Grass II – The Question not Asked

The Dutch coffee shop owner told me that as he has never heard of Gunter it couldn’t be high quality. Whatever the quality, Günter Grass’ anti-Israel stanza has caused much excitement, especially in Germany and in Israel.

Grass may be a fading old writer hankering after publicity. Maybe anti-Semitism has also played a role. Stupidly or maliciously he suggested that in a pre-emptive strike, Israel would annihilate the Iranian population. This is an outrageous accusation. He could have posed a morally tougher question:

The purpose of Israel’s nuclear weapons is for its enemies to believe that under certain circumstances they would be used. If Israel’s existence would be at risk, it would make use of these doomsday weapons.

For that to be an effective deterrent, it must be understood that an attack on Israel could lead to mutual destruction.

I expect that Grass, like many other non-Israelis if asked whether Israel should use its nuclear weapons AFTER it was attacked – would say NO. They would condemn the country that destroyed Israel, they would offer condolences to the bereaved, but they would not accept a counterattack.

Grass’s moral issue should have been the possible use by Israel of U-boats supplied by Germany to accomplish such an eye-for-an-eye.

Yishai on Grass is not Potty

Eli Yishai, Israel’s minister of the interior, a man who has probably never heard of, let alone read Günter Grass, has announced that Grass would not be permitted to enter Israel. This hysterical and populist announcement makes Israel more similar to Iran than to the West, it so very much hopes to be part of.

Shas, Yishai’s party, with its ten out of the 120 members of Israel’s parliament, has remarkable parallels with Iran: ultraorthodox, hatred spreading and homophobe. Like Iran, there is a man who runs government and there is a supreme spiritual leader. Rabbi Ovadia Joseph, Shas's supreme leader himself, is not a member of Israel’s government. He leaves that to Yishai and his colleagues who in turn obey their spiritual leader's instructions.

And now, the physical similarity: Israel’s Rabbi with his Deputy Prime Minister Yishai and Iran’s Ayatollah with President Ahmadinejad.

Günter Grass

In a poem published yesterday, Günter Grass has informed the world that he is worried about Israel’s possible use of German supplied U-boats to fire nuclear missiles at Iran. I hope that the Iranians share his worry, although, I also would not want Israel to initiate an attack on Iran.

At a time, when Iran is being pressurised to give up its nuclear ambition, an important question is whether it is morally right for Israel to possess nuclear weapons. Not one of the (other) eight countries that currently have nuclear weapons has enemies threatening them with extinction. Yet, Israel, from the first day of its existence, has been under the threat of destruction. The world stood by when Arab countries threatened to wipe out the “Zionist entity”, as they used to call Israel, and it stands by with Iran promising that the Jewish state would disappear.

Israel has never conceded to having a bomb and therefore has never threatened anyone with its nuclear power. But, would it not be legitimate for Israel to make it clear that before its existence would be in jeopardy, it would use its nuclear weapons?

Grass speaks of Israel the nuclear power that endangers world peace; of Israel that could in a pre-emptive strike wipe out the Iranian people. He does not define Iran as a country that endangers world peace. Iran, whose existence is not in danger nor has it been threatened, is working towards becoming a nuclear power. Why?

Grass makes much of what he says was his own difficulty in speaking out against Israel. In his own version of “some of my best friends are Jews” Grass assures us that he is committed to the Land of Israel (mind you, he speaks of the land not the state). I have no idea and that is not the issue, but there have been suggestions that anti-Semitism is rearing its head out of the Grass.

He would have been on safer ground had he attacked Israel on its occupation of the West Bank and the settlement of Israelis in the occupied territories. Unlike the Iranian question, this is an issue that has nothing to do with survival or security. It is just morally wrong. But in his poem, Grass dealt with his own angsts rather than with issues of morality.

Move the Games to Greece

The Olympic games were created in the 8^th century BC in Greece, where they were held until the end of the fourth century AD. The games were revived at the end of the 19^th century and are now held in a different country every four years.

Every four years another city spends horrendous and ever-increasing amounts of money to build stadia, Olympic villages and facilities that are way too big for the host countries to use after the games are over. Host countries regularly overspend, squander moneys and create unnecessary chaos in the host cities.

New York is the permanent home of the UN and its General Assembly, Davos annually hosts the World Economic Forum. Why not make Greece the permanent home of the games?

By moving the games back to Greece, we would not only save billions spent on unnecessary facilities, we would also inject a much-needed investment into Greece. Building state of the art Olympic facilities would create jobs and help to bring down Greece’s very high unemployment. (More than fifty per-cent unemployment in the 15-24 year-olds).

This would be money much better spent than the billions of Euros sunk into worthless Greek bonds. Moreover, it would also boost Greece’s self-esteem and give the country its pride back.

Sending the Games back to Greece is a win-win strategy. The only losers would be the members of the International Olympic Committee that decides where games are held. They would be out of work. Now that brings a smile to my face.

In the News: Dick Cheney Gets a New Heart

I cannot be the only person to have asked himself how history would have fared had Dick Cheney had his heart transplant before he became Vice President.

Have Barak’s and Netanyahu’s Military Service Maimed Them for Life?

Israelis are drafted to the army at the age of eighteen. For most of them, it is the first time they leave home. For most, it is also the first “job” they have. Thus, these become formative years for many. Existing character traits are strengthened and work ethic and norms are shaped and instilled.

Sayeret Matkal, Israel’s elite commando unit, trains its members to achieve their objectives, often beyond enemy lines, at any price. It is all about achieving a specific target, crushing a specific opponent that must be overcome, without allowing other issues to deflect them from their mission. They operate in very small teams and are trained to trust no one but their team partners. To that end, the Matkal Commando seeks out applicants with suitable personalities and further reinforces these qualities.

The two men leading Israel, Minister of Defence Barak and Prime Minister Netanyahu, are veterans of this elite unit. The two men have exposed the traits that make the Matkal commando work, trusting no one and operating within their own closed bubble, throughout their political careers.

Could it be that these two men, who lead Israel into what may be a horrendous war, are unfit for the job? Have they defined a mission and are unable to see the bigger picture?

Rejected by Her Majesty

The Queen is giving me the silent treatment: Her Majesty has not bothered to react to my suggestion that she give her art collection as a present to the nation to celebrate her sixty years on the throne.

This probably means that I am unlikely to be knighted for this idea. Shame. I liked the sound of "Sir David".

On Attacking Iran II

Last week’s question brought many comments: nearly all opposing an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites. Many just said no without explaining why. Others gave reasons.

I was somewhat puzzled by the comment that Israel had no moral case as it had “acquired nuclear weapons clandestinely and so lacks the moral authority to act against other nations that do the same.” Unlike Iran, Israel has never threatened any other state with eradication. Is self-defence not good enough moral authority?

In the whirlpool of psychological warfare on the Iranian nuclear programme, it is important to note that senior heads and former heads of Israel’s Mossad and other Israeli security services have spoken out against an Israeli attack.

Interestingly, troublemakers nowadays do not seem to make clear demands. I do not recall any demands made by Al-Qaida, nor has Iran named its demands. I wonder what would have happened if Iran would have announced to the world that were Israel to go back to the 1967 borders it would dismantle its nuclear facilities. It would give Iran a great climb-down with brownie points almost everywhere.

Well, Mr. Ahmadinejad, worth trying? Please note that this is my second piece of retainer-free advice to Ahmadinejad this year (see my blog on 11 January).

Should Israel Attack Iran?

Iran has on many occasions made it clear that the State of Israel should not and will not exist for much longer. They have supplied their proxies on Israel's borders, the Hamas and Hezbollah, with weapons and they now have a nuclear weapons programme that they will not give up.

We are currently in the midst of an increasingly heated psychological warfare campaign and disinformation effort of which it is impossible to make sense. However, it appears that Israel has failed in its attempts to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear capability.

Although, the idea of a nuclear Iran makes many very uncomfortable, the only country that is openly and aggressively being threatened by Iran is Israel.

There is some similarity to 1967, when Nasser moved his army into the Sinai, threw out the UN peacekeepers, closed the straits of Tiran and declared that finally Israel would be annihilated.

Should Israel go out on a pre-emptive strike?

The Queen and I

It has been reported that the British government is pushing a plan to buy a new yacht for the Queen as a present to celebrate her 60^th anniversary on the throne. Prince Charles – not surprisingly – is all for it.

The Queen does not have to try to be popular – she is popular. She is generally liked as well as respected by her subjects. But, if the Queen would take my advice, instead of that of her ministers, she would be doing the right thing. Right for her and right for us.

Instead of getting the taxpayers or some rich sponsors to buy her a yacht, the Queen should make a substantial present to us, to her subjects, to show her gratitude for being allowed to reign over us.

What I want is the Royal Collection: 7000 painting, 40,000 water colours and drawings and 150,000 old master prints. That is all. This enormous art collection is not privately owned by the Queen but held by her in trust, as the sovereign. So, it would not really cost her or her children anything.

The time has come for all those works of art to be openly and freely available to everyone. They should not be locked in the royal residences and only shown occasionally and partially at the Queens Gallery, where the Queen actually charges entrance fees.

So how about it, Ma’am?