Gunter Grass and the mute left

[shira]

Gunter Grass and the mute left

Grass’ profound moral failure and the Zionist left’s profound failure to respond are a bad sign. They show that leading intellectuals in the West and Israel are no longer capable of defending Israel.

By Ari Shavit

Gunter Grass has put us all to the test. The strange text he published a week ago in the Suddeutsche Zeitung is a bizarre but profound document. It doesn't contain old-style anti-Semitism. It doesn't contain Goebbels-like propaganda. But behind its embarrassing lines lie three important statements. In his own way, Grass is saying more or less the following: I'm no longer willing to overcome my disgust with Israel because of my Hitlerian past; I think Israel's nuclear capability is endangering world peace; the fact that my people murdered the Jews in 1942 does not justify the Jews having nuclear weapons in 2012.

With the sensitive instincts of a great writer, Grass makes a radical statement that reflects a deep-seated idea now spreading in the dark cellars of the new Germany, the new Europe and the new left. According to this deep-seated idea, Israel, not Iran, is the present-day aggressor in the Middle East. Not the extremist Shi'ites but the extremist Israelis are the new Nazis. The crime against humanity that must be at the center of our consciousness is not what Hitler did to the Jews but what the Jews are about to do to the Iranians. Therefore, in the name of the Holocaust, the Jews should be denied the nuclear power that could enable them to cause a second Holocaust.

<snip>

The SS soldier who became a famous humanist is ending his life exactly where he began it. As far as he's concerned, there's no danger in American, Russian, British, French, Chinese, Indian and Pakistani nuclear bombs. Nor is there any real danger in an Iranian nuclear bomb. What really might destroy our world are the nuclear weapons attributed to Israel. The Jews' ability to defend themselves and prevent their destruction is what is keeping the moral guru from Lubeck awake at night.

<snip>

But there was no reaction at all from the Zionist left. No writer delivered a fire and brimstone speech in fluent English. No intellectual published a penetrating article in The New York Times. Meretz and Peace Now remained silent. The preachers who hasten to condemn every hallucinatory rabbi from the settlement of Yitzhar fell silent in the face of the Nobel Prize laureate's horrifying words. While official Germany roundly condemned its leading writer, enlightened Israel lost its tongue. In the Gunter Grass test, Israel's moral left failed dismally.

For now, the storm has ended. But Grass' profound moral failure and the Zionist left's profound failure to respond are a bad sign. They show that the long years of occupation distort people's minds and make them forget key concepts. They show that leading intellectuals in the West and Israel are no longer capable of defending Israel. The words said by Grass and the words not said against Grass prove that the gangrene of delegitimization is gradually spreading and devouring us.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/gunter-grass-and-the-mute-left-1.423895

[Riftaxe]

1. It's a bit hard to take seriously a man

claiming to be a humanist who didn't even have a twinge of conscience about his parties discriminate use of zyklon B when he starts caterwauling about nuclear weapons in the hands of a state formed by his former victims.

[pscot]

2. Grass was 13 in 1940

At the age of 17 he was drafted into a panzer ss unit which functioned as a regular army unit. His service lasted about 3 months. It seems like a bit of a reach to talk about his "victims", as though he participated directly in the holocaust.

[Riftaxe]

26. When alexander was 13 he was hiring philosophers from around the then known world

if you are arguing that grass is a bit less then Alexander the great, well no kidding!

He did not refuse to take arms in it'sdefense, you might want to check the age of the Waffen members, by that time in the war, 13 was getting a bit old.

He left the NAZI party when it was forcefully dissolved in 1945, that is inarguable. The fact that it was dissolved at gun point, might be worthy of mention.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. And how exactly do you know what was going on in his head at age 17?

This Godwinising of Grass is getting a little bit over the top.

[Riftaxe]

27. Hmm if i had to guess...

it would involved Lebensborn.

[saras]

3. No matter about the man, his message, (not this insane projection) is important.

Personally I think this part, for example...

"I think Israel's nuclear capability is endangering world peace"

...is a perfectly reasonable mainstream political opinion held by a lot of civilized people, including a fair number of Jewish people inside of and outside of Israel.

And nothing about Gunter Grass as a person makes the slightest bit of difference to that, nor can it, even in theory.

[TalkingDog]

4. Clear, concise and to the point. Well said.

n/t

[shira]

5. Israel is endangering world peace, not Iran? That's what Grass is saying.

Grass is accusing the Jews of planning/attempting a mass genocide against Iranians.

What's important about this hysterical message?

[Ken Burch]

8. The Israeli government...not "The Jews"

It's bullshit to assume that every Jewish person in the world is cheering Bibi on in his campaign for slaughter. Bibi speaks only for Bibi...not "The Jews".

It's time to stop the demagogery already, shira. It's childish and dangerous to everyone.

[shira]

10. No, the Jews. The anti-Israel bigots are against every Israeli gov't, not just Netanyahu's.

Kadima wasnt spared anymore than Likud.

't wouldn't matter whether Labour were in charge either. The same criticism would exist and you know it. And we all know the reason for it so cut the shit.

Grass is quite clear it's the Jews. It's why he invoked Germany's Holocaust in his poem in order to make a point about the Jewish homeland.

[Ken Burch]

11. The fact that it was Israeli governments of various parties STILL doesn't make it about "the Jews"

The concerns about what the Israeli government has done to Palestinians didn't start with Netanyahu.

They go back at least as far as the beginning of the illegal and illegitimate West Bank settlement project in 1973. That project never had any justification(it would have been enough to ask that the pre-1948 indigenous Jewish population of the West Bank be allowed to return)and Ariel Sharon KNEW it would make everything worse when he came up with the idea. A moral person would feel obligated to have condemned it from the start, since it both made the Israeli/Palestinian dynamic far more antagonistic than it ever had to be, put innocent Israeli civilians in danger(no other country, to my knowledge, every started a program of intentionally moving noncombatant civilians into a combat zone), and provided no security benefits that could possibly have outweighed the security dangers it created.

The criticism of Israeli policisy has always been about the merits of the issues involved, and about the legitimate grievances Palestinians had and continue to have.

You can't keep ascribing EVERYTHING to antisemitism. I get it that you think that you're helping Israel in constantly dragging that accusation in to EVERY debate, but you aren't.

Insisting that it's always about hatred of Jews doesn't help Jews(since many don't approve of what the state does to Palestinians)and it isn't helpful to Israel either(since it gives the politicians there a dodge to avoid any and all accountability. There's no reason the Israeli government should get any more special deference and special exemption from responsibility than any other state. It's just another country, shira-and pretending that it isn't just enables the worst actors in Israeli politics to hide from responsibility.

And, in the end, the constant equation of "Israel" with "the Jews" puts the world's Jewish communities in the position of being collective human shields. Why should THOSE communities have to be subjected to that, after everything else they've been through?

It has to stop. Israel is not synonymous with "the Jews". And saying it is serves no good purpose. Please stop.
Treat that country's as grownups, deserving of enough respect to be expected to be held accountable for their actions.
And don't assume that every Jewish person on the planet is on board with everything the guys sitting around the cabinet table do. A lot of them have no use for the Occupation and the settlements, and see what is being done to the Palestinian people as far more dangerous than anything the "doves" have ever called on that government to do.

[shira]

12. You're changing the subject. Gunter Grass is a nazi claiming Israel is about to annihilate...

...the Iranian people with their own nukes in a pre-emptive first strike (and that the Germans, despite their dark past, shouldn't be part of that). Not even the looniest Leftists in Israel are spewing stupid, hysterical crap like that - saying Israel cannot be trusted with their nukes.

It's yet another attempt at a blood libel. The Jews, given the opportunity, will carry out a genocide against the Iranian people, for no other reason than their leader is a loudmouth. The reason Glass and his nazi cheerleaders are antisemitic pigs is that they cannot even admit Iran is a real danger to Israel, given their genocidal rhetoric as well as their past history of attacking Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas. They won't admit Iran is a danger because all they're interested in is attacking Jews with the most vile accusations.

The OP about the mute Left nails it. The anti-occupation Left (the part that's not antisemitic but isn't bothered by it either) is so blinded by the occupation that it cannot or will not recognize clear bigoted Jew hatred.

[Ken Burch]

19. No it is not a blood libel.

You can't keep equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism. To do that is to mock the suffering of the ACTUAL victims of antisemitism.

There's no reason that Germans today should be required to be MORE unquestioningly supportive of what the Israeli government does than people anywhere else-and it's obscene to say that people of that country have a special obligation to cheer on the calls for an Israeli attack on Tehran. The demand for such a strike has nothing to do with Naziism...and the Iran, even with the weirdness of their leaders, is not this year's Third Reich.

And Gunter Grass is not a Nazi...he was a seventeen year-old soldier over half-a-century ago. He's not Goebbels or Mengele or any of their accomplices. The man has spent sixty years demanding that Germany confront Naziism, sixty years condemning antisemitism and all other forms of hatred, sixty years speaking out for justice for all. That far outweighs what he did for less than a year as a teenager. What he did in that year, which really didn't amount to all that much in practical terms, does not obligate him to support ANY decision the Israeli government makes about doing something to Iran. Nobody's acts in the distant past requires them to support the potential deaths of innocent people today.

[shira]

22. He wrote that Israel will annihilate or snuff out the Iranian people w/ a first strike....

Pretty much the same sentiment as 40% of Europeans who believe Israel is committing or about to commit genocide against the Palestinian people.

You realize that's antisemitic, don't you?

[Crunchy Frog]

25. ROFL!

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Maybe it has something to do with every Israeli government following essentially the same policy.

Nuclear policy, settlement policy, they're all pretty much the same no matter who's in charge.

If you want to believe that it's all about "hating the Jews" no one's stopping you. They do have the right to disagree with you, though.

[jimmie]

6. That's really something

How would you feel about Iran getting a nuke?

[Ken Burch]

9. It's no difference between them having it and everybody else who has it.

It's equally wrong for ANY country to have the bomb. Nobody's use of nuclear weaponry is any more virtuous than anyone else's. The assaults on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just as immoral as any possible Soviet, Chinese, North Korean or Iranian nuclear attack.

What part of "the bomb is always evil" do you not get?

[shira]

13. You didn't answer the question. n/t

[Ken Burch]

17. I did when I said it's wrong for anybody to have nukes.

It's not worse for the Iranians to have them just because they're the Iranians. All countries are wrong to possess nukes.

An attack on Iran can't make any of this better. Bibi needs to give that shit a rest.

[pelsar]

20. what is this "world peace"....thing?

i never quite understood it, when i look at the world i can't seem to find it...and how is israel ruining it?

is a perfectly reasonable mainstream political opinion yea well, just because lots of people believe something, actually has no bearing on it being true- did you know this?

[Ken Burch]

7. It's the Israeli government that has nukes, not "The Jews"

It's time for everybody, including the pro-Israel types, to stop acting as if "Israel" is synonymous with "the Jews". Insisting that it is is unfair to both the world's Jewish population, a growing number of whom are not unquestioning supporters of what that state does, and to the Israeli government itself.

Equating "Israel" with "the Jews" is demogogic-whoever does it.

Also, Iran is not responsible for what Hitler did...so it is totally inappropriate to reference the Holocaust as a justification for Israeli missile strikes on Tehran. The people who would die in those strikes would mainly be innocent Israeli civilians...not elderly veterans of the Wehrmacht.

[shira]

14. So you believe, as Glass does, that Israel will nuke Iran preemptively, committing genocide? n/t

[Ken Burch]

18. I don't believe the result would be "genocide"(it's not like ALL Iranians would be killed)

But we can assume there'd be a large number of innocent civilian casualties, and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Bibi will nuke Tehran preemptively. He's been baying for Iranian blood for at least two years now-and Ehud Barak, who USED to be for peace, keeps egging him on, partially through his delusional claims that only a handful of people would die.

Also, Grass has pretty much repudiated his own poem by now...so why are we even still talking about it?

The sick part of all of this is, if Grass were SUPPORTING an Israeli missile strike on Iran, everybody who backs such an insane idea would probably call him a hero even if it turned out that he'd ratted out the Frank family.

[shira]

21. So you believe eventually "Bibi will nuke Iran preemptively".

Resulting in the annihilation or snuffing out of the Iranian people, just as Glass wrote?

[Ken Burch]

23. I just SAID it wouldn't lead to annihilation

And Grass himself has pretty much disowned his poem by now...so why are you still raging?

[oberliner]

24. When did he disown the poem?

I don't believe he has done that.

[shira]

28. So why do you believe Grass disowned the poem? For what reason(s) would he do so? n/t

[Ken Burch]

29. Obviously, that the poem had gone to far

And/or that he felt it said things he didn't originally mean it to say. I admire anyone who can admit error.

But there's a limit to how many assumptions you can make about what someone else thinks. Obviously, Grass isn't an antisemite at all, or a Nazi...he's just someone who expressed criticism of the Netanyahu government's insane demands for missile strikes on Tehran. While he went to far, and realized it, with saying that the entire Iranian population would be annihilated, it does go without saying that there would be major, possibly massive loss of innocent civilian life. How is admitting that antisemitic? A lot of Israelis and a growing number of people in the Diaspora oppose Netanyahu on this push for missile strikes as well...why is it so important to you to equate ANY dissent from the demands for missile strikes with antisemitism, when you know perfectly well that it isn't?

[shira]

30. Gone too far, how? Where/when did he admit this? Also...

...why is it that you've been defending him and his poem all this time without admitting anything at all is wrong with it?

[Ken Burch]

32. Stop with the inquisition already!

I never uncritically defended the poem. I said(and stand by it)that Grass isn't a Nazi and that the poem wasn't antisemitic(criticism of Israeli government policy is NOT automatically antisemitism).

In my view(and, probably, Grass saw it too in stepping away from at least some of the poem)Grass realized that he'd gone too far in saying that missile strikes on Tehran would wipe out the population of Iran. That it would have been enough to say that it would kill too many innocent people to be acceptable.
Saying that is not antisemitic, since the problem with the missile strikes is NOT the nature of the country that would be launching them...the problem is the missile strikes themselves, which would have to be deadly and can no longer be assumed to be pinpoint.

Can we just end this here, now? I shouldn't have to keep facing interrogation by you. I'm not evil and I don't support anything or anyone that is.

[oberliner]

31. Can you link to where he said any of this?

You have claimed repeatedly that he admitted error and said he didn't mean things in the poem.

Where are you getting this from?

[Ken Burch]

33. I am still researching, but may have been wrong about

Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2012, 02:49 PM - Edit history (2)

Grass having repudiated the entire poem. I do know that Grass has said he should have phrased it differently, to specify that he meant the Israeli government rather than Israel as an entirety.

The question remains...why is it anathema to say that Israel's nuclear weapons program is potentially dangerous? Should Israeli nuclear devices automatically be morally privileged over those of any other nation, and should their use, if they are used, be considered more intrinsically acceptable than any others?

And should everyone in Germany, even though the war ended almost seventy years ago, be automatically required to abstain from ANY criticism of Israeli security policy? Is it fair to hold all Germans, for all of eternity, responsible for the Holocaust, and even if it is, does that mean that all Germans have a special obligation to unquestioningly approve of ANYTHING the Israeli government justifies as being necessary for "security" or "self-defense"?

After all, everything every tyrant in history did was justified by every tyrant through the invocation of one of those categories.

[oberliner]

34. No there isn't

There is no thread of that kind anywhere on DU, in LBN or otherwise.

I would note that I am not at all obsessed with the poem and have no problem with any expression of public opposition to Israeli missile strikes on Iran.

I am just trying to figure out where you got this idea (that you have repeated several times) about Grass "disowning" the poem or something along those lines.

If you can provide any link to any piece of information that supports this claim of yours, I would greatly appreciate it.

[shira]

35. Here's the problem again with Grass's poem...

Basically, this ex-nazi (not just any German) is telling the world they should have allowed Germany to finish the damned job 70 years ago. It's not the Nazis who do genocide, it's the damned Jews. If there were no Jews, there'd be no concern today.

THAT is what needed to be said by Herr Gunther...

And the reason why he's reverting back to his WW2 days is because once again antisemitism is fashionable again, via the demonization and delegitimization of the only Jewish state in the world. No other nation is lied about more or receives as much vitriol as Israel. The reason isn't because of concern for the Palestinians either. The world couldn't give a shit about them in Gaza under Hamas or in Lebanon under genuine apartheid conditions, just as the world couldn't care less about what is going on in Syria. Palestinians are mere pawns in order to attack the Jews. Gunther and his bigoted fan club are once again on the wrong side of history.

And THAT is what had to be really said.

[Ken Burch]

36. That's an insane interpretation

To believe that, you'd have to believe that the survival of the Jewish communities of the world today DEPENDS on Bibi launching missile strikes at Tehran.

Opposing Israeli missile strikes does NOT equate to wanting the Jews to be wiped off the planet. It just means wanting to make sure that innocent Iranian civilians don't get killed. And saying that Israeli policy towards Iran is a threat to world peace doesn't mean that he thinks doesn't mean that he denies that any OTHER country is a threat to world peace.

Iran currently has a bad government. But it's not Nazi Germany and doesn't have Nazi objectives. And Ahmadinejad is not Hitler. He's just a nutcase with a bad beard. It's ridiculous and inflammatory for Bibi to keep using the "it's now 1938" rhetoric. Every time he does, he sounds like a lunatic. How can you defend it when he talks like that? You know perfectly well that no possible good could come of bombing Tehran.

And for the last time, Israel is not synonymous with "The Jews". Please stop implying that it is. Israel is simply one country. Some Jews live there. Many others do not. Many don't WANT to live there.

[shira]

37. Really? I must believe Bibi has to launch missiles at Iran? R U serious?

I'm defending Netanyahu?

See, this is all you're capable of doing. You cannot and will not address what I've clearly written. Instead, you make up straw men and red herrings and fight those.

The Nazi believes Israel is the real threat to world peace. As if Iran is harmless, hasn't once threatened Israel, and most likely has nothing to do with Hezbollah and Hamas. Irrational first strike genocide. Iran is no threat. Only Israel, which has no reason whatsoever to fear Iran.



Give it a rest. You cannot defend Grass, so you do what you do best. You come back with false accusations, arguing against things I've never written, much less ever thought about. Typical old Stalinist debate tactic. That won't work here with me.

And it's wonderful you're against Israeli missile strikes. Great. Are you against Iran having nuclear capability? Is Grass? We wouldn't know that b/c the 2 of you are so pathologically obsessed with Israel, making it seem Israel is being completely irrational and has no reason to be concerned in the least about Iran.

[Ken Burch]

38. Of course I don't want Iran to do anything to Israel

I don't have to prove that to you. Grass(who isn't a Nazi)almost certainly doesn't want Iran to do anything to Israel either.

But threatening to attack Iran, and kill innocent Iranian civilians, isn't going to make Iran NOT attack Israel. Why pretend that it would? And why does there have to be this tactic of arguing that everybody has to back the Israeli position on this simply to prove that they aren't antisemites? There has to be some way of cooling this situation down other than constant threats to hit Tehran with missiles.

The rhetoric needs to get dialed down. This isn't 1938, and Iran isn't Nazi Germany. The governments of Iran AND Israel both bear responsibility for the tensions here.

[shira]

40. So stop defending Grass, b/c he didn't write anything like that

Again, you're trying to steer the conversation to your liking, ignoring what Grass did.

Israel isn't threatening to attack Iran or kill innocent Iranian civilians. Strikes against nuclear facilities isn't a declaration of war anymore than Israel taking out Iraq and Syria's capabilities.

Grass accused Israel of irrationally wanting to annhilate the Iranian people. He wrote nothing about any Iranian threat to destroy Israel and nothing about Iran already being in a state of war vs. Israel through proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Don't write that you "care" when you keep defending hateful libels against the Jewish state.

[Ken Burch]

41. He just wrote a poem.

That's ALL the man did. At most, he was guilty of a bit of rhetorical overkill.

That poem is not a threat to Israel's survival.

And I'm sorry, but I can't let you call the man a Nazi, the most vile insult in any language, just because you disagree with him on this issue. Gunter Grass has spent over sixty years holding his country AND himself accountable for what happened in the war. That far outweighs what he did for less than a year as a teenager-in a situation in which he was conscripted and had no alternative but to join up-just like Helmut Kohl, who was given a total pass on the issue by the Israeli government and its apologists. It wasn't Gunter Grass that got Reagan to put wreaths on the graves at Bitburg, or who led his party(in opposition)to vote against removing the statute of limitations for the prosecution of Nazi war criminals. It wasn't Grass who led a party that welcomed former(and sometimes not-particularly repentant)Nazis into its parliamentary ranks. It was Kohl's party, the Christian Democrats. But that was ok, because they were "pro-Israel".

If he backed Israeli missile strikes on Tehran(strikes you KNOW would have to cause significant loss of innocent civilian life, because it goes without saying that Ahmadinejad wouldn't have isolated the targets Bibi wants to hit)you'd forgive him for anything he did in the war, even(I strongly suspect)if he'd been a guard at Belsen.

The poem was badly written and stretched too far, but it doesn't make Grass evil. It just makes him a not particularly good poet.

And the fact is, with the fourth-largest war machine in the world, Israel isn't in any danger from anybody, anywhere.

[shira]

42. He wrote an hysterical, ignorant, hateful screed....

Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2012, 11:35 AM - Edit history (1)

He claims Israel will launch a first nuclear strike on Iran and annihilate its people.

Find for me one Israeli leader who is calling for any such thing.

Blood Libel.

And of course Israel is in danger despite its military strength. One nuke and its over. Have you seen the size of Israel lately? It's tiny. Maybe the sources you read make believe Israel is some ginormous state in order to portray it as an evil entity, but it really is quite tiny. There's very little room for error.

[reorg]

44. Yes, Grass is against any state having nuclear capability.

You would know that if you knew anything about him.

[shira]

45. It doesn't appear Grass is against Iran for having them...

...or for threatening Israel with annihilation.

If I'm wrong about Grass WRT Iran, show me.

[reorg]

46. You must not have paid much attention

It is right there, in the poem:

"... 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."

As to the rhetoric of Iranian leaders and why he focused his criticism on Israel, not Iran, Grass said in an interview with Tom Buhrow, ARD (German television):

1. Iran is constantly being criticized, and rightfully so. I have also made contributions in this respect.
2. The nonsense and lies by Iran's leader, I call him a loudmouth - from holocaust denial to the threat of wiping Israel from the map - are well known. (In the poem) I am talking about things that are never mentioned, or not often enough.

9.47 - 10.38 min.

http://tagesschau.vo.llnwd.net/d3/video/2012/0405/TV-20120405-1911-5601.webl.h264.mp4


BTW, when he speculated that "the alleged right to the first strike ... could lead to the annihilation of the Iranian people", Grass may have had in mind the following quote from the New York Times, I guess: "an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable".

[King_David]

39. Please provide a link

Where we can confirm that Grass has disowned this poem.


You have claimed this repeatedly on this thread. I have done extensive 'googling' and can not find any evidence of this.

Can you help us?

Answer Oberliner's question here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=8487

[reorg]

43. Perhaps I can help

Apparently, confusion prevails over what Grass actually said and what he may have meant.

He did not disown his poem, nor did he retract anything. He did say, however, in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung, that he should have expressed himself more precisely and instead of generally talking of "Israel" (where he says "Israel endangers the already fragile world peace&quot he should have made it clear that he meant the current government of prime minister Netanyahu.

"Ich würde den pauschalen Begriff 'Israel' vermeiden und deutlicher machen, dass es mir in erster Linie um die derzeitige Regierung von Premierminister Benjamin Netanjahu geht"

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/nach-debatte-um-sein-gedicht-grass-praezisiert-kritik-an-israel-1.1327719


Most critics jumped at another sentence, though, where he says that "it is the alleged right to the first strike, which could wipe out the ... Iranian people ...". They generally misinterpret it as saying that Israel/Netanyahu is planning or threatening a nuclear attack on Iran.

When asked what he had meant by that exactly, and whether he thinks that Israel would use nuclear weapons against the installations in Iran, he stated in an interview with Tom Buhrow, ARD (German state television progam):

1. I don't know what weapons they are planning to use. But even a conventional strike against nuclear installations bears the risk of a worst case scenario (GAU).

2. Following any kind of attack, Iran will certainly strike back in some way, and Israel's allies will immediately become involved in the conflict which would be very dangerous indeed in this already unstable region.

(3. By "first strike" he does not mean a nuclear strike, he uses the term for any unprovoked attack.)

(at 4:50 - 6:19 min.)

http://tagesschau.vo.llnwd.net/d3/video/2012/0405/TV-20120405-1911-5601.webl.h264.mp4


So, the accusation that Grass "demonizes" Israel by allegedly suggesting they might be willing to commit genocide falls flat. He simply warns of the likely consequences of a "preemptive" strike as threatened by Netanyahu. Which is actually quite clear from just reading the poem carefully and in context.