By Bernard-Henri Levy
Submitted by correspondent Tom Ifrach
There is North Korea and its autistic tyrant, equipped with a by and large operational nuclear arsenal.
There is Pakistan, armed with warheads -- no one knows how many, nor precisely where they are located, nor what guarantees we have that they will not, one day, fall into the hands of groups linked to Al Qaeda.
There is Putin's Russia, which, in the space of two wars, has accomplished the exploit of exterminating a quarter of the population of Chechnya.
There is the butcher of Damascus, whose body count so far is at 10,000 and whose criminal stubbornness threatens the region's peace.
There is Iran, of course, whose leaders have made it known that their nuclear arms, when they will have acquired them, will serve to strike one of their neighbors.
In short, we are living on a planet where candidates for the most officially pyromaniac State, openly aiming at its own citizens and the surrounding populations, threatening the world with conflagrations or disasters unprecedented in decades, are by no means lacking.
Yet here is a European writer, one of the greatest and most eminent, for he is Nobel prize laureate Günter Grass, who has nothing better to do than to publish a poem in which he explains that there is only one serious threat hanging over our heads, and that this threat comes from a tiny country, one of the smallest in the world, one of the most vulnerable as well and, by the by, a democracy: the State of Israel.
This declaration filled the fanatics who reign in Tehran with pleasure, so much so that, through the intermediary of their Minister of Culture, Javad Shamaghdari, they could not wait to praise the "humanity" and the "spirit of responsibility" of the author of The Tin Drum.
It was the object of ecstatic comments in Germany and throughout the world, among all the Pavlovian cretins who confuse the refusal of the politically correct with the right to let loose and, in so doing, liberate the stench of the most pestilential of thoughts.
It was the occasion for the habitual and boring debate about the "mystery of the great writer capable of being a coward or a scoundrel" (Céline, Ezra Pound) or, worse still, about the "moral indignity, or the lie, that must never be literary arguments" (in consideration of which one permits throngs of sub-Célines or poor man's Pounds to wallow in abjection).
But, for the observer with a bit of common sense, the affair inspires three simple observations.
The poverty of spirit sometimes characteristic of great age. This terrible moment, which even the most glorious are not spared, when a sort of intellectual anosognosia causes all the dikes that usually hold back the flood of the ignominious to crumble. "Farewell, old man, and think of me if you have read me" (Lautréamont, -Maldoror , Chant 1).
Grass's own past. What he admitted six years ago, when he told of joining a Waffen SS unit at 17. How can one not think of it today? How can one fail to make the connection between the two sequences? Between this and that, between the Burgrave social democrat confessing that he learned the ropes under the Nazis and the scoundrel who declares today, like anyone else who is nostalgic for a fascism that has become taboo, that he can no longer remain silent, that what he is saying "must" be said, that the Germans are "already sufficiently burdened" (one wonders with what) without becoming, what's more, "complicit" in the present and future "crimes" of Israel. Isn't the connexion, unfortunately, patently obvious?
And then, Germany. Europe and Germany. Or Germany and Europe. This ill wind that blows across Europe and has filled the sails of what one is compelled to call a neo-antisemitism. No longer racist antisemitism. Nor Christian. Nor even anti-Christian. Nor, really, anticapitalist, as it was at the beginning of the 20th century. No. The new antisemitism. The one that has a chance of being audible and, before that, expressed, only if it can identify "being Jewish" with the supposedly criminal identity of the State of Israel, ready to launch its thunderbolts upon the innocent Iranian State. This is what Günter Grass is doing. And this is what makes this affair terribly indicative.
In my mind's eye, I can see Günter Grass in Berlin in 1983, on Willy Brandt's birthday.
I hear him, first from the rostrum, then sitting down at a table, surrounded by a small group of admirers, his hair thick, his speech dense, looking a bit like Bertolt Brecht in his oval-framed glasses, his heavy face, cheeks trembling with feigned emotion as he urges his comrades to look their famous "past that is not past" in the face.
And here he is, 30 years later, in the exact same situation of those men who suffer from a hole in the memory, unwitting fascists, unwillingly haunted, that he invited, that very night, to come to terms with their unspeakable reservations. Posture and imposture; a statue made of sand and a sideshow; the Commander was a Tartuffe, the teacher of morality the very incarnation of the immorality he assailed. Günter Grass, this big fish of letters, this turbot, frozen by 60 years of posing and lies, has finally decomposed. And that, to the letter, is what is called a debacle -- how sad.
__________________________________
The Three Myths that Distort Every Discussion
of Israel and the Middle East
Source: Rubin's Report
Submitted by correspondent Tom Ifrach
“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” –William Shakespeare, “Macbeth”
By Barry Rubin
Whatever side you are, or aren’t, on and whether you never think about these issues or are an impassioned activist, there are three fundamental issues about Israel, its enemies, and the Middle East that tie the narrative into knots.
Each of these wrong ideas, of course, has a basis in fact. The following points might appear counter-intuitive. But I will demonstrate their accuracy. And you can’t understand events without grasping them.
-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Please be subscriber 29,004. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------
1. 1, Israel’s existence is jeopardized.
There is no question that Israel’s existence is challenged or threatened by various forces, But it is essential to understand that those who want to destroy israel aren't and can't come close to succeeding. Every day, after 65 years of failure they are further from that goal. Israel becomes stronger on all levels. The economic and strategic gaps are getting wider, not narrower, for reasons much related to points two and three, below.
What is important is the country’s internal social and strategic strength, not what’s written about it in the Western media or said on Western campuses, for example.. Arab armies have repeatedly been defeated; terrorists repeatedly blocked; Israel has grown stronger and time is, indeed, on its side.
This should not lead to complacency—a mistake most clearly seen in the 1973 war and to some extent in the 2006 one--but to calm confidence. This does exist in Israel but not so much in sectors o the Diaspora Jewish communities, which themselves face higher threats to their existence either physically or due to assimilation, the attraction of leftist political ideology, and loss of direction.
Despite the sound and fury, much of the criticism and threats remain toothless. For instance, while the UN, European countries, and the European Union have wasted a lot of their time spouting nonsense about Israel it has amounted to little in material terms. The same is true of others.
Another key concept is that the extent of anti-Israel obsession in the public sphere is misleading. Dozens of countries, causes, and groups are vilified all the time, yet of them all none compares to Israel and its supporters in their ability to respond. It is the strength of the resistance that often increases the apparent volume of controversy.
Finally, the use of the Israel issue to fuel hysteria by dictatorships, radical Arab nationalists, and Islamists actually undermines the Arabic-speaking world, making it weaker and thus, ironically, less able to combat Israel.
Iran's drive for deliverable nuclear weapons--which it doesn't yet have--is worthy of discussion but this threat is quite manageable by Israel, both through offensive and defensive measures as well as given the fact that Iran's eagerness to commit suicide by nukiing Israel has been greatly exaggerated.
2. 2. The concerted international campaign by various groups in the West against Israel damages it and helps the Palestinians.
Again, this should be obviously true--that the tireless anti-Israel propaganda campaign materially damages Israel--but the truth is quite the opposite. To date, despite all the noise, Israeli interests—including businesses—have suffered little damage. On the contrary, the attacks encourage support, including increased buying of Israeli products and energetic loyalty by Israel’s supporters abroad.
But all of these endless demonstrations, teach-ins, books, articles, documentaries, boycott, disinvestment, and sanction labors do absolutely zero to help the Palestinians. On one level, they do nothing politically to advance their cause in a real way. On another level, they contribute nothing to their welfare.
Moreover, by convincing the Palestinian leadership that they can eliminate Israel completely, that Western support is swinging toward them, and that they don’t need to change their own policies or strategies, all of this behavior leads them charging down a dead-end street at the end of which it collides with a stone wall.
By encouraging the Palestinians and Arabs to fight in order to destroy Israel, when they cannot win, their well-wishes cause them to lose the two-state solution, which is indeed available to them, and to throw away years of time, millions of dollars, and thousands of lives.
Imagine—as the activists in these movements have never done!—that all of this energy went into buying Palestinian products, donating to improve Palestinian schools and hospitals, resettling refugees and providing them with productive jobs and housing. That would be truly pro-Palestinian. And even if the intention was to use this progress as a base for destroying Israel some day it would be more effective than what they are doing now.
And so all of this energy is wasted effort and this hatred produces no result.
Of course, since most of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been engaged in stealing aid money and funneling it into their private bank accounts, admittedly these activists don’t have a very good role model to follow. And since the leadership’s goal is to keep its people poor and living in refugee camps in order to use them as revolutionary fodder and an object of sympathy these activists don’t have much incentive to do real good.
3. 3. Israel is the main cause of instability in the Middle East.
On one level, of course, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been a basis for instability. Yet the proportion of the oveall instability inherent in the Middle East caused by Israel is in fact relatively small. People ignorant of all the other issues in the region have only heard of that one controversy. Beyond that, though, consider what would be different if Israel didn’t exist.
Implicitly, this is thought by most Arabs and Muslims to be the basis for a united utopian society stretching from Morocco through Afghanistan. But that’s precisely the point. What kind of society would that be? Who—what leader, country, and ideology, would lead it? Who gets to be the caliph?
In other words, if Israel didn’t exist the level of internal conflict and bloodshed would be even higher. There would be nothing—including the territorial separation that Israel provides—to stop these leaders, movements, countries, and ideologies from being at each other’s throats. Tremendous wars between countries would spill oceans of blood. Decades’-long Sunni-Shia conflicts would enflame the lands. Endless internal strife would bring civil wars that would dwarf what we’ve seen in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.
Even with Israel, instability of this kind is bad enough, though it is far less noticed than it would be otherwise. The same applies, by the way, to the Arab-Israeli conflict whose end—which will not come anytime soon—would have the same effect, unleashing more internal confllcts and battles among states.
One final point: because much of the thought and political action on the Middle East is in the wrong direction, running against the realities, the main effect is to confuse those watching from outside the region and engaging in these activities. Yet, disregarding all of this noise, what actually exists marches forward. Or to use an Arab proverb, the dogs bark; the caravan moves on.
