. The question is whether reconciliation efforts should be based on contested narratives, or whether a lasting solution requires a more pragmatic approach rooted in facts, historical realities and actual political circumstances.
It is deeply harrowing and an unbearable tragedy to witness the unimaginable suffering afflicting Gaza’s civilian population during the war that Hamas forced upon Israel in the wake of the 7 October massacre. It makes the situation all the more painful to see how innocent people are cynically exploited as a political weapon against Israel by actors in the international community, and as human shields by the terrorist organisation Hamas.
Israel’s overarching objective remains to live in security and peace with its neighbouring countries. The Abraham Accords serve as a clear example that peaceful coexistence between the Jewish state and the Arab world is achievable. The prospects for a future in which Jews and Arabs live side by side will be significantly strengthened if external states and the international community refrain from fuelling the conflict, and instead direct their resources towards genuine humanitarian aid and their own domestic politicalchallenges.
Norway at a crossroads of values
The Storting now faces a crucial choice of values: Should it tacitly accept a trend towards a Norway that risks becoming ‘Jew-free’, where the demonisation of Israel based on baseless accusations is allowed to continue unchecked – or should it take a moral stand and acknowledge the systematic injustice against the Jewish state, an injustice that also affects Jews in Norway?
As long as the Norwegian authorities fail to implement a genuine change in policy, the continuation of funding for the physical security of synagogues and kindergartens in Oslo and Trondheim remains an absolute necessity. The implicit consequence for the Jewish minority is a life spent under constant state protection. This highlights a striking paradox between Norway’s attempts to project itself as a global ‘nation of peace’ and the domestic political reality in which the country’s own Jewish institutions must be kept under constant guard.
