Sakset/Fra hofta

Deborah Orr er en journalist i the Guardian som i anledning Gilad Shalits løslatelse skrev at bytteforholdet 1:1027 var en pervers påminnelse om at verden har godtatt sionistenes syn på jødiske liv over andres.

Mens folk flest vurderte bytteforholdet som uttrykk for at israelerne vil gjøre alt for å få sine soldater hjem, greide Orr å vende det til et våpen mot israelerne.

Hun skrev 19 oktober i Guardian:

Is an Israeli life really more important than a Palestinian’s?
The transfer of prisoners tacitly acknowledges acceptance of that obscene idea

All this, I fear, is simply an indication of how inured the world has become to the obscene idea that Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives. Netanyahu argues that he acted because he values Shalit’s life so greatly.

Yet who is surprised really, to learn that Netanyahu sees one Israeli’s freedom as a fair exchange for the freedom of so many Palestinians? Likewise, Hamas wished to use their human bargaining chip to gain release for as many Palestinians as they could. They don’t have much to bargain with.

At the same time, however, there is something abject in their eagerness to accept a transfer that tacitly acknowledges what so many Zionists believe – that the lives of the chosen are of hugely greater consequence than those of their unfortunate neighbours.

Her gjøres Hamas stakkarslig, og Orr overser at Shalit ble kidnappet, inne fra israelsk territoriium. Hun beklager at Hamas viste slik svakhet som å godta et slikt skjevt bytteforhold. For det bekrefter sionistenes oppfatning om at deres liv er mer verdt. Hva skulle Hamas gjort? insistert på 1:1? Det ville nok familiene til de 2016 andre palestinske fangene satt pris på!

Det var i det hele tatt en merkelig artikkel, snarere utslag av emosjoner enn fornuft. Orr synes å ha et problem i forhold til sionister, og hun brukte uttrykket «the chosen», og knyttet dermed an til det jødiske folk – at jødene skulle anse deres liv for mere verdt.

Det ble debatt på begge sider av Atlanteren, og Orr slapp ikke heldig fra det.

Hun ba om unnskyldning i et intervju med Jerusalem Post, men samtidig kom hun med noen synspunkter på staten Israels opprettelse som gjentar overtrampet.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post this week, Orr said she was sorry for the words she used.

“First, I’m certainly not anti- Semitic, and don’t want to sound as if I am,” she said. “So I’m sorry if the form of words I used gave that impression.

Often, however it seems difficult to be critical of the Israeli state without such accusations being made.”

Explaining what she meant, Orr told The Jerusalem Post that in her view “Zionists did consider their own ambitions to be of paramount importance, of greater importance than the views of the people they wished to displace to form their state.”

She said that the problem goes back to 1948 when Israelis deemed the creation of a new state of much greater importance than the claims of another.

“The problems date back to the enforced ‘exchange’ that was imposed on Palestinians in 1948. Many hundreds of thousands were compelled to move off the land so that Israel could be created,” she told the Post.

“From the start, it seems to me, the idea of Israel was predicated on the idea that the creation of a new state for one group was of much greater importance than the claims of the non-Jewish among those already living there… From the start, Palestinian needs were considered less important than nascent Israeli needs,” she maintained.

Her story, published in the Guardian on October 19, led to a huge backlash with commentators and bloggers on both sides of the Atlantic accusing her of using classical anti- Semitic motifs.

Comment is Free Watch, a group that monitors the Guardian blog, said “the anti- Semitic use, and profound distortion, of the idea of ‘chosenness’ – from a passage in the Torah widely understood as a Jewish requirement to uphold an especially high standard of ethical behavior – has a long and dark history.

“Indeed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the most widely distributed anti-Semitic forgery in history – a book still quite popular in the Arab world – is premised partly on the idea of Jews’ ‘chosenness.’”

Writing in the Atlantic, Jeffery Goldberg said: “Chosenness does not mean ‘exclusive’ or ‘more equal than others.’ It never has, except to anti-Semites.

Christians believe they are in possession of the final word of God, as do Muslims. This belief fosters a feeling of theological superiority. Does this make Christians and Muslims ‘chosen’ as well? Or is the term ‘chosenness’ only a weapon for use against Jews?”

Jerusalem-based media monitors Honest Reporting said: “That Deborah Orr is prepared to descend to the depths of anti- Semitism to claim that Israel is motivated by racism says much about her own warped values.»

«That the Guardian was prepared to publish such an obscene commentary merely confirms the publication’s vicious anti- Israel bent.”

‘Guardian’ columnist apologizes for ‘anti-Semitic slur’