The government is led by the Norwegian Labour Party (which is, obviously, opposed to fascism like all left-leaning parties). Its Prime Minister was born in 1960. There is no meaningful sense in which you can say that Norway's current government supported the Holocaust, even if some past iteration of the Norwegian state did so.
After deporting all its Jews to certain death and stealing all their property, these people continued managing the norwegian government, police force, etc.
This was common in the entirety of Europe with their mass amnesia, where everyone was in the resistance, and the actual perpetrators were the germans or the "nazis", never the local men on the ground.
Now it is not surprising when Europe who has collectively created the myth of "someone else responsibility" is now working on pinpointing the blame for genocide to the Jews themselves, creating the final work of scapegoating jews as was a cultural tradition in the continent.
So when Jews are massacred in the land they fled to after your own police force deported them to death camps, and your own government stole their properties making them refugees, why not go for the final stroke?
These people?
Are you referring to people in the current Norwegian government?
Or do you generalize Norwegians (including people from the past) to have a single mindset like a racist would do?
I am talking about the Norwegian government post-1945 which included people who participated in a genocide of the actual real kind.
I am also talking about the responsibility of such a nation whose entire state apparatus is successor to that government
That's why I think the Norwegians should look at their recent history to understand the difference between genocide and war, and invest their partially stolen money accordingly
I partially agree with you: European countries other than Germany bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, to an extent greater than what many modern Europeans are willing to admit.
I don't know about Norway specifically, but certainly it's silly when some modern French people claim "well actually, Vichy was an illegal regime, so this wasn't our ancestors' fault at all".
However, whether Norway (as a state) bears responsibility for the Holocaust is a totally separate question from whether Israel's treatment of Palestinians is justifiable, and what the present-day government of Norway should do about it.
I am not saying whether this war is regrettable or isn't and who is more right in this context
I am saying that the term "genocide" that is thrown around very lightly seems to me as an attempt to erase the actual genocide by misappropriating it.
When european governments support this action this has everything to do with their actions in the holocaust and the two millennia of scapegoating jews
essentially what they are saying is, remember the time when we shipped all our citizens of a certain race to the gas chambers for no reason? that is morally equivalent to you fighting a defacto state that slaughtered a thousand of your civilians, raped and kidnapped babies. this is so similar we will actually use the same word for that
I have to disagree with your assessment, especially because there has been explicit government condemnation of the Gaza war, and/or significant public opinion that views it as a genocide, in several countries with no meaningful connection to the Holocaust (e.g. South Africa, Brazil, Ireland, and of course Palestine itself).
> that is morally equivalent to you fighting a group that slaughtered a thousand of your civilians, raped and kidnapped babies
Public opinion in Western countries does not reject Israel's right to attempt to defeat Hamas. As far as I know, all mainstream Western politicians (perhaps outside of the far left) view Hamas as terrorists and think a military response to the Oct. 7th attacks was justified.
What people disagree about is (1) to what extent Israel has taken actions that harm innocent, non-terrorist civilians (indiscriminate bombing, indefinite air and sea blockade of the Gaza Strip, apartheid-like occupation of the West Bank, etc.) and (2) whether such actions are necessary to ensure safety from terrorists and can therefore be considered justifiable collateral damage.
I appreciate that Israel's supporters would dispute the views of the anti-Israel camp on both of the above points. However, it is not accurate to claim that people equate the bare act of responding militarily to Hamas in a targeted way with genocide.
There are many reasons why using Israel as a scapegoat is useful internationally and it is not contained to european countries with a history of the holocaust (putting aside Ireland's relations with the Nazis)
For a quick understanding of the situation it is easy to see international organizations like the UN human rights council which disproportionally condemn Israel while are free to elect a chair from countries like Iran, whose hobby of hanging gays from cranes is possibly one outlet of adherence to human rights. 174 condemnations for Israel this decade vs 10 for north korea, a country known to operate actual concentration camps
Generally this is a shift from scapegoating jews in national politics to scapegoating Israel in international one, or alternatively to scapegoat internal issues (see corruption cases in Spain, South Africa)
Regarding your opinions about Israel war being indiscriminate towards civilians, I mostly disagree, however this is not my point. My point is not the criticism of the effects of bombing in a dense urban zone (where civilian hostages were taken to, attacks came from, and popularly elected Hamas is entrenched in), but calling such attacks a genocide. These are so hyperbolic that another explanation must be found, and because we have a cultural history that is older than all nations of exactly such allegations, that is the most fitting explanation in my opinion
> My point is not the criticism of the effects of bombing in a dense urban zone (...), but calling such attacks a genocide.
But who called that bombing genocide? When I hear about genocide allegations there are many more arguments than bombing in densely populated areas. E.g. public statements of intent made by Israeli government officials.
