Sometimes facts are simpler than how they seem to be.
It is not necessary to deal with high themes, such as peace or the quest for Justice and truth…
for instance, with the risk or the clear desire to devalue these issues.
Facts are simple:
Arrigoni's parents want the body to arrive in Italy, getting through Egypt and not through Israel.
A simple choice which entirely embodies what Vittorio would have wanted, according to his declarations.
This would be enough: to respect the will of a man who has dead to defend the weak people.
“in the intransigence of the Islamic fundamentalist murderers who have killed her son.”
This is because a similar attempt was made by the Navy Israel in the past, but it hadn’t been successful.
“and in the intransigence of the act of the mother.”
Maybe have I misread?
Can someone define a mother “intransigent", when she acts in accordance with the will of a murdered son?
Life is not a simple and random extraction of words.
If you are a writer and you live with this job, you cannot be blind, you cannot put your hand in a cauldron and use the first word that comes out.
The mother is not “intransigent”, the mother chooses the simplest act of love.
“An act which denies completely any possibility of ambiguity or any grayscale, in the attempt to distinguish good from evil”
Grayscale should be left elsewhere, at other times and in other places.
The murder of 1300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis during the Operation Cast Lead cannot be define as grayscale.
It should be remembered that Arrigoni was involved in that magical operation in which Israelis soldiers have been honored for their "courage" and, moreover, Arrigoni was one of the few obstinate Western who remained in Gaza in that dangerous situation, risking his own life.
The grayscale fits where the dialogue is more important than weapons.
The grayscale reminds us the shades of white phosphorus.
Let's leave it to others.
Perhaps Keret, such as other writers, speaks without any desire to offend.
Perhaps he believes that a “generic” peace could aid.
Perhaps he believes that beautiful acts can change everything.
Hence, he should begin to write to Deborah Fait.
He should tell her to shut up, asking her for a symbolic act.
He should talk with her about good and evil as he had done with Arrigoni’s mother in a so much understanding way.
If he has time to spend, he should also write to Fiamma Nirenstein.
And he should remind both of them that concept of extremism which is so dear to them.
Keret, like other writers, should firstly begin to act in a peacekeeping way.
I remember the book fair in Turin in 2008.
Shall we mention some of the guests?
Amos Oz, Abraham Yehoshua, Aharon Appelfeld, David Grossman, Zeruya Shalev,
Orly Castel-Bloom and, surprisingly, Etgar Keret.
Being Israeli doesn’t involve with being in favor of occupation.
But if you don’t do anything against this situation, what does it mean?
Aharon Shabtai hasn’t been afraid to decline the invitation.
I also took part to the book fair, not as a writer of course: I was outside the gates, protesting together with many others.
It is not difficult to imagine that Arrigoni would be there, if only he had been in Italy.
Israeli writers, like Oz, Yehoushua and Grossman, have an easy job in promoting peace.
We all want peace.
But justice is a concept that always seems to be “other”.
In a small and inconsistent way, I have chosen to take-charge of Berlusconi.
Dealing with his government and the moral and economic decay that he is generating.
This is equal to what millions of other Italians do.
Everyone with its own limited fund of experience and store of knowledge.
Someone of these opponents are more active, others talk more and others write as well.
Everyone acts with means he thinks most appropriate.
But in this reality, this silence is equal to complicity.
And this is true both for Berlusconi and for Sarkozy.
And also for Netanyahu and for Obama – we should stop considering him as a revolutionary man.
This is a global struggle.
It involves the worker and the doctor.
And also the student and the employee.
It is especially true for whom have a large media power and also tools to convey properly a message.
If possible, writers are even more responsible in their silence.
But this is rhetoric that we may grant to writers, when they are doing their word pun.
We use just the logic and go back to Vittorio.
Logic tells us that the Israeli navy shot Arrigoni – at least scars don’t lie -
And it tells us that he was not appreciated in Israel.
It also tells us that if he had passed through Tel Aviv to go to Gaza, he would be sent back with kick in ass.
Now, which of these sentences express the desire of Israel to see Arrigoni getting through its territory?
Where is the “welcome” in the previous sentences?
Checking deeply, maybe I have found the appreciated issue that I didn’t understand before.
Now he is REALLY allowed to get trough Israel.
Because he is dead.
P.S. I have already dealt with Arrigoni, but just briefly, in an old post.
In that context, I have explicitly compared him to Saviano.
And I also expressed explicitly a clear preference.
Also in that case, it was easy to find the truth hidden in the rhetoric.