"Don't pay attention to that Norwegian 'Humanist' behind the curtain."

On occasion, as the blog takes its form, I will be writing about the environment in Norway and Europe. Unlike the USA, the ethnic and cultural conflicts in Europe are close to the surface, and can serve as a guide for us all what may occur in the future.

Just a few days ago, a Norwegian blog I read posted an entry about a Norwegian philosopher, humanist, and terrorism expert, Lars Gule. He is much more than described, however.

From a Tablet Magazine article in March, 2010:

"Gule, in his fifties, with his grey hair and polite ways, at first appears to be a traditional academic. But in May 1977, he was arrested at the Beirut airport with a rucksack that contained two books filled with explosives. Having obtained the explosives and instructions from the Palestinian faction DFLP, Gule was supposed to go back to Norway and then to Israel to conduct a terrorist attack to mark the 10th anniversary of the Six-Day War. The DFLP gave him three potential targets for planting the explosives: The President Hotel in Jerusalem, a subterranean pedestrian walk in Tel Aviv, or outside gas tanks in a neighborhood just outside Jerusalem.

Today Gule, now a lecturer in Middle Eastern studies at an Oslo college, claims that if he had indeed committed the act he would have chosen 'a more symbolic target,' but he adds that 'people are free to believe what ever they want.'"

The DFLP is the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, part of the PLO, with a radical Marxist-Leninist ideology supporting armed insurrection against Israel.  It began its terrorist activities in 1973 and was responsible for the The Ma’alot Massacre on May 15, 1974, the 26th anniversary of Israeli independence. Palestinians, disguised as Israeli soldiers, sneaked into the country and murdered 22 high school students. Ma’alot's population was mainly Jewish refugees from North Africa and Arab countries. It was perhaps the first time that children were used as hostages and military objects.

Gule seems still to believe that Zionism is racism, "about exiling and oppressing one people to benefit another." Jews, "whose main story of suffering also lies on another continent [Europe]," are outsiders, colonizers. The oppressed Arabs are incapable of racism, discrimination or religious persecution, today or in the past, not to mention genocide, even when they say it’s their intention. It’s because of the Zionists. To deviate even a fraction from this line is unfaithful to the cause, irrespective of the suffering of others, including at the hands of the Palestinians. Look the other way. Better yet: Don't pay attention to that Norwegian "Humanist" behind the curtain!

With such a mindset, Gule casts doubt over of a relationship between the Jewish exodus from Arab states after 1948 and an Arab League law that required members to penalize Jews in the form of voiding of citizenship, bank accounts and property.

"Was it or was it not proposed? And how can the Arabic League propose laws in member countries? Something is not right here. Is this an Israeli propaganda myth?"

I therefore left a public comment about a 1947 law drafted by the Arab League designed to deny human rights of Jews much like the Nuremberg Laws from the Nazi regime. A summary concerning the Arab League's actions can be found here. Immediately below is the text.

Gule himself responded. Among other things, he asks:

1. Why is the draft law drawn up by the Political Committee of the Arab League presented here in English old typewriting? The original document must surely be written in Arabic.

2. And why did the Arab League draft such a law in 1947? They were arguing just like the Zionist, i.e. saying that all Jews should belong to the Jewish state.

3. Was this draft law presented to the Arab League as such?

4. Was it adopted?

5. And finally, was it ever adopted by any of the member states?

I replied by reference to an article in the NY Times on May 16, 1948, mentioning the:

"Text of a law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League which was intended to govern the legal status of Jewish residents of Arab League countries."

Here's a copy of that, too:

So I asked him: "Why should anyone trust you over the NY Times from 1948?"

After all, as seen above, he was trained by haters and then attempted to bomb a hotel and kill Israelis/Jews. One may ask, did not Breivik simply follow the example of Lars Gule, to legitimize terrorism against a "more symbolic target" such as children as a tool of political change? Can someone explain how it is different?

The text from the Political Committee was discovered attached to a January 19, 1948 Memorandum submitted by the World Jewish Congress to the UN Economic and Social Council. It was procedurally buried in the subsequent months. Arab League regulations, however, required each state be represented in each Committee.

On February 17, 1948, the Arab League approved a plan for political, military, and economic measures to be taken in response to the Palestine crisis. A report stated that: "The Council of the Arab League unanimously adopted the recommendations of its Political Committee concerning Palestine…" (International Organization. Vol.2. No.2., June 1948. 378-380). There was no formal announcement that the Draft Law recommended by the Political Committee was endorsed by the Arab League Council. The likelihood is that the Draft Law's substance conflicted with peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) concerning human rights. Peremptory norms are non-derogable standards of international public policy which impose limits on how far governments, politicians, and diplomats can further their own goals in making international transactions. These rules prevail over and invalidate international agreements and other rules of international law in conflict with them. As such, why would the League trumpet passage of a violative agreement? Even so, it seems probable that the Draft Law was adopted at that meeting.

Collusion is also seen from subsequent, similar actions taken in the various member states, resulting in the ethnic cleansing of virtually an entire population of Jews, even more people than the Arabs who left Palestine for various and sundry reasons. As to the Arab refugees, Gule's claim that ALL were ethnically cleansed flies in the face of reality and further exposes the hatred for Jews in his heart. The Arab Higher Council, under the control of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actually coerced people into leaving, as in Haifa.

Khaled el-Azm, Syrian prime minister after the 1948 War, in his memoirs, published in 1973, said:

"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees... while it is we who made them leave.... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave.... We have rendered them dispossessed...."

And last I looked, isn't Israel 20% Arab? Some ethnic cleansing!

Gule also speaks of international law, yet is silent concerning the Arab aggression in 1947, directly in violation of the UN Charter!  He seems blind to the hatred and incitement of the Mufti, before and after WWII, not to mention his progeny that regularly call for extermination of Jews. Or the concealed agreement by the Arab League, for that matter. Selective application of international law epitomized.

But he is a humanist!!  Or so he says, despite his dubious record and agenda. Ironically, in 2005, when his affiliated organization, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, stood up for free expression and condemned the religious dimension of much human rights abuse, particularly for women and children, it was accused by the OIC in 2005 of engaging in Islamophobia.  It stated in response:

"The Islamic States do have a problem: they are stuck in a time-warp of outdated beliefs enforced by rigid and often barbaric laws. Because they cannot challenge our facts they are obliged to resort to intimidation and abuse of the messenger. They speak of 'initiating dialogue between civilizations'. But no dialogue will be possible until they face up to the fact that Muslim terrorists are killing innocent people in the name of Islam."

Terrorists like Hamas and DFLP, and others, with whom Gule chooses to stand in solidarity. They reject universal norms of human rights, do not practice human rights, and would commit international crimes far more grave and explicit.

As I see it, nothing will remove Gule's bigotry and extremism. To me he is a disservice to liberals and humanists everywhere, wrapping himself in the clothes of a human rights advocate while assisting those that serially deny such rights and even call for genocide.

In the end, all I could say to Mr. Gule, facetiously, was:  "Well done!"