The aforementioned German novelist and poet, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1989, is being attacked, principally in Germany — and, of course, by the Israeli government and its global ramifications —, because on 4-4-12 he published a poem in a German newspaper with the title “What Must be Said”. I read the entire poem on the site of Luis Nassif and it can also be seen in various newspapers, for example, “The New York Times”, “La Reppublica”(Italian) and “El País”(Spanish). The poem in question is not included in this article as it has almost 3,000 characters and would occupy too much space.
After reading and re-reading the poem, which describes the most elementary truth — although erroneously described in the media as an unjust and anti-semitic attack —, I decided to quickly read the first volume of his novel “The Tin Drum” which, years ago, I purchased in a second-hand book shop. This is because Günter Grass, solely for reason of his poem, would merit even a further Nobel Prize – the Peace Prize. His maligned poem is a warning in favor of peace, nothing more. When he says that an Israeli “preventive attack” — hyper-preventive... — could light the fuse for a Third World War, he is only stating the obvious. Something so evident, however, that it required courage on his part, for reasons that everyone knows and are discussed in further detail below.
Even if Iran eventually manages to fabricate a nuclear bomb, it would not take the initiative of attacking Israel. Why not? Because this would kill — in the explosion or resulting radioactivity — thousands of Palestinians, bearing in mind the physical proximity between the two populations, Jewish and Arab. Besides this, an arbitrary attack by Iran would be its death sentence. Entire cities would be annihilated in two days, given that not only Israel would retaliate with unlimited nuclear and conventional forces, but it would also have the unconditional support of the USA, obliged (!?) to protect Israel even in its most audacious pretentions.
If, in certain aspects, Ahmadinejad has shown himself to be immature — the asinine vote-grabbing statement of “wiping Israel off the map” — a political blessing for Netanyahu, who desperately clings to this disastrous phrase in order to remain in power — the Iranian president would not be so crazy as to bring about the inevitable destruction of his country, his family and himself. It should not be forgotten — with respect to this nonsense of dropping a bomb on Israel — that Ahmadinejad does not decide everything alone. He shares power with ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the rest of the conservative Islamic majority that is in no hurry to be incinerated alive. Therefore, there is no risk of an imminent nuclear attack on Israel. However, I repeat, it is of interest to the Israeli government that this false idea prevails, politically useful as it is backed by a very powerful collective sentiment: fear of going back to an already distant past, when the Jews really were persecuted throughout Europe. This kind of fear no longer exists, although it could come to exist if the Israeli government persists in its bravado and impositions.
The poem is question has shown that Grass is a man of courage, something that should be greatly valued in a writer. If Grass is possibly an anti-semite, I need to verify this aspect in his novels because, in the poem, he shows himself to be neither anti-semitic nor unjust. To the contrary, in the poem he only tells truths that are highly evident to anyone who is politically impartial and accompanies international politics, even if this is only through reading newspapers. And if the trouble is taken to also read books, in addition to his opinion expressed in the poem, such truths are confirmed. Incidentally, in the poem, Günter Grass even shows a certain degree of affection for Israel, on stating “…the state of Israel, to which I am bound and wish to stay bound”.
It is one thing to be anti-semitic — discriminating against a race — and quite another to be against the current policy of the Israeli government, morally indefensible in the treatment that it has given to the Palestinians, principally in the Gaza Strip. Günter Grass mentions this evident inequality that is impossible to hide. The global press, largely influenced by Israel, always shows itself to be demanding with respect to the issue of human rights, although it only occasionally describes how the Palestinian Arabs are treated, expelled from their land, deprived of almost everything, without the most basic human rights and without any possibility of appealing to international justice, as they are not technically part of a State. And if it depends on the current Israeli government, this (i.e., the creation of a Palestinian State) is never going to happen. Why? Because if frontiers were definitively established, there would be limits on the territorial growth of Israel, which would no longer be able to receive the thousands or millions of Jews that still live outside Israel. With well-defined frontiers, how would it be possible for continued occupation of the West Bank?
Governments change, sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right, or even the center. At times they demonstrate solidarity with minorities and weaker neighbors, whereas at others they are tremendously egoistic, clinging like limpets to an arrogant and outdated nationalism, as is currently true in the case of Israel. However — the invitation is open — if Israel had the moral courage to seriously propose that “eternal conflict” with the Palestinians be resolved by an international court — promising, beforehand, to accept and comply with the decision made — this country, Israel, would be remembered, for decades, as a genial innovator in the field of International Justice. Netanyahu himself would be consecrated as a “pioneer of great international vision”.
Evidently, for a decision of such importance to be satisfactory as far as both parties are concerned, the international judges — who, in this case, will not be able to be Arabs or Jews — should be expressly authorized to apply the principle of equity. Not only in delimiting frontiers, but also in establishing territorial and financial compensation that also satisfies those expelled Palestinians who still wish to return to Palestine. It is possible that a certain percentage of these individuals, already integrated into the economy of the countries where they have found refuge — Jordan, for example — prefer reasonable indemnification, rather than “starting all over again”, returning to Palestine.
What is currently lacking on the international justice and politics scene is a leader of exceptional discretion, prestige and persuasion capacity. However, if no name comes easily to mind, it will be necessary to find one. Without delay. There are notable jurists in the international area who could, from an intellectual standpoint, assume this role, but they apparently have qualms concerning the certainly virulent maelstrom in which they would be involved, given that absolute sovereignty is still an addiction that attacks the meninges. Such jurists prefer the studious and respected calm of their private offices. However, it is impossible that, on a planet with almost seven billion inhabitants, there is not a single individual with the authority and desire to grasp, in his bare hands, this torch – or cactus – of an international justice that really functions. In other words, who is able to decide on great conflicts and impose compliance with his decision, without delegating “execution” of the sentence to a Security Council poisoned by dozens of the economic, political and strategic interests of the countries represented therein.
Barack Obama would be a name that initially comes to mind for a mission of this importance, although a disappointment to the most enlightened public opinion because he has shown himself to be incapable of saying “no!” to any request made to him by Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama is tremendously worried about the possibility of losing the financial and media support of the powerful Jewish lobby in the next election. Unfortunately, in a democracy — any democracy — money has an all-too-important bearing on the outcome of every election. It is like a skeptic exclaiming: — “Damn!, up to what point are executive positions bought, via electoral campaigns?!”
Surfing arbitrarily on the internet, in a blog or twitter “Billy Leew...and his fables” — I am a little ignorant of these technologies —, I watched a video of a group of Jews demonstrating, in English, against the Netanyahu government. They were dressed in black, bearded and authentically angered at the course currently taken by Israeli politics. Revolted at the type of treatment imposed on the Palestinians, one of them, on whom the camera specifically focused for him to be heard, even stuttered with emotion. With a high degree of objectivity and convincing sincerity, he insisted, in English, that it is necessary to distinguish between Zionism and Judaism, only the latter being worthy of the support of the Jewish people. He said that Zionism is an adulteration of the Judaism of the Torah, which rejects the domination of other peoples. He went on to say that there are many people in Israel who are against the policies of Netanyahu, although fear prevents them from demonstrating against the government, as there would be reprisals. This distinction between Zionism and Judaism should be well studied and disseminated, in order to prevent the Jewish people from becoming the victim of an error of interpretation by the rest of the world. The German people cannot be identified with Nazi doctrine, or the Italian people with the delirious ideas of “Il Duce” Benito Mussolini.
Following publication of the (“accursed”) poem, the media came to emphasize the “shady past” of Günter Grass because, when an adolescent and up to 17 years of age, he served in the army of his country and, in the last year of the Second World War, was even a member of the Waffen-SS, a type of personal guard of Hitler. Besides this, it is alleged that he had hidden this fact for many years. Data vênia (with due respect) as jurists are accustomed to say, this is nonsense that should not be mentioned by more learned people (they should be forgiven, because miracles do happen...).
Prior to judging someone, it is necessary to study the circumstances in which the person in question was raised and educated; the period, the political regime of the country in which he or she lived, and so on. In the case of Grass, it is necessary to remember that he was born in October 1929. After reaching ten years of age, his childhood was spent under the Nazi regime. This was a dictatorial regime with no freedom of the press, in which Hitler shaped the thinking of a people very bitter at their defeat in the First World War, with the loss of territories and onerous war reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. These were difficult times for the Germans, with spiraling inflation, unemployment and a Nazi propaganda machine that used and abused the “right” to lie. Without putting their life at risk, nobody was able to say anything to the contrary of that imposed by government propaganda.
Just read some of the phrases uttered by Hitler, during the period that he dominated Germany and shaped the thinking of adults, children and adolescents: — “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed” — “It is not truth that matters, but victory” — “Strength lies not in defense but in attack” — “Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong” — “The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary” (in this case, the Jew – my observation) “and taking care that nothing will divide that attention” — “The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force” — “The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it” — “The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category” (the Jews, Treaty of Versailles, English, Americans, Russians, etc) — “Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live”.
In my opinion, the thoughts outlined above, their content never questioned in the totally subdued press, explain why Günter Grass and almost all his colleagues at the time thought in accordance with that planned by Nazi propaganda. Irrespective of this, there is no evidence that this author personally pushed Jews into the gas chambers to be poisoned.
Why did Grass only reveal this unpleasant past — it was not his fault, but that of the untruthful and unopposed propaganda — a few years after receiving the Nobel Prize? Because he knew that his enemies and those jealous of him would take advantage of this. Now, however, in the month of April 2012, he said what he said in the poem in question because his conscience could no longer be silent in the face of the unjust treatment of the Palestinians. And he said another “irrefutable truth”: that the threat of the Israeli government bombing Iranian nuclear facilities is both pernicious and hazardous for world peace. The danger is remote and a pretext. Genuine fear? No. If Israel has the right to be fearful — of the always idiotic “wiping Israel off the map” — Iran also has the right to be fearful of excessive Israeli force, given that it has conventional and nuclear armaments capable of imposing its will on the entire Middle East.
Now, a few words directed to the German people and government: there is a need, right now, to put an end to this carefully cultivated feeling of blame for that which occurred in a Germany dominated by Hitler. Nazism was a homicidal doctrine. Speaking in public against the regime meant a beating, prison or a bullet in the head, without any legal “frills”. Remorse should be cultivated not by entire nations, but only by those individuals who, by their own free will, actively — and having options —, inflicted suffering on their fellow men.
It is my belief that 80% or more of Germans living today did not experience or participate in any way in crimes perpetrated by the Nazis. The war ended in 1945. There is no reason to feel remorse. Principally when the careful nurturing of this remorse may have political motives, of dubious legitimacy. Of the remaining 20% of Germans, only a few thousand acted with full awareness — and perhaps sick pleasure —, when they committed the atrocities revealed after the end of the war. Yes, these individuals are in need of remorse in order to diminish the burden on their souls. The remainder, no. If the someone’s grandfather was hanged for being a criminal, why should his grandchildren bear the burden of a guilt complex?
In the concentration camps, some Jewish prisoners, in order to eat a little better and not be killed, collaborated with the administration. These individuals, probably with troubled consciences, were known as “kapos”. They did this to avoid death, at least an immediate death. They knew that if the prisoners refused to perform that wretched work, they would be killed anyway, and that the collaborators would be killed with them. It would be a useless kind of heroism. They thought that if they managed to get out of the concentration camp alive, they would at least be able to try to reunite their families, or what remained of them, scatted throughout Germany and the rest of the world. A Jew who is the grandchild of one of these “kapos” also has no need to cultivate remorse. I reiterate: a guilt complex is a personal, individual matter. Countries may even feel better making compensation payments, but they are under no obligation to be eternally burdened by a feeling of blame, automatically endorsing the erroneous policies of the descendents of their victims.
Summing up, there is no need to censure Günter Grass for having kept quiet about what he did when he was an adolescent — at a time when it was practically impossible to express one’s own opinion — and even less need to censure him because, in a poem, he warned the world that a merely “preventive” attack against another country, especially in the Middle East, would significantly increase the danger of a conflict of immense, perhaps global, proportions. Besides this, he should not be censured because he reminded us of the unjust situation suffered by the Palestinians, or because he emphasized the inequality of a country, heavily armed with nuclear weapons, granting itself the right to bomb another only for the reason that, one day, it may possibly produce a nuclear weapon. The stupid phrase of “wiping Israel off the map” is merely a senseless bluff. It would not be totally illogical if a journalist — a little crazy —, were to raise the possibility that Ahmadinejad receives a monthly pension from Netanyahu only to occasionally repeat this phrase that is irresponsible but so politically lucrative for his very-much-alive adversary, although damaging to Iran which, as a result, loses international support.
Finally, Grass deserves praise for wisely suggesting that it is the responsibility of the UN to decide on what to do regarding the “eternal conflict”. For my part, I would like to add that a judicial UN rather than a political body — the Security Council — would be the most recommendable for distancing, once and for all, the danger that threatens all of us, even far from this region that produced three gods. Gods that, although one, became transformed into three mutually hostile enemies from 1948 onwards.
(9-4-2012)
