http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev6ojm62qwA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Eskrn8n1Ww

Beautiful post, brother, and yes, you personally ARE pretty evolved in my eyes, even if you can't say the same about your own American Jewish culture. I am unable to speak about that culture, as I am not a part of it, but if you remove the "Jewish" from it, I am included, and it strikes a chord of solidarity in my heart.

PM

But he didn't almost cry when he heard about the Pregnant Jewish mother shot in the belly (The palestinian believed he was killing 2 with one bullet) and when he heard that her 4 daughters were calmly shot in the head. He did not protest when he heard that the murderers were declared martyrs by the palestinian government. What did he do? "…he stood before him with ankles crossed nodding…"

Is he an antisemite? Doubt it. He's just an idiot.

Is there something specifically Norwegian about Gilbert's POV? If so, what is it? If not, will somebody characterize his POV?

In short: He is always willing to take the consequences of his persuasion. In US you will say he's a communist because he feels deep solidarity for the oppressed and underprivileged. As a young doctor he took a year sabbatical and work as a truck driver to better understand the working class.
I'm sure many would call such actions insane. I disagree. The most prominent feature of true greatness in a man is the unwillingness to opt for the easy way out.
If this is something specifically Norwegian ? I wish. But afraid the answer is no. On the other hand. We are never afraid to speak our minds to power. Whether it is Washington, Tel Aviv or Brussels. And as for solidarity-we are, sad to say, the only country yet to reach UNDP’s target of donating 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid. (compared to US 0.1% of which the largest part goes to Israel)

As for "heroic", he doesn't even have the courage of his convictions. When he got flack for supporting terrorism, he backtracked.

Frankly I believe his first statement, not his second. I can't see someone saying he supported the 9/11 attacks unless he actually did support them. I can easily see someone who supports the attacks lying about it once he realizes what vocal support for terrorism does to his credibility.

Stupid lies.
What Mads Gilbert said was:

"The attack on New York did not come as a surprise with the politics the West has followed the last decades. I am upset by the terrorist attack, but I am at least as upset over the suffering that the US has caused. It is in this context that 5000 dead has to be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, the oppressed has a moral right to attack the U.S. with the weapons they may create as well. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis." When asked if he supported a terrorist attack against the US he answered: "Terror is a poor weapon, but my answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned.

If you don’t understand the difference-let me write it slowly so you get it.
US marines have left a bloody trail all over the World. So why should he feel more for the victims of 911 ? His ability to feel for others is absolute, not relative like yours. During the last 6 years Iraq has lived through "hundreds of 911"- and you have the audacity to demand of Mads Gilbert that he should shed more tears for 911-victims ?
Your claim that he supports Hamas is too stupid for me to dignify with a response.

As for the Norwegian question: Being Norwegian, I would of course like to wrap myself in the borrowed mantle of Prof. Gilbert's humane heroism – ;) – but, as always, the issue is more complex than that. On the one hand (bearing in mind that I was educated at rather 'liberal' schools in Oslo), there is a certain basic support for the ideals of peace, humanitarianism, international friendship and cooperation, etc., and a certain idea that as a wealthy and peaceful country we have a certain obligation to work for the less fortunate – that was always the theme of the speech at my primary school's 17th May (Norwegian Constitution Day) celebrations;)

Of course, that has been criticised as mostly a bourgeois feel-good ideology, and there are quite a number of incisive critics of how this feel-good ideology has operated. Readers of the Journal of Palestine Studies may have read Hilde Henriksen Waage's repeated critiques of how certain key actors' desire to appear as benevolent peace-makers had a very negative impact on the Oslo accords. (Personally, I'm somewhat cynical, but not completely so; I also fear that if the humanitarian and peaceful parts of the Norwegian ideology are ripped out, it won't exactly improve Norway's international impact. With our oil wealth we could easily turn into a Nordic Dubai…)

The answer to why Norway turned from ardent friend of Israel to a leaning towards the Palestinians is probably multifaceted. In part, it probably mirrors the reasons for the international left's change of heart; Dag is probably correct to mention the impact UNIFIL had on many soldiers and their friends and families, etc. The dominant narrative of the Nazi occupation of Norway also seems to lie below the surface at times: it's difficult to change gears from praising one group of resistance fighters to criticising another; comparisons of the tactics of the Norwegian resistance and those of Hamas were voiced in the Norwegian media during Gaza: if 'we' would have sent those rockets in similar circumstances during WWII it's difficult to criticise the Palestinians for sending them now.