About the text Was gesagt werden muss (What has to be said), by Günter Grass, published on April 4, 2012 in Süddeutschen Zeitung.
When he wrote the text about the effects of the situation regarding the Iranian supposed work for a nuclear weapon, and did it in a form which he felt he could use better than an other one, the form of a poem, then he is telling us what we have thought ourselves. Or at least with one major difference regarding myself, that is the use of nuclear force on the part of Israel. Actually he is not literally writing this. But it might sound like it when reading the text. All this might very well show the power of the form of a poem. It opens up for interpretations, if you as the reader do not literally read what the text is saying. It is like reading al-Quran or the Bible or another literally or idiomatically formed text. Without saying anything about the content of it.
A comment on the text (german) is given by Thomas Steinfeldt, editor of Culture at Süddeutschen Zeitung. Regarding comments it has to be said that a word in the text of Grass has been wrongly translated in a swedish quoting on the net by the paper Svenska Dagbladet, and in the english translation by Bert Lux. The word Wahn, means mistake, illusion – nothing else. Giving the outline of the last paragraph of the Grass text.
There are two major problems related to this text. Or rather what it talks about. Two special ones which have to be analysed and discussed. Because they are more principal than the understandable words of active defence given from Israeli politicians.
1. Since the story starts when Iranian authorities talked about preparing nuclear fuel for atomic plants, it also contents the possibility to make nuclear weapons.
Since the revolution in 1979 the people of Iran knows it did not go the way it was meant. This means there are internal problems. Problems that for a weak government means the need of creating an enemy that do not exist. Threatening someone extra hard might at the end make up the enemy, to gather the people against. Probably it is not the ayatollahs really ruling anymore. The upper echelon of the Revolutionary Guard have placed people at important places in the politics, economy, military, and more. Highly possibly the president Ahmadinejad is one of the placed ones. Shortly there is an internal struggle regarding power.
The Clinton administration made a decision in 1999, which might have placed the situation into what it has become. The administration refused to support the student insurrection that started in Teheran July 8, and spread out through the country. Ongoing rebellions do only show that Iran do have internal problems. It might have gone so far that the government now tries to gather the inhabitants, hoping for the provoked attack to become real. What an international blockade may create within the country is a big question.
The government of Iran have supported the Hizbollah in Libanon, so the Israeli irritation is fully understandable. As well as the irritation towards the Israeli handling of the situation.
The future of Iran is still in the hands of the Iranian women and the students.
2. The creation of the state of Israel have become a bigger problem in the area than anyone might have imagined, when it took place in 1948. The UN asked David Ben-Gurion not to declare the state, and the orthodox jews did not accept the declaration because it is only Messiah whom can declare the state of Israel.
The immediately started war, initiated by five Arabic neighbour countries (Iraq included), ended in a armistice 1949 which became the catastrophy of the civilians on both sides. A catastrophy still going on. The most positive going on today is the existence of people, both Palestinians and Israelis, whom want one nation with two people. This is the best, but maybe most hard, solution of the problem of the much too long conflict about an area of land and the right to live there.
The conflict in Palestine – Israel is a heritage and habit for too many generations. The base conflict from 1948 has to be solved. Instead of following the original UN Partition Plan from 1947 - a concept with two states - it is better to follow the local initiative having one country for two nations, which in the long run will also become one.
Then Günter Grass will have something even more interesting to write about.
Lennart Arivall
