Two weeks ago, Nobel Prize-winning German writer Gunter Grass published a controversial poem in several newspapers across Europe. The work, titled "What must be said," discussed contemporary politics and Israel's nuclear policy, which Grass criticized for being both destructive and menacing to the state of peace in the Middle East.
Though The New York Times noted that such criticism of Israel was "common among European intellectuals," Grass' poem sparked specific attention because of his German citizenship and past involvement with the Nazi Party. Born in 1927, Grass spent a part of his youth serving in the Waffen SS - an armed wing of the Third Reich - but later expressed strong opposition towards Nazism in both his literary works and personal statements.
Even so, Israelis have approached the poet with extreme hostility. Instant comparisons were drawn between Grass and Hitler, with one critic even going so far as to label the recent poem "a compressed Mein Kampf." To complicate matters, Israel's Interior Minister Eli Yishai has declared Grass a persona non grata, banning him from entering the country.
The problem is that it was neither Grass' work nor his opinions which stirred the contention; rather his heritage, age and nationality have done so. Israel's reaction to Grass' poem was swayed by the fact that Grass was a German of the older generation. Were it not for this, the vendetta would have probably ended with a light slap on the wrist.
While Germans have relived the pains of the Second World War for years, they have also been among the most willing to recognize the magnitude of the Nazis' destruction. German high school students typically visit at least one concentration camp before graduating. Hitler's "Mein Kampf" cannot be purchased off of Amazon through Germany's Internet service providers. And when it comes to Grass, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1999, speculators were said to have made bets about how long it would take him to mention Auschwitz in his acceptance speech.
Both fiscally and culturally, Germany has freed its identity from that of its past. But the same cannot be said for the topic of German free speech as it exists within the context of World War II. Grass was not refuting a fact. He was not denying the Holocaust. Though his words were harsh and often fulminating, they were nevertheless within his rights to express. Though it is just as correct to criticize him, the societal double-standard gives the impression Grass' critics are on higher ground.
With Grass and many others, the situation manifests itself as constraining. Given Germany's past, it is almost impossible for its citizens to justify their criticisms of the Jewish state because they could be associated with an anti-Semitic ideology. Grass' remarks caused a few of Germany's public figures to wag their fingers and others to verbally speak out against him, just for good measure. Grass' supporters, however, do not have the same liberties - at least not the social luxury of defending him - without risking the comparison to Nazis. This two-way limit is over-sensitive, obstructive and ultimately counterproductive to Germany's future.
Grass knew this, and to some extent he was testing the waters. The poem, which spans more than nine stanzas, contains phrases suggesting Germans are "already burdened enough" and "could become an accessory to a foreseeable crime." Strong in opinion, but somewhat lacking in literary merit, Grass' work was crass, if not a bit crude, but he conveyed a clear message: The West must stop appeasing Israel.
The West's already over-the-top fascination with Hitler seems to be reason enough for people to become outraged by Grass' remarks. What is even more offensive, however, is that a simple publication of his poem can get Grass banned from entering a supposedly democratic, free and Westernized country. It seems that by placing limits on "appropriate" and "inappropriate" thoughts, the critics of Grass are employing that same level of intolerance which once characterized the Fascist regimes of World War II.
Modern-day Germans and Grass have expressed staunch opposition to Nazism, yet both are more associated with the phenomenon than any others will ever be. The association is entirely unfair and unfounded, and should not be a factor in shaping a national policy. The right to free speech is ever-present and does not pick-and-choose that which can or cannot be said, even if these rights facilitate a societal faux-pas. In the case of Gunter Grass, it seems many still see Germany through the frames of its destructive past. This is an approach which, if continued, will only perpetuate harm.
Denise Taylor's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at d.taylor@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | 8 hours agoIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
