Spiegel satirist Broder re Iran Presid’s idea "Give the Jews Schleswig Holstein"

by Henryk M. Broder

Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinedshad’s suggestion to move Israel to Germany is not as absurd as it sounds. If you consider the idea impartially, you can see a historic land reform concept which can be advantageous to all parties.

Everyone is attacking the Iranian president again because he suggested moving Israel from the Middle East to Germany, or Austria. Even those who were not outraged about Mahmud Ahmadinedschad’s demand "to wipe Israel off the map" are agitated, because now they see the problem as becoming theirs. As much as a "world without Zionism" is imaginable, a Europe with a Jewish State in its midst is a vision of horror that no one wants to follow to its logical conclusion.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Ahmadinedschad’s suggestions "totally unacceptable". Her hasty reaction did not take into account that the Iranian president had, after all, moved away from his original demand to destroy Israel and now wants a "relocation" of the "Zionist entity". From a humanitarian point of view, this is progress: The Israelis should no longer be disappear into the ocean, but sent on an overseas journey instead. One could also say that Europe should take back the problem that it created and exported. But the recipient is refusing delivery of the parcel even before it has been sent.

Sure enough: When Ahmadinedschad is right, he’s right. It doesn’t help to call him "inexperienced in foreign affairs", as the director of the Orient Institute, Udo Steinbach, recently did.

The Middle East conflict is not only collateral damage of the Holocaust, it’s a product of European anti Semitism. Without the pogroms in Poland and Russia, without the Dreyfuss Affair in France (which made Herzl into a Zionist), without the German attempt at the "final solution" to the Jewish problem, the Jews would still be dreaming of their own State instead of having to protect it.

Palestinians are paying for the sins of the European

Ahmadinedschad’s idea may be vague, but in principal it is correct. The Palestinians are paying for the sins of the Europeans. And if there were such a thing as historical justice in this world, the Jewish State would have been founded in Schleswig-Holstein or in Bavaria, and not in Palestine.

I have written this sentence several times in the past - the last time right here - and am both delighted and surprised that Ahmadinedschad has seized upon my suggestion, even if didn’t give me the credit.

Historically, this idea is not so absurd as it is now being portrayed. The Zionist movement was unsure for a long time where the "Jewish State" should be situated. Herzl spoke from a "piece of the earth’s surface" that Jews would be able to administer. There were considerations to establish a "colony" in Uganda or Argentina. That Palestine was finally chosen had both historical and emotional, as well as practical reasons. William II, who considered himself to be the patron of the holy sites in Jerusalem, wanted a "German protectorate" in Palestine, and was therefore receptive to Herzel’s ideas. If it had not been for the First World War, something could have come of the project.

As it was, Israel was only established after the Second World War under very different, extremely dramatic circumstances. It was not only about giving the Jews a "home", but also to get a half a million "displaced persons", survivors of the Holocaust, out of Europe. And so, the old Jewish prayer "next year in Jerusalem" became reality.

But as often happens with wishes and dreams that come true, hardly had the Europeans solved the problem, a new one was created. It is indeed difficult to explain to the Palestinians why they should share their country with the Jews who were treated badly in Europe. The Palestinians are not responsible for either the Pogroms from Kishinev to Kielce, nor for the concentration camp politics of the Nazis.

Return to the Principle that the Party Responsible is Liable for the Damages.

What Ahmadinedschad is now demanding, is the return to the principle that the party responsible pay for the damages. Those responsible for solving a problem are those who created it.

And those are the Europeans. At most one could hold against him that his knowledge of history isn’t very good because he reduces the contribution to the Germans, instead of taking the Russians, the Poles and the French to task as well.

But this deficiency doesn’t change the fact that Ahmadinedscha is essentially right. And instead of being outraged about his suggestion, it would be better to recognize the advantages that they offer all parties concerned. The Israelis would finally get rid of their biggest problem: Security. The Germans would now be in charge of that. And in view of the traditionally good Arab German relations, no Arab country would dare to attack Germany.

The second large advantage would be: Instead of having to spend a lot of money on trips to Europe, the Israelis would already be there, .where they feel comfortable, where you can do great shopping, and where you can ride a bus or a train even on Saturdays. The return for the Germans would be even bigger. They would finally have the "Jewish contribution to German culture" back that they have so painfully missed since 1939. No more yearning for fresh bagels, Klezmer music, kosher finger food Jewish inventors or Nobel prize winners. They would all be included in the German statistics.

There are places in the Allgaeu that have similarities with the landscape in Samaria.

The question remains, where would one establish the Jewish State on German soil. Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern are sparsely populated, there are millions of empty apartments in the former East Germany. But one can’t assume that the Jews would want to settle close to the water again. It is also beautiful in the mountains, and there are areas in the Allgau that have similarities with the landscape in Samaria.

If one contemplates the Iran president’s suggestions without preconceived opinion and considers all the advantages and disadvantages without anger, one has to admit that the idea is more than just funky. It is enticing. Up til now, "The history of the German territory reaches Palestine" was the sentence which was the basis of the German Near East policy. Now the opportunity would present itself to carry out an historic land reform, to clean up in one’s own house.

But it won’t come to that. Like all new ideas, this one too will be kicked around and rejected at the end. And who knows, perhaps in Aachen someone is already thinking about awarding the next medal to the Iranian president, in spite of his terrible earnestness.

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,389472,00.html translated