José Saramago, who won the 1998 Nobel Prize for literature, writes a blog and has posted today about Gaza. In it he lambasts Israel for the restrictions it has placed on the entry of goods into that territory without, of course, making any mention of the nature or activities of the regime that runs it.
Neither the words “rocket” nor “Sderot” appear anywhere in the text, in which Israeli soldiers are described as,
… those experts in cruelty with doctorates in disdain, who look down on the world from the heights of the insolence which is the basis of their education. We can better understand their biblical god when we know his followers. Jehovah or Yaweh or whatever he is called, is a fierce and spiteful god, whom the Israelis always live up to.
The translation of the last phrase is a bit of a guess as the original Spanish doesn’t make a lot of sense. Nevertheless, Saramago’s take on the situation is clear; it’s a case of Israeli monsters versus Palestinian holy innocents.
saramago is well known for his “anti-zionism”, which usually, if you read a bit into, looks more like anti-semitism.
check out his wikipedia page for another nice quote.
Eamonn, I don’t read Spanish, so a big thank you for this truly wonderful translation — poetic antisemitism, maybe that takes a Nobel laureate for literature…
There is something definitely Iberian and almost medieval in Saramago’s enraged loathing at the sight of the insolent Israeli Jew, when he is armed, fierce and spiteful. While it hardly describes the real Israeli soldier, (who, given a viable choice, will happily trade his guns for a peaceful dinner at his mother’s table and a day at the beach, ogling the girls) it does point directly into that mind of darkness which produced these Nietzschean images of impossibly implacable Übermensches.
Why does a Portuguese author develop such a deformed view of reality and compassionless contempt for Israelis in particular? I find it hard to recognize human beings in his descriptions. It’s as though he produces these lines while in the grip of some hateful demon. Frightening.
One more thing: Imagine someone writing the exact same words, substituting “Quranic” for “biblical” and “Allah” for “Jehovah or Yaweh or whatever”. How long before there would be several fatwahs issued against him? Would he ever dare to write such a thing? How come these words roll off his pen with such ease and comfort when the subject is Jews? What do we call this pathology? Is this a legitimate criticism of Israel? What to call these strange, over heated fulminations?
“Why does a Portuguese author develop such a deformed view of reality and compassionless contempt for Israelis in particular?”
How could such an author have embraced Stalinism? It’s the Bolshevik in him that is speaking here.
Saramago would do well do read this from a Palestinian in Gaza, who is not blaming Israel:
http://www.mideastyouth.com/2008/12/20/hamas-take-your-hands-off-the-people/
This is old catholic antisemitism behind the mask of a “progressive” writer.
Saramago’s logorrhea.
Otoh, he’s an avowed anti-theist who’s obsessed with religion, is still a member of the Communist Party (once a Stalinist), is known for his arch anti-Catholicism and is a western leftist in the Pinter, Zinn, Arundhanti Roy mold. (I emphasize his “obsession” with religion primarily because he’s keen to articulate moral/ethical insights involving humankind’s ability to use religion for malevolent ends, while avoiding the uses humankind has made of so-called “secularist” regimes and ideologies.)
“The translation of the last phrase is a bit of a guess as the original Spanish doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
I think that what Saramago means by “Jehová, o Yahvé, o como se le diga, es un dios rencoroso y feroz que los israelíes mantienen permanentemente actualizado.” is that they (his followers) permanently “bring him up to date”, i.e. his cruelty and insolence are adapted to the times and circumstances.
“Why does a Portuguese author develop such a deformed view of reality and compassionless contempt for Israelis in particular? I find it hard to recognize human beings in his descriptions.”
In Portugal, it is perfectably acceptable to be a highly respected academic and write things like this about Jews, without having to pretend that he is writing about Zionists, as would be the case in the UK, Germany, France, Belgium etc. Whereas Saramago is a communist, Arroja upholds Christian values and is a right-winger.
Greenspan and Bernanke are evidence of Jewish lobby according to Portuguese economist Pedro Arroja
http://philosemitism.blogspot.com/2008/11/greenspan-and-bernanke-are-evidence-of.html
The ghetto is a myth of Jewish victimisation propaganda says Portuguese blogger Pedro Arroja
http://philosemitism.blogspot.com/2008/08/ghetto-is-myth-of-jewish-victimisation.html
Paula, have you seen any of these themes emerging in the context of European press coverage of the Bernard Madoff scandal?
“I think that what Saramago means by “Jehová, o Yahvé, o como se le diga, es un dios rencoroso y feroz que los israelíes mantienen permanentemente actualizado.” is that they (his followers) permanently “bring him up to date”,
That is indeed what it literally means. I couldn’t get my head round the idea though I so tried something else
Since 9/11, I’ve lost faith in many of my favourite authors for their dubious moral stance in the wake of terrorist attacks, America’s role in the world, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have now decided to admire writers as writers, and not necessarily as the post-modern sages that some of them portray themselves to be.
José Saramago is a great author, richly deserving of the Nobel Prize for his contributions to literature. He just proves that one can be a superb author without necessarily being a superb person, and the same goes for many other artists (Dostoevsky is another example). One has to, in some cases, separate the work from the man.
Evan, I agree. It is important in some cases to separate the work from the man. However, to what extent does the ideology/world-view of Saramago impact his art? I have not read any of his work so I do not know.
I always have a feeling that writers write from one place where they create wonderful stories of human ordeals, but think and feel from another place, where they are just as mediocre and prone to shallow ideological inclinations as anyone. One of Harold Bloom’s greatest insights is about how novels are always greater and wiser than the authors who produce them. Authors who are wiser than their fiction, he says (in the “Western Canon”) should be doing something else, not write novels or poetry.
And another thing: What characterizes Saramago’s screed is its utter poetic sincerity. Again, according to Bloom, sincere poetry is always bad. In our “post-modern” world, sincerity has become a virtue, regardless of wisdom, or morality: “I feel this is true, so I must be right”. No amount of historical records or documented evidence to the contrary or rational arguments are going to disabuse Saramago of the correctness of his loathing of Israelis. His is almost a perversion of the Cartesian principle, with “feeling” replacing “thinking”. As I said, quite frightening.
TNC,
I think Noga has summed the predicament with Saramago nicely. He does indeed “create wonderful stories of human ordeals”, and his personal ideology thankfully does not mar his greatest work.
I remember reading an interview with him in which he joked that his novels were (I’m paraphrasing) more intelligent than their author, which just goes to prove the cliche that many a true word is said in jest.
BTW, Harold Bloom is always worth reading. In fact, although he considers Saramago the greatest living novelist, he recently condemned his seemingly Stalinist politics in a NY Times article.
noga, i think you have that backwards. bloom says “all bad poetry is sincere.” It doesn’t follow that all sincere poetry is bad.
I think he implied it, without spelling it out explicitly. As an example, he recalls Maya Angelou’s poem in honour of Bill Clinton’s inauguration, which he extols as wonderfully sincere. Nowhere does he say it is bad poetry, but we get the message.
And as we all know, Isreal cannot be criticized
Correction: Saramago’s blog is originally written in Portuguese, not Spanish.
His prejudices against Jews, against Israel, are just as clear, as narrow-minded, whether you read them in one language or another.
So sad to see such brilliant talent waisted on old, diehard bigotry.
The texts that appear in Saramago’s blog do so simultaneously in Portuguese and Spanish. It’s not clear which is “original” nor what that might mean in the case of Saramago, whose wife is Spanish and has long resided in Spain
Saramago is the only writer to have written in Portuguese and win the Nobel Prize. I must therefore assume his “original” is in Portuguese, translated by his wife, who has been the official translator of his books into Spanish.
But you are right Eamonn, the blog is simultaneously presented in Portuguese and Spanish.
Today a new book of this person was announced in the Portuguese press, about the figure of Cain…
The author said that the book would not upset the catholics but most probably it would upset Jews…
So his stand is clear..
But you should not confuse Portugal with Spain…because this man exiled himself from Portugal and lives on a Spanish island..
Many Portuguese know to be descendants of bnei Anusim (read history 1497 C.E. and later)…
The books of Jose Rodrigues dos Santos, pivot of RTP write completly different novels…with respect of Jews and their history
I live in Portugal and the only anti Jewish statements I heared the last 3 years were from English residents, a Spanish tourist and a Dutch visitor and not from Portuguese people
Shalom from the Algarve
Jews are so quick to throw the term anti-semitism around. Why? Can one not be critical of another countries abuse of power? Are the Jews too proud to admit wrong-doing? That their “Home Land” is committing acts of atrocity towards others.
To Joe Amber: How about you do the research and actually find out what is going on? Instead of calling him a bigot.
To Evan: How is Mr. Saramago not a good person by talking about something that clearly needs addressed? How is he wrong to condemn Israel for their actions towards Palestinians? What do you mean by their Dubious moral stance?
Celine,
Anyone who is opinionated, one-sided, whether Jewish or Muslim, Christian or atheist, is a bigot.
Much can be said about Israel’s short-sidedness and mistakes and some very serious mistakes. As much can be said about the Arabs and their blunders.
Jose Saramago was biased, perhaps even predisposed to lay the blame solely, exclusively on one side only, which is why I called him a bigot.