adolf-eichmann « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Life Stories roundup: #2

pinkiguana — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:59:37 +0000

Kambodian war criminal Duch * former duchess Sarah Ferguson * angry peacenik John Lennon * Dr Beetroot * photographic pioneer Larry Sultan * Hitler plot conspirator Inga Haag * America’s rogue agent * Gerry Adams‘ father * temperamental starchitect Zaha Hadid * humorist turned science writer Bill Bryson * a death-defying skydiver * call-girl blogger Brooke Magnanti * TIME person of the year Ben Bernanke * premature babies * Franz Kafka * the famous as you’ve never known them * Adolf Eichmann and New York City’s favourite rat

FIRST PERSON

Skydiver James Boole was filming a documentary in Russia when he fell 6,000 feet and miraculously survived

I was very focused on my filming and had a viewfinder over my left eye, to help frame the video. To gauge distances, you really need both eyes, and because of the snow covering the volcano it was very difficult to sense height – all we could see was white.

Quite suddenly, I realised I could see the texture of the snow and ice, meaning I had two or three seconds before I hit the ground. I can’t have been more than 20 metres up. Terror gripped my heart and stomach, the darkest of darkness.

'A mere aberration'

random_salt — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:20:49 +0000

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo delivers a speech at the 34th National Prayer Breakfast on Novembe

Eichmann - studium polowania

tomaszalbecki — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:49:19 +0000

Książka historyczna nie musi być nudna. Udowadnia to Neal Bascomb w swoim thrillerze historycznym – “Wytropić Eichmanna”.

Adolf Eichmann –

niemiecki funkcjonariusz nazistowski, ludobójca, zbrodniarz wojenny. Główny wykonawca i koordynator Ostatecznego Rozwiązania Kwestii Żydowskiej. Członek zbrodniczych organizacji: SS (Eskadra Ochronna), SD (Służba Bezpieczeństwa), Gestapo (Tajna Policja Państwowa).

Tyle wikipedia. Szerszy obraz dostaniemy dzięki książce “Dziennik nazisty”, w której losy Eichmanna opisane są z najwyższą pieczołowitością. Warto przeczytać ją jako pierwszą, gdyż w “Wytropić Eichmanna” autor skupia się przede wszystkim na siatce szpiegowskiej, która odnalazła, ujęła i dostarczyła Eichmanna przed izraelski sąd.

Zwracam uwagę na trzy pogrubione słowa. Nieprzewidziane problemy, ciągły strach przez denuncjacją towarzyszą izraelskim agentom na każdym kroku. Ameryka Południowa przyjazna nazistom nie jest terenem dobrym dla działań szpiegowskich, o wywożeniu więźnia nie wspominając. Jednak determinacja i chęć sprawiedliwości okazuje się silniejsza niż wszystkie napotkane problemy.

Książka historyczna napisana językiem dobrej powieści sensacyjnej? Wydaje się niemożliwe. Na szczęście Neal Bascomb doskonale zachowuje wartości gatunku i sprawia, że czytanie nie jest nudne. To dobry argument do tego, by książkę kupić.

Obowiązkowa lektura każdej biblioteki.

Neal Bascomb
Wytropić Eichmanna
wydawnictwo Znak
2009

SELBSTHASS? Eine neue, alte Kontroverse über Hannah Arendt

prozionnrw — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:14:01 +0000

Jüdische Allgemeine Ausgabe vom 12.11.2009 Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) gilt landläufig als die jüdisch

Judt

RPR — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:24:36 +0000

«Comemora-se este mês o fim da Guerra Fria. É precisamente esse o ponto de partida de Tony Judt na introdução deste livro: os eventos de 1989 foram o resultado do fracasso político e humano da URSS, mas não eram inevitáveis e não devem ser deixados na gaveta da História. Como escreve o historiador – um intelectual descomprometido –, a sedução marxista sobreviveu à abertura de Gorbachev e o fim da História de Fukuyama é uma piada de mau gosto.»

Excerto de um texto feito para o Rascunho, sobre O Século XX Esquecido: Lugares e Memórias, de Tony Judt.

Banal evil vs. radical evil; or, Arendt reappraised

Lex — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:05:51 +0000

I recently read an essay — in the New Yorker, I think, although I can’t remember for sure — that argues that on the basis of what we now know about Martin Heidegger, his anti-Semitism is so virulent that it renders him an inappropriate subject for serious study.

Never having read any Heidegger, I’m agnostic on that question. But I have read Hannah Arendt, and so I was intrigued by this Ron Rosenbaum essay at Slate that, drawing on a Bernard Wasserstein essay in the Oct. 9 London Times Literary Supplement (not available online), suggests Arendt may have absorbed a little too much of the anti-Semitism she studied, with the result that she too often blamed the victim. It’s been years since I read Arendt, but I don’t recall getting that impression. Perhaps it just went over my head. Anyway, Rosenbaum maintains that Arendt’s best-known contribution to the subject, the concept of “the banality of evil” (i.e., they, too, were evil who only pushed pencils in the offices of the Nazi bureaucracy) gets it pretty much exactly backward: evil is evil, he says, and we must be on the watch for the evil of banality. Or something like that:

To my mind, the use of the phrase banality of evil is an almost infallible sign of shallow thinkers attempting to seem intellectually sophisticated. Come on, people: It’s a bankrupt phrase, a subprime phrase, a Dr. Phil-level phrase masquerading as a profound contrarianism. Oooh, so daring! Evil comes not only in the form of mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash types, but in the form of paper pushers who followed evil orders. And when applied—as she originally did to Adolf Eichmann, Hitler’s eager executioner, responsible for the logistics of the Final Solution—the phrase was utterly fraudulent.

Adolf Eichmann was, of course, in no way a banal bureaucrat: He just portrayed himself as one while on trial for his life. Eichmann was a vicious and loathsome Jew-hater and -hunter who, among other things, personally intervened after the war was effectively lost, to insist on and ensure the mass murder of the last intact Jewish group in Europe, those of Hungary. So the phrase was wrong in its origin, as applied to Eichmann, and wrong in almost all subsequent cases when applied generally. Wrong and self-contradictory, linguistically, philosophically, and metaphorically. Either one knows what one is doing is evil or one does not. If one knows and does it anyway, one is evil, not some special subcategory of evil. If one doesn’t know, one is ignorant, and not evil. But genuine ignorance is rare when evil is going on.

Arendt should have stuck with her original formulation for the Nazi crimes, “radical evil.” Not an easy concept to define, but, you might say, you know it when you see it. Certainly one with more validity than banality.

Rosenbaum argues that Arendt’s concept of the banality of evil is itself evil because it lets us off the hook:

Arendt may not have intended that the phrase be used this way, but one of its pernicious effects has been to make it seem as though the search for an explanation of the mystery of evil done by “ordinary men” is over.

Maybe Rosenbaum is right, but I never understood the phrase that way. I understood it as more of a warning that opportunities to commit evil could appear among the banal choices and duties of everyday life and that we must always be wary. I never thought that she thought she had the answer as to how or why this happened. (For that, we must turn to Stanley Milgram and others.)

And the warning is valuable in and of itself. In the past few years, we have seen literally life-and-death decisions about our captives reduced to games of legal and constitutional three-card monte.

For the sake of discussion let’s grant Rosenbaum his argument that Arendt was too close to Heidegger, that she allowed herself to be unduly influenced by both Heidegger and some of her own anti-Semitic sources, that almost to the end of her life she believed in some of the same Germanic notions that gave rise to Hitlerism. The idea that not all monsters have horns and tails is still worth keeping constantly in mind.

Soykırımın Mimarı: Adolf Eichmann

diagnost — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:00:59 +0000

19 Mart 1906’da Solingen, Almanya’da Dünya’ya gözlerini açan bebeğin, milyonlarca insanın gözlerini

A Poem by Leonard Cohen

saedinia — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:49:57 +0000

‘ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT ADOLF EICHMANN’

EYES – Medium
HAIR – Medium
WEIGHT – Medium
HEIGHT – Medium
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES – None
NUMBER OF FINGERS – Ten
NUMBER OF TOES – Ten
INTELLIGENCE – Medium

What did you expect?
Talons?
Oversize incisors?
Green saliva?
Madness?

The head Nazi-hunter’s trail of lies

Antievil — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:42:51 +0000

Simon Wiesenthal, famed for his pursuit of justice, caught fewer war criminals than he claimed and f

Two Eichmann Books.

jeffkellylowenstein3 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:44:02 +0000

The image of Adolf Eichmann behind glass while on trial in Jerusalem haunts us still. Neal Bascomb's new book provides a new vision of Eichmann and the compelling story of his capture.

It was one of the starkest of its, or any other, time.

Adolf Eichmann, to his families’ victims one of the masterminds of the Holocaust but by his own description an ordinary, Jewish-loving functionary following orders, sitting behind the glass while being put on trial in Israeli on behalf of the Jewish people will continue to haunt us for years to come.

In her classic work, Eichmann in Jerusualem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, philosopher, writer and former lover of Martin Heidegger Hannah Arendt focused on Eichmann’s lack of hostility toward Jews, his ordinariness.

In addition to arousing widespread enmity among people who felt that she accused the Judenrat as being complicit in their community’s destruction, Arendt and her interpretation have become widely used, if not universally accepted.

A new book by Neal Bascomb challenges Arendt’s vision.

In Hunting Eichmann, Bascomb tells the story of Eichmann’s capture in Argentina by Israelis and reveals a man who actively knew and relished the mass murder he designed and helped carry out.

Many thanks to dear friend Ava Kadishshon Schieber for lending me the book.

Bascomb’s work is a gripping account of a daring mission carried out at great risk and for which the stakes could not be higher. Each person involved in stalking, apprehending and flying Eichmann back to Israel knew that he or she was participating in a higher cause-to bring some vengeance and justice to the world.

It was a delicate operation that took more than 15 years to realize.

Bascomb opens the book just before Eichmann’s capture, pivots back to the war and the survival of Zeev Sapir, who later would be one of the survivors who testified against Eichmann.

He then moves through Eichmann’s escape and refuge in Argentina, where he lived among a veritable collection of World War II-era fascists of all stripes.

The chase for Eichmann was fitful, starting and then stopping for years at a time. Bascomb picks up the action in the period when he was identified.

I will not give too many details, but will simply say that the planning was enormously intricate and fraught with danger. One wrong move and he could be gone, forever.

One of the most fascinating parts of the book is Bascomb’s description of the mixed emotions his captors feel toward the high level Nazi. At different points nearly everyone involved with the mission must restrain himself or herself from attacking and killing Eichmann because of the heinous actions he took.

But boredom at the long wait once he was captured and before the El Al plane arrived set in, too. So did bewilderment that this harmless, compliant and even pathetic man could have been responsible for so much murder, including some of the families of the people involved in the mission.

The trial, which is the focus of Arendt’s work, feels more like a coda to the dizzying action Bascomb has skillfully laid out in cinematic and page-turing form in the preceding 300 pages.

He ends the book with a poignant moment between one of Eichmann’s captors and his dieing mother, with whom he shares his role in snaring the notorious Nazi, who was responsible for his sister’s death.

The tender connection in which a devoted son gifts his mother peace of mind before she passes is a fitting moment to wind up this fast-paced and emotionally rich work that adds to our understanding of one of the most notorious Nazis and keeps us turning the pages as fast as we can along the way.

Lieberman heng opp bilete av Hitler og stormufti al-Husseini på israelske ambassadar

Magnus — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:52:34 +0000

Etter ein ide av Israel sin høgre-ekstreme utanriksminister, Avigdor Lieberman, skal no alle ambassa

Simon Wiesenthal a minţit despre trecutul său din timpul războiului

www.jostaxa.tk — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:24:47 +0000

Guy Walters, autorul cărţii “Hunting Evil”, susţine că Simon Wiesenthal, considerat întruchiparea efortului de a-i găsi şi trage la răspundere pe naziştii vinovaţi pentru Holocaust, a minţit atât în ceea ce priveşte trecutul său din timpul celui de-Al Doilea Război Mondial, cât şi asupra numărului de criminali pe care i-a descoperit. Fragmente din cartea lui Walters au fost publicate de către cotidianul britanic “The Telegraph”.

“Simon Wiesenthal este prezentat ca un fel de sfânt secular”, scrie Walters, prezentând numeroasele onoruri cu care a fost tratat acesta: nominalizat de patru ori la Premiul Nobel pentru Pace, cavaler de onoare al Marii Britanii, deţinător al Medaliei Prezidenţiale a SUA pentru Libertate, al Legiunii de onoare franceze şi a încă 53 de premii. Wiesenthal este creditat cu 1.100 de “scalpuri de nazişti”, dar este cunoscut mai ales pentru eforturile sale de a-l găsi pe Adolf Eichmann, unul dintre cei mai cunoscuţi criminali de război. “Reputaţia sa este construită pe nisip, totuşi. Era un mincinos, şi încă unul destul de prost.

De la sfârşitul celui de-Al Doilea Război Mondial şi până la sfârşitul vieţii, în 2005, a minţit în repetate rânduri asupra vânătorii pe care se presupune că a lansat-o împotriva lui Eichmann, dar şi asupra altor aventuri pe drumul său în căutarea naziştilor”, scrie Walters, în fragmentul preluat de cotidianul britanic.

“A inventat de asemenea poveşti strigătoare la cer despre anii din timpul războiului şi a pretins lucruri false despre cariera sa academică”, continuă scriitorul. Walters arată că există multe diferenţe notabile între cele trei principale biografii ale lui Wiesenthal, dar şi între acestea şi documentele vremii pe care le-a consultat.

Walters recunoaşte rolul avut de Wiesenthal în documentarea Holocaustului şi în eforturile făcute pentru a păstra amintirea celor morţi. “A adus câţiva nazişti în faţa justiţiei, dar nu atâţia cât se spune şi, cu siguranţă, Eichmann nu se afla printre ei”. Walters se concentrează însă asupra episoadelor din timpul războiului care au contribuit la crearea mitului Wiesenthal. Născut în Galiţia, în 1908, Simon a fost atacat cu o sabie de către un ucrainean călare, în 1920, în timpul disputelor dintre ucraineni, polonezi şi sovietici. Wiesenthal obişnuia să spună că această cicatrice este doar una dintre dovezile care arată că a fost protejat de moartea violentă şi că “o forţă nevăzută” îl ţinea în viaţă cu un scop. La 19 ani a devenit student la Universitatea Tehnică din Praga, la arhitectură, lucrând în acelaşi timp ca povestitor şi comediant. Deşi majoritatea biografiilor sale, inclusiv cea oficială, susţin că a obţinut diploma în arhitectură, se pare că el nu a absolvit totuşi cursurile. El însuşi susţinea în mod fals că ar fi avut o astfel de diplomă.

Poveştile din timpul celui de-Al Doilea Război Mondial înregistrează şi ele o serie de discrepanţe. Se afla în Lvov când oraşul a căzut în mâinile naziştilor, în 1941. El susţinea că a fost arestat împreună cu un prieten evreu numit Gross duminică, 6 iulie, la ora 16.00, aceasta fiind una dintre puţinele date care au rămas constante de-a lungul povestirilor sale, observă scriitorul. “Totuşi, când este atât de precis asupra unor date, de obicei minte”, susţine Walters.

Duşi în închisoare, au fost puşi în rând cu încă aproximativ 40 de evrei, iar poliţia auxiliară ucraineană a început să îi împuşte în ceafă pe cei aflaţi în acest rând, înaintând către Wiesenthal. A fost salvat de clopotele bisericii care au început să bată, anunţând slujba de seară. În mod incredibil, ucrainenii s-au oprit din execuţii pentru a pleca la slujbă. Supravieţuitorii au fost duşi în celule, unde Wiesenthal spune că a adormit. A fost trezit de un prieten ucrainean din poliţia auxiliară, care l-a salvat pe el şi pe Gross spunându-le să susţină că sunt spioni ruşi. Au fost chestionaţi în mod brutal, dar au fost eliberaţi. “Povestea evadării sale spectaculoase – una dintre cele mai cunoscute dintre cele care au ajutat la construirea mitului misiunii divine – este, cel mai probabil, o invenţie”, scrie Walters. Conform mărturiei depuse în faţa investigatorilor crimelor de război americani, Wiesenthal a evadat “oferind mită” şi se pare că perioada în care a fost arestat era de fapt una în care fuseseră întrerupte execuţiile.

La sfârşitul anului, Wiesethal se afla în Janowska, un lagăr de concentrare de lângă Lvov, uned i se dăduse sarcina de a vopsi însemnele naziste pe vagoanele sovietice capturate. Simon s-a împrietenit cu Adolf Kohlrautz, inspectorul atelierului, în secret antinazist. La 20 aprilie 1943 se pare că Wiesenthal a fost din nou selectat pentru execuţie, urmând să fie împuşcat în onoarea aniversării lui Hitler. Cei selectaţi au fost duşi lângă o groapă comună, în care se aflau câteva cadavre. Forţaţi să se dezbrace, au fost puşi să se încoloneze printr-un coridor cunoscut drept “furtunul” la capătul căruia erau împuşcaţi, la marginea gropii. Un fluier a întrerupt împuşcăturile, urmat de strigătul: “Wiesenthal!”. Koller, un ofiţer SS, i-a cerut lui Wiesenthal să îl urmeze. “Mă împleticeam ca un beţiv”, îşi amintea Wiesenthal. “Koller mi-a tras două palme şi m-a trezit. Mergeam înapoi prin «furtun», dezbrăcat. În spatele meu, împuşcăturile s-au reluat”.

Întors la atelier l-a găsit pe Kohlrautz, fericit că reuşise să îl convingă pe comandant că avea nevoie de Wiesenthal pentru a picta un poster în care urma să apară svastica şi cuvintele “Îi mulţumim Fuhrerului nostru”. Wiesenthal susţine că la 2 octombrie 1943, Kohlrautz l-a avertizat că lagărul şi prizonierii urmau să fie lichidaţi în curând. Neamţul le-a dat lui şi unui prieten permise pentru a vizita un magazin de unelte din oraş, însoţiţi de un gardian ucrainean. Au reuşit să fugă prin spatele magazinului, în timp ce ucraineanul aştepta în faţă. Nu există mărturii care să certifice această poveste. Wiesenthal a declarat că Kohlrautz a fost ucis în bătălia pentru Berlin, în 1945, dar biografului său i-a spus că acesta a murit pe frontul rusesc, în 1944. În declaraţia făcută în 1954 asupra persecuţiilor din timpul războiului nu menţionează acest episod, iar în declaraţia făcută americanilor în 1945 îl menţionează pe Kohlrautz, fără a spune însă că acesta i-ar fi salvat viaţa.

Din acest punct este practic imposibil de trasat drumul lui Wiesenthal. Există cel puţin patru versiuni diferite asupra activităţii sale din octombrie 1943 până la mijlocul lui 1944, inclusiv asupra presupusei sale activităţi ca ofiţer partizan. Unii, precum Bruno Kreitsky, fostul cancelar austriac, l-au acuzat pe Wiesenthal în mod repetat în anii 1970 şi 1980 că ar fi colaborat cu Gestapoul. Totuşi, Wiesenthal l-a dat în judecată pe fostul cancelar şi a câştigat procesul.

Cert este că, în noiembrie 1944, Wiesenthal se afla la Gross-Rosen, un lagăr de lângă Wroclaw. El i-a povestit biografei sale că era obligat să muncească desculţ pe câmp şi că observase că numărul de lucrători se împuţina în fiecare zi. După câteva zile a simţit că i se apropie şi lui sorocul. “Călăul meu era în spatele meu, voia să îmi zdrobească capul cu o piatră. M-am întors şi omul, surprins, a scăpat piatra. Mi-a strivit degetul de la picior. Am ţipat”, îşi amintea Wiesenthal. Strigătul i-ar fi salvat viaţa, deoarece, susţine el, atunci era o inspecţie a Crucii Roşii în lagăr, aşa că a fost dus la infirmerie, unde i s-a amputat degetul de la picior fără anestezie, în timp ce doi bărbaţi îl ţineau. Ziua următoare, Wiesenthal era în agonie: “Doctorul s-a întors şi a văzut că aveam o băşică septică pe talpă. Aşa că au spart-o şi lichidul s-a împrăştiat în toată camera”. Din nou, spune Walters, “miracolul” cade sub semnul îndoielii: povestea nu a mai fost relatată în alte memorii sau declaraţii. În al doilea rând, dacă Crucea Roşie vizita într-adevăr lagărul, SS-ul ar fi oprit execuţiile. În acea perioadă însă, Crucea Roşie nu mai era primită în lagăre.

Curând după aceea, Wiesenthal susţine că a mers 270 de kilometri înspre vest, către Chemnitz, după evacuarea Gross-Rosen. Să mergi cu un picior cangrenos, imediat după amputarea unui deget, trebuie să fi fost un adevărat iad. În loc de pantof, îşi înfăşurase mâneca unui costum şi folosea drept baston o coadă de mătură. Din cei 6.000 de prizonieri care au făcut acest marş, doar 4.800 au ajuns la Chemnitz. Cu piciorul infectat, Wiesenthal a fost foarte norocos să se afle printre ei. Ulterior a fost transferat la Mauthausen, în 15 februarie 1945. În cartea “Ucigaşii printre noi” povesteşte cum se ajuta cu alţi prizonieri, de exemplu Prinţul Radziwill, pentru a urca dealul către lagăr. Efortul era prea mare şi cei doi s-au prăbuşit în zăpadă. Un ofiţer SS a tras un foc de armă care a nimerit între cei doi. Cum cei doi nu s-au ridicat, au fost lăsaţi în zăpadă, la temperaturi sub zero grade. Când au sosit camioanele pentru a-i ridica pe cei morţi pe drum, Wiesenthal şi Radziwill erau îngheţaţi, inconştienţi, aşa că au fost aruncaţi în grămezile de cadavre. La crematoriu însă, prizonierii care descărcau şi-au dat seama că sunt în viaţă, li s-a făcut un duş rece, iar Wiesenthal a fost trimis în blocul VI, cel destinat deţinuţilor aflaţi pe moarte. În 1961, când Wiesenthal a fost intervievat pentru arhiva Yad Vashem de către jurnalistul Haim Maas, acesta a povestit că în acel moment infecţia piciorului său devenise verde-albăstruie şi se răspândise până la genunchi. A zăcut pe patul lagărului următoarele trei luni, până la finalul războiului. Prea slăbit pentru a se ridica, susţinea că a supravieţuit cu doar 200 de calorii pe zi şi cu ceva bucăţi de mâncare pe care i le mai aducea un amic polonez.

Din Mauthausen a fost eliberat la 5 mai 1945. În ciuda faptului că el cântărea doar 45 de kilograme, Wiesenthal a reuşit să iasă în întâmpinarea americanilor. “Nu ştiu cum am reuşit să mă ridic şi să merg”, îşi amintea el. Dacă putea să meargă, conchide jurnalistul britanic, înseamnă că piciorul său se vindecase în cele trei luni, fie prin amputare, fie prin administrarea de antibiotice. “Ştiu că prima variantă nu a avut loc, iar a doua nu era un tratament comun care să li se aplice evreilor în lagăre”, arată Walters. “Se pare că din nou avusese loc un miracol.” Recuperarea sa rapidă este şi ea miraculoasă. La 20 de zile după eliberare, le scria comandanţilor americani cerându-le să se implice în investigarea crimelor de război. Susţinând că a trecut prin 13 lagăre de concentrare – de fapt nu fusese în mai mult de şase -, Wiesenthal a dat 91 de nume ale celor care trecuseră prin “suferinţe incalculabile” pe care îi cunoştea. Americanii i-au refuzat oferta, deoarece nu era suficient de sănătos. Ulterior a fost repartizat la un căpitan american cu care susţine că a prins primul nazist, un gardian SS numit Schmidt.
Wiesenthal a adunat apoi, împreună cu echipa sa, 3.289 de mărturii ale supravieţuitorilor Holocaustului. A murit în 2005, la 96 de ani şi a fost înmormântat în Israel. “Era un om de spectacol în sufletul său şi, când şi-a găsit rolul de cel mai important vânător de nazişti, l-a jucat foarte bine”, scrie Walters. “În cele din urmă a fost o iluzie montată pentru o cauză nobilă”, conchide scriitorul.

Good Company? The Argentine Way

Ken Olshansky — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:10:29 +0000

Argentina (and Argentinians) seems to attract people who have something to hide… or would like to have something to hide.

Clockwise, from top left: Josef Mengele (Nazi war criminal, retired to Argentina); Eva Peron (Actress and singer, lived out of wedlock with Argentinian president); Diego Maradona (Star Argentinian football player, suspended from World Cup (twice) for drug use); Wilbur Mills (Arkansas Congressman romantically linked with Fanne Foxe, ‘the Argentinian Firecracker’); Mark Sanford (Governor of South Carolina, who today admitted to an affair in Buenos Aires); Adolf Eichmann (See ‘Josef Mengele,’ above).

la Farge 2009

tneal — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:18:00 +0000

: Image via Wikipedia

Paul la Farge has a review of Littell’s The Kindly Ones in the newest issue of The Believer. Criticized as too encyclopedic and too sadistic (the protagonist is an SS officer that killed his mother and stepfather, anally rapes his sister and enjoys his job overseeing the Lublin concentration camp) la Farge, agreeing with those sentiments, wants to find out why it is such a compelling read.

La Farge seems particularly captivated by the encyclopedic nature of the book. Max Aue, the protagonist, is painted by la Farge more as a scanner and less person, taking in everything and remembering everything with inhumane clarity in a strategic realism– a “refusal to sort important from unimportant”. (4)

There is then a meander through Eichmann’s trials and Arendt’s reporting of the trial culminating in her Banality of Evil. To avoid the banality of citing the banality (la Farge’s joke, not mine) he paraphrases it (well done, in my opinion) as “the danger of Too Much Information: if your mind is occupied with bureaucratic turf wars, how can you make room to think about what’s happening in the crematoriums that smoke just a few hundred meters away…?” (6) Why is this banality, this overemphasis of information over knowledge so compelling? La Farge does not venture a guess except to cite the constitutive lack, that people are intrinsically incomplete. This is also the reason la Farge claims The Kindly Ones is so compelling: “it offers a complete world that masks the reader’s incompleteness; its fantastic descriptions set ablaze those lazy (or young, or sad) minds that want nothing to be left to the imagination.” (8)

I do not believe la Farge is honest when he says this method is persuasive to the lazy, young or sad. La Farge was compelled by The Kindly Ones and I doubt he would group himself into those pejorative labels. Instead, it is quite likely that la Farge believes all people are compelled by the constitutive lack and consequently all people find the totalitarian story compelling. This is where la Farge’s argument breaks down: psychoanalysis can reduce people’s urges to a primal cause but all people then interpret the solution to that same cause differently.

Some may be drawn to the totalitarian state and yet others may be drawn to classic auto shows while some are drawn to Furry Conventions or picking navel lint. In a strict reduction we may appear alike but we all manifest differently. The constituent lack does not explain why The Kindly Ones is compelling. La Farge knows this problem exists for his argument which is why he sets out the purpose of the essay with a qualification that denies the very exigency for the purpose: “The Kindly Ones isn’t a comfortable experience, or an ennobling one, but it’s certainly compelling, at least for some readers[emphasis mine]. The question I want to ask is, why?” Why does the question need to be asked if this book, like all books, is about preference?

What la Farge’s essay completely overlooks in the success of The Kindly Ones is style. I am surprised to see this error in a post-Seinfeld world. Jerry and George launched a sitcom about nothing. They realized that content is irrelevant as long as the writing is good. People want to be entertained and what they find entertaining is nearly irrelevant. ER also provided this lesson. Critics and producers told Michael Crichton the show was to jargon filled. Too technical. Crichton correctly took the chance that people were engaged not by the accuracy of a technology but by compelling characters and stories. No content can sell and too much content can sell. It’s all about storytelling. La Farge spends no time talking about style. He does, however, cite (4) a passage towards the end of the book to demonstrate his scanner theory, but the passage really demonstrates less realism and more style. Good writing sells even if, nay especially if, we hate the protagonist.

La Farge’s essay is useful for other questions though. His description and paraphrasing of Arendt’s banality of evil is one of the better concisions I have ever encountered. La Farge also provides a persuasive account, not at all unlike Erich Fromm’s, of why people are drawn to submission. There is also a nice walk through ancient Greek literature particularly the Orestes (otherwise known as The Kindly Ones.) The best part of la Farge’s essay though is a theory about information and knowledge drawn out of Arendt’s theorizations. Eichmann had information about the camps he oversaw but he did not know the camps. This break is helpful when analyzing our own world for resistance to change.

For example, Easterly has recently decided to take on the critics who call poverty a human rights violation. He claims a human rights violation is best reserved for when a victim and a perpetrator can be (easily?) identified. Easterly then says that while he knows how bad poverty is that these calls are counterproductive. I will admit that history is on Easterly’s side but that is only because the game is rigged. The transcript of success can only measure immediate causes and their effects. The larger calls which shape policies are ignored and the ‘true’ human rights violations are treated as deus ex machina. Easterly’s criticism fails because of the information/knowledge distinction la Farge raises. Easterly has information about the ravages of poverty but he does not know poverty. If he knew poverty he would be more adamant about solving it if for no other reason than he would not sit in his current position en-privileged by the very poverty he wants to fight.

In conclusion I offer William Blake’s words in “The Human Abstract”:

Pity would be no more
If we did not make somebody poor,
And Mercy no more could be
If all were as happy as we.

Easterly, William. (2009). Aid Watch, http://blogs.nyu.edu/fas/dri/aidwatch/2009/06/paul_farmer_and_the_human_righ.html.

la Farge, Paul. (2009). A scanner darkly. The Believer, 66, 3-8.

On This Day, May 31: Joseph Johnston Wounded

Randy Roberts — Sun, 31 May 2009 10:49:54 +0000

May 31, 1862

Battle of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks), Virginia

Confederate forces strike Union troops in the Pen insular campaign. During May 1862, the Army of the Potomac, under the command of George B. McClellan, slowly advanced up the James Peninsula after sailing down the Chesapeake Bay by boat. Confederate commander Joseph Johnston had been cautiously backing his troops up the peninsula in the face of the larger Union force, giving ground until he was in the Richmond perimeter. When the Rebels had backed up to the capital, Johnston sought an opportunity to attack McClellan and halt his advance.

That chance came when McClellan’s forces were straddling the Chickahominy River. The swampy ground around the river was difficult to maneuver, and the river was now a raging torrent from the spring rains. A major storm on May 31 threatened to cut the only bridge links between the two wings of the Union army.

Johnston attacked one of McClellan’s corps south of the river on May 31 in a promising assault. The plan called for three divisions to hammer the Federal corps from three sides, but the inexperienced Confederates were delayed and confused. By the time the attack came, McClellan had time to muster reinforcements and drive the Rebels back. A Confederate attack the next day also produced no tangible results. The Yankees lost 5,000 casualties to the Rebels’ 6,000.

But the battle had two important consequences. McClellan was horrified by the sight of his dead and wounded soldiers, and became much more cautious and timid in battle—actions that would eventually doom the campaign. And since Johnston was wounded during the battle’s first day, Robert E. Lee replaced him. Lee had been serving as Confederate President Jefferson Davis’ military advisor since his undistinguished service in western Virginia during the war’s first year. The history of the war in the eastern theater drastically changed as Lee ascended the ranks. His leadership and exploits soon became legend.

“Battle of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks), Virginia,” The History Channel website, 2009, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=2051 [accessed May 31, 2009]

On This Day

1854 – The Kansas-Nebraska Act passed by the U.S. Congress.

1889 – In Johnstown, PA, more than 2,200 people died after the South Fork Dam collapsed.

1902 – The Boer War ended between the Boers of South Africa and Great Britain with the Treaty of Vereeniging.

1909 – The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) held its first conference.

1913 – The 17th Amendment went into effect. It provided for popular election of U.S. senators.

1947 – Communists seized control of Hungary.

1955 – The U.S. Supreme Court ordered that all states must end racial segregation “with all deliberate speed.”

1962 – Adolf Eichmann was hanged in Israel. Eichmann was a Gestapo official and was executed for his actions in the Nazi Holocaust.

2003 – In North Carolina, Eric Robert Rudolph was captured. He had been on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list for five years for several bombings including the 1996 Olympic bombing.

May 31, 1775

Mecklenburg Resolutions reject the power of the British in North Carolina

On this day in 1775, the committeemen of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, meet and respond to news of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the first battles of the American Revolution, with a series of 20 patriotic resolutions.

This meeting gave rise to a lasting historical myth better known than the event itself. In 1819, the Raleigh Register published a document that it claimed was the “Mecklenberg Declaration of Independence” from May 20, 1775. Controversy continues regarding the declaration’s authenticity, but it is likely that the so-called declaration was a misdated and edited version of the resolves that were actually recorded on May 31.

The so-called Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence printed in 1819 contained five resolutions. The first charges, “That whosoever directly or indirectly abetted, or in any way, form, or manner, countenanced the unchartered and dangerous invasion of our rights, as claimed by Great Britain, is an enemy to this County, to America, and to the inherent and inalienable rights of man.” The second resolution “dissolved” Mecklenburg County’s ties “to the Mother Country” and removed “all allegiance to the British Crown,” which had “shed the innocent blood of American Patriots at Lexington. The third resolution declared the Mecklenbergers, “a free and independent people.” The fourth and fifth resolutions dissolved the power of all British appointments and called every officer in the county to resume “his former command and authority… until a more general and organized government be established in this province.”

The myth of the May 20, 1775, declaration is deeply entrenched: North Carolina’s state seal and flag bear the dates May 20, 1775, and April 12, 1776. April 12, 1776, was the date of the Halifax Resolves, with which the North Carolina Provincial Congress empowered its delegates to the Continental Congress to vote in favor of independence from Britain. Despite the continued popularity of the “Mecklenburg Declaration” in popular lore, the less emphatic set of 20 resolves issued on May 31, which suspended crown authority in North Carolina without overtly declaring independence, are the only ones confirmed to have existed by contemporary documents.

“Mecklenburg Resolutions reject the power of the British in North Carolina,” The History Channel website, 2009, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=639 [accessed May 31, 2009]

On This Day, May 11: Kim Philby Died

Randy Roberts — Mon, 11 May 2009 09:20:57 +0000

May 11, 1988

Kim Philby dies

Kim Philby, a former British Secret Intelligence Service officer and double agent for the Soviet Union, dies in Moscow at the age of 76. Philby was perhaps the most famous of a group of British government officials who served as Russian spies from the 1930s to the 1950s.

Philby came from a privileged and respected background in British society. He attended Trinity College at Cambridge University in the early 1930s, and became progressively more attracted to radical politics. In 1934, he traveled to Vienna where he met, married, and soon divorced a young woman who was a member of the Austrian Communist Party. Philby later claimed that this was when the Soviet government recruited him to do espionage work in Great Britain.

In 1941, Philby successfully entered the ranks of the British Secret Intelligence Service–the famed M.I.6. He quickly rose through the ranks and, in an ironic turn of events, was charged with handling the Service’s double agents. During the war, he worked closely with both American and Soviet espionage agencies to coordinate activities against Hitler’s Germany. After the war, he continued his ascension in the Service’s bureaucracy; many believed that he was slated to become its next director. While stationed in Washington in 1951, however, he risked exposure. He learned that Donald Maclean, a colleague who was also working for the Soviets and had been stationed in Washington, was under investigation by the FBI. Philby arranged for Guy Burgess, yet another colleague who was a double agent for the Soviets, to be sent back to England from his station in Washington to warn Maclean. Burgess and Maclean eventually fled England and later surfaced in the Soviet Union. Philby came under heavy suspicion and, although cleared of charges, he was dismissed in 1955. In 1963, new charges arose concerning Philby and his connections with Soviet espionage. This time, Philby fled and joined Burgess and Maclean in Russia.

Philby, in interviews given in Russia and his 1968 memoir, My Silent War: The Soviet Master Spy’s Own Story, claimed that he turned to spying for the Soviet Union during the 1930s because he did not believe the western democracies were doing enough to stop Hitler. His loyalties to Russia and the ideals of communism did not diminish with the onset of the Cold War, however. In 1988, he died in Moscow, apparently from a heart attack. The defections of Burgess, Maclean, and Philby were immense blows to British diplomacy, intelligence, and the general public morale. The fact that these three men, products of the best and brightest of British society, could turn against their country shocked the country. The Philby defection, in particular, was one of the most scandalous events of the Cold War.

“Kim Philby dies,” The History Channel website, 2009, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=2664 [accessed May 11, 2009]

On This Day

0330 – Constantinople, previously the town of Byzantium, was founded.

1812 – British prime Minster Spencer Perceval was shot by a bankrupt banker in the lobby of the House of Commons.

1858 – Minnesota was admitted as the 32nd U.S. state.

1910 – Glacier National Park in Montana was established.

1944 – A major offensive was launched by the allied forces in central Italy.

1960 – Israeli soldiers captured Adolf Eichmann in Buenos Aires.

1967 – The siege of Khe Sanh ended.

1995 – The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was extended indefinitely. The treaty limited the spread of nuclear material for military purposes.

1997 – Garry Kasparov, world chess champion, lost his first ever multi-game match. He lost to IBM’s chess computer Deep Blue. It was the first time a computer had beat a world-champion player.

1998 – India conducted its first underground nuclear tests, three of them, in 24 years. The tests were in violation of a global ban on nuclear testing.

May 11, 1934

Dust storm sweeps from Great Plains across Eastern states

On this day in 1934, a massive storm sends millions of tons of topsoil flying from across the parched Great Plains region of the United States as far east as New York, Boston and Atlanta.

At the time the Great Plains were settled in the mid-1800s, the land was covered by prairie grass, which held moisture in the earth and kept most of the soil from blowing away even during dry spells. By the early 20th century, however, farmers had plowed under much of the grass to create fields. The U.S. entry into World War I in 1917 caused a great need for wheat, and farms began to push their fields to the limit, plowing under more and more grassland with the newly invented tractor. The plowing continued after the war, when the introduction of even more powerful gasoline tractors sped up the process. During the 1920s, wheat production increased by 300 percent, causing a glut in the market by 1931.

That year, a severe drought spread across the region. As crops died, wind began to carry dust from the over-plowed and over-grazed lands. The number of dust storms reported jumped from 14 in 1932 to 28 in 1933. The following year, the storms decreased in frequency but increased in intensity, culminating in the most severe storm yet in May 1934. Over a period of two days, high-level winds caught and carried some 350 million tons of silt all the way from the northern Great Plains to the eastern seaboard. According to The New York Times, dust “lodged itself in the eyes and throats of weeping and coughing New Yorkers,” and even ships some 300 miles offshore saw dust collect on their decks.

The dust storms forced thousands of families from Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas and New Mexico to uproot and migrate to California, where they were derisively known as “Okies”–no matter which state they were from. These transplants found life out West not much easier than what they had left, as work was scarce and pay meager during the worst years of the Great Depression.

Another massive storm on April 15, 1935–known as “Black Sunday”–brought even more attention to the desperate situation in the Great Plains region, which reporter Robert Geiger called the “Dust Bowl.” That year, as part of its New Deal program, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration began to enforce federal regulation of farming methods, including crop rotation, grass-seeding and new plowing methods. This worked to a point, reducing dust storms by up to 65 percent, but only the end of the drought in the fall of 1939 would truly bring relief.

“Dust storm sweeps from Great Plains across Eastern states,” The History Channel website, 2009, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=52688 [accessed May 11, 2009]

AirViúva. Por Elio Gaspari. Não falei???

debatepronto — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:55:55 +0000

A indignação de vários deputados não é com o ocorrido, mas sim, pelo interesse que o tema gerou na população. Sim, concordo: o escândalo parece realmente bobo, não é fundamentalmente ilegal, e no fim, é só um deslize moral. Deslize moral???

O mais interessante nisso, é que há 10 anos atrás o tema talvez não chamasse tanta atenção. Não, o que mudou não foi a consciência do povo em um surto de moralidade repentina, mas sim, a camada que passou a perceber o que é uma passagem aérea é que aumentou. Agradecimentos à Gol, que na época era uma “linha aérea inteligente”, e parece que “emburreceu”!

Barrinhas de cereal à parte, continuo dizendo: se tiver algum deputado interessado em financiar visitas a minha família, até posso auxiliar num projetinho básico ou coisa assim, como forma de gratidão. Não, eles não moram em Paris, Milão, Nova York. É no Rio Grande do Norte mesmo. E eu não sou ator global. Espero que o “surto” de consciência do que é ou não moral contamine pelo menos uns 10 milhões. De habitantes. Quem sabe, não reconhecemos nossos papéis?

A recomendação do material que segue abaixo é do Paulo Rink. E acertou em cheio! O texto do Elio Gaspari, sempre muito lúcido e sagaz, me inspira a dizer: e que venha a próxima crise da moda!!! Ah, optei por deixar o texto na íntegra, pois as demais informações são sempre interessantes. Enjoy.

Daniel Pinheiro

———————————————————-

AirViúva, a preferida dos milionários

Publicado em: 26/04/2009. Agência O Globo. Gazeta do Povo

Por: Elio Gaspari

Um cruzamento da lista dos deputados que foram ao exterior com o dinheiro da Viúva e as declarações patrimoniais de cada um deles à Justiça Eleitoral em 2006 informa: a média do ervanário de 214 parlamentares que listaram bens fica em R$ 2,8 milhões. Os cinco deputados que mais viajaram (Dagoberto Nogueira, Léo Alcântara, Marcelo Teixeira, Arnaldo Faria de Sá e Jilmar Tatto, com 167 passagens) são todos milionários.

Há algo de voracidade nisso, sobretudo quando se vê que os dois deputados mais ricos da lista, Odílio Balbinotti (R$ 123,8 milhões) e Sandro Mabel (R$ 70 milhões), tungaram a Viúva em apenas dez bilhetes. Se eles não tivessem tirado essas passagens, a média patrimonial dos viajantes cairia para pouco mais de R$ 1 milhão.

Num caso, o cruzamento da exuberância turística contraria a modéstia patrimonial. O deputado Paulo Henrique Lustosa beneficiou-se com 24 bilhetes no circuito Paris-Madri-Nova Iorque, mas seu patrimônio declarado resume-se a R$ 145 mil.

A defesa da farra no plenário da Câmara indica apenas que os doutores não estão entendendo nada. Quem paga essas contas é uma patuleia que pouco viaja ao exterior e, quando o faz, economiza centavos para comprar um iPod pela metade do preço.

O presidente da Câmara, deputado Michel Temer, bem como o senador José Sarney, são parlamentares experimentados, e sabem que a lista de deputados viajantes divulgada pela turma do Congresso em Foco é apenas um aperitivo. Vem aí uma chuva de merteoritos. Elio avisa que é assim mesmo! (Como a chuva ainda não ocorreu, é impossível assegurar a composição química do merteorito, mas pode-se supô-la.)

Temer e Sarney podem explicar aos seus pares que não há outro caminho. Devem contar ao baixo clero que Adolf Eichmann, o homem mais procurado do século passado, escondeu-se na periferia miserável de Buenos Aires e foi descoberto por um cego. (Essa história vai contada logo abaixo.) Os alemães não queriam procurar seus bandidos, os americanos queriam cooptá-los. Em suma, parecia melhor fingir que não se via. O cego viu. (O patrimônio dos doutores está no blog do jornalista Fernando Rodrigues.)

Quando ninguém via, o cego enxergou

O coronel Adolf Eichmann, da tropa de elite nazista, foi o gerente da máquina de extermínio que matou cerca de seis milhões de judeus. Acabada a guerra, escondeu-se e, em 1950, fugiu para a Itália. De lá foi para a Argentina. (Seu navio passou rapidamente pelo Rio.)

Com o nome de Ricardo Klement, Eichmann viveu entre fracassos e pequenos empregos. Morava com a mulher e os dois filhos na periferia de Buenos Aires, numa casa sem água, luz ou esgoto. Fingia ser o segundo marido da viúva do coronel, mas os filhos usavam seu sobrenome. Um deles, Nick, defendeu o extermínio dos judeus durante uma conversa na casa de uma namorada. O pai da garota, Lothar Hermann, era um advogado cego que ocultava sua ascendência judaica e perdera a visão na Alemanha, depois de uma surra de nazistas. Ele passou suas suspeitas adiante. Em 1958, um agente do Mossad foi mandado a Buenos Aires, vigiou a casa onde vivia o suspeito e concluiu que o poderoso Eichmann jamais viveria num fim de mundo. Acreditava-se que ele enriquecera pilhando e extorquindo judeus.

Lothar Hermann insistiu. Um segundo agente reuniu-se com ele e, a partir daí, a operação começou a ser montada. O resto é história. Eichmann foi capturado em maio de 1960 quando desceu de um ônibus. Levado secretamente para Tel Aviv, foi julgado e enforcado em 1962. (Essa história não é nova, mas está muito bem contada num livro que acaba de sair nos EUA: “Hunting Eichmann” (Caçando Eichmann), do jornalista Neal Bascomb.)

Papel de bobo

Pode-se acusar o Congresso de tudo, mas será injusto atribuir ao Senado a iniciativa de pendurar na Medida Provisória 449 um dispositivo que concederá às empresas exportadoras um crédito de 15% sobre o valor de suas operações até dezembro de 2002. A mola propulsora da iniciativa está no Ministério da Fazenda. Lá, o ministro Guido Mantega e os empresários negociam um acordo para encerrar uma velha batalha judicial. Os senadores foram estimulados a desfilar como ala bem ensaiada na rabeira de escola de samba de mau enredo, harmonia atravessada e alegorias saqueadas. Em vez de o governo botar a cara na vitrine, deu um jeito de jogar o entulho na porta do Parlamento. Segundo cálculos feitos na Receita Federal, o crédito renderá aos exportadores um benefício tributário de R$ 250 bilhões (20 programas Bolsa Família). Essa conta é duramente contestada pelos empresários. Pode ficar entre R$ 53 bilhões (cinco Bolsas) e R$ 150 bilhões (12 Bolsas), caso o Supremo Tribunal decida julgar o litígio e dê razão aos empresários.

O jogo limpo recomendaria que o governo assumisse o patrocínio da causa com uma nova medida provisória, defendendo lisamente os seus interesses. Ele pode até ter razão, mas, fazendo as coisas no escurinho do plenário, leva água para a sistemática desmoralização do Congresso. O Planalto, os empresários e gente boa do Supremo sabem que essa conta foi para o Senado porque os negociadores suspenderam as conversações com seus amigos na Câmara. O preço político, digamos assim, tornara-se absurdo.

Concorrência

No início do ano, o Planalto torrou algumas centenas de milhares de dólares canalizando anúncios da Petrobras, do BNDES e da Embratur para um encarte publicitário da prestigiosa revista “Foreign Affairs”. (Esses encartes servem a uma clientela de emires do Golfo, sobas africanos e macaquitos latino-americanos.) A vaidade tucana teve a sua vez. O último número da “Foreign Policy” tem um encarte de 16 páginas intitulado “São Paulo – O aroma doce do sucesso”, com um anúncio de página inteira da Sabesp e duas tripinhas da Unicamp e do Banco do Brasil. (Gesner Oliveira, presidente da Sabesp, é um dos entrevistados num texto sobre qualidade de vida.) Uma frase publicada no encarte ajudará a campanha eleitoral dos doutores: “Uma das maiores frotas de helicópteros do mundo ajuda os executivos a se livrar do trânsito”. Quem não tem helicóptero deve ralar.

Papelório

O Supremo Tribunal Federal está a poucos passos de uma guerra de dossiês.

Dia e hora

A crise da Câmara terá a sua hora da verdade. Ela ocorrerá durante a tramitação do processo de cassação do mandato do deputado-castelão Edmar Moreira. O exame do uso das verbas indenizatórias tomará conta do debate. Quem conhece a papelada acredita que o estrago será superior ao das passagens para o exterior, que atingiu metade do plenário.

Cena da crise

Na semana passada, um jovem circulava pelos vagões do metrô de Nova Iorque avisando: “Eu não estou pedindo dinheiro. Preciso é de emprego”. Ele distribuía cópias do seu currículo, onde constava o diploma de administrador de empresas.

Es geschah bei uns

ichsuchejeschua — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:25:34 +0000

Ich sitze mit einem Freund zusammen und er erzählt. Und während er erzählt durchfährt es mich, denn er erzählt keine Geschichte aus einem fernen Land, nein, sie trug sich hier zu, hier bei uns in Oberösterreich. Und nicht nur das, er erzählt nicht von einem fremden Menschen sondern von einem der ins Haus seiner Großeltern kam: Adolf Eichmann

„Adolf Eichmann stammt aus einer evangelischen Unternehmerfamilie aus Linz. Als junger Mann gehörte er dem CVJM an. Er kam öfter mit seinen Eltern zu meinen Großeltern und zu meiner Mutter auf den Bauernhof zu Besuch, um Obst zu kaufen. Er war immer fein gekleidet und schüchtern.

Wie bereits angedeutet, gehörte er dem CVJM an und war Mitglied der evangelischen Kirche in Linz. Dort wurde er auch konfirmiert. Mit meinem Jugendfreund aus dem CVJM kniete er zum Empfang des Abendmahls vor dem Altar nieder. Kaum zu fassen, dass dieser Adolf Eichmann der Verantwortliche für den Transport von einer Millionen Juden in die Konzentrationslager, in erster Linie nach Auschwitz, wurde.

Mein Jugendfreund hat nach Eichmanns Verhaftung mit ihm korrespondiert. Eichmann hat ihm geantwortet, er wäre sich keiner Schuld bewusst, er habe nur seinem Führer Gehorsam geleistet.“

Sofort stellt sich die Frage nach dem WARUM. Warum waren Eichmann und viele andere Österreicher Hitler hörig gewesen? Es gehörte damals leider zum „guten Ton“, als Katholik in Österreich auch Antisemit zu sein. Aber als Evangelischer? Mein Freund erzählt weiter:

„Warum sind viele Evangelische so auf Hitler reingefallen? Sie waren eine kleine Minderheit im katholischen Österreich und wurden oft beruflich benachteiligt. Ein Beispiel: Der ehemalige Schuldirektor von Gosau, Ernst Moser, hatte seine Lehrerausbildung mit Erfolg beendet. Mit seinem Zeugnis ging er zu seinem Schulinspektor nach Linz mit der Frage, ob er als Lehrer anfangen könnte. Dieser schaute sich sein Zeugnis an. Es hatte aber einen Schönheitsfehler: „Sie sind evangelisch! Sie können in Vorarlberg im Bregenzerwald mit 50 Kindern anfangen, aber nicht in Oberösterreich.“ So erhofften sich die Evangelischen aus dem Anschluss ans Deutsche Reich, dass diese Zustände und die Benachteiligung aufhören würden.“

Die Benachteiligung hörte nur langsam auf. 1961 wurde die Evangelische Kirche vom Gesetzgeber der Katholischen Kirche gleichgestellt. Trotzdem befriedigte mich die Erklärung meines Freundes keineswegs. Die evangelischen Österreicher empfingen Hitler mit offenen Armen. Was gab ihnen das Recht, Juden in die Konzentrationslager zu jagen? So wurden aus Opfern Täter, die es viel schlimmer trieben, als sie es je selbst in ihrer Verfolgungsgeschichte in Österreich erlebt hatten.

Joachim Stöbis

A Little Red Light

crankyoptimist — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:32:40 +0000

Uri Avnery 18.04.09 http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1240086714 PERHAPS Avigdor L

The Mote in our Conscience

Blind Man — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:29:06 +0000

US President Barack Obama has released classified memos that reveal administrative approval of water

Cuando se pinta el horror de la angustia

lostonsite — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:00:00 +0000

FRANCIS BACON

Museo del Prado
3 de Febrero – 19 de Abril 2009

FRANCIS BACON (1909 – 1992)

Aunque nació en Dublín y toda su niñez transcurrió en Irlanda, se le suele considerar un pintor inglés debido a sus raíces familiares inglesas y a que desarrolló buena parte de su producción en Londres.
Su padre entrenaba caballos de carreras en Dublín, pero debido a la Primera Guerra Mundial tuvo que mudarse con su familia a Londres en 1914. Entre 1914 y 1925 la familia vivió entre Inglaterra e Irlanda.
La infancia de Francis Bacon no fue fácil. Padecía de asma crónica y tuvo una formación escolar irregular porque la enfermedad le impedía acudir al colegio; cuando sufría ataques asmáticos fuertes le administraban morfina. Fue expulsado de casa por su padre cuando tenía 16 años, al manifestar sus inclinaciones homosexuales.

En 1926 comenzó a tomar lecciones de dibujo en la St Martin School of Arts de Londres. A partir de 1927 vive entre París y Berlín, donde comienza a trabajar como decorador de interiores y es en esta etapa cuando empieza a pintar, no alcanzando el éxito con sus primeros cuadros.
Residió durante medio año cerca de Chantilly, alojado por una pianista y aficionada al arte que había conocido en una exposición en París. En esa época en Chantilly admiró el cuadro La masacre de los inocentes de Poussin, del vecino Museo Condé. Este cuadro le inspiraría múltiples obras. Pero la influencia más importante que le lleva a pintar es una visita a una exposición de Picasso en París, la cual le impresiona y que será una influencia en su trabajo: «Aquellos pierrots, desnudos, paisajes y escenarios me impresionaron mucho, y después pensé que quizá yo también podría pintar». Bacon decidió que el tema de sus pinturas sería la vida en la muerte: debía buscar a su yo más vital, pero también al más autodestructivo. Michel Leiris le sugirió que «el masoquismo, el sadismo y casi todos los vicios, en realidad, eran tan solo maneras de sentirse más humano».

En 1929 regresa a Londres, y de forma autodidacta comienza a pintar en óleo. No obstante no había logrado el reconocimiento, y cuando cumplió 35 años, por su carácter temperamental, destruyó casi todos sus cuadros.
A finales de los años 40 empezó a conformar su estilo más inconfundible. En 1949, el Museo de Arte Moderno de Nueva York (MOMA), compró una obra suya. Francis Bacon realizó algunas de las pinturas más desgarradoras del arte contemporáneopero.

En 1964 conoció a George Dyer, su amante por muchos años: le sorprendió robando en su taller y (según relató el mismo artista) terminaron la noche acostándose juntos. Su relación fue más bien tormentosa, si bien inspiró múltiples obras al artista, y Dyer terminó suicidándose con barbitúricos en 1971. Tres años después Bacon inició su relación más estable, con el joven John Edwards, quien heredaría sus bienes (valorados en 11 millones de libras).

Curioso y anárquico, Bacon acumulaba en su taller innumerables recortes de prensa y fotografías de obras de arte antiguas, especialmente de Velázquez. También le interesaban las viejas películas de atletas saltando y corriendo, así como de aves y demás animales, pues le fascinaba el movimiento de los seres vivos. El taller de Bacon estaba tan desordenado, que el artista pisaba sus propias obras. Solía desechar bastantes si no estaba satisfecho con ellas. El taller de Bacon fue donado por su heredero John Edwards al museo Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery de Dublín. Fue desmontado y trasladado como una obra de arte en sí misma a dicho museo.

A lo largo de toda su carrera Bacon recurrió al informalismo, al expresionismo y al surrealismo, pero sus cuadros pertenecen al racionalismo. Sin embargo, para algunos autores la obra de Francis Bacon no pertenece a tal corriente. Se trata de una pintura de corte expresionista pero muy difícil de clasificar, porque nunca perteneció a ningún movimiento artístico. Simplemente prosiguió lo que él consideró (en las entrevistas que le hizo David Sylvester a lo largo de los años sesenta) una línea pictórica postpicasiana, siguiendo la vía abierta que Picasso dejó con la figuración y la representación obsesiva del cuerpo humano. Según el filósofo francés Gilles Deleuze, autor de uno de los ensayos que mejor analizan la obra del pintor (Francis Bacon: Logique de la sensation), la figuras de Bacon son las que mejor representan al hombre del siglo XX: si Cézanne lo hizo con el paisaje, Giacometti y Bacon llevaron al hombre a su mejor representación artística, en relación al hombre angustiado por la vida, pero entusiasmado por el arte.

(ANIMAL)

Las primeras obras de Bacon, a partir de mediados de la década de 1940 y hasta 1950, se basan en su idea de la animalidad intrínseca del ser humano, algo que pervivirá a lo largo de su vida. De este período se conservan muy pocas pinturas, ya que muchas de ellas fueron destruidas por el artista debido a las críticas adversas recibidas.
Para Bacon, el ser humano tiene una parte animal y otra parte humana, aunque existen personas que tienen más parte animal que humana y viceversa. El ser humano no es más que un trozo de carne comestible cuya única finalidad es nacer, copular y morir, puesto que tras la muerte no existe nada. A Bacon le apasionaban las carnicerías, ya que la visión de la carne despedazada le evocaba la idea de muerte y tortura.

- Tres estudios para fiugras al pie de una Crucifixión (1944)
El cuadro fue presentado en Londres en 1945, ante una sociedad estupefacta por la barbarie de los campos de concentración. El 27 de enero de 1945, las tropas aliadas entraron en el campo de concentración de Auschwitz y los tabloides londinenses empiezan a publicar las primeras fotografías que muestran esta tragedia humana. El cuadro de Francis Bacon parece una respuesta a ese sentimiento, un reflejo de esa realidad.
Sobre un fondo naranja muy potente se establecen tres figuras: a la derecha una figura agresiva, a la izquierda una figura pasiva, y en el centro una figura sufridora. Bacon maneja diversas fuentes de distintos siglos, de distintos autores, todos ellos entremezclados, pero siempre teniendo en cuenta el orden y la geometrización… así pues, en la figura de la izquierda, Bacon recrea una foto que poseía en la que se apreciaba un ectoplasma saliendo de una medium, mientras que en la figura central dibuja las caderas de La Venus del Espejo de Velázquez. En la figura de la derecha se puede apreciar una referencia a Las bañistas de Picasso, donde las caracteriza con cuerpos enormes y piernas pequeñas, y también al cuadro del Guernica con la representación de una gran boca abierta, con dientes que rechinan… Bacon siempre incide en la importancia de la boca. A través de ella todas las emociones y pasiones humanas se pueden representar, por eso en toda su obra la boca es una parte trascendental. Además aparecen diversos elementos que nos remiten a su primera vocación, diseñador de muebles, como es la inclusión de un taburete.

- Cabeza I (1947 – 1948)
En este cuadro, Bacon dibuja una cabeza mitad humana, mitad animal. Aparece una perspectiva muy marcada con algunos elementos de mobiliario en la parte de atrás. Se recrea un espacio, delimitando el área donde está ubicada la figura. Del techo cuelga un cordón con una borla, elemento que aparece en muchas de sus obras, y que evoca los pulsadores de luz que Bacon tenía en su estudio.

- Estudio del cuerpo humano (1949)
Marca la espina dorsal, algo que lo realiza en muchas ocasiones, porque para Bacon era la zona más frágil del hombre. Para la composición de este cuadro, trabaja igual que la Escuela de Venecia, cuya característica distintiva es el predominio del color sobre la línea y el dibujo, con pinceladas anchas que desdibujan los contornos.

(ZONA Y APRENSIÓN)

En la década de 1950 Bacon empieza a trabajar en las variaciones sobre el Retrato del papa Inocencio X de Velázquez, con una mayor complejidad en su estructura. Esto se puede apreciar también en su serie Hombres de azul, o en el Estudio de Babuino. Las figuras se aislan dentro de una estructura metálica, que recuerda a la cabina de aislamiento de Adolf Eichmann durante el juicio que se llevaría a cabo una década después en 1960. Bacon, que era un gran coleccionista de fotografías y de recortes de períodicos con noticias escabrosas, recopiló algunas fotografías de dicho juicio. En general, estaba muy interesado por la Alemania Nazi debido a esa relación entre el poder y el terror, y algunas de las imágenes le sirvieron para la creación de su propio lenguaje. Así pues, en varias obras se puede apreciar como la figura está rodeada de una cortina de luz, que hace referencia al proyecto de Albert Speer, La catedral de luz, que se basaba en la proyección de luces en el estadio de Nüremberg durante una concentración del partido nazi.

Las bocas, expresivamente abiertas en un grito, se convierten en el centro de las composiciones, uniendo a la idea del poder la de la angustia interior y la crueldad.

- Estudio según Velázquez (1950)
Se trata de la primera de las composiciones de la serie que realizó sobre el Papa Inocencio X (llegó a pintar más de 40 composiciones). El papa Inocencio X estaba dominado por su madre, siendo un papa cruel y violento. Diego Velázquez capta toda su psicología a través de su mirada. Cuentan que el papa exclamó al verlo terminado: Troppo vero! (¡Demasiado verdadero!), ya que le mostraba tal cual era, sin embellecimiento alguno.
Bacon queda impresionado por este retrato, y a través de su figura que representa el poder religioso y político, comienza a pintarlo.

- Estudio según Velázquez (1953)
Vuelve a presentar al papa tras una cortina de pinceladas verticales, referencia a la Catedral de luz de Albert Speer.

- Estudio para un retrato (1953)
Junto a la serie de los papas, Bacon realizó la serie de los hombres de luz. Se trata de hombres encuadrados en un espacio delimitado y donde se profundiza en la relación con el poder. En el Estudio para un retrato, la figura central mira con gesto arrogante, plasmando el ansia de poder.

- Hombre con perro (1953)
Sin el uso de veladuras, Bacon intenta captar y plasmar el movimiento. En el cuadro aparece un perro atado con una cadena por un hombre. La posición del perro hace referencia a una serie de fotografías tomadas por Eadweard Muybridge se un perro martín andando (The Walk)

- Estudio de un desnudo (1952 – 1953)
De nuevo utiliza las pinceladas a modo de cortinas verticales, con una clara geometrización del espacio. Representa al ser humano aislado, del que se resalta la espina dorsal, símbolo de su fragilidad.

- Chimpancé (1955) y Estudio de un babuino (1953)
De su estancia en Tánger, Bacon empieza a usar unos colores más vivos, con la inclusión de una fauna y flora más exótica. El babuino agarrado a un árbol forma una cruz, reflejando amenaza y aislamiento.

- Estudio para retrato de Van Gogh (1957)
Hace hasta 7 versiones de una pintura de Van Gogh (“The painter on his way to work, on the road to Tarascon”) que fue quemada durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial. En este cuadro, Bacon usa una pincelada muy movida, con árboles que poseen toques amenazantes, y colores rojos muy fuertes.

(CRUCIFIXIÓN Y CRISIS)

Durante la década de los 60, Bacon realizó grandes trípticos como Tres Estudios para una Crucifixión, y Crucifixión.
En la década de 1960 Bacon era ya figura capital del arte inglés de vanguardia.

- Estudio para la niñera del Acorazado Potemkin (1957)
Bacon recrea un fotograma de la película del Acorazado Potemkin, donde una niñera es tiroteda y alcanzada con una bala en el ojo, soltando el carricoche de un niño en la escalera de Odessa. De nuevo, Bacon enfoca su energía en plasmar la expresión de la boca, del grito.

- Niño paralítico andando a gatas (de Muybridge) (1961)
De nuevo Bacon se inspira en una serie fotográfica de Eadweard Muybridge. En esta serie aparece un niño mutilado andando a gatas.

- Tres estudios para una crucifixión (1962)
El suelo es una línea curva que recuerda a un circo o a un foso taurino.

- Crucifixión (1965)
Para Bacon, la crucifixión es el símbolo de la tortura, del martirio. Por eso lo trata apareciendo cuerpos despedezados, mutilados… El propio artista desveló que el motivo central lo tomó del Cristo en la gran Crucifixión del pintor medieval Cimabue; las relaciones que se establecen son enigmáticas, sin una alusión directa al tema religioso, sino a la crueldad con que los seres humanos son capaces de tratarse unos a otros. Aparece como tema casi exclusivo la violencia, la sangre y la sugerencia del crimen.
En la parte de la derecha se alude a los nazis, aunque negado por Bacon, se hace patente en la cruz gamada sobre el brazo de una de las figuras que está estrujando algo que posee los colores de la Revolución Francesa (blanco, azul y rojo). La figura, además, está inspirada en un dibujo de Miguel Ángel.
En la parte de la izquierda, Bacon se hace eco de una noticia que apareció en la primera mitad del siglo XX que contaba la aparición del cuerpo de una mujer totalmente destrozado.

(ARCHIVO)

En su estudio se revela el riquísimo mundo de las ilustraciones fotográficas que, junto al cine, le sirvió de punto de partida de su inspiración, mezclando las fotos sobre el movimiento de Muybridge con ilustraciones de libros variados, recortes de revistas e instantáneas de periódicos.

(RETRATO Y ÉPICO)

Bacon al hacer retrato se fija en el cubismo de Picasso pero con una pincelada muy movida. Fue muy importante el retrato, que definió como el género propio del siglo XX, sobre todo de sus amigos, como Isabel Rawsthorne, Henrietta Moraes y George Dryer, modelo de elegías pictóricas que le recuerdan tras su muerte, por suicidio en 1971.
En su pintura, a partir de entonces, aparecen con frecuencia las referencias poéticas, desde el teatro griego hasta Shakespeare, T.S. Eliot o García Lorca, y supo unir el influjo de Picasso y Soutine con su interés por Velázquez, Miguel Ángel o Van Gogh.

- Figura yacente (1969) / Henrietta Moraes (1966)
Bacon retrata a su amiga Henriett Moraes en una posición como en composiciones clásicas.

- Tríptico en memoria de George Dryer (1971)
En 1971, Bacon viaja junto con su amante George Dryer a París, donde se va a realizar una gran exposición sobre su obra. Sin embargo, mientras Bacon está organizando los últimos retoques de su gran exposición en el Grand Palais de Paris, Georg Dryer se suicidó con barbitúricos. Este hecho conmocionó profundamente a Bacon, que pintó varias obras maestras en recuerdo de este trágico acontecimiento.
En el Tríptico en memoria de George Dryer, le retrata subiendo a la habitación del hotel de París donde se suicidaría. La figura de Dryer está rodeada de color negro, la nada o la muerte que le acecha. También le retrata como un luchador vencido que no se puede levantar.

- Tríptico mayo-junio (1973)
A la izquierda, Bacon pinta a Dryer en la posición que se le encontró en el baño la noche que se suicidó. El negro va haciendo su aparición, le va inundando.

- Tríptico inspirado por el poema de T. S. Eliot “Sweeney Agonistes” (1963)
En el centro retrata un acontecimiento que sucedió durante los años 20; un compartimento de tren apareció completamente repleto de sangre aunque jamás se encontró el cuerpo.
A la izquierda y a la derecha aparecen figuras de dos mujeres y dos hombres, que mediante reflejos de espejos crea un juego de escenas dentro de otra escena muy barroco.

- Tríptico inspirado por la Orestades de Esquilo (1981)
Producto de la lectura de Esquilo, aparece en el centro la figura de Agamenón, asesinado por su mujer. Una vez más, Bacon resalta la espina dorsal como símbolo de la fragilidad. A los lados se encuentran las furias, con un gran pico porque aguijonean a la conciencia.

- Segunda versión del Tríptico de 1944 (1988)
Pasados unos cuarenta y cuatro años después, Bacon retoma su primera gran obra para crear una segunda versión. En esta nueva versión aparecen tres clavos como símbolo de la crucifixión.

- Sangre en el suelo (1988)
Sobre una acera se halla una mancha de sangre. El cuadro está claramente dividido en tres secciones, que hace referencia a las tres actividades naturales del ser humano según Bacon: nacer, copular y morir. La muerte está representada por el negro, la nada, puesto que para él tras la muerte no hay nada.

- Chorro de agua (1988)
Sobre un fondo geometrizado, compartimentado, Bacon experimenta lanzando pintura.

- Retrato de John Edwards (1988)
John Edwards, tabernero de Londres, es retratado en la misma posición que fotografió a su antiguo amante Dryer.

- Tríptico (1991)
Resumen de su vida. Colores muy sobrios sobre un espacio muy ordenado y geometrizado. A la izquierda Bacon retrata a su amante español surgiendo de la oscuridad y saliendo hacia la luz porque según él le quedaba mucha vida por delante. Sin embargo, a la derecha, Bacon se autorretrata pasando de la luz a la oscuridad, porque sabe que está muy enfermo, que le queda poco tiempo. En ambos casos, sus caras aparecen pinchadas con un alfiler.
En el centro se encuentran dos figuras de dos hombres luchando.

Eichmann - The Sassen Tapes 1

elyakatz — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 06:59:21 +0000

BS”D I recently learned something interesting about Eichmann. One of his first assignments was

i committed massive crimes against humanity and all i got was this lousy t-shirt

marcy/مارسي newman/نيومان — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:30:26 +0000

on thursday united nations special rapporteur richard falk released his report on the war crimes and crimes against humanity unleashed by israeli terrorists against palestinians in gaza here is reuters’ stephanie nebehay report:

Falk called for an independent experts group to probe possible war crimes committed by both Israeli forces and Hamas. It should gather eyewitness testimony as well as explanations from Israeli and Palestinian military commanders.

Violations included Israel’s alleged “targeting of schools, mosques and ambulances” during the offensive, which lasted from Dec. 27 to Jan. 18, and its use of weapons including white phosphorus, as well as Hamas’s firing of rockets at civilian targets in southern Israel.

Falk said that Israel’s blockade of the coastal strip of 1.5 million people violated the Geneva Conventions and this suggested further war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.

The aggression was not legally justified and may represent a “crime against peace” — a principle established at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, according to Falk, an American law professor who serves as the Human Rights Council’s independent investigator.

Falk, who is Jewish, suggested the Security Council might set up an ad hoc criminal tribunal to establish accountability for war crimes in Gaza, noting Israel has not signed the Rome statutes establishing the International Criminal Court.

He was denied entry to Israel two weeks before the assault started, forcing him to abort a planned mission to Gaza. In his report, he said that the refusal had set an “unfortunate precedent” for treatment of a special rapporteur.

On Monday, he is to present his report formally to the Human Rights Council, a 47-member forum where Islamic and African countries backed by China, Cuba and Russia have a majority. Neither Israel nor its chief ally the United States are members.

meanwhile douglas hamilton of reuters begins to shed light on the theological undergirding of those massive war crimes:

Rabbis in the Israeli army told battlefield troops in January’s Gaza offensive that they were fighting a “religious war” against gentiles, according to one army commander’s account published on Friday.

“Their message was very clear: we are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land,” he said.

a day after falk released his report a series of testimonies by israeli terrorists were published in ha’aretz. because ha’aretz is a newspaper of israeli terrorists, of course, they try to pretend like these are just a few bad apples (anyone remember how the u.s. covered abu ghraib?). in any case, i will post some of these statements below because i know for a fact this characterizes the entire israeli terrorist population (all of whom are conscripted in its terrorist army and all of whom are colonists here). hoda abdel-hamid’s report from zeitoun, gaza for al jazeera shows us the context of one of the main testimonies from the first such report:

amos herel’s second and more extensive report in ha’aretz documenting these testimonies was entitled “shooting and crying.” i think this is an apt title given the fact that it goes a long way to showing the normal course of israeli terrorists: this is why i have such a huge problem with israeli terrorist films like waltz with bashir (see yesterday’s post for links on this) and also why it is impossible for israeli terrorists to “investigate” themselves. even if they show a hint of remorse it means nothing: when a group of people behave as terrorists for 122 years, and continually shoot and cry, they are crying wolf. we know they will do it again. their tears mean nothing to us. in any case here are some excerpts (click link for the full stories) of what some of these so-called weeping soldiers had to say (apparently the names below are pseudonyms):

Aviv: “At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then … I call this murder … in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified – we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this?

“From above they said it was permissible, because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn’t fled. I didn’t really understand: On the one hand they don’t really have anywhere to flee to, but on the other hand they’re telling us they hadn’t fled so it’s their fault … This also scared me a bit. I tried to exert some influence, insofar as is possible from within my subordinate position, to change this. In the end the specification involved going into a house, operating megaphones and telling [the tenants]: ‘Come on, everyone get out, you have five minutes, leave the house, anyone who doesn’t get out gets killed.’

“I went to our soldiers and said, ‘The order has changed. We go into the house, they have five minutes to escape, we check each person who goes out individually to see that he has no weapons, and then we start going into the house floor by floor to clean it out … This means going into the house, opening fire at everything that moves , throwing a grenade, all those things. And then there was a very annoying moment. One of my soldiers came to me and asked, ‘Why?’ I said, ‘What isn’t clear? We don’t want to kill innocent civilians.’ He goes, ‘Yeah? Anyone who’s in there is a terrorist, that’s a known fact.’ I said, ‘Do you think the people there will really run away? No one will run away.’ He says, ‘That’s clear,’ and then his buddies join in: ‘We need to murder any person who’s in there. Yeah, any person who’s in Gaza is a terrorist,’ and all the other things that they stuff our heads with, in the media.

“And then I try to explain to the guy that not everyone who is in there is a terrorist, and that after he kills, say, three children and four mothers, we’ll go upstairs and kill another 20 or so people. And in the end it turns out that [there are] eight floors times five apartments on a floor – something like a minimum of 40 or 50 families that you murder. I tried to explain why we had to let them leave, and only then go into the houses. It didn’t really help. This is really frustrating, to see that they understand that inside Gaza you are allowed to do anything you want, to break down doors of houses for no reason other than it’s cool.

“You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won’t say anything. To write ‘death to the Arabs’ on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing in understanding how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It’s what I’ll remember the most.”

“One of our officers, a company commander, saw someone coming on some road, a woman, an old woman. She was walking along pretty far away, but close enough so you could take out someone you saw there. If she were suspicious, not suspicious – I don’t know. In the end, he sent people up to the roof, to take her out with their weapons. From the description of this story, I simply felt it was murder in cold blood.”

Zamir: “I don’t understand. Why did he shoot her?”

Aviv: “That’s what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza: You see a person on a road, walking along a path. He doesn’t have to be with a weapon, you don’t have to identify him with anything and you can just shoot him. With us it was an old woman, on whom I didn’t see any weapon. The order was to take the person out, that woman, the moment you see her.”

Zvi: “Aviv’s descriptions are accurate, but it’s possible to understand where this is coming from. And that woman, you don’t know whether she’s … She wasn’t supposed to be there, because there were announcements and there were bombings. Logic says she shouldn’t be there. The way you describe it, as murder in cold blood, that isn’t right. It’s known that they have lookouts and that sort of thing.”…

Ram: “What I do remember in particular at the beginning is the feeling of almost a religious mission. My sergeant is a student at a hesder yeshiva [a program that combines religious study and military service]. Before we went in, he assembled the whole platoon and led the prayer for those going into battle. A brigade rabbi was there, who afterward came into Gaza and went around patting us on the shoulder and encouraging us, and praying with people. And also when we were inside they sent in those booklets, full of Psalms, a ton of Psalms. I think that at least in the house I was in for a week, we could have filled a room with the Psalms they sent us, and other booklets like that.

“There was a huge gap between what the Education Corps sent out and what the IDF rabbinate sent out. The Education Corps published a pamphlet for commanders – something about the history of Israel’s fighting in Gaza from 1948 to the present. The rabbinate brought in a lot of booklets and articles, and … their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the gentiles who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land. This was the main message, and the whole sense many soldiers had in this operation was of a religious war. From my position as a commander and ‘explainer,’ I attempted to talk about the politics – the streams in Palestinian society, about how not everyone who is in Gaza is Hamas, and not every inhabitant wants to vanquish us. I wanted to explain to the soldiers that this war is not a war for the sanctification of the holy name, but rather one to stop the Qassams.”

Zamir: “I would like to ask the pilots who are here, Gideon and Yonatan, to tell us a little about their perspective. As an infantryman, this has always interested me. How does it feel when you bomb a city like that?”

Gideon: “First of all, about what you have said concerning the crazy amounts of firepower: Right in the first foray in the fighting, the quantities were very impressive, very large, and this is mainly what sent all the Hamasniks into hiding in the deepest shelters and kept them from showing their faces until some two weeks after the fighting.

“In general the way that it works for us, just so you will understand the differences a bit, is that at night I would come to the squadron, do one foray in Gaza and go home to sleep. I go home to sleep in Tel Aviv, in my warm bed. I’m not stuck in a bed in the home of a Palestinian family, so life is a little better.

“When I’m with the squadron, I don’t see a terrorist who is launching a Qassam and then decide to fly out to get him. There is a whole system that supports us, that serves as eyes, ears and intelligence for every plane that takes off, and creates more and more targets in real-time, of one level of legitimacy or another. In any case, I try to believe that these are targets [determined according to] the highest possible level of legitimacy….

Yossi: “No. Not at all. On the contrary: In most of the houses graffiti was left behind and things like that.”

Zamir: “That’s simply behaving like animals.”

Yossi: “You aren’t supposed to be concentrating on folding blankets when you’re being shot at.”…

Zamir: “After the Six-Day War, when people came back from the fighting, they sat in circles and described what they had been through. For many years the people who did this were said to be ’shooting and crying.’ In 1983, when we came back from the Lebanon War, the same things were said about us. We need to think about the events we have been through. We need to grapple with them also, in terms of establishing a standard or different norms….

there is stuff i left out. flat out lies, for instance. funnily enough herel wrote an op-ed after this saying that the soldiers were telling the truth–not for the reasons i am discussing, however. one of the israeli terrorists says that when they left palestinian homes in gaza where that they occupied they cleaned up. the reality is they shat on the floor, wrote racist graffiti on the walls, and broke furniture and trashed the homes. i know this not only because of what i have read from many eyewitness accounts (much of which i have posted here), but also because i witnessed this in south lebanon after the israeli terrorists invaded homes there. they did this in the village of markaba and many other places, too. this is their normal behavior. i think the last part that i quoted from sums it all up rather well, however, they seem to do this after every invasion and massacre and atrocity they commit: they sit around and discuss it, some claim to have remorse, and then they do it again. and again. and again. if these terrorists claim to have a moral bone in their bodies then they can make a choice to say no. to leave. (70% of israeli terrorists hold dual citizenship).

all of this makes me think about the trial of adolf eichmann and hannah arendt’s description of his trial as evidence of the “banality of evil.” in an interview with samuel grafton in 1963, arendt elaborated on her use of this term in ways that are rather apt here not only because of the consistent, continuous crimes by israeli terrorists against palestinians, lebanese, and syrians, but also because of the looming possibility of a war crimes tribunal. here is what she said to grafton:

It is of course true that evil was commonplace in Nazi Germany and that ‘there were many Eichmanns,’ as the title of a German book about Eichmann reads. But I did not mean this. I meant that evil is not radical, going to the roods (radix), that it has no depth, and that for this very reason it is so terribly difficult to think about, since thinking, by definition, wants to reach the roots. Evil is a surface phenomenon, and instead of being radical, is merely extreme. We resist evil by not being swept away by the surface of things, by stopping ourselves and beginning to think–that is, by reaching another dimension than the horizon of everyday life. In other words, the more superficial someone is, the more likely he will be to yield to evil. An indication of such superficiality is the use of clichés, and Eichmann, God knows, was a perfect example. Each time he was tempted to think for himself, he said: Who am I to judge if all around me–that is, the atmosphere in which we unthinkingly live–that it is right to murder innocent people? Or to put it slightly differently: Each time Eichmann tried to think, he thought immediately of his career, which up to the end was the thing uppermost in his mind.” (from Arendt’s The Jewish Writings, 479-480).

as one of the israeli terrorists quoted above noted that the media there keeps them from thinking–and more importantly acting. but it is not just their media. it is their entire society from its schools to its government. and all claims to the contrary from before an nakba until now zionists have practiced these sorts of atrocities consistently. and, of course, they’ve always gone unpunished. part of the problem with having an unthinking, unquestioning society means that they believe the lies of their government; they believe the stereotypes of palestinians taught in their schools and in their media. in sherine tadros’ report on these same testimonies we hear one of the chief israeli terrorists, avital leibovich making the outlandish claim that israeli terrorists work hard to “save lives on both sides of the border.” this was in the context of these damning testimonies. you can watch for yourself and see this as well as tadros giving us tours of a typical method of trashing palestinian houses in gaza by these israeli terrorists:

to be sure whatever infinitesimal percentage of the israeli terrorist society may feel a shred of remorse at present, they do not speak for the masses. indeed, israeli terrorists–those in their terrorist army now and those who will be in the future–are now sporting tshirts gloating about their participation in mass murder (see photographs below):

the article with the photographs is in hebrew so i don’t know what it says, but the version in english, according to uri blau of ha’aretz, the tshirts say:

Dead babies, mothers weeping on their children’s graves, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosques – these are a few examples of the images Israel Defense Forces soldiers design these days to print on shirts they order to mark the end of training, or of field duty. The slogans accompanying the drawings are not exactly anemic either: A T-shirt for infantry snipers bears the inscription “Better use Durex,” next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby, with his weeping mother and a teddy bear beside him. A sharpshooter’s T-shirt from the Givati Brigade’s Shaked battalion shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bull’s-eye superimposed on her belly, with the slogan, in English, “1 shot, 2 kills.” A “graduation” shirt for those who have completed another snipers course depicts a Palestinian baby, who grows into a combative boy and then an armed adult, with the inscription, “No matter how it begins, we’ll put an end to it.”

There are also plenty of shirts with blatant sexual messages. For example, the Lavi battalion produced a shirt featuring a drawing of a soldier next to a young woman with bruises, and the slogan, “Bet you got raped!” A few of the images underscore actions whose existence the army officially denies – such as “confirming the kill” (shooting a bullet into an enemy victim’s head from close range, to ensure he is dead), or harming religious sites, or female or child non-combatants.

In many cases, the content is submitted for approval to one of the unit’s commanders. The latter, however, do not always have control over what gets printed, because the artwork is a private initiative of soldiers that they never hear about. Drawings or slogans previously banned in certain units have been approved for distribution elsewhere. For example, shirts declaring, “We won’t chill ’til we confirm the kill” were banned in the past (the IDF claims that the practice doesn’t exist), yet the Haruv battalion printed some last year.

The slogan “Let every Arab mother know that her son’s fate is in my hands!” had previously been banned for use on another infantry unit’s shirt. A Givati soldier said this week, however, that at the end of last year, his platoon printed up dozens of shirts, fleece jackets and pants bearing this slogan.

“It has a drawing depicting a soldier as the Angel of Death, next to a gun and an Arab town,” he explains. “The text was very powerful. The funniest part was that when our soldier came to get the shirts, the man who printed them was an Arab, and the soldier felt so bad that he told the girl at the counter to bring them to him.”…

A shirt printed up just this week for soldiers of the Lavi battalion, who spent three years in the West Bank, reads: “We came, we saw, we destroyed!” – alongside images of weapons, an angry soldier and a Palestinian village with a ruined mosque in the center.

the israeli terrorist journalist whose words are quoted above, later in the article, calls this tshirt making the “race to be unique.” more aptly put: “the race to be more racist.” they murder and destroy and then run around wearing tshirts bragging about it. these sentiments are similar to those written as graffiti on the walls of palestinian homes in gaza that israeli terrorists took over, after massacring families, as reported in electronic intifada by the palestinian centre for human rights:

In the Zeitoun district, where 27 members of the Samouni family were killed in an air strike while taking shelter in a building they had been placed in by the Israeli army, there are more chilling messages on the walls. In Talal Samouni’s home Israeli soldiers wrote the words “Die you all,” “Make war not peace,” “Arabs need to die” and a gravestone engraved with the words “Arabs 1948-2009″ referring to the dates between the creation of the state of Israel and its latest military offensive.

A stairwell in Rashad Helmi Samouni’s house a few doors down includes the following sentences written in chalk:

“There will be a day when we kill all the Arabs.”

“Bad for the Arabs is good for me.”

“A good Arab is an Arab in the grave.”

“Peace now, but between Jews and Jews, not Jews and Arabs.”

one of the teams of the national lawyer’s guild investigators, radhika sainath, who recently traveled to gaza to document war crimes echoed these same reports, as well as a number of other violations in electronic intifada:

While I do not know what Israel hoped to achieve with its invasion, I do know the goal was not to stop Hamas rockets. In a house in al-Zeitoun, the walls, ceilings and doors are covered in graffiti that reads, in Hebrew and English, “Death to the Arabs,” “An Arab brave [a real Arab] is an Arab in a grave,” and “he who dreams Givati [the Israeli infantry brigade], kills Arabs.” Such sayings do not stop Hamas rockets. Covering prayer rugs in feces serves no military objective. Tearing up college diplomas and giving bottles of urine to detained children asking for water are not acts of self-defense.

hoda abdel-hamid has another report on al jazeera documenting how these war crimes affected khaled from abd rabo whose two daughters, souad and amel, were murdered. his other daughter samar was paralyzed. their house was leveled. the entire neighborhood was destroyed. because of the blockade he cannot get cement for a proper burial for his girls. because his identification card was buried in the rubble of his home he cannot travel to be with his 4 year old daughter in belgium where she is seeking treatment:

finally there is a list of all the martyrs murdered in cold blood by israeli terrorists in gaza produced by the palestinian centre for human rights. it is 66 pages long and it is in arabic. you can download it by clicking this link.

and, finally, this week on al jazeera’s “focus on gaza” with imran garda details further war crimes. garda also has an important discussion with marwan bishara. i always like watching bishara and think he is an amazing political analyst, but i do think that when you see him interviewed by garda, who continues to be one of the best interviewers at al jazeera, the discussion contains much more substance:

Eine wohl zutiefst österreichische Antwort

Bernhard Kraut — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:15:01 +0000

einer Redakteurin: Vielen Dank für die – durchaus interessante – Information. Nur leider