12 April 2012, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
Israel will not stand idly by as thousands of activists prepare to arrive on Sunday; it will not miss an opportunity to look ridiculous in the eyes of the world.
By Gideon Levy
And with what shall we frighten the Israeli public in advance of the seventh day of Passover? How will we provide the dose of fear to which it has long since become addicted? After a week of a quiet and safe vacation, we have to find something, after all. The Iranian threat has entered a negotiations freeze, terror is quiet, even the Grad missiles have diminished in number, there is no mass plague on the horizon and even the circumstances of the attack against the Jew in Kiev have not become sufficiently clear.
But Israel has not been abandoned, and the Israeli mind finally hit on something: the pro-Palestinian fly-in "provocation," as it has already been called. The minister of public security is convening feverish consultations, the airlines have received the "blacklist" prepared in advance by the omniscient security networks, the crime reporter - of course this is about crime, what else? - has already been sent to Ben-Gurion International Airport to greet the looming danger.
Israel is prepared for D-Day this coming Sunday. They say 2,500 activists will land in Israel and sow great fear. Although the crime reporter explained to the nation that the activists do not plan to bear arms or resort to violence, still, when it comes to danger, to terror, to scare-mongering, the forces are already prepared for the big day. The last time, about a year ago, it ended with 127 detainees who were immediately expelled, as they deserved, and the danger was nipped in the bud.
The intentions of the organizers - a visit to demonstrate solidarity with the Palestinian people, a trip directly from Ben-Gurion to Bethlehem without any violent intent - were immediately blurred and replaced with the usual Israeli accusation: terror and delegitimization. As we accuse any peace lover or human rights activist.
Had Israel not inflated the story to such terrifying dimensions, few people would have paid attention to this innocent protest. Had Israel also welcomed them warmly and sent them on their way to Bethlehem, that would have embarrassed them and even undermined their objective. But the State of Israel will not stand by idly. It certainly won't miss an opportunity to look ridiculous and even more contemptible in the eyes of the world. It will immediately turn them into personae non grata, as it did to Gunter Grass, as well as an airborne threat.
Entry into Israel is permitted only to its declared friends. Not a Spanish clown and not a German writer, certainly not human rights activists. An ignorant, extremist, Christian American right-winger is welcome; an intellectual, conscientious European left-winger is sent to the expulsion cell. Israel 2012.
In the case of flotillas as well as fly-ins, these are activists, most of whom mean well. The Swedish writer Henning Mankell turned to us before the most recent flotilla to Gaza: "For once report the truth. Don't you see that there is no declaration of war here, but a declaration of peace?" And of course his words fell on deaf ears. Mankell participated in two flotillas to Gaza, was expelled twice from Israel in disgrace, and published his harsh impressions in the world's leading newspapers.
Had Israel not confiscated his computer and his property and treated him like a terrorist, his impressions would have been different. Had Israel invited him to present its viewpoint, perhaps his criticism would have been less harsh. Mankell and his friends will not give up. Now another flotilla is being organized in Sweden, this time on a sailboat carrying flowers, which we will probably also treat as though it were an aircraft carrier about to attack Israel.
The roots of this paranoia are deep and thought-provoking. Were Israel convinced of the justice of its path, it wouldn't behave this way. If Israel really thought the occupation is just and legal, it wouldn't be frightened by every conscientious activist who opposes it. If it had nothing to hide, it would respectfully invite them to visit.
But when the ground is burning beneath our feet, and the fire of doubt and insecurity is consuming everything, the only response is a violent and unrestrained attack. On Sunday, when the farce of arrests and the grotesque expulsion take place once again, the activists will register another significant victory: Once again they will prove that Israel does have something to hide, that in spite of all its propaganda, Israel is well aware that there are skeletons in its closet and anyone who dares come near them will suffer the same fate - expulsion.
Mostrando postagens com marcador Grass. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Grass. Mostrar todas as postagens
sexta-feira, 13 de abril de 2012
GÜNTER THE TERRIBLE
12 April 2012, Gush Shalom גוש שלום http://zope.gush-shalom.org (Israel)
Uri Avnery אורי אבנרי
STOP ME if I have told you this joke before:
Somewhere in the US, a demonstration takes place. The police arrive and beat the protesters mercilessly.
“Don’t hit me,” someone shouts, “I am an anti-communist!”
“I couldn't give a damn what kind of a communist you are!” a policeman answers as he raises his baton.
THE FIRST time I told this joke was when a German group visited the Knesset and met with German-born members, including me.
They went out of their way to praise Israel, lauding everything we had been doing, condemning every bit of criticism, however harmless it might be. It became downright embarrassing, since some of us in the Knesset were very critical of our government’s policy in the occupied territories.
For me, this extreme kind of pro-Semitism is just disguised anti-Semitism. Both have a basic belief in common: that Jews – and therefore Israel – are something apart, not to be measured by the standards applied to everybody else.
What is an anti-Semite? Somebody who hates a Jew because he is a Jew. He does not hate him for what he is as a human being, but for his origin. A Hebrew or a Shebrew (to quote a joke from Ambrose Bierce) may be good or bad, nice or nasty, rich or poor – for being Jewish, they must be hated.
This is of course true for any kind of prejudice, including sexism, Islamophobia, chauvinism and whatever.
Germans, as is their wont, are a bit more thorough here than others. The term “Antisemitismus” was invented by a German (a few years before the terms Zionism and Feminism), and anti-Semitism was the official ideology of Germany during the Nazi years. Now the official German ideology is pro-Semitism, again going to extremes.
Another Nazi word was “Sonderbehandlung”, meaning ‘”special treatment”. It was an euphemism for something abhorrent: the killing of prisoners. But special treatment can also mean the opposite: according people and countries especially nice treatment, not because of what they do, but because of what they are - Jewish, say.
Well, I don’t like it, even when I am on the receiving end. I like to be praised when I have done something good, I am ready to be blamed when I have done something bad. I don’t like to be praised (or blamed, for that matter) because I happen to have been born a Jew.
THIS BRINGS us, of course, to Günter Grass.
Disclosure: I met him only once, when we were both invited to a conference of the German PEN Club in Berlin. During an interval I met him in a very good restaurant. I told him, quite truthfully, that I like his books very much, especial the anti-Nazi novel “The Tin Drum”, and that I like his later political activity. That was all.
I did not meet him during his many visits to Israel. On at least one of them he acquired a girl-friend, a well-known writer.
Now Grass has done the unthinkable: he has openly criticized the State of Israel! And he a German!!!
The reaction was automatic. He was at once branded as an anti-Semite. Not just a run-of-the-mill anti-Semite, but as a crypto-Nazi, who could easily have served as a henchman of Adolf Eichmann! This was shown by the fact that at age 17, near the end of World War II, he was recruited to the Waffen-SS like tens of thousands of others and then – oddly enough – kept the fact hidden for many years. So there you are.
Israeli and German politicians and commentators vied with each other in cursing the writer, with the Germans easily trumping the Israelis. Though our Interior Minister, Eli Yishai, may have garnered the individual championship by declaring Grass persona non grata and banning him from entering Israel for all eternity (at least).
Yishai is a political hack, who has never written a line worth remembering. He is the leader of the Orthodox Shas party, not by virtue of being elected, but as a sidekick of the party’s strongman, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. The powerful State Comptroller is accusing him of gross incompetence in connection with a giant fire on Mount Carmel and so his career is in danger. Grass came just at the right time to save his skin.
SO WHAT did Grass actually say? In a poem of 69 lines – actually a polemic in the guise of a poem – under the headline “What Has To Be Said”, Grass attacks Israeli policy concerning the atom bomb.
The ferocious counter-attack was focused almost completely on the axiom that a German has no right to criticize Israel, under any circumstances.
Let’s ignore this “argument” and look at the poem itself, not necessarily as a literary masterpiece.
Grass’ basic theme is that Israel already has a “nuclear potential”, and that it is therefore hypocrisy to blame Iran for perhaps wanting to acquire one, too. In particular he denounced the German government for supplying another submarine to Israel.
Looked at rationally, do his arguments make sense?
Grass assumes that Israel is planning a “first strike” preventive war against Iran, in which the Iranian people could be “wiped out”. This possibility only makes sense if Grass assumes that the Israeli “first strike” would be an attack with nuclear bombs. Indeed, the term “first strike” belongs solely to the lexicon of nuclear war.
It is in this context that he condemns the German government for giving Israel another (sixth) submarine with the capability of launching nuclear bombs. Such submarines are designed for delivering a “second strike” by a nation hit in the “first strike”. It is basically a weapon of deterrence.
He deplores the fact that nobody in Germany (and in the Western world) dares even to mention Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and that it is practically forbidden to “call that particular country by name” in this context.
He then asserts that “the Atomic Power Israel endangers the fragile peace of the world”.
To avert this danger, he proposes that “Israel’s atomic potential and Iran’s atomic installations” be put under an unfettered and permanent international inspection regime with the agreement of both governments.
At the end, he also mentions the Palestinians. Only this way, he says, can the Israelis and the Palestinians, and all the other inhabitants of this “region occupied by madness”, be helped.
WELL, I did not fall off my chair when I read this. The text can and must be criticized, but there is nothing there that demands stern condemnation.
As I said before, I see no reason for Germans to abstain from criticizing Israel. There is nothing in this text that de-legitimizes the State of Israel, On the contrary, he declares his solidarity with Israel. He explicitly mentions the Holocaust as an indelible crime. He also calls the Iranians “a people enslaved by a “bigmouth”.
That said, Grass’ idea that Israel might “wipe out” the Iranian people in a preventive “first strike” is wildly exaggerated.
I have already stated several times that all the Israeli and American blabbering about an Israeli attack on Iran is a part of the US-led psychological warfare to press the Iranian leaders to give up their (presumed) nuclear ambitions. It is totally impossible for Israel to attack Iran without express prior American agreement, and it is totally impossible for America to attack - or let Israel attack - because of the catastrophic consequences – a collapse of the world economy and a long and costly war.
Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the Israeli government indeed decides to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. This would not “wipe out” the Iranian people, or even a part of it. Only madmen would use nuclear bombs for this purpose. Israeli leaders, whatever one may think of them, are not mad.
Even if Israel had (or obtained from the US) tactical nuclear bombs with limited power and radius, the world reaction to their use would be catastrophic.
By the way, it is not by their own choice that Israeli governments have a policy of nuclear non-transparency. If they could, our leaders would brag about our nuclear might from the rooftops. It’s the US that insists on opaqueness, so as not to be obliged to do something about it.
Grass’ contention that Israel endangers “world peace” is, therefore, a bit of an overstatement.
As for Glass’ practical proposal to subject both Israeli and Iranian nuclear installations to international inspection – I think this merits serious consideration. If both our countries freeze the nuclear status quo, it may not be a bad idea at all.
In the end, though, we need a nuclear-free region as part of a general regional peace that will include Israel, Palestine, the Arab League, Turkey and Iran.
AS FOR Günter Grass, I shall be happy to meet him again, this time for a good meal in Tel Aviv.
Uri Avnery אורי אבנרי
STOP ME if I have told you this joke before:
Somewhere in the US, a demonstration takes place. The police arrive and beat the protesters mercilessly.
“Don’t hit me,” someone shouts, “I am an anti-communist!”
“I couldn't give a damn what kind of a communist you are!” a policeman answers as he raises his baton.
THE FIRST time I told this joke was when a German group visited the Knesset and met with German-born members, including me.
They went out of their way to praise Israel, lauding everything we had been doing, condemning every bit of criticism, however harmless it might be. It became downright embarrassing, since some of us in the Knesset were very critical of our government’s policy in the occupied territories.
For me, this extreme kind of pro-Semitism is just disguised anti-Semitism. Both have a basic belief in common: that Jews – and therefore Israel – are something apart, not to be measured by the standards applied to everybody else.
What is an anti-Semite? Somebody who hates a Jew because he is a Jew. He does not hate him for what he is as a human being, but for his origin. A Hebrew or a Shebrew (to quote a joke from Ambrose Bierce) may be good or bad, nice or nasty, rich or poor – for being Jewish, they must be hated.
This is of course true for any kind of prejudice, including sexism, Islamophobia, chauvinism and whatever.
Germans, as is their wont, are a bit more thorough here than others. The term “Antisemitismus” was invented by a German (a few years before the terms Zionism and Feminism), and anti-Semitism was the official ideology of Germany during the Nazi years. Now the official German ideology is pro-Semitism, again going to extremes.
Another Nazi word was “Sonderbehandlung”, meaning ‘”special treatment”. It was an euphemism for something abhorrent: the killing of prisoners. But special treatment can also mean the opposite: according people and countries especially nice treatment, not because of what they do, but because of what they are - Jewish, say.
Well, I don’t like it, even when I am on the receiving end. I like to be praised when I have done something good, I am ready to be blamed when I have done something bad. I don’t like to be praised (or blamed, for that matter) because I happen to have been born a Jew.
THIS BRINGS us, of course, to Günter Grass.
Disclosure: I met him only once, when we were both invited to a conference of the German PEN Club in Berlin. During an interval I met him in a very good restaurant. I told him, quite truthfully, that I like his books very much, especial the anti-Nazi novel “The Tin Drum”, and that I like his later political activity. That was all.
I did not meet him during his many visits to Israel. On at least one of them he acquired a girl-friend, a well-known writer.
Now Grass has done the unthinkable: he has openly criticized the State of Israel! And he a German!!!
The reaction was automatic. He was at once branded as an anti-Semite. Not just a run-of-the-mill anti-Semite, but as a crypto-Nazi, who could easily have served as a henchman of Adolf Eichmann! This was shown by the fact that at age 17, near the end of World War II, he was recruited to the Waffen-SS like tens of thousands of others and then – oddly enough – kept the fact hidden for many years. So there you are.
Israeli and German politicians and commentators vied with each other in cursing the writer, with the Germans easily trumping the Israelis. Though our Interior Minister, Eli Yishai, may have garnered the individual championship by declaring Grass persona non grata and banning him from entering Israel for all eternity (at least).
Yishai is a political hack, who has never written a line worth remembering. He is the leader of the Orthodox Shas party, not by virtue of being elected, but as a sidekick of the party’s strongman, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. The powerful State Comptroller is accusing him of gross incompetence in connection with a giant fire on Mount Carmel and so his career is in danger. Grass came just at the right time to save his skin.
SO WHAT did Grass actually say? In a poem of 69 lines – actually a polemic in the guise of a poem – under the headline “What Has To Be Said”, Grass attacks Israeli policy concerning the atom bomb.
The ferocious counter-attack was focused almost completely on the axiom that a German has no right to criticize Israel, under any circumstances.
Let’s ignore this “argument” and look at the poem itself, not necessarily as a literary masterpiece.
Grass’ basic theme is that Israel already has a “nuclear potential”, and that it is therefore hypocrisy to blame Iran for perhaps wanting to acquire one, too. In particular he denounced the German government for supplying another submarine to Israel.
Looked at rationally, do his arguments make sense?
Grass assumes that Israel is planning a “first strike” preventive war against Iran, in which the Iranian people could be “wiped out”. This possibility only makes sense if Grass assumes that the Israeli “first strike” would be an attack with nuclear bombs. Indeed, the term “first strike” belongs solely to the lexicon of nuclear war.
It is in this context that he condemns the German government for giving Israel another (sixth) submarine with the capability of launching nuclear bombs. Such submarines are designed for delivering a “second strike” by a nation hit in the “first strike”. It is basically a weapon of deterrence.
He deplores the fact that nobody in Germany (and in the Western world) dares even to mention Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and that it is practically forbidden to “call that particular country by name” in this context.
He then asserts that “the Atomic Power Israel endangers the fragile peace of the world”.
To avert this danger, he proposes that “Israel’s atomic potential and Iran’s atomic installations” be put under an unfettered and permanent international inspection regime with the agreement of both governments.
At the end, he also mentions the Palestinians. Only this way, he says, can the Israelis and the Palestinians, and all the other inhabitants of this “region occupied by madness”, be helped.
WELL, I did not fall off my chair when I read this. The text can and must be criticized, but there is nothing there that demands stern condemnation.
As I said before, I see no reason for Germans to abstain from criticizing Israel. There is nothing in this text that de-legitimizes the State of Israel, On the contrary, he declares his solidarity with Israel. He explicitly mentions the Holocaust as an indelible crime. He also calls the Iranians “a people enslaved by a “bigmouth”.
That said, Grass’ idea that Israel might “wipe out” the Iranian people in a preventive “first strike” is wildly exaggerated.
I have already stated several times that all the Israeli and American blabbering about an Israeli attack on Iran is a part of the US-led psychological warfare to press the Iranian leaders to give up their (presumed) nuclear ambitions. It is totally impossible for Israel to attack Iran without express prior American agreement, and it is totally impossible for America to attack - or let Israel attack - because of the catastrophic consequences – a collapse of the world economy and a long and costly war.
Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the Israeli government indeed decides to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. This would not “wipe out” the Iranian people, or even a part of it. Only madmen would use nuclear bombs for this purpose. Israeli leaders, whatever one may think of them, are not mad.
Even if Israel had (or obtained from the US) tactical nuclear bombs with limited power and radius, the world reaction to their use would be catastrophic.
By the way, it is not by their own choice that Israeli governments have a policy of nuclear non-transparency. If they could, our leaders would brag about our nuclear might from the rooftops. It’s the US that insists on opaqueness, so as not to be obliged to do something about it.
Grass’ contention that Israel endangers “world peace” is, therefore, a bit of an overstatement.
As for Glass’ practical proposal to subject both Israeli and Iranian nuclear installations to international inspection – I think this merits serious consideration. If both our countries freeze the nuclear status quo, it may not be a bad idea at all.
In the end, though, we need a nuclear-free region as part of a general regional peace that will include Israel, Palestine, the Arab League, Turkey and Iran.
AS FOR Günter Grass, I shall be happy to meet him again, this time for a good meal in Tel Aviv.
O POEMA DA CONTROVÉRSIA
11 abril 2012, Vermelho http://www.vermelho.org.br (Brasil)
A polêmica vai continuar, porque, de fato, Günter Grass pôs um dedo na ferida, uma ferida de muitas camadas, que remonta ao holocausto, ao silêncio sobre o holocausto depois da guerra, aos levantes de 68 (que, na Alemanha, levantaram o questionamento às gerações mais antigas - "onde você estava e o que fez durante o nazismo?"), e também ao silêncio posterior diante das atitudes belicistas dos governos isralenses, em particular o último, de Benyamin Netanyahu.
Por Flávio Aguiar*
O escritor alemão e prêmio Nobel de literatura (1999) Günter Grass causou enorme polêmica na Alemanha, na Europa e em Israel publicando, na semana passada, o poema abaixo em vários jornais europeus. O poema critica seu próprio país por vender mais um submarino à Israel, com capacidade para lançar mísseis armados até com ogivas nucleares. Critica o governo israelense "por ameaçar a já frágil paz mundial" com a possibilidade de um ataque ao Irã, por este supostamente estar preparando um arsenal nuclear.
Para o escritor quem certamente tem armas nucleares se propõe a atacar quem apenas se supõe estar construindo uma, sem se ter ainda prova cabal disso. Além disso, Günter Grass (autor, dentre outros, do romance "Die Blechtrommel", "O tambor de lata" - que também virou filme) critica seu próprio silêncio sobre o tema esse tempo todo, atribuindo-o a um sentimento de culpa que permanece na cultura de seu país (culpa que ele considera justificada). Ao final, o poema diz que ambos os países deveriam colocar suas atividades nucleares sob supervisão da ONU.
O poema caiu como uma bomba em diferentes meios. Primeiro, na própria Alemanha, onde criticar qualquer coisa a respeito de Israel é (compreensivelmente) tabu.
A mídia liberal rejeitou o poema, e suas críticas. Houve até quem chamasse Günter Grass (hoje com 84 anos) de "velho senil" querendo chamar a atenção. Muitos representantes de associações judaicas também criticaram veementemente o poema. Günter foi acusado de antissemita, e outras críticas interpretaram que seu poema fortalecia Ahmadinejad, os aiatolás e o Irã, comparando-o, "equivocadamente", a Israel. Outros consideraram o poema um equívoco do ponto de vista literário.
Mas houve quem saísse em sua defesa também. Escritores, artistas e membros do establishment cultural alemão rejeitaram a acusação de antissemitismo, lembrando que Grass sempre se posicionou favoravalmente à existência de Israel (algo que fica também implícito no próprio poema). Ainda houve também quem dissesse que o poema era exagerado (sobretudo ao dizer que Israel poderia exterminar o povo iraniano), mas que levantava um assunto que se necessitava debater.
Os partidos políticos não se pronunciaram oficialmente. Porém, em geral, os políticos da Linke aprovaram a atitude de Grass. Os do SPD se dividiram, uns apoiando Grass, outros criticando. Isso é muito relevante, porque Grass sempre se posicionou a favor do SPD. Muitos do Partido Verde criticaram o poema, mas deixaram claro que não endossavam a acusação de antissemitismo.
Para engrossar o caldo, o governo isralense declarou o escritor "persona non grata" em Israel, o que, na prática, barra sua entrada no país (que ele visitou muitas vezes). Vozes do governo de Tel Aviv se ergueram denunciando que Grass, na Guerra, pertencera à famigerada SS. É verdade que o próprio Grass reconheceu esse fato. Mas a história completa é a de que ele, aos 17 anos, quis se alistar na Marinha alemã para lutar. Aparentemente rejeitado, foi parar num regimento blindado das SS-Waffen, na frente de batalha. Ferido, foi feito prisioneiro num campo de concentração norte-americano. Ao mesmo tempo, políticos e escritores isralenses criticaram seu próprio governo. Muitos disseram que o governo, em dificuldades, estava fazendo uma campanha populista em cima do poema de Grass, e que era um absurdo barrar sua entrada, o que "igualava Israel aos regimes totalitários, inclusive o Irã".
Na Alemanha, a atitude do governo de Tel Aviv também mereceu críticas por parte da mesma mídia que atacara o poema, taxando a proibição de "exagerada".
A polêmica vai continuar, porque, de fato, Günter Grass pôs um dedo na ferida, uma ferida de muitas camadas, que remonta ao holocausto, ao silêncio sobre o holocausto depois da guerra, aos levantes de 68 (que, na Alemanha, levantaram o questionamento às gerações mais antigas - "onde você estava e o que fez durante o nazismo?"), e também ao silêncio posterior diante das atitudes belicistas dos governos isralenses, em particular o último, de Benyamin Netanyahu.
O próprio Grass veio a público dizer que continuava sustentando o poema, mas que talvez devesse tê-lo escrito deixando mais claro que seu alvo era o governo do atual primeiro-ministro, e não Israel como um todo. Leia abaixo quatro versões do poema, em espanhol, inglês, o original em alemão e em português.
O que deve ser dito
Porque guardo silêncio há demasiado tempo
sobre o que é manifesto
e se utilizava em jogos de guerra
em que no fim, nós sobreviventes,
acabamos como meras notas de rodapé.
É o suposto direito a um ataque preventivo,
que poderá exterminar o povo iraniano,
conduzido ao júbilo
e organizado por um fanfarrão,
porque na sua jurisdição se suspeita
do fabrico de uma bomba atômica.
Mas por que me proibiram de falar
sobre esse outro país [Israel], onde há anos
- ainda que mantido em segredo –
se dispõe de um crescente potencial nuclear,
que não está sujeito a nenhum controle,
pois é inacessível a inspeções?
O silêncio geral sobre esse fato,
a que se sujeitou o meu próprio silêncio,
sinto-o como uma gravosa mentira
e coação que ameaça castigar
quando não é respeitada:
“antissemitismo” se chama a condenação.
Agora, contudo, porque o meu país,
acusado uma e outra vez, rotineiramente,
de crimes muito próprios,
sem quaisquer precedentes,
vai entregar a Israel outro submarino
cuja especialidade é dirigir ogivas aniquiladoras
para onde não ficou provada
a existência de uma única bomba,
se bem que se queira instituir o medo como prova… digo o que deve ser dito.
Por que me calei até agora?
Porque acreditava que a minha origem,
marcada por um estigma inapagável,
me impedia de atribuir esse fato, como evidente,
ao país de Israel, ao qual estou unido
e quero continuar a estar.
Por que motivo só agora digo,
já velho e com a minha última tinta,
que Israel, potência nuclear, coloca em perigo
uma paz mundial já de si frágil?
Porque deve ser dito
aquilo que amanhã poderá ser demasiado tarde [a dizer],
e porque – já suficientemente incriminados como alemães –
poderíamos ser cúmplices de um crime
que é previsível,
pelo que a nossa cota-parte de culpa
não poderia extinguir-se
com nenhuma das desculpas habituais.
Admito-o: não vou continuar a calar-me
porque estou farto
da hipocrisia do Ocidente;
é de esperar, além disso,
que muitos se libertem do silêncio,
exijam ao causador desse perigo visível
que renuncie ao uso da força
e insistam também para que os governos
de ambos os países permitam
o controle permanente e sem entraves,
por parte de uma instância internacional,
do potencial nuclear israelense
e das instalações nucleares iranianas.
Só assim poderemos ajudar todos,
israelenses e palestinos,
mas também todos os seres humanos
que nessa região ocupada pela demência
vivem em conflito lado a lado,
odiando-se mutuamente,
e decididamente ajudar-nos também.
Lo que hay que decir
Por qué guardo silencio, demasiado tiempo,
sobre lo que es manifiesto y se utilizaba
en juegos de guerra a cuyo final, supervivientes,
solo acabamos como notas a pie de página.
Es el supuesto derecho a un ataque preventivo
el que podría exterminar al pueblo iraní,
subyugado y conducido al júbilo organizado
por un fanfarrón,
porque en su jurisdicción se sospecha
la fabricación de una bomba atómica.
Pero ¿por qué me prohíbo nombrar
a ese otro país en el que
desde hace años –aunque mantenido en secreto–
se dispone de un creciente potencial nuclear,
fuera de control, ya que
es inaccesible a toda inspección?
El silencio general sobre ese hecho,
al que se ha sometido mi propio silencio,
lo siento como gravosa mentira
y coacción que amenaza castigar
en cuanto no se respeta;
“antisemitismo” se llama la condena.
Ahora, sin embargo, porque mi país,
alcanzado y llamado a capítulo una y otra vez
por crímenes muy propios
sin parangón alguno,
de nuevo y de forma rutinaria, aunque
enseguida calificada de reparación,
va a entregar a Israel otro submarino cuya especialidad
es dirigir ojivas aniquiladoras
hacia donde no se ha probado
la existencia de una sola bomba,
aunque se quiera aportar como prueba el temor...
digo lo que hay que decir.
¿Por qué he callado hasta ahora?
Porque creía que mi origen,
marcado por un estigma imborrable,
me prohibía atribuir ese hecho, como evidente,
al país de Israel, al que estoy unido
y quiero seguir estándolo.
¿Por qué solo ahora lo digo,
envejecido y con mi última tinta:
Israel, potencia nuclear, pone en peligro
una paz mundial ya de por sí quebradiza?
Porque hay que decir
lo que mañana podría ser demasiado tarde,
y porque –suficientemente incriminados como alemanes–
podríamos ser cómplices de un crimen
que es previsible, por lo que nuestra parte de culpa
no podría extinguirse
con ninguna de las excusas habituales.
Lo admito: no sigo callando
porque estoy harto
de la hipocresía de Occidente; cabe esperar además
que muchos se liberen del silencio, exijan
al causante de ese peligro visible que renuncie
al uso de la fuerza e insistan también
en que los gobiernos de ambos países permitan
el control permanente y sin trabas
por una instancia internacional
del potencial nuclear israelí
y de las instalaciones nucleares iraníes.
Sólo así podremos ayudar a todos, israelíes y palestinos,
más aún, a todos los seres humanos que en esa región
ocupada por la demencia
viven enemistados codo con codo,
odiándose mutuamente,
y en definitiva también ayudarnos.
Fonte: El País, 4 de abril de 2012
Tradução de Miguel Sáenz
What Must Be Said
Why do I stay silent, conceal for too long
What clearly is and has been
Practiced in war games, at the end of which we as survivors
Are at best footnotes.
It is the alleged right to first strike
That could annihilate the Iranian people--
Enslaved by a loud-mouth
And guided to organized jubilation--
Because in their territory,
It is suspected, a bomb is being built.
Yet why do I forbid myself
To name that other country
In which, for years, even if secretly,
There has been a growing nuclear potential at hand
But beyond control, because no inspection is available?
The universal concealment of these facts,
To which my silence subordinated itself,
I sense as incriminating lies
And force--the punishment is promised
As soon as it is ignored;
The verdict of "anti-Semitism" is familiar.
Now, though, because in my country
Which from time to time has sought and confronted
Its very own crime
That is without compare
In turn on a purely commercial basis, if also
With nimble lips calling it a reparation, declares
A further U-boat should be delivered to Israel,
Whose specialty consists of guiding all-destroying warheads to where the existence
Of a single atomic bomb is unproven,
But as a fear wishes to be conclusive,
I say what must be said.
Why though have I stayed silent until now?
Because I thought my origin,
Afflicted by a stain never to be expunged
Kept the state of Israel, to which I am bound
And wish to stay bound,
From accepting this fact as pronounced truth.
Why do I say only now,
Aged and with my last ink,
That the nuclear power of Israel endangers
The already fragile world peace?
Because it must be said
What even tomorrow may be too late to say;
Also because we--as Germans burdened enough--
Could be the suppliers to a crime
That is foreseeable, wherefore our complicity
Could not be redeemed through any of the usual excuses.
And granted: I am silent no longer
Because I am tired of the hypocrisy
Of the West; in addition to which it is to be hoped
That this will free many from silence,
That they may prompt the perpetrator of the recognized danger
To renounce violence and
Likewise insist
That an unhindered and permanent control
Of the Israeli nuclear potential
And the Iranian nuclear sites
Be authorized through an international agency
By the governments of both countries.
Only this way are all, the Israelis and Palestinians,
Even more, all people, that in this
Region occupied by mania
Live cheek by jowl among enemies,
And also us, to be helped.
Was gesagt werden muss
Warum schweige ich, verschweige zu lange,
was offensichtlich ist und in Planspielen
geübt wurde, an deren Ende als Überlebende
wir allenfalls Fußnoten sind.
Es ist das behauptete Recht auf den Erstschlag,
der das von einem Maulhelden unterjochte
und zum organisierten Jubel gelenkte
iranische Volk auslöschen könnte,
weil in dessen Machtbereich der Bau
einer Atombombe vermutet wird.
Doch warum untersage ich mir,
jenes andere Land beim Namen zu nennen,
in dem seit Jahren - wenn auch geheimgehalten -
ein wachsend nukleares Potential verfügbar
aber außer Kontrolle, weil keiner Prüfung
zugänglich ist?
Das allgemeine Verschweigen dieses Tatbestandes,
dem sich mein Schweigen untergeordnet hat,
empfinde ich als belastende Lüge
und Zwang, der Strafe in Aussicht stellt,
sobald er mißachtet wird;
das Verdikt "Antisemitismus" ist geläufig.
Jetzt aber, weil aus meinem Land,
das von ureigenen Verbrechen,
die ohne Vergleich sind,
Mal um Mal eingeholt und zur Rede gestellt wird,
wiederum und rein geschäftsmäßig, wenn auch
mit flinker Lippe als Wiedergutmachung deklariert,
ein weiteres U-Boot nach Israel
geliefert werden soll, dessen Spezialität
darin besteht, allesvernichtende Sprengköpfe
dorthin lenken zu können, wo die Existenz
einer einzigen Atombombe unbewiesen ist,
doch als Befürchtung von Beweiskraft sein will,
sage ich, was gesagt werden muß.
Warum aber schwieg ich bislang?
Weil ich meinte, meine Herkunft,
die von nie zu tilgendem Makel behaftet ist,
verbiete, diese Tatsache als ausgesprochene Wahrheit
dem Land Israel, dem ich verbunden bin
und bleiben will, zuzumuten.
Warum sage ich jetzt erst,
gealtert und mit letzter Tinte:
Die Atommacht Israel gefährdet
den ohnehin brüchigen Weltfrieden?
Weil gesagt werden muß,
was schon morgen zu spät sein könnte;
auch weil wir - als Deutsche belastet genug -
Zulieferer eines Verbrechens werden könnten,
das voraussehbar ist, weshalb unsere Mitschuld
durch keine der üblichen Ausreden
zu tilgen wäre.
Und zugegeben: ich schweige nicht mehr,
weil ich der Heuchelei des Westens
überdrüssig bin; zudem ist zu hoffen,
es mögen sich viele vom Schweigen befreien,
den Verursacher der erkennbaren Gefahr
zum Verzicht auf Gewalt auffordern und
gleichfalls darauf bestehen,
daß eine unbehinderte und permanente Kontrolle
des israelischen atomaren Potentials
und der iranischen Atomanlagen
durch eine internationale Instanz
von den Regierungen beider Länder zugelassen wird.
Nur so ist allen, den Israelis und Palästinensern,
mehr noch, allen Menschen, die in dieser
vom Wahn okkupierten Region
dicht bei dicht verfeindet leben
und letztlich auch uns zu helfen.
Fonte: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 4 de abril de 2012
Posted Yesterday by César Vásquez
Labels: Was gesagt werden muss Lo que hay que decir Gunter Grass What Must Be Said
* Flávio Aguiar é correspondente internacional da Carta Maior em Berlim.
Textos relacionados
Israel continua construção de muro nas colinas de Golã
Após ser criticado, Israel quer retirar Nobel de Günter Grass
MK Bhadrakumar: Rússia alerta sobre ataque dos EUA ao Irã
Intolerância: Günter Grass está proibido de entrar em Israel
Câmara e Senado debaterão acordo de paz entre judeus e palestinos
A polêmica vai continuar, porque, de fato, Günter Grass pôs um dedo na ferida, uma ferida de muitas camadas, que remonta ao holocausto, ao silêncio sobre o holocausto depois da guerra, aos levantes de 68 (que, na Alemanha, levantaram o questionamento às gerações mais antigas - "onde você estava e o que fez durante o nazismo?"), e também ao silêncio posterior diante das atitudes belicistas dos governos isralenses, em particular o último, de Benyamin Netanyahu.
Por Flávio Aguiar*
O escritor alemão e prêmio Nobel de literatura (1999) Günter Grass causou enorme polêmica na Alemanha, na Europa e em Israel publicando, na semana passada, o poema abaixo em vários jornais europeus. O poema critica seu próprio país por vender mais um submarino à Israel, com capacidade para lançar mísseis armados até com ogivas nucleares. Critica o governo israelense "por ameaçar a já frágil paz mundial" com a possibilidade de um ataque ao Irã, por este supostamente estar preparando um arsenal nuclear.
Para o escritor quem certamente tem armas nucleares se propõe a atacar quem apenas se supõe estar construindo uma, sem se ter ainda prova cabal disso. Além disso, Günter Grass (autor, dentre outros, do romance "Die Blechtrommel", "O tambor de lata" - que também virou filme) critica seu próprio silêncio sobre o tema esse tempo todo, atribuindo-o a um sentimento de culpa que permanece na cultura de seu país (culpa que ele considera justificada). Ao final, o poema diz que ambos os países deveriam colocar suas atividades nucleares sob supervisão da ONU.
O poema caiu como uma bomba em diferentes meios. Primeiro, na própria Alemanha, onde criticar qualquer coisa a respeito de Israel é (compreensivelmente) tabu.
A mídia liberal rejeitou o poema, e suas críticas. Houve até quem chamasse Günter Grass (hoje com 84 anos) de "velho senil" querendo chamar a atenção. Muitos representantes de associações judaicas também criticaram veementemente o poema. Günter foi acusado de antissemita, e outras críticas interpretaram que seu poema fortalecia Ahmadinejad, os aiatolás e o Irã, comparando-o, "equivocadamente", a Israel. Outros consideraram o poema um equívoco do ponto de vista literário.
Mas houve quem saísse em sua defesa também. Escritores, artistas e membros do establishment cultural alemão rejeitaram a acusação de antissemitismo, lembrando que Grass sempre se posicionou favoravalmente à existência de Israel (algo que fica também implícito no próprio poema). Ainda houve também quem dissesse que o poema era exagerado (sobretudo ao dizer que Israel poderia exterminar o povo iraniano), mas que levantava um assunto que se necessitava debater.
Os partidos políticos não se pronunciaram oficialmente. Porém, em geral, os políticos da Linke aprovaram a atitude de Grass. Os do SPD se dividiram, uns apoiando Grass, outros criticando. Isso é muito relevante, porque Grass sempre se posicionou a favor do SPD. Muitos do Partido Verde criticaram o poema, mas deixaram claro que não endossavam a acusação de antissemitismo.
Para engrossar o caldo, o governo isralense declarou o escritor "persona non grata" em Israel, o que, na prática, barra sua entrada no país (que ele visitou muitas vezes). Vozes do governo de Tel Aviv se ergueram denunciando que Grass, na Guerra, pertencera à famigerada SS. É verdade que o próprio Grass reconheceu esse fato. Mas a história completa é a de que ele, aos 17 anos, quis se alistar na Marinha alemã para lutar. Aparentemente rejeitado, foi parar num regimento blindado das SS-Waffen, na frente de batalha. Ferido, foi feito prisioneiro num campo de concentração norte-americano. Ao mesmo tempo, políticos e escritores isralenses criticaram seu próprio governo. Muitos disseram que o governo, em dificuldades, estava fazendo uma campanha populista em cima do poema de Grass, e que era um absurdo barrar sua entrada, o que "igualava Israel aos regimes totalitários, inclusive o Irã".
Na Alemanha, a atitude do governo de Tel Aviv também mereceu críticas por parte da mesma mídia que atacara o poema, taxando a proibição de "exagerada".
A polêmica vai continuar, porque, de fato, Günter Grass pôs um dedo na ferida, uma ferida de muitas camadas, que remonta ao holocausto, ao silêncio sobre o holocausto depois da guerra, aos levantes de 68 (que, na Alemanha, levantaram o questionamento às gerações mais antigas - "onde você estava e o que fez durante o nazismo?"), e também ao silêncio posterior diante das atitudes belicistas dos governos isralenses, em particular o último, de Benyamin Netanyahu.
O próprio Grass veio a público dizer que continuava sustentando o poema, mas que talvez devesse tê-lo escrito deixando mais claro que seu alvo era o governo do atual primeiro-ministro, e não Israel como um todo. Leia abaixo quatro versões do poema, em espanhol, inglês, o original em alemão e em português.
O que deve ser dito
Porque guardo silêncio há demasiado tempo
sobre o que é manifesto
e se utilizava em jogos de guerra
em que no fim, nós sobreviventes,
acabamos como meras notas de rodapé.
É o suposto direito a um ataque preventivo,
que poderá exterminar o povo iraniano,
conduzido ao júbilo
e organizado por um fanfarrão,
porque na sua jurisdição se suspeita
do fabrico de uma bomba atômica.
Mas por que me proibiram de falar
sobre esse outro país [Israel], onde há anos
- ainda que mantido em segredo –
se dispõe de um crescente potencial nuclear,
que não está sujeito a nenhum controle,
pois é inacessível a inspeções?
O silêncio geral sobre esse fato,
a que se sujeitou o meu próprio silêncio,
sinto-o como uma gravosa mentira
e coação que ameaça castigar
quando não é respeitada:
“antissemitismo” se chama a condenação.
Agora, contudo, porque o meu país,
acusado uma e outra vez, rotineiramente,
de crimes muito próprios,
sem quaisquer precedentes,
vai entregar a Israel outro submarino
cuja especialidade é dirigir ogivas aniquiladoras
para onde não ficou provada
a existência de uma única bomba,
se bem que se queira instituir o medo como prova… digo o que deve ser dito.
Por que me calei até agora?
Porque acreditava que a minha origem,
marcada por um estigma inapagável,
me impedia de atribuir esse fato, como evidente,
ao país de Israel, ao qual estou unido
e quero continuar a estar.
Por que motivo só agora digo,
já velho e com a minha última tinta,
que Israel, potência nuclear, coloca em perigo
uma paz mundial já de si frágil?
Porque deve ser dito
aquilo que amanhã poderá ser demasiado tarde [a dizer],
e porque – já suficientemente incriminados como alemães –
poderíamos ser cúmplices de um crime
que é previsível,
pelo que a nossa cota-parte de culpa
não poderia extinguir-se
com nenhuma das desculpas habituais.
Admito-o: não vou continuar a calar-me
porque estou farto
da hipocrisia do Ocidente;
é de esperar, além disso,
que muitos se libertem do silêncio,
exijam ao causador desse perigo visível
que renuncie ao uso da força
e insistam também para que os governos
de ambos os países permitam
o controle permanente e sem entraves,
por parte de uma instância internacional,
do potencial nuclear israelense
e das instalações nucleares iranianas.
Só assim poderemos ajudar todos,
israelenses e palestinos,
mas também todos os seres humanos
que nessa região ocupada pela demência
vivem em conflito lado a lado,
odiando-se mutuamente,
e decididamente ajudar-nos também.
Lo que hay que decir
Por qué guardo silencio, demasiado tiempo,
sobre lo que es manifiesto y se utilizaba
en juegos de guerra a cuyo final, supervivientes,
solo acabamos como notas a pie de página.
Es el supuesto derecho a un ataque preventivo
el que podría exterminar al pueblo iraní,
subyugado y conducido al júbilo organizado
por un fanfarrón,
porque en su jurisdicción se sospecha
la fabricación de una bomba atómica.
Pero ¿por qué me prohíbo nombrar
a ese otro país en el que
desde hace años –aunque mantenido en secreto–
se dispone de un creciente potencial nuclear,
fuera de control, ya que
es inaccesible a toda inspección?
El silencio general sobre ese hecho,
al que se ha sometido mi propio silencio,
lo siento como gravosa mentira
y coacción que amenaza castigar
en cuanto no se respeta;
“antisemitismo” se llama la condena.
Ahora, sin embargo, porque mi país,
alcanzado y llamado a capítulo una y otra vez
por crímenes muy propios
sin parangón alguno,
de nuevo y de forma rutinaria, aunque
enseguida calificada de reparación,
va a entregar a Israel otro submarino cuya especialidad
es dirigir ojivas aniquiladoras
hacia donde no se ha probado
la existencia de una sola bomba,
aunque se quiera aportar como prueba el temor...
digo lo que hay que decir.
¿Por qué he callado hasta ahora?
Porque creía que mi origen,
marcado por un estigma imborrable,
me prohibía atribuir ese hecho, como evidente,
al país de Israel, al que estoy unido
y quiero seguir estándolo.
¿Por qué solo ahora lo digo,
envejecido y con mi última tinta:
Israel, potencia nuclear, pone en peligro
una paz mundial ya de por sí quebradiza?
Porque hay que decir
lo que mañana podría ser demasiado tarde,
y porque –suficientemente incriminados como alemanes–
podríamos ser cómplices de un crimen
que es previsible, por lo que nuestra parte de culpa
no podría extinguirse
con ninguna de las excusas habituales.
Lo admito: no sigo callando
porque estoy harto
de la hipocresía de Occidente; cabe esperar además
que muchos se liberen del silencio, exijan
al causante de ese peligro visible que renuncie
al uso de la fuerza e insistan también
en que los gobiernos de ambos países permitan
el control permanente y sin trabas
por una instancia internacional
del potencial nuclear israelí
y de las instalaciones nucleares iraníes.
Sólo así podremos ayudar a todos, israelíes y palestinos,
más aún, a todos los seres humanos que en esa región
ocupada por la demencia
viven enemistados codo con codo,
odiándose mutuamente,
y en definitiva también ayudarnos.
Fonte: El País, 4 de abril de 2012
Tradução de Miguel Sáenz
What Must Be Said
Why do I stay silent, conceal for too long
What clearly is and has been
Practiced in war games, at the end of which we as survivors
Are at best footnotes.
It is the alleged right to first strike
That could annihilate the Iranian people--
Enslaved by a loud-mouth
And guided to organized jubilation--
Because in their territory,
It is suspected, a bomb is being built.
Yet why do I forbid myself
To name that other country
In which, for years, even if secretly,
There has been a growing nuclear potential at hand
But beyond control, because no inspection is available?
The universal concealment of these facts,
To which my silence subordinated itself,
I sense as incriminating lies
And force--the punishment is promised
As soon as it is ignored;
The verdict of "anti-Semitism" is familiar.
Now, though, because in my country
Which from time to time has sought and confronted
Its very own crime
That is without compare
In turn on a purely commercial basis, if also
With nimble lips calling it a reparation, declares
A further U-boat should be delivered to Israel,
Whose specialty consists of guiding all-destroying warheads to where the existence
Of a single atomic bomb is unproven,
But as a fear wishes to be conclusive,
I say what must be said.
Why though have I stayed silent until now?
Because I thought my origin,
Afflicted by a stain never to be expunged
Kept the state of Israel, to which I am bound
And wish to stay bound,
From accepting this fact as pronounced truth.
Why do I say only now,
Aged and with my last ink,
That the nuclear power of Israel endangers
The already fragile world peace?
Because it must be said
What even tomorrow may be too late to say;
Also because we--as Germans burdened enough--
Could be the suppliers to a crime
That is foreseeable, wherefore our complicity
Could not be redeemed through any of the usual excuses.
And granted: I am silent no longer
Because I am tired of the hypocrisy
Of the West; in addition to which it is to be hoped
That this will free many from silence,
That they may prompt the perpetrator of the recognized danger
To renounce violence and
Likewise insist
That an unhindered and permanent control
Of the Israeli nuclear potential
And the Iranian nuclear sites
Be authorized through an international agency
By the governments of both countries.
Only this way are all, the Israelis and Palestinians,
Even more, all people, that in this
Region occupied by mania
Live cheek by jowl among enemies,
And also us, to be helped.
Was gesagt werden muss
Warum schweige ich, verschweige zu lange,
was offensichtlich ist und in Planspielen
geübt wurde, an deren Ende als Überlebende
wir allenfalls Fußnoten sind.
Es ist das behauptete Recht auf den Erstschlag,
der das von einem Maulhelden unterjochte
und zum organisierten Jubel gelenkte
iranische Volk auslöschen könnte,
weil in dessen Machtbereich der Bau
einer Atombombe vermutet wird.
Doch warum untersage ich mir,
jenes andere Land beim Namen zu nennen,
in dem seit Jahren - wenn auch geheimgehalten -
ein wachsend nukleares Potential verfügbar
aber außer Kontrolle, weil keiner Prüfung
zugänglich ist?
Das allgemeine Verschweigen dieses Tatbestandes,
dem sich mein Schweigen untergeordnet hat,
empfinde ich als belastende Lüge
und Zwang, der Strafe in Aussicht stellt,
sobald er mißachtet wird;
das Verdikt "Antisemitismus" ist geläufig.
Jetzt aber, weil aus meinem Land,
das von ureigenen Verbrechen,
die ohne Vergleich sind,
Mal um Mal eingeholt und zur Rede gestellt wird,
wiederum und rein geschäftsmäßig, wenn auch
mit flinker Lippe als Wiedergutmachung deklariert,
ein weiteres U-Boot nach Israel
geliefert werden soll, dessen Spezialität
darin besteht, allesvernichtende Sprengköpfe
dorthin lenken zu können, wo die Existenz
einer einzigen Atombombe unbewiesen ist,
doch als Befürchtung von Beweiskraft sein will,
sage ich, was gesagt werden muß.
Warum aber schwieg ich bislang?
Weil ich meinte, meine Herkunft,
die von nie zu tilgendem Makel behaftet ist,
verbiete, diese Tatsache als ausgesprochene Wahrheit
dem Land Israel, dem ich verbunden bin
und bleiben will, zuzumuten.
Warum sage ich jetzt erst,
gealtert und mit letzter Tinte:
Die Atommacht Israel gefährdet
den ohnehin brüchigen Weltfrieden?
Weil gesagt werden muß,
was schon morgen zu spät sein könnte;
auch weil wir - als Deutsche belastet genug -
Zulieferer eines Verbrechens werden könnten,
das voraussehbar ist, weshalb unsere Mitschuld
durch keine der üblichen Ausreden
zu tilgen wäre.
Und zugegeben: ich schweige nicht mehr,
weil ich der Heuchelei des Westens
überdrüssig bin; zudem ist zu hoffen,
es mögen sich viele vom Schweigen befreien,
den Verursacher der erkennbaren Gefahr
zum Verzicht auf Gewalt auffordern und
gleichfalls darauf bestehen,
daß eine unbehinderte und permanente Kontrolle
des israelischen atomaren Potentials
und der iranischen Atomanlagen
durch eine internationale Instanz
von den Regierungen beider Länder zugelassen wird.
Nur so ist allen, den Israelis und Palästinensern,
mehr noch, allen Menschen, die in dieser
vom Wahn okkupierten Region
dicht bei dicht verfeindet leben
und letztlich auch uns zu helfen.
Fonte: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 4 de abril de 2012
Posted Yesterday by César Vásquez
Labels: Was gesagt werden muss Lo que hay que decir Gunter Grass What Must Be Said
* Flávio Aguiar é correspondente internacional da Carta Maior em Berlim.
Textos relacionados
Israel continua construção de muro nas colinas de Golã
Após ser criticado, Israel quer retirar Nobel de Günter Grass
MK Bhadrakumar: Rússia alerta sobre ataque dos EUA ao Irã
Intolerância: Günter Grass está proibido de entrar em Israel
Câmara e Senado debaterão acordo de paz entre judeus e palestinos
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)