“What must be said” by Günter Grass

[Jefferson23]

Günter Grass is tired of Western hypocrisy, sanctioning Iran for its nuclear activities, while supplying Israel with Dolphin nuclear submarines for its 500+ nuclear bombs. In his new poem, What must be said, he declare:

Why I am silent, silent for too much time,
how much is clear and we made it
in war games, where, as survivors,
we are just the footnotes

That is the claimed right to the formal preventive aggression
which could erase the Iranian people
dominated by a bouncer and moved to an organized jubilation,
because in the area of his competence there is
the construction of the atomic bomb

And then why do I avoid myself
to call the other country with its name,
where since years – even if secretly covered -
there is an increasing nuclear power,
without control, because unreachable
by every inspection?

in full: http://themovingsilent.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/what-must-be-said-by-gunter-grass/

[shira]

1. Nice poem about Jews coming from a former Waffen SS soldier. n/t

[Jefferson23]

2. It is a very good poem, period. Deviate from the poem if you must and you make his point.

Grass: Günter Grass was born in 1927 in Danzig-Langfuhr of Polish-German parents. After military service and captivity by American forces 1944-46, he worked as a farm labourer and miner and studied art in Düsseldorf and Berlin. 1956-59 he made his living as a sculptor, graphic artist and writer in Paris, and subsequently Berlin. In 1955 Grass became a member of the socially critical Gruppe 47 (later described with great warmth in The Meeting at Telgte), his first poetry was published in 1956 and his first play produced in 1957. His major international breakthrough came in 1959 with his allegorical and wide-ranging picaresque novel The Tin Drum (filmed by Schlöndorff), a satirical panorama of German reality during the first half of this century, which, with Cat and Mouse and Dog Years, was to form what is called the Danzig Trilogy.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1999/grass-bio.html

Lech Wałęsa had initially criticized Grass for keeping silent about his SS membership for 60 years, but after a few days had publicly withdrawn his criticism after reading the letter of Grass to the mayor of Gdańsk, and admitted that Grass "set the good example for the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Grass#cite_note-15

[shira]

3. He's a POS nazi who believes Israel is a threat to peace, not Iran....

Nothing about Iran supporting terror groups that fire rockets at Israel, nothing about their threats to destroy Israel, or their support of the massacres carried out by the Syrian regime.

Oh no, the Jewish state is far worse as they've proven to be evil, time and time again. That's what Israel is about. That's how "they" are.

The idiots at Stormfront are feasting on this, as Gunther is a freaking hero to them.

Nice.

=====

Oh yeah, almost forgot. If Lech Walesa thinks this nazi is a good guy, who the hell am I to argue?

[Jefferson23]

5. Rant away, and you keep making his point...thanks. n/t

[JackRiddler]

105. Shame on you for this lie. You expose yourself.

[Ruby the Liberal]

109. What lie?

Care to be more specific as to what has your attention?

[JackRiddler]

113. This can't be a serious reply.

I realize you can't defend the indefensible, so maybe it's a better tactic to just pretend I'm confusing you. But it's obvious what I meant.

The hasbara must be feeling very cornered nowadays. Everyone who says the obvious -- that nuclear-powered Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the world -- from now on will just be called a Nazi.

[Ruby the Liberal]

114. How very 2+2=5 of you.

No one is suggesting that, but Gunter was Waffen SS. True, blue Nazi.

Or do you deny that fact?

(Notice, I didn't say "downplay", I said "deny&quot

[JackRiddler]

116. Notice your use of the past tense, as opposed to Shira for whom you are running interference.

67 years ago, Gunter Grass was a child soldier in the Waffen SS, yes. Unlike you, shira puts that in the present tense. Shame on shira.

[shira]

117. It took 6 decades for Grass to come clean about his SS past. Why? n/t

[JackRiddler]

120. You may be demonstrating one reason why he might have been reluctant.

He was drafted into the Waffen SS while still a child. Drafted. He did not "come clean" but disclosed it voluntarily in a book, apparently so that now, dispensers of cheap talking points can ignore the record of his 67 years as an anti-fascist writer and call him a Nazi, since he has dared to question the Holy Israeli right to possess 150+ nuclear weapons and threaten the world with nuclear war.

[Ruby the Liberal]

119. I'm not running interference for anyone.

You also posted this same post in LBN, so when I saw it a second time, I asked.

[JackRiddler]

137. De facto, you are.

[oberliner]

131. A child soldier? At 17?

A minor, yes, but a child?

[JackRiddler]

136. A drafted minor, if you wish. Drafted.

Five years old when the Nazis came to power in Germany, 16 when he was drafted into a Waffen SS brigade. Do you understand the meaning of drafted? This attempt to style Grass into some kind of regime perpetrator who now objects to the Israeli nuclear threat to the world because he's secretly a Nazi is disgusting. It shows nothing other than the moral bankruptcy of those who would use it as a kill-the-messenger tactic, in the defense of the otherwise indefensible. The nuclear threat in the Middle East is posed by an aggressive Israeli state with its 150+ nuclear weapons, which constantly threatens to launch a "preventive" war, and not by the claimed Iranian nuclear weapons program that (according to US intelligence) does not exist, has not been an aim of Iran's since 2003.

[oberliner]

140. He volunteered to fight for the Nazis in the navy

At that point he was turned down due to his age.

He was then subsequently conscripted into the Waffen-SS.

Unlike thousands of other German teenagers who refused to be conscripted and risked the consequences, he made no attempt to evade his conscription and dutifully did his bit for Nazi Germany.

[JackRiddler]

142. Your argument is not relevant and a distraction.

So your response to an argument about Israeli nuclear weapons in 2012 is...

to attack a 16-year-old boy in 1944 for being just like most of the other 16-year-old boys in his country at the time, which was at war, and where perceptions of what was really happening were governed by a totalitarian system. ("Thousands of other German teenagers" is probably the upper limit on domestic resistance to conscription during the war in Germany. Thousands, as opposed to many millions indoctrinated since early childhood and ready to fight, and/or understanding that they were going to be conscripted, therefore looking where to fit themselves in.)

But all this is also completely irrelevant.

If you wish to demonstrate irrelevance, sophistry and bad faith, you will once again avoid talking about Israeli nuclear weapons, but again try to attack the boy-Grass of 1944 as though it's relevant. It's not. It's cheap character assassination, kill the messenger, avoidance, talking points, etc.. It's also no longer persuading anyone. Hasbara fails, Israel can no longer maintain its public relations pretenses.

[oberliner]

145. I made no argument about nuclear weapons

I am just clarifying the facts about this particular person's background.

If you want to concede my point and argue that it does not matter, then I would be happy to proceed with a broader discussion about nuclear weapons if you are interested in doing so.

[JackRiddler]

146. That is correct. Which is why you are engaging in irrelevant distraction.

Grass spoke about Israeli nuclear weapons.

Suddenly the usual pro-Israeli talking point people want to smear him, in 2012, as a Nazi, present tense.

If Grass spoke in favor of Israel, you wouldn't be trying to explain why he's somehow a Nazi today because he was conscripted 68 years ago; rather, he'd be the Nobel Laureate bestselling author, etc. etc.

The subject is Israeli nuclear weapons, and the Israeli state push for a "preventive" attack on the nation of Iran, preferably involving the United States and raising the specter of a much broader, dangerous war - possibly a world war.

So no, I don't concede whatever you imagine your point to be, and yes, it does not matter, since the only point of it is to distract from the discussion Grass has initiated about the enormous Israeli nuclear weapon stockpile and the danger it poses in the hands of this aggressive rogue nation.

[shira]

148. Fine, let's talk nuclear weapons and Israel

Israel has had them since the 1960's. Israel's neighbors are not afraid of Israel using those nukes against them. However, they are scared shitless by Iran having nuclear capabilities.

Israel has every reason to fear Iran having nuclear capability. Iran is already in a war vs. Israel and and has threatened Israel's existence many times. Now I know this is something you must gloss over in order to portray Israel in the manner intended by Grass (who also leaves the context out). What's antisemitic about Glass is not only his Nazi background, but turning the narrative on its head by making Israel out to be the aggressor when it's Iran beating the drums of war. Just a clever way of turning history inside out in order to attack Jews and leave them defenseless.

[JackRiddler]

150. Bush and Obama have both had to resist an Israeli push to start a war on Iran.

This push has come from the extreme right-wing leadership of Israel, counterparts to our own neoconservatives and Republicans, whose propaganda you support on a supposedly left-liberal website.

Iran has no reason and no potential reward from starting a suicidal war with Israel. It is Israel that has threatened war on Iran, repeatedly, and with credibility that they could actually do it, and on the basis of an absolute lie (that Iran will imminently possess nuclear weapons). This has happened in a most public way for years and you really have to pretend to be on another planet to put on that you didn't notice. The warnings that Israel is about to carry out the aggression preventively on its own, and that therefore the US must go all-in on the war, have been almost weekly in the major corporate news. "All options are on the table" in response to a fictional Iranian nuclear weapons program that the US intelligence agencies agree has been inactive since 2003. Even if it wasn't, it's patent insanity, pure propaganda, to pretend that Iran would involve itself in a nuclear war with Israel (and the US) on the basis of whatever handful of bombs it may finally acquire!

Israel is an occupying power that naturally has to deal with the resistance of the occupied. Hamas and Hezbollah are indigenous products of long-running Israeli violence against the Palestinians and Lebanon. Iran didn't invent these forces. Like any other military force, Hamas and Hezbollah seek weapons internationally and have received a supply from Iran -- just like Israel is outfitted by the US to the tune of billions of dollars a year. If that qualifies as "Iran at war with Israel" then the US by the same standard is equally at war with the Palestinians and with the peoples of the Arab countries (where it supports and arms dictatorships in a number of nations). The history is known. Israel has started wars and threatens war constantly. Iran has not started any wars with its neighbors. You don't have to like Iran to understand that.

The most incredible thing about your statements is the idea that you think they will be the least bit believable to anyone who is paying attention. These are highly insulting falsehoods, simply because they are so absurdly wrong.

(We'll ignore the usual smearing of Grass, since it's completely irrelevant; another falsehood and it has been dealt with adequately here.)

[shira]

152. Grass wrote that Israel will annihilate Iran's people in a war....

What grass has he been smoking?

Israel did not go to war against Iraq in 1981 when they took out Iraq's capability. Neither did Israel go to war against Syria in 2007 when they took out Syria's capability. The same would be true WRT Iran. Taking out their nuclear capability will not necessarily lead to war. It certainly doesn't mean Israel is looking to annihilate the people of Iran.

You've also proven your ignorance WRT Israel's "extreme rightwing leadership". Newsflash for you. Israel is way more liberal/progressive than the USA:

Gay rights, death penalty, healthcare, Israel started out socialist and still is (moreso than the USA), much more self critical media, very liberal court system, far better on environmental issues, leaders in stem cell research, better on immigration (for example from Ethiopia, Sudan), state subsidized public college tuition, better labor unions. Israel had its first Arab President back in 2007. Israel had a female PM back in the 70's named Golda Meir. The Knesset currently has Palestinian factions within it opposed to Israel's existance (the more secular Balad and the Islamist Raam Taal). Lastly, in combat Israel's civilian to militant kill ratio is significantly better than the USA and Israel isn't fighting wars thousands of miles away against nations posing no threat to its citizens.

In America, most of the above would be opposed by the GOP. The current government of Israel doesn't oppose any of the above. It's a lie trying to portray Israel (whether Labour, Kadima, or Likud is in charge) as hideously rightwing.

You can only dream that the GOP would aspire to be as liberal as the current Israeli government (which includes Left/Liberal Labourites like Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak).

And say what you will about Netanyahu. On his watch, Israel hasn't been in any wars. The USA under Obama is still in Afghanistan.

So here's the bottom line for you. Israel makes the USA look very rightwing in comparison. That's why the USA's democratic party supports Israel. It's not just the GOP. American Dems know how liberal Israel is.

I think the fact that Israel is way more liberal than America really makes you upset and exposes you as a hypocrite. But that's just my opinion.

[oberliner]

155. This distraction was not introduced by me

I simply corrected information that was posted that I believed to be inaccurate.

This diversion is not one that I initiated as anyone can see from the messages the precede mine.

I am sorry that you will not concede what I thought was a fairly innocuous and straightforward point.

With respect to your other comment, I certainly don't think Grass "initiated" any such discussion. That discussion has been ongoing.

All he did was write a poorly crafted poem with some questionable hyperbole that is not especially productive and certainly adds nothing to what is a very reasonable conversation about Israel, Iran, and nuclear weapons.

[azurnoir]

4. seems he was drafted into the SS rather than joining voluntarily

Grass acknowledged that at the age of 17 he had volunteered for submarine service, was not accepted and instead drafted into a Waffen-SS Panzer Division.

This page was last modified on 5 April 2012 at 19:05.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Grass

[leftynyc]

33. And of course you believe him

I mean, he has no reason to lie, does he? Germans across the political spectrum are denouncing him but of course people on this board think he's a hero - how typically pathetic.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,825712,00.html

[azurnoir]

34. no I think he was drafted as a teenager

but apparently that's not good enough for some here, as to the poem -meh

[leftynyc]

35. That's what he says

And you believe him. I don't.

[azurnoir]

37. well that's your prerogative isn't it?

you can't be satisfied by being offended by his poem apparently

however if you bother to look around I am not the only one on this thread saying that he was conscripted and if indeed he was born in 1927 it was at about 16 or 17, he was not yet even 20 when released from a POW camp

[leftynyc]

40. Yup, my perogative

And I seriously couldn't care less what other people here think about this nazi. There are plenty of 16 and 17 year olds in jail for violent crime. You just assume he didn't enjoy himself. That's quite a leap of faith and no real surprise.

[Ken Burch]

91. If Grass HAD enjoyed himself in the Waffen SS

Isn't it pretty likely that somebody who served with him(particularly one of the ones who, unlike Grass, didn't get it that Naziism was wrong) would have come forward and told the world about it at some point in the past sixty years?

And here's where your hypocrisy comes in...if Grass were JOINING Netanyahu in calling for massive death in Tehrah(and let's face it, we all know that a strike at Iran would have to have a huge number of innocent civilian casualities) you would probably cut him a break on what he did in the war even if he was a Holocaust denier.

All Grass is guilty of here is rejecting the idea that criticizing Bibi's insane belligerence is the same thing as being a Nazi.

[shira]

95. Cut the BS out WRT support for Netanyahu....

All the Israel haters have just as much contempt for Israel whether Labour or Kadima is in charge.

[Ken Burch]

99. I'm not an "Israel hater"...just a critic of what that state's government has done

And actually, many of us critics were fairly favorable to Rabin and what he was trying to do...it sickened us that some voters there chose to negate his life by electing Likud in the election held right after Rabin's murder.

Bibi has made everything worse...much, much worse...and he's insane to keep demanding a war against Iran. It can't make anyone any safer for that to happen. It can only lead to the deaths of innocent Iranian civilians.

[shira]

100. Ehud Barak offered far more than Rabin was willing to concede just 5 years prior.

But Barak is treated by the international progressive left as being just as rightwing as Netanyahu, and just as destructive to peace efforts.

[Ken Burch]

101. Yeah...but that's largely due to the fact that he's STILL Bibi's defense minister

and that he trashed his own party just to keep the job(remember, Barak had PROMISED Labor that he would never be part of a coalition with Bibi...and then he essentially forced Labor to join the Netanyahu government after getting only trivial concessions in return). It's also because Barak has made it clear that he no longer supports peace.

His career in electoral politics will almost certainly end at the 2013 Israeli election(Barak's current "party", Independence, receives virtually no support in the polls), unless he follows his egotistical course to its logical conclusion and finally just JOINS Likud, a party he no longer has any real disagreements with.

In other words, Barak has earned the animosity he receives from the Left, both in and outside of Israel.

[shira]

102. Bullshit. The International Left blasted his peace efforts back in 2000...

The Left aligned itself with Arafat, despite his rejectionism and Intifada 2. Just as the Left is behind Hamas today.

It has nothing to do with joining Netanyahu's coalition.

The animosity existed WAY before Bibi's election win in 2009.

[JackRiddler]

138. Thank you, Mr. Objective Spokesperson of the "International Left"

[shira]

149. You think Gunter Glass represents the Left? If so, how is it...

...that what he wrote resonates with the insanely far right, holocaust denying, fascist government of Iran?

Why is the far right neo-nazi German faction NPD having orgasms over the Gunter Grass poem?

Same question WRT David Duke's Stormfront cheerleaders...

What kind of International Left is in lock step with far right, neo-nazi fascists?

[JackRiddler]

151. I don't answer meaningless questions. You definitely do not represent the "International Left" --

which is not a proper noun, as you seem to think.

[shira]

153. Well, I don't expect Leftists to side with Waffen SS nazis...

Last edited Mon Apr 9, 2012, 06:35 PM - Edit history (5)

...and spew anti-Israel (anti-Jewish) hate in the same manner that the far right, neo-nazi fascists do.

That should be the least that sane rational people should expect of the International Left.

-------

Speaking of the International (rightwing) Left, here's an article from Yossi Gurvitz (the guy you defended for seeing the light and turning atheist):

One of the phenomena characterizing the coverage of the J14 protests from the beginning was the long faces of a significant number of notable international peace activists. But…but… but you’re not talking about the occupation, they demanded of the marching Israelis. They were soundly ignored, the protest became a mass success, and they became much more bitter.

At one point – it was during the third or fourth week of the protests – one of them wrote it was a struggle “about the price of cottage cheese”. I politely invited him to join Netanyahu’s PR team. He was gravely insulted, and I sincerely hope he won’t forgive me; yet the claims of many international activists against J14 were greatly similar to those of Netanyahu’s PR. We were told it’s the protest of people living in luxury, who fail to deal with the only real thing around here. Netanyahu’s bureau would call it The Second Independence War/The Second Zionist War/The Great War against the Dark Palestinian Conspiracy; the international activists just call it by that much more common name, the occupation.

As the protest grew stronger, they grew ever more bitter, spending much of their time mocking it. This behaviour raises two questions: One, just what sort of a leftist spends so much energy on opposing a protest intended to bring about a social-democratic regime, which did much to bring together Jews and Palestinians, and the only protest in the last decade – at least – which presented to a crowd of several hundred thousand Jews Palestinian speakers. The second question is: Just what the hell happened to your sense of solidarity? Why can’t you show some good will towards people who stood by your side in the West Bank, and consumed alongside you bulk quantities of CS gas?

The depressing answer is we’re not dealing with leftists, but rather with Palestinian right-wingers. They suffer from tunnel-vision: All they see is the occupation. As if there wasn’t an Israel beyond it, as if people did not live and breath and love and die here, who had other issues on their mind. The never-ceasing demand from J14 to speak about the occupation, one begins to suspect, is intended for one thing only: Division of the protest movement. Then we’ll be pure and just again. Admittedly, there’ll be only about a dozen of us, but ideological purity should conquer all.

http://972mag.com/time-for-a-changing-of-the-guard/21616/

Gurvitz didn't go far enough. The only kind of "Leftists" who'd refuse to stand side-by-side with Leftist Jews in a social protest are in fact rightwing anti-Semites who don't believe Israel's Leftists are good enough to be their allies.

[JackRiddler]

156. Shame on you once again.

[shira]

157. What do you have to say WRT Gurvitz' article about the International Left...

...abandoning Israel's Leftists during the mass social protests last summer that united both Jews and Palestinians? What kind of Leftists would steer clear of that?

[Ruby the Liberal]

158. You mean those more concerned with hardline ideological purity as compared to

the realists on the ground, actually working toward practical solutions?

Thats a great question.

[shira]

36. Azurnoir, why do u think Grass waited 60 yrs to admit he was Waffen SS? n/t

[azurnoir]

39. I don't know why do you think ?

perhaps it's the political profiteering on that we see here

it is quite interesting though I am not the only one on this thread to point out that he was conscripted yet there are 2 of you going at me about it, one could reach the conclusion that it is not what is 'said' but who said it, is that the case ? if so I really do not mind

[leftynyc]

41. Why are you refusing to accept

the idea that he could very well be lying. It's not like being part of the SS is something a normal person would put on their resume and would probably do anything they could to hide it including lying. If you don't think it's important to consider both what someone said and why they said it, how very sad and short sighted of you but again, no real surprise.

[azurnoir]

44. the same could be asked of you why do need to believe that he volunteered for the SS?

and apparently you think that what is done at the age of 16 or so should color a persons entire life why is that or is it just in 'special' cases such as this in any event he was in the Panzer unit of the SS

[leftynyc]

48. True

Except I don't NEED to believe it. I already know he's a hypocrit. From the article linked above:

The last time Grass made headlines in earnest was back in 2006, when he revealed for the first time in his autobiography, "Peeling the Onion," that, as a 17-year-old near the end of World War II, he had served as a member of the Waffen-SS. The author came under intense criticism at the time. Many accused him of having concealed the fact that he had been a member of the SS for decades, even as he publicly criticized others for their Nazi pasts time and again. Some at the time alleged he had lost his authority as a moral figure.

Note it doesn't say one word about being drafted. And a member of the SS for decades? That's a sterling person you're going to bat for.

[azurnoir]

51. It was in the same autobiography that he revealed that he was drafted into the SS Panzer unit

after applying for submarine duty, thanks for bringing that up, it seems you believe that only what bits and pieces you chose too

[leftynyc]

53. On the contrary

I don't believe anything he says. It's you (and others) that want to take the word of a self serving nazi.

[azurnoir]

55. "I don't believe anything he says" so then why bring up his autobiography? n/t

[Ken Burch]

58. It said he'd concealed it for decades, not that he'd been a member for decades

there's a huge difference there.

Gunter Grass has lived his life as one of Europe's most committed anti-fascists. The only reason you're attacking him here is that he refuses to accept the argument that you're only anti-Nazi if you refuse to publicly criticize anything the Israeli government does.

[cali]

164. he wasn't exactly

Sophie or Hans Scholl was he?

As an artist I admire Grass very much indeed, but I think using anyone who served in the SS to make this kind of point will result in the predictable. And it has.

[azurnoir]

46. but unfortunately for you it's not just me saying that n/t

[Ken Burch]

57. The fact that Grass devoted the next sixty years to confronting Germany's Nazi history

doesn't count for ANYTHING with you?

Are you this unforgiving with Pope Ratzi? He was a soldier of the Reich, if you had forgotten that.

[shira]

79. Tell me what you think about post #67 WRT Grass....

As for Ratzinger, he has a good record with Jews the last 60 years, unlike Grass.
http://www.offnews.info/verArticulo.php?contenidoID=1102

[Ken Burch]

89. I think it's not a particularly impressive argument

Clearly, it's equally bad for Iran, Israel and any OTHER country to have nukes...but it isn't Iran demanding an attack on Israel over and over again. And calling out Bibi for his insanely reckless and offensive rhetoric(such as his disgusting comparisons with Germany)is not the same thing as expressing hostility to Jews.

There's simply no reason for Bibi to keep demanding war over this. An attack on Iran would probably kill thousands, if not tens of thousands of innocent Iranian civilians and wouldn't really achieve anything. It can't be compared to the risk-free takeout of Iraq's nuclear site...which was all in one place and way out in the middle of the desert, away from anybody.

[shira]

98. Not impressive? Iran isn't attacking Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah?

Iran's holocaust denying loudmouth is not threatening an end to Israel?

Grass' stupid poem would be nonsensical if he brought those things up, wouldn't it? Even worse than his latest effort. There'd be no point to such a poem, correct?

[Ken Burch]

92. Other than daring to call out Bibi the Infallible on his demands for slaughter

what else has Grass done in the past sixty years that could seriously have been offensive to the world's Jewish communities?

The Gunter Grass I knew of was the one who spent those six decades demanding that Germany face the truth about what it did during the war and that that country should fight to remove all traces of the fascist/authoritarian mindset from its national conscience. What more could he have done to be an ally to both Jews and everyone else that Hitler tried to wipe off of the planet?

Grass has worked for a humane, democratic, egalitarian world for all. Building a world like that is the best way to make sure that people like Hitler don't come back.

[shira]

96. Grass whitewashed Iran's hostility towards Israel, its support for terror/rockets...

Support for Hezbollah and Hamas. Boasting of annihilating Israel WELL in advance of Israel calling for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

By whitewashing Iran (at worst calling Ahmadinejad a loudmouth) he is trying to make it appear that Israel has absolutely ZERO reasons to go after Iran's nuclear capabilities.

I'd call that antisemitic. Whitewashing obvious threats against Jews, terror attacks via thousands of rockets from Hezbollah and Hamas. Making out as though the Jews are the aggressors and Iran is just a passive victim.

Similar to the way the I/P conflict is constantly portrayed.

Antisemitic.

And coming from a former Nazi, reprehensible.

[Ken Burch]

56. I'm guessing that there are some people who are demonizing Grass

Who will keep letting Pope Ratzi off the hook for the same thing.

[shira]

67. Grass deserves criticism. The worst thing he said about Ahmadenijad...

...is that he has a big mouth.

Not that he's a raving anti-Semite who denies the holocaust and wants to destroy Israel.

No, just that he has a big mouth.

Grass also completely whitewashed Iran, by not bringing up its nuclear program, its terrorist ties, its support of what is going on in Syria, and its abominable human rights record.

But Israel is the threat to world peace, not Iran.

Fuck that nazi prick.

And shame on anyone defending him.

[azurnoir]

77. well I don't know about that however

this feels quite similar to the George Soros as a Nazi collaborator episode and some of the same people that were crowing that are doing the same with Grass

[Ken Burch]

78. Not surprised

Check your pm's soon for a totally unrelated question.

[holdencaufield]

93. Is the Pope demonizing Israel?

You're missing the point -- the point isn't that Herr Grass is an evil man for having served in the SS. The point is, that his service in support of a nearly successful effort to wipe Jews off the face of Europe disqualifies him from bringing any morality-based point of view to a discussion concerning the future of Jews (or the Jewish State).

The Pope isn't -- as far as I know -- making any pronouncements one way or another on the morality of Jews/Israelis having a Defence Force. If he did, I'm afraid his point would also be profoundly lacking in any moral authority. However, correct me if I'm wrong here, the Pope never served as a member of the SS or Gestapo (both agencies who take an active part in the systematic extermination of Jews).

I would be more than happy to listen to Herr Grass' opinions on subject ranging from vehicle maintenance or the benefits of drinking beer for the digestive system, but on this particular subject, he's abrogated his rights to tell Jews anything about right or wrong.

[JackRiddler]

108. Do I believe he was 17 years old at the end of the war? Yes I do.

Most of the German politicians can go to hell. Germans across the political spectrum know damn well that a nuclear-powered Israel, which constantly threatens a war on Iran and has started several major wars (while Iran has started no wars in its modern history) is the biggest threat to world peace. This has been confirmed EU-wide by opinion polls, and you know that.

[shira]

110. Right, Iran is no threat. They attack Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah...

...and have many times said that Israel or the Zionist Entity is a cancerous tumor, must be destroyed, etc.

You can pretend none of the above is true. That way, you can continue to say that Israel is threatening to take out Iran's nukes for no reason whatsoever.

[JackRiddler]

115. Hamas is the result of Israeli violence.

I know, it's hard to believe that when the most wonderful democracy in the universe imprisons a million and a half of them on a little strip, starves them and bombs them, they're going to find ways to fight back. It must be Iran's fault!

[shira]

118. When you said Iran has attacked no one, you were wrong. Correct?

They are currently at war with Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yes?

[JackRiddler]

121. Iran is supporting the Gazan defense against a perpetual Israeli attack.

Israel occupies and bombs civilians. People defend themselves. They do so in extreme ways. Hamas sucks, but for all its bloody rhetoric Hamas is a reaction to Israeli aggression. They look for countries willing to help arm them against a much stronger aggressor. Iran takes advantage and arms Hamas. Tough shit. If they don't like it, Israel should stop starving and bombing the Palestinians. Instead, they're trying to drag the US into the stupidest (and one of the most criminal) aggressive wars of all time, a "preventive" attack on the Iranian people. The best thing for the US would be to stop supporting the Israeli irrationality by cutting off military aid to this nation. It's not a special place. It's just one country among many, it doesn't merit $3 billion in aid from US taxpayers a year (or whatever it is this year). It's the unconditional US backing that most enables Israel to endanger the world with its undeniable nuclear threat (as opposed to the completely fictional Iranian nuclear threat).

Anyway, I already see you camp out here 24/7/365 to recycle the same old hasbara lies, so go ahead and rinse and repeat. Goodnight.

[shira]

123. Gazan defense? They're very clear (on video in Arabic) that they really...

...hate Jews and want them killed. Oh, I know. That's Israel's fault, and just a result of Israel's occupation, right? The problem is that hate existed well before 1967 and way before 1948. The worst kind of Jew hatred.

And you didn't answer the question. Iran is and has been in a state of war vs. Israel for some time now. True or false? Not only through Hamas, but Hezbollah. What's Iran's excuse with Hezbollah? Israel got out of Lebanon back in 2000.

[JackRiddler]

126. Ha, ha: "Israel got out of Lebanon back in 2000."

Other than the minor matter of leveling the country once again six years after that. Why am I supposed to engage this kind of low-grade fact-spinning bullshit?

[shira]

132. Yeah, they did. And Hezbollah started the 2006 war.

Of course, I already know your response in advance.

Hezbollah was needed from 2000-2006 for protection from those evil Zionists. They started nothing. No rocket attacks, no killing IDF troops on the Israeli side of the border, no abducting IDF soldiers.

Yes, Israel deserved that and they should have just taken Hezbollah's shit. No response required.

======

Now back to the OP.

Iran has been in a state of war against Israel for years through Hamas/Hezbollah, has it not? Iran has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel, correct?

But Israel is the main threat.

[azurnoir]

134. of course on the flip side of that one could say that Israel has been in a proxy war against Iran

funded in part by the US and well attacking Gaza is much less risky than attacking Iran outright isn't it ?

[LeftishBrit]

6. It's a rotten poem - the first four lines are OK

then it becomes a sort of caricature of the 'poem with a message': politically simplistic; clumsy and clanking as a poem (it's worse in the translation, but I can read German just well enough to see that it's not much of a poem in the original either).

It's unfair to call Grass a 'Nazi'; he was conscripted in the army as a teenager, and has since condemned Germany's Nazi history fairly consistently. Which doesn't alter the fact that this particular poem is crap, both as a piece of literature and as a political statement.

[Jefferson23]

8. Thanks for stopping by with a crap review. n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

9. So a negative reaction is crap?

Only positive comments allowed?

[shira]

10. The blame Israel first crowd is having orgasms over it...

...so therefore that's proof the article is totally awesome!

End of discussion.

[leftynyc]

43. You would think people would

be embarassed at agreeing with stormfront but that's not the case here. I posted a link to an article above about how he's being trashed all over the spectrum in Germany but here he's given the benefit of the doubt and is considered an innocent victim - poor little bunny.

[azurnoir]

45. ah so Leftish Brit and I are agreeing with Stormfront that's nice to know thanks n/t

[leftynyc]

49. Why, yes, you are

Does it feel good? Most people would think about their position in a situation like that.

[azurnoir]

50. only me ? I suggest you read comment #6 too anything to say about that

is the commentor more important than the comment?

[leftynyc]

52. I wasn't aware I had to engage

with the author of every stupid comment I see.

[azurnoir]

54. really is that your reasoning?

so does the same go for commenter #6 or is it only me? you've been going on with this ugliness for hours now

[Jefferson23]

11. The review was, learn to read. n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. You must be reading a different review.

I saw "politically simplistic; clumsy and clanking" which I thought was spot on.

My review to the author would be "don't give up your day job".

[Jefferson23]

13. I believe it is a fair bet, that he'll not be concerned of your opinion..considering his

accomplishments.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. They're allowed to have an opinion about someone's reaction of a review...

I didn't see anything implying only positive comments were allowed...

[Violet_Crumble]

18. I'm not into poetry, myself. Nor into Godwinising...

Both are pretty crap, imo, and the latter happens far too frequently in this group....

[holdencaufield]

76. Godwinising (don't all just love that word)

It is Godwinsing to compare the arguments or the persons whom you disagree to Nazis


It is NOT Godwinsing when the person with whom you disagree is actually IS a Nazi.

[JackRiddler]

104. Shame on you for this falsehood.

It's not a poem about "Jews" but about the Israeli state's nuclear threat to peace, and it comes from a former child soldier (17 years old at the end of World War II) who became one of the great writers of the last 67 years, and rightfully received the Nobel Prize for Literature.

[shira]

111. Iran believes it's about Jews. It's why they fund and arm Hamas and Hezbollah...

Both Hamas and Hezbollah are very open WRT their hatred of Jews and their desire to kill them.

Iran is also calling for the cancerous tumor that is Israel to be destroyed, while they're denying the holocaust.

I know, I know. All lies, right?

[holdencaufield]

127. "...who became one of the GREAT WRITERS of the last 67 years"

Exaggerate much? Surely he's no John Grisham.

[Ruby the Liberal]

128. Or Dr Seuss...

[LeftishBrit]

7. Interesting comment from Tom Segev in Ha'aretz

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gunter-grass-poem-is-more-pathetic-than-anti-semitic-1.422674

[holdencaufield]

14. He can become an contributing writer...

... if they ever start publishing "Der Sturmer" again.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Being familiar with Der Sturmer, it was violently antisemitic...

This guy isn't, so unless the reborn Der Sturmer was going to turn its focus to peddling bad poetry, I don't think he'd get a guernsey...

[holdencaufield]

19. What is anti-semitism?

Yes, "Der Sturmer" was anti-semitic in nature (not sure about violently -- perhaps vehemently?). But, how did "Der Sturmer's" anti-semitism work?

Anti-semitism is the belief that Jews do things that other people do, only with malicious intent. For example...

Germans hired Jewish workers for their skills -- Jews hired German workers to exploit and enslave them
German bankers made money for their investors -- Jewish bankers made money to destroy Germany and enslave the German people
... yadda, yadda, yadda.

Herr Grass is using the very same tactic and rhetorical argument -- Yes, other countries (including Germany) have submarines, but Israelis (the politically correct term for Jews when you're criticizing them) only have them to destroy Iran and endanger world peace.

Yes, other countries have nuclear weapons (I particularly like the editor's note about +500 nuclear weapons -- that number goes up by 100 every time I see someone's estimate). But, only Israelis will use them to destroy world peace. Germany has access to nuclear weapons (through NATO-sharing) but theirs (and everyone else's) are for "peaceful purposes".

Criticism of Israel isn't a crime --if it were, every Israeli would be in jail. But, this very obvious ploy of attributing everything Jews (in this case the Jewish State) does to an ulterior motive is in fact textbook anti-semitism -- very worthy of publication in "Der Sturmer" -- a publication which Herr Grass must be very familiar with.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Criticising Israel isn't antisemitism...

And all you've done is pretend that Israel = Jews when it suits yr 'argument'.

I suspect you've got no idea at all what Der Sturmer published, and you appear to be confused about the difference between antisemitism and criticism of Israel.

Much as I hate poetry, I didn't see anything in that poem that was antisemitic.

[holdencaufield]

22. "Criticising Israel isn't antisemitism..."

Didn't I just say that? Are you so ingrained with that knee-jerk response that it comes out autonomically?

[Violet_Crumble]

23. The bulk of yr post argued that it was...

Tacking that line on the end doesn't make the rest of it invisible. Yr entire argument up to then was that criticism of Israel is indeed antisemitic.

Me pointing out that criticism of Israel isn't antisemitism isn't a knee-jerk reaction (unlike when I see the same person time and time again try to make out that the killing of Palestinian children is staged), but something that unfortunately has to be pointed out to some people, who try to claim that criticism of Israel for having nukes or its policies towards the Palestinians is antisemitism. If people didn't do that, then they wouldn't have to have it pointed out to them...

While watching nonstop godwinising is amusing, the bottom line is the poem was not the slightest bit antisemitic...

[holdencaufield]

25. ...the poem was not the slightest bit antisemitic...

I'm sure Herr Grass wouldn't say it was either.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I'm sure anyone who's the slightest bit rational would agree it's not antisemitic...

I'm glad you now understand that it's not, and the knee-jerk accusations of antisemitism might become less frequent than they are...

[shira]

42. Violet, you obviously need a lesson WRT what is antisemitic or not....

When Israel's motives are always in question on pretty much every issue, as in Israel doesn't self-defend from terror but is deliberately malicious WRT Palestinians, they are worse than any other country in combat, that Israel will use nukes for very bad reasons (no other nation is ever mentioned), that only Israel is a threat to world peace (again no other nation is mentioned b/c that would be bigoted), that only Israel would dare to pink-wash or send doctors to Haiti to cover for their war crimes, only "those people" are like nazis carrying out a genocide, carpet bombing, starving, stealing organs, targeting children, etc, etc...

THAT is antisemitism.

Grass is towing the same line.

You'd certainly recognize all the above as bigotry if aimed at Palestinians, but for some reason you can't see the new antisemitism for what it is. Why is that?

[Violet_Crumble]

59. And if I did, you'd be just the person I'd nominate to teach me!

It would be so easy and so entertaining! Everyone who supports the Palestinians and dares to criticise Israel at all is not only antisemitic, but a Nazi. And if they take that step too far and speak out against bigotry against Palestinians or Muslims, then they're antisemitic brownshirt Nazi POS who are speaking in code and in reality expressing their adoration of the Protocols!

How did I do?

*edited to add for the benefit of anyone who isn't familiar with myself or the person I'm replying to that my comment is a sarcastic one*

[shira]

65. You're avoiding the obvious...

If Palestinian motives on every issue were trumped up, exaggerated, and considered evil or malicious in intent, you would no doubt label that bigotry.

Not so when it comes to Israeli motives and intentions.

Why?

Imagine people crying "pink washing" if Palestinian gay teens went on tour in western countries.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Pretty sure I covered all the obvious stuff in my post...

Yep. Just reread it and it's all covered.

But don't let me stop you from inventing things about what I think about things

[azurnoir]

75. and what about the Palestinian 'cause'?

I've seen some pretty nasty stuff posted about that

[shira]

82. What about it? That it's not at all antisemitic or bigoted in any way whatsoever? n/t

[azurnoir]

83. well it seems you've had a change of heart

but I will so miss your youtube contributions from Palestine Media Watch, and articles from CIF Watch, and UN Watch and for a change of words NGO Monitor

[shira]

84. Yeah right, no more posting any of that as none of it's true. n/t

[azurnoir]

85. well IMO Palestions love their occupiers

every bit as much as the Jewish Palestinians (Israeli's) did their British ones, wouldn't you?

[shira]

86. That doesn't give Palestinians or their supporters the right to be anti-Semites

If the Palestinians want an end to occupation, they should cut a peace deal, recognize the Jewish state of Israel, and drop RoR. Get on with life.

Whaddaya say?

[azurnoir]

87. what kind of peace deal oh and what happens to nonJewish Israeli's in the Jewish state?

I'm sure you'll reassure us that it will be a fair and just peace deal and life for non-Jewish Israeli's will be great just like it is now

[shira]

88. Please, enough of this BS faux concern for non-Jews of Israel...

You could just as well ask what happens with Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics in America, but you won't. Life for them is just peachy too. Enough of the BS crocodile tears. What about Palestinians in genuine apartheid conditions in Lebanon? Huh, what's that? Right, not a word from you on that one. Or Palestinians under sharia rule in both the WB and Gaza? They don't have rights you're concerned about either, b/c Israel isn't to blame for them. Knock it off with the BS faux concern, as all you're interested in is bashing Israel.

As for a peace deal, I'm thinking along the lines of the Clinton Initiatives, Olmert's offer, and the Geneva Initiative. None of those are good enough for you, are they? Even though you say you support a 2 state solution. You'd rather see the conflict rage on than see the Palestinians agree to one of those?

[azurnoir]

94. shira your reply so full of false accusations that I can only come to the conclusion

Last edited Sun Apr 8, 2012, 01:50 AM - Edit history (2)

that it is your way of avoiding an actual answer to my question, as to my asking about minorities in the US I do not have to I already know, as I have 3 children of 4 children who are minority and oh why don't I post here about the problem of minorities in America because this is the I/P forum that's why, perhaps you should post more elsewhere on DU however you seem not to, here we struck down our Jim Crow laws almost half a century ago, we have elected a Black President, and yees there are still problems however they are coming into the light gee have you ever heard of this guy named Trayvon Martin? as to Palestinians in the West Bank they are not under Sharia law and go ahead cite article 4 or whatever of the PA charter all you like the West Bank is still not under Sharia lawThe situation in Gaza is different albeit not total Sharia law it has progressed towards that

your stance here towards the Palestinians seems take it or leave it and you admit that Israel will offer less than either Olmert or Barak, in which case it becomes for the Palestinians why bother just wait it out because if that is the case then at some point the dread one state solution will become reality, whether or not Israel or Palestinians want it

[shira]

97. Talk about avoiding the issues....

Palestinian human rights in the OPT and Lebanon are far and away worse than anything Israel would ever do its non-jewish citizens. You are SILENT about all that and THAT is how I know you only use human rights as a stick to beat Israel with. Of course there's discrimination in Israel, but that is the case in ALL western democracies. Given that Israel has been in an ethnic war since its birth, Israel should be graded even HIGHER than all other western democracies where discrimination occurs. Other western nations have zero excuses. I really doubt that any other nation in the same circumstances would do better than Israel. In Israel, it's perfectly okay in the Knesset for Arab politicians to call for the end of Israel. That's unheard of anywhere else. Haneen Zoabi recently said Israelis have no right to security. Find me any other western politician who'd ever make such a remark and keep their job.

And don't give me that BS about Israel offering less than Olmert, Barak, or Geneva. You are AGAINST all 3, are you not? You prefer no peace to the Palestinians agreeing to either of those 3 offers. How am I wrong?

[azurnoir]

103. and yet still more accusations and avoidance, Lebanon, Haneen Zoabi ......blame anyone else

but do not actually deal with the problem

first off a Palestinian state would help alleviate the refugee problem (should we que up a vid of Abbas supposedly saying that NO refugee would be allowed in Palestine?)
oh and the fact that there is not only discrimination in Israel but Israel is instituting laws that encourage and support it are quickly brushed aside with but all Western countries do it too, an ethnic war, yes I've noted that generally when Israeli Arabs are spoken of its only in relationship to Arabs in other countries not or very rarely in relationship to Israeli Jews or even as Israelis, something that is unintentionally revealing of the 'your not one of us' mindset

you claim to be all for a 2 state solution but only speak of it in terms of past failures that are of course according to you all the Palestinians fault, but then post stuff like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11347670

I take your in Dersh's group? so just what are "defensible borders" ? and why do they always seem to involve Israel controlling the Jordan River aquifer?

[shira]

107. Look, if you cared for Palestinian human rights, then I'd expect....

...to see you constantly advocating for Palestinian human rights in Gaza under Hamas, as well as their rights in Lebanon under apartheid conditions. As it is, and we both know it, you couldn't give a rip b/c Israel's not to blame. How am I wrong?

I brought up Zoabi to show what Israel is dealing with. It's something no other western nation would put up with. Do you think it's okay for her to be for Israel's destruction? That it's okay for her to say Israelis have no right to security?

I am for 2 states. Obviously, you are not as you would have rejected all 3 proposals. I'm still for all 3 proposals, given that Palestinians and their neighbors prove without question they want peace and that they can enforce it. Otherwise, it's pointless.

[azurnoir]

124. ah so I do not meet your expectation by placing all the blame on Lebanon and Hamas

oops did you forget the PLO , Zoabi, let's see who else anyone anything but Israel right? got it long ago

as I've said there would not be a problem if the Palestinians had their state to return too, but it has become obvious that your concern is that they stay right where they are in fact you've quite regularly condemned Arab states for not removing the problem from Israel's hands if Arab states would allow Palestinian refugee's to become citizens Israel could in a blink expel the rest and problem solved no need for a Palestinian state and after all they'e all Arabs what's the difference or at least that seems to be what you promote

[shira]

129. You don't criticize them at all for their abuse of Palestinians..

Last edited Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:43 AM - Edit history (1)

..which once again shows you only care about Palestinians if Israel can be blamed, meaning not at all.

And I have no idea what you're rambling on about in the next paragraph. First, the refugees are the Arab world's problem, not Israel's. They should have been given the choice to become citizens of those countries decades ago. Israel took in just as many refugees as the Arab world should have taken in. Second, where in the hell have I ever written or implied that as soon as Arab states absorb their refugees that will allow Israel to expel Arabs from their state? Exactly how would that happen? Which Israeli leaders could possibly get away with that? You think the Jewish population of Israel would stand for that? That's one of the most absurd accusations you've come up with.

[azurnoir]

135. still ranting because Arabs won't solve Israel's Palestinian problem I see

well rant away, it changes nothing at all how many Palestinian Arab refugees were there prior to 1948?

[shira]

168. Az, you're the one who allegedly supports the poor Palestinians....

But the irony is that your position on refugees is really no different than that of any radical Arab regime in the mideast, from Syria and Libya to Saudi Arabia.

They will keep the refugees in camps for as long as it takes. For many more generations. They've made it perfectly clear why they're doing it (to demographically bomb Israel).

As a 'supporter' of Palestinians, it is you who should be advocating for their right to choose whether they want to be full citizens in those countries or not.

When you see the situation only as a stick to beat Israel with - and you agree with it - you're actually showing your disdain for Palestinians. I'm not sure the average Israeli right-winger loathes Palestinian refugees as much as you do - to the point of wishing they'd stay in camps for more generations in order to "get Israel".

There are hardly any Palestinian supporters advocating for the right of refugees to choose whether they want citizenship in their host countries. That's one of the many reasons these "supporters" are nothing of the sort (just Israel haters who'd gladly use generations of refugees as political pawns).

It's perverted (to use Pelsar's language).

[azurnoir]

171. shira that is why I support a Palestinian state you can point the finger and the blame all you want

but all of these problem would be largely eliminated by a Palestinian state you can make all the claims you want but none of them eliminate that simple fact

it almost seems that you are indulging in a bit of projection as the comments on this thread from a couple of days ago show

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11347784

eta more over while Lebanon has treated Palestinian refugees abominably it is used IMO to distract from the core problem which is lack of a Palestinian state, something that grows more distant every time Netanyahu/Israel announces more settlement growth

one would think that as much as you condemn a one state solution you'd be criticizing that because that is what the settlement expansion is leading to, unless you believe that the occupation is sustainable, but instead you just place blame on Palestinians over stuff that went on years ago rather than deal with the now

[pelsar]

165. this is one of the most perverted viewpoints i have read in my entire life......

if Arab states would allow Palestinian refugee's to become citizens Israel could in a blink expel the rest and problem solved no need for a Palestinian state

the concept that israel would expel its arab citizens, when israel can barly expel the illegal immigrants without raising an internal howl with protests and TV campaigns is beyond absurd.

given that is your viewpoint and opinion, all i can say is that you have one of the most perverted views of israel that i have ever come across.

and this includes the various shades of anti semitism, anti zionism and all of those mixed in between.

[azurnoir]

166. Perverted and antisemtic? how classy of you however polls have shown that half

of Israeli Jews would like to see the government encourage Israeli Arabs to leave and your Foreign Minister has proposed making land swaps for a Palestinian state in Arab area's of Israel

as to Israel's response to international pressure I think the ever growing settlements speak of that quite clearly, and quite frankly I have never seen a antiIsrael TV campaign in the US

[shira]

169. Right Az, the Israelis always have the worst motives towards Palestinians...

Heck, if they could get away with it, there would be full out genocide rather than ethnic cleansing.

Right?

[azurnoir]

170. a bit of an exaggeration so now you accuse me of claiming the Israeli's are commiting genocide?

no I simply went on polls conducted by an Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz I believe

[pelsar]

172. perverted it remains......expelling the arab israelis?

as i wrote israel can't even deport illegal immigrants without a fuss, let alone people with citizenships

your view of the society is your opinion, but it remains perverted...i have no idea how or why you believe it, but it remains perverted

if you want to call yourself antisemetic be my guess, i have no idea what that has to do with anything here

[azurnoir]

173. pelsar it is you who called me antisemtic a few posts back and not for the first time either

however pointing out that according to polls half of Jewish Israeli's want your government to 'encourage' Israeli Arabs to leave would indicate that I am not too far from wrong add to that laws recently passed that allow Jewish communities to reject new citizens based on cultural differences and others that would fine Arab communities for observing Nakba Day and there you have it, sorry if you do not like the picture it paints

now about the illegal immigrants are you talking about the flap over Israel wanting to deport the children of foreign workers who's visa's had expired?

[holdencaufield]

26. I'm sure you're not going to get this

but I'll post it for other readers.

I don't say criticizing Israel for having (or not having) nuclear weapons is anti-semitism.

I say that ONLY criticizing Israel for having (or not having) nuclear weapons IS anti-semitism.

A subtle, but important distinction.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I get what yr trying to claim, but even if you'd said that it's still not antisemitism...

From yr post. It's the third paragraph of going on an on with examples of how criticism of Israel is antisemitic: 'But, this very obvious ploy of attributing everything Jews (in this case the Jewish State) does to an ulterior motive is in fact textbook anti-semitism'

You likely know even less of the person you've been godwinising over than you know about Der Stermer (yr seriously trivialising how disgusting that publication was by referring to it like this) and would have no idea about whether they're opposed to nuclear weapons only in the case of Israel or not. Just like if someone decides to come to DU and only posts about the I/P conflict. That doesn't make them an antisemite. The fact is that the people who carry on with the knee-jerk antisemite claims don't want Israel criticised at all and complain and carry on even if someone does oppose or criticise what other countries are doing...

[Jefferson23]

21. Is it really that difficult for you to reconcile that Israel IS NOT a signer to NPT???

[holdencaufield]

24. ?????

Was that enough questions marks? Do additional question marks mean your questions is more important? Why is your question different from every other question?

India and Pakistan are not signatories to the NPT either and those are declared nuclear states. Israel -- you might have heard -- isn't a declared nuclear state. Are India and Pakistan going to be the subject of Herr Grass' next poetic masterpiece?

Now, I have a very cool theory as to why Israel doesn't declare that it has (or doesn't have) nuclear weapons (I heard it at our weekly global conspiracy meeting). But, if they aren't a declared nuclear state, why should they sign the NPT?

[Jefferson23]

27. ( 1) No, there are never enough ? I can fit in after reading your twisted understanding of

Grass's intentions.

(2) India and Pakistan do not threaten to strike Iran. Or are you going to claim
Iran wants Israel off the map, again.

(3) All should sign, all should reduce their arsenal, but then not all would remain in top
dog status. Only certain countries can have them and NOT be inspected and at that same
threaten a state who has signed and has had inspections. Only certain countries can have
them, and be trusted..like Israel..who will not sign NPT.

[holdencaufield]

28. Retort

"India and Pakistan do not threaten to strike Iran." -- No, only each other

I don't recall reading that Israel has threatened to strike Iran with nukes -- perhaps you could link me to that?

"All should sign"

I agree -- but, is that the subject of Herr Grass' poetic opus? No, we're discussing criticism of Israel (and Israel alone) and their signatory status on the NPT.

[Jefferson23]

29. You should read with attention to the inspections ( lack of) in the poem.

Oh please, and once again you lose sight of who is in power and who decides
who can be trusted. The U.S. lifted sanctions on Pakistan and India so they
could pursue their war on "duh, get the terrorists"...why you buy into this bullshit
is beyond me.

If you agree they all need to disarm, then Israel needs to be a signer as
well and it is absurd to even imagine that Iran is a threat to Israel, even
with a nuclear weapon..they are not suicidal people. But it would upset
the status of power..too bad.


Israel has been threatening Iran's nuclear facility for many years, and they assassinate
their scientists, when they can.

[JackRiddler]

106. I think you've just produced the first editorial for the new edition.

Shame on you.

PS - It's Holden Caulfield.

[holdencaufield]

125. I know

That name was taken -- so I went with the more phonetic spelling rather than Holdencaulfield231

[Purveyor]

15. k&r Thank you for posting oh brave one...+1 eom

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Despite Israeli charges, Gunter Grass is not an anti-Semite

German author Gunter Grass has been accused by Israel of spreading blood libel and being an anti-Semite. That is not true; he simply opposes the Netanyahu government

Yossi Gurvitz

Gunter Grass, the famed German author, got himself into hot water recently. He wrote a controversial poem (unfortunately, I failed to find an adequate English translation, though I did see an adequate Hebrew one), which accused Israel of possessing nuclear weapons, plotting an attack against Iran, possibly using nukes against it and possibly using German-supplied nuclear submarines to deliver those weapons. For his trouble, the Israeli Embassy in Berlin denounced him, saying, “What must be said is that it belongs to European tradition to accuse the Jews of ritual murder before the Passover celebration… It used to be Christian children whose blood the Jews used to make matza (unleavened bread), today it is the Iranian people that the Jewish state purportedly wants to wipe out.”

Impressive use of the anti-Semitism charge, which is diplomatic Israel’s first line of defense these days. But is it true? Let’s pick it apart, beginning with Grass’s claims.

Does Israel have nukes? According to just about every source in the world, the answer is yes. Shimon Peres is widely credited as the father of the Israeli nuke plan and has never denied it. John Crossman (formerly Mordechai Va’anunu) served 18 years, many of them in solitary confinement, in an Israeli prison for exposing this truth.

Are those weapons supervised? Of course not. Israel is above such petty laws.

Is Israel plotting an attack against Iran? Yes. Netanyahu and his ministers have said so time and time again. Recently, Netanyahu said that an attack on Iran is not an “if” question but rather a “when” question. His Minister of Security, Ehud Barak, said openly that in case of such an attack, Israel expects 500 casualties (Hebrew). This week, the government ministers were informed that this number has been notched down to 300 (Hebrew).

Is Israel considering using nukes against Iran? Yes, or at least it gives good reason to believe it does. Netanyahu has said time and time again that “all options are on the table,” and that means the nuclear option is on the table as well. Reuters has reported that Israel considers using tactical nukes, as did a Fox News commentator, quoting an Israeli source claimed to be knowledgeable and accurate (here, around the 2:15-2:25 mark). One could plausibly make the claim that this is just psychological warfare on Israel’s part, and that not even Ehud Barak is that insane; but can one blame Grass for falling victim to Israel’s psychological offensive? When you’re playing the regional madman, don’t blame people if they think you’re actually barking mad.

http://972mag.com/author/yossig/

[shira]

38. Says Yossi Gurvitz, who writes of Jewish Supremacism and Judeo-Nazis. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Clearly he's a Nazi! n/t

[shira]

64. It means that people who sound just like David Duke do not get...

...to define antisemitism.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Oh, I forgot. He's not only a Nazi, but a David Duke clone! How forgetful of me!

I think people who are so eager to toss Nazi smears around don't get to define antisemitism. Shit happens...

[shira]

81. You wouldn't have a problem w/ anyone writing about Islamo-Nazis....

....or Muslim Supremacists, would you?

I mean, that's pretty much what Pam Gellar and Robert Spencer do.

Please, please, please tell me you don't have a problem with Gellar and Spencer's use of Islamo-Nazis or Islamic/Muslim supremacists.

Please.

[oberliner]

47. About Yossi Gurvitz

This is in his own words on his page at 972mag:

"I was raised as an Orthodox Jew, graduated from a Yeshiva (Nehalim), but saw the light and turned atheist at about the age of 17"

[Violet_Crumble]

60. And the problem with that is?

Are we about to embark on a sub-thread devoted to shooting the messenger?

[shira]

63. It means he went from one type of fanaticism to another. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

70. Since when has being ultra-orthodox or atheist been fanatical?

That's right. Neither are fanatical places...

signed

an atheist...

[Ken Burch]

73. Are you saying that all athiests are fanatics?

Can you make a serious argument for that assertion?

Many, if not most of the founding generation of Israel's leaders were athiests, after all.

[shira]

80. Intolerant Atheists who bash other religions are fanatical...

They are no more tolerant than the extreme fundamentalists they are mocking.

[Ken Burch]

90. Are you saying ALL athiests are intolerant?

Not all of them act like that schmuck Dawkins, you know. The ones I've met are fairly mild-mannered and well-behaved.

[LeftishBrit]

133. Not necessarily

Neither atheists nor ultra-Orthodox Jews are necessarily fanatical or intolerant. It's POSSIBLE for them to be so (Geert Wilders and Dov Lior being respective examples that instantly come to mind), like those of any belief system, but it's not the definition of either viewpoint.

This is not a defence of Yossi Gurwitz, about whom I admit I know nothing; but as a second/third generation atheist Jew, with some ultra-Orthodox relatives, I would like to argue against stereotypes of either group.

FWIW, many of the early Zionists were atheists and some of them came from Orthodox families. There is nothing intrinsically anti-Zionist, let alone fanatical, in turning from Orthodoxy to atheism.

[oberliner]

66. Try substituing the word "Muslim" for the word "Jew"

I would imagine that someone making a statement like that might have some antipathy towards the Muslim faith.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. Or Christian. So what?

Making a statement like what? How about instead of shooting the messenger, addressing what was actually said in the article? I'd be interested in seeing yr thoughts on it...

Just curious, but do you think the poem was antisemitic? If so, why?

[Ken Burch]

74. Even if that were the case, it would not equate to becoming a bigot against people of that faith

I doubt, for example, that Ayaan Hirsi Ali wants to see all observant Muslims physically exterminated. Or that George Carlin supported the massacre of all churchgoing Catholics. Or that did Lenny Bruce wanted to see the camps re-opened. The animosity such people feel is towards the doctrine they broke with, not towards ALL who still agree with it.

I don't actually have any really opinions about the Mr. Gurvitz, but it's hard to accept the idea that his having become a Jewish athiest means that he now harbors genocidal intent against observant Jews. As you, among others, have observed, a lot of the Jewish population of Israel itself is, in fact, secular(and quite resentful of the ultra-Orthodox who are exempted from work and military service and given a stipend to spend all their lives studying religious texts). So why should Mr. Gurvitz' current absence of religious involvement matter at all in evaluating his views?

[LeftishBrit]

141. Not necessarily at all.

I have a friend who's an ex-Muslim atheist, and one or two people have accused this person of being anti-Muslim; but they're not in the least - they just happen not to share the religion any more.

As I said in another post, some of the early Zionists were strong secularists who had come from an Orthodox original background. On the other hand, Neturei Karta are a sect of ultra-Orthodox Jews. I don't think one can infer too much about a person's politics, or prejudices, from their faith or lack of faith.

[oberliner]

143. Antisemitism: who gets to decide?

Gurvitz has proclaimed in the article presented within this thread that another person is not anti-semitic.

Gurvitz himself, however, refers to his transformation from Jew to Atheist and having "seen the light" which, at the very least, suggests that abandoning Judaism for atheism is something akin to going from darkness to understanding. An evolution, if you will. Is that not at least vaguely implicit in his statement?

Thus, he hardly seems to be fair arbiter on this particular question.

If a Muslim claimed to have abandoned Islam for atheism after having "seen the light" one might view their perception of anti-Muslim prejudices somewhat circumspectly.

[Crunchy Frog]

175. Just FYI. There are a HELL of a lot of posters on DU who were brought up in some religion

and have since abandoned that religion and become atheists. Many of them would surely use similar types of "seeing the light" terminology. It almost looks like you're suggesting that ALL of those posters are bigots. That seems rather bigoted in and of itself.

[oberliner]

176. I am not calling anyone a bigot

I am saying that if you say that you've seen the light and abandoned whatever religion you were raised in to become an atheist, then I would argue that you would not be a neutral arbiter in determining whether or not someone else is anti-whatever you used to be.

[Ken Burch]

72. The fact that he turned athiest is irrelevant

Ben-Gurion and his generation of Labor Zionists were all pretty much athiests as well.

[JackRiddler]

122. What an excellent thing. Too bad all religionists can't free themselves.

[oberliner]

130. What about Muslims?

Do you think it would be an "excellent thing" if they all "freed themselves" from Islam?

[JackRiddler]

139. It would be an excellent thing if all people freed themselves from faith-based religion.

[oberliner]

144. I would encourage you to spread that message across the Middle East

Let me know how that works out for you.

[JackRiddler]

147. The point is that your attempted character assassination on Yossi Gurvitz is irrelevant.

You just want to move everything away from the subject raised by Grass.

He's talking about the Israeli nuclear weapons.

Yossi Gurvitz defended him.

You come up with the utterly irrelevant information that Yossi Gurvitz as a young man stopped believing in Orthodox Jewish mythology, as though this is bad, or good, or relevant. It is not relevant. It is more attack-the-messenger.

The subject of this thread is the Israeli nuclear weapons arsenal, which Gunter Grass has made into an issue in Germany, a supplier of potential nuclear weapons delivery platforms (submarines) to Israel.

[oberliner]

154. No character assassination whatsoever

I have no reason to believe that Mr. Gurvitz isn't anything other than a person of exemplary character.

That he chose to characterize his conversion from Judaism to atheism as "seeing the light" on the short bio included on the site where he publishes is, at the very least, possibly relevant to his writings about antisemitism.

It helps give a sense of where he is coming from, just as if the writer had identified themselves as a former Muslim who "saw the light" and converted to Christianity or something else along those lines.

[ellisonz]

112. Utter nonsense. n/t

[Jefferson23]

159. Israel has reacted with hysteria over Gunter Grass

Author Gunter Grass sees the State of Israel as a threat to world peace. He believes Israel is armed with nuclear weapons, and is threatening Iran as the Islamic Republic looks to obtain a nuclear arsenal.

After the poem he published to this effect in the German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung last week drew extensive criticism, he asked to distinguish between the state and its government. It's not Israel that worries him, he said, but the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The reactions to Grass' claims focused on the man, not on his positions. Naysayers recalled his past as a soldier for the Third Reich - a past he concealed until late in life. Interior Minister Eli Yishai hurried to declare Grass persona non grata. Should he land at Ben-Gurion International Airport and hand his passport to the immigration control officers, he will be hurriedly escorted by burly policemen to the first Lufthansa flight back to Frankfurt - or, even better, to Munich, as befits someone who once followed der Fuhrer's orders.

The emotions can be understood, but it's hard to accept the overreaction. When the interior minister says, "If Gunter Grass wants to continue to distribute his false and distorted works, I suggest he do so from Iran, where he'll find an appreciative audience," he doesn't even detect the irony in his words. Because it's precisely his decision not to let Grass enter Israel because of a poem he wrote that is characteristic of dark regimes like those in Iran or North Korea.

The combination of declarations against Israel and a past as a Nazi soldier is an explosive combination that invites sharp reactions. But while Benjamin Netanyahu's remark describing Grass' work as "ignorant and shameful declarations that any fair person in the world must condemn" can be accepted as part of the public debate, Yishai's use of his governmental authority is not legitimate. Any protest should be expressed within the democratic-liberal framework, which allows every person to express his views - provocative though they may be.

Grass, a Nobel laureate for literature, did no more than write a poem. The State of Israel, through its interior minister, reacted with hysteria. It seems that at issue is less an undesirable person than an undesirable policy.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israel-has-reacted-with-hysteria-over-gunter-grass-1.423312

[shira]

160. When Grass claims Israel is about to annihilate Iranians, that's hysteria. n/t

[Jefferson23]

161. You've helped to make his point and often in this thread. n/t

[Jefferson23]

162. Small window of opportunity for a strike on Iran

If recent reports of a Netanyahu promise to postpone an attack on Iran until the fall are true, a possible strike would correspond with the pivotal weeks just before the American presidential election.

By Anshel Pfeffer

The headline of today's Maariv is extremely important, if true. It quotes American officials who say that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised not to carry out an attack on Iran before the fall.

Since most military analysts believe that Israel would almost certainly prefer to carry out a complex and difficult long-range attack on Iran in a period when the skies above the target are cloudless, that either means Israel has agreed to postpone the potential strike for at least another eleven months or that the window of opportunity is open now for September or October. In other words, during the crucial final stages of the American presidential elections campaign.

This seems to be the fear of Maariv's un-named administration sources, complaining that "Netanyahu refused to commit that Israel would not attack Iran before the elections in November 2012 and agreed to wait with a military operation only until the fall."

According to the paper, Netanyahu's reasoning is that "after fall, the Iranian nuclear installations will be in 'the immunity zone' from an Israeli strike and Israel will lose its independence to decide on military action."

We have no way of verifying this report but it does tally with what Barack Obama said two months ago - "I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do." And of course, it fits in with Netanyahu's tendency to play the internal American political arena.

Announcing that Israel may decide to attack Iran at the worst possible political timing puts pressure on Obama, and could potentially lead to some valuable American concessions to Israel, in exchange for an eventual commitment not to strike.

On the other hand, it could be a double-edged sword should Obama go on to win the elections in November, as the latest polls suggest.

Meanwhile, a comprehensive report in Sunday's Washington Post on America's intelligence operations within and regarding Iran seems to be intended, at least partly, to allay Israeli fears that a lack of accurate intelligence could allow Iran to quietly slip into the nuclear realm, as North Korea did in October 2006 when it shocked the world with its first nuclear test. It would seem that the report is directed at Iran to warn them that "we know what you are up to."

The unusually frank and open discussion by intelligence and administration officials on the apparently successful U.S. efforts and to penetrate the secret Persian kingdom was aimed at pressing this message:
"White House officials contend that Iran’s leaders have not decided to build a nuclear weapon, and they say it would take Iran at least a year to do so if it were to launch a crash program now. 'Even in the absolute worst case — six months — there is time for the president to have options,' said the senior U.S. official, one of seven current or former advisers on security policy who agreed to discuss U.S. options on Iran on the condition of anonymity."

On the tail of the long report, there was a very interesting detail – that despite the capture of one of the U.S.'s ultra-secret RQ-170 surveillance drones that fell in Iran four months ago and was displayed on Iranian television, the "Beast of Kandahar" is still silently overflying Iran, escaping radar detection.

At the time, the Iranians claimed that they had managed to penetrate the drone's control system, take it over and land it. I recently asked one of Israel Air Force's veteran drone experts if this was at all possible and he said that "it is virtually impossible. As humiliating as that was for the Americans, losing control of an unmanned plane, especially when it is on a long-range mission, far away from any of your bases, is not a rare occurrence."

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/the-axis-haaretz-iran-blog/small-window-of-opportunity-for-a-strike-on-iran-1.423573

[cali]

163. wowzer. how tone deaf and callous do you have to be to post a poem on this

by a former member of the SS?

It's just a terrible way to make an argument. Conscripted or not, it's just dumber than dumb.

[Jefferson23]

167. Your opinion on Grass is dumber than dumb and how callous of you but thanks for the kick. n/t

[cali]

174. why honeypie

you're just so clever. pathetic. but not surprising, sweetums.