The decision by Israel's Interior Minister to bar German writer, Gunter Grass, from entering the Jewish state is both foolish and self-defeating. Grass wrote an absurdly ignorant and perversely bigoted poem comparing Israel to Iran and declaring Israel to pose a great danger to world peace. He also warned Germany that by selling submarines to Israel, it is becoming complicit in a crime against humanity.
These wrong-headed views deserve to be rebutted on their demerits, as Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, did quite effectively in his public response to Grass, by exposing his "shameful moral equivalence between Israel and Iran, a regime that denies the Holocaust and threatens to annihilate Israel," by pointing out that "it is Iran, not Israel, that threatens other states with annihilation," and that it is Iran who supports the Syrian regime's crackdown of its people and "stones women, hangs gays and brutally represses tens of millions of its own citizens." Grass' poem has also been effectively critiqued by Israelis across the political and literary spectrum. That is as it should be in an open, vibrant democracy, accustomed to rancorous public debate. But a great nation, committed to freedom of expression and dissent, should not bar a critic, even a critic as bigoted as Grass, from its territory.
Gunter Grass has always had a problem with Jews, from his early days as a member of the Hitler youth and Nazi SS to his most recent application of a nasty double standard to the Jewish state. But his ridiculous poem doesn't pose any security threat to Israel that would justify his physical exclusion from the country.
To the contrary, he should be welcomed in Israel and shown the real facts on the ground: that Israel is a tiny country doing its best to defend itself against existential threats posed by Iran's determination to develop nuclear weapons and by the increasing radical Islamization of Israel's neighborhood. He should also be shown why Israel's submarines, which provide a second-strike capacity, serve as a deterrent to a possible nuclear attack by Iran. He should be made to feel shame for misusing his literary talents in the interests of bigotry and falsehood.
Grass should be debated and defeated in the marketplace of ideas rather than banned from participating in face to face dialogue with Israeli intellectuals and political figures, who are perfectly capable of confronting him in the public arena of debate and dialogue, and even of literature. Israel need not fear poets or polemicists. It should certainly not use its security apparatus, which includes control over its borders, to exclude has-been octogenarian writers with whom it disagrees.
By misusing border controls to make a symbolic gesture of contempt against a writer, Israel's Minister of the Interior weakens his nation's otherwise strong case for excluding individuals who pose genuine threats to the physical security of Israeli citizens. Border controls should be reserved for real security threats.
Grass, by using his literary and political influence to spread dangerous lies, does pose a threat to Israel, but it is not the kind of threat that can be dealt with by his physical exclusion from the country. Ideas, even bad ones like Grass', do not respect national boundaries. Grass can appear in Israel via the internet, television and the written word. Moreover, his danger lies not in his influence within Israel, which is virtually non-existent, but in the increasing acceptance of his false ideas in Germany and other parts of Europe. Israel's considerable intellectual and academic resources should be devoted to responding to this growing threat by developing and articulating counter arguments, not by responding emotionally and counterproductively.
Before the decision to bar Grass was announced, most serious intellectuals were critical of his poem and of him, but now many of the same intellectuals will rally to the defense of his freedom to express himself and to travel freely. That is as it should be, since disagreeable views, even when espoused by disagreeable people, should not be barred.
I hope that the decision by the Minister of the Interior will be quickly reversed by the Israeli government. It is too important a decision, and does too much damage to Israel, to be left to one minister. The entire nation suffers when a poet is barred from its land. That is not the democratic response to bad speech. Nor is it the response of the Jewish tradition, which thrives on debate and dissent. It should not be the Israeli response.
Robert Naiman: A Contrarian Optimist Views the Upcoming Iran Nuclear Talks
"His freedom of expression is not being limited by the ban — he can say whatever he wants in Germany, or even Iran, or any other place — just not in Israel. And really, do we need “a free exchange of ideas” like these? Sometimes an accusation is so absurd that even refuting it gives it a status it doesn’t deserve.
Rather than pique, the decision — which as far as I know is purely symbolic, with Grass showing no desire to visit Israel — is an expression of a more important principle, that of Jewish sovereignty.
By shutting the door in Grass’ face, Israel is saying something like this:
We can’t prevent people like Grass from making vicious and hateful statements, but we don’t have to let them in our house.
Jews have been forced to listen to vicious libels and demonization from the mouths of those that hate them for hundreds of years, often trembling in fear at what they portend. Now we have our own house. Here we have the right — and the power — to demand respect.
We don’t have to take abuse, to pretend that disputation with antisemites is simply an “exchange of ideas.” We don’t have to defer to idiots like Grass, nor do we have to beg our powerful enemies to let us live.
Maybe we are a little touchy sometimes, but given our history it is understandable."
His rule No. 1 was: Try to subsume your adversary under a hated category.
Do you think it works with Grass, subsumeing him under the hated category 'antisemite'?
Klaus Bloemker, Frankfurt
Nobel laureate Gunter Grass an anti-Semite? Perish the thought! But then what actually has changed? Does Grass no longer consider Nazi crimes to have been matchless? Or is he no longer afraid of being accused of anti-Semitism?
What made him lose his fear? Could the winds of political fashion have shifted? Has anti-Semitism stopped being a career-breaker or even a social handicap, especially when disguised as anti-Zionism? Is it because Grass, who has always been attuned to nuances, senses that it’s becoming prudent to flaunt what would have been imprudent to admit only a few years ago?
Is it because the great author is a jerk?
Read it all
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/11/george-jonas-on-gunter-grass-great-author-or-big-jerk/
instead of taking it for granted that Grass was wrong in stating that the Netanju government is a threat to world peace. Anyone not realizing as much after that man's recent visit to Washington must look forward to what seems bound to occur after the November election. Anyone seriously interested in the many voices pro and con the Grass poem might visit the following blog that contains links to most of them.
http://goaliesanxiety.blogspot.com/2012/04/gunter-grass-what-must-be-said.html
"What Must Be Said" is interesting for what it says about the mind of Guenter Grass, but it is more interesting for what it says about the manner in which some intellectuals think about Israel and Iran. By extracting the self-pity, self-aggrandizement and guilt-expiation from "What Must Be Said" and leaving only the politics, Grass's thinking is clear. The short version of his message: Israel may one day soon commit nuclear genocide against the people of Iran.
"It is the alleged right to the first strike / That could annihilate the Iranian people/ Subjugated by a loud-mouth / And guided to organized jubilation / Because in their sphere of power / It is suspected, a nuclear bomb is being built."
Perhaps it reads better in the German...but put aside the poem's aesthetic shortcomings and consider the idea advanced in the first two lines: That Israel, which in reality is contemplating targeting six to eight nuclear sites in Iran for conventional aerial bombardment, in fact wants to annihilate the Iranian people in a "first strike."
This is, of course, delusional. Not even the Iranian regime seems to believe this. To make yourself believe that Israel is seeking to murder the 74 million people of Iran, you must make yourself believe that the leaders of the Jewish state outstrip Adolf Hitler in genocidal intent.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/guenter-grass-and-germanys-responsibility/255671/
To say, Grass has 'a problem with Jews' - that's why he attacked Israel is nonsense. - It's obviously the other way round: Israel has a problem with Grass. And I may ad: with the rest of the world.
Especially the parts of the "rest of the world that has a problem with Jews.
Let us not forget (familiar phrase?) what the position of the people who Israel is made to struggle with:
15 June 2010, Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahhar, Future News TV:
"We have liberated Gaza, but have we recognized Israel? Have we given up our lands occupied in 1948? We demand the liberation of the West Bank, and the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital – but without recognizing [Israel]. This is the key – without recognizing the Israeli enemy on a single inch of land. ...
"Our plan for this stage is to liberate any inch of Palestinian land, and to establish a state on it. Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. We will not recognize the Israeli enemy."
When you have as much of a problem with those people as you have with the people country whose civilians they hunt and kill, then perhaps you will have a better time getting Israelis to see your point.
"Results of a new poll commissioned by the European Commission show that Israel is believed by Europeans in 15 countries to be the greatest threat to world peace, greater than North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan."
The truth is dawning on Americans too, mainly due to internet access. The MSM is still self-censored when it comes to this subject.
http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=50080
He is irrelevant, and that is how Israel should have treated him. Barring entrance to Israel is silly at best. That old SS Nazi would have died uneventfully if Israel didn't draw attention to this non sense.
Wow.
You cannot detect the slightest hint in Grass'es writings of 'a problem with Jews'. The German literary critic Marcel Reich-Ranicki said as much just the other day although he has been critical of most of Grass'es novels and denounced his anti-Israel poem.
Klaus Bloemker, Frankfurt
For example, Herr Grass oddly supposes in his verse that Israel has contemplated a nuclear first strike on Iran (Herr Grass: "It is the alleged right to the first strike / That could annihilate the Iranian people"). To be sure, that would be very a problematic stance on Israel's part. The main problem with Herr Grass' poem, however, is that no one actually contemplates that. Not Israelis. Not the USA. Not even the government of Iran. Israel has been contemplating the targeting of six or eight nuclear sites in Iran for conventional aerial bombardment.
But much of the anti-Israel rhetoric in Europe is divorced from the actual facts of the matter, so one can sort of understand why you fail see that reacting to the facts as they are, not as they might be changed to paint Israel in as unfavorable light as possible is actually a problem.
Tchusschen!
JJ
Some "Miracle"....
This comment garners 2 faves and no complaints other than this one?
Perhaps that says all one needs to say about those expressing their opinions on this subject on this forum.
You knew he wouldn't objectively view Grass' brief 'service' with the SS, pathetically comparing him to a Nazi, thereby discrediting him. You knew that he purposefully misread Grass' poem so as to suggest provocatively that Grass was comparing Israel to Iran; he wasn't, of course. You knew that he would repeat the canard that poor little Israel is in a tough neighbourhood and is close to annihilation from the 'Mighty Persian Empire', therefore she is entitled to do what she likes; yeh, I have noticed she gets way with murder on an industrial scale.
"Grass should be debated and defeated in the marketplace of ideas rather than banned from participating in face to face dialogue with Israeli intellectuals and political figures, who are perfectly capable of confronting him in the public arena of debate and dialogue, and even of literature."
Has Dershowitz ended his crusading days? Will Dershowitz campaign to reinstate MJ Rosenberg's position at Media Matters & Norman Finkelstein's at De Paul University?
I agree with Prof. Dershowitz that Israel should not have made a big deal of banning Grass, but my reasons differ. I don't think his poem merits the kind of vigorous debate Dershowitz suggests. By banning Grass, Israel only has drawn more attention to his poem and lent it a validity and gravitas it does not deserve. It would have been better to respond briefly and succinctly and let the matter, and the hubbub, fade away.
What is the "true nature of Israel," as you see it, Marc? And please do fill me in on how best to divine the "true nature" of collective groups in general. In particular, I'd like to read your opinion as to whether it is appropriate to speak of the "true nature of Palestine and/or Palestinians."
I very much look forward to your explanation.
Cheers
Israel, however, possesses 200-300 nuclear warheads with missiles capable of delivering them throughout the region and far beyond. Furthermore, it will not sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty or allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities. Iran has agreed with Saudi Arabia and declared the entire ME should be nuclear weapons free. This is in accordance with the Pentagon which has declared that the best way to deal with the issue is for Israel to abandon nuclear weapons. Israel refuses to cooperate because it wants to remain the invincible bully of the ME and hence, able to maintain its belligerent, illegal and brutal occupations of Palestinian and other Arab lands and continue stealing their water resources while building illegal Jewish settlement/colonies.
the fact that Israel have 200 bombs for 50 only show no one really afraid of it.
"ran has agreed with Saudi Arabia and declared the entire ME should be nuclear weapons free." and you belive them?
Iran wanna be a super power and nuke is part of it.
"illegal occupations" what is a "ligal occupations" and how do you tell it from illigale one?
"illegal Jewish settlement" unlike legal American settlements all over N. America on not stolen lands?
Last time Jews ignored a homicidal maniac who called for the complete annihilation of all jews, No piece of paper saved them and no UN JEWHATE resolution will either
Israel will do whatever it must to save its 7 million souls. Neither America Britain France etc or über liberals on here have any say in the matter
Why they support über right wing racist misogynistic Islamists is beyond reason actually