# Good Article on Israel's "Problem" With Wagner ...



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

... written by an insightful author. The title of the article says it all.

*Article:*

*His Music and Philosophy Should Not Be Conflated*
by Robert Levine

*Link:* http://jewishcurrents.org/israels-problems-with-richard-wagner-20164

[removed copyrighted material -Jewish Currents © 2013]


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

*"... censorship of great music despite the lack of proof that that music is capable of creating racist emotions..."*

A powerful statement from above.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Israel is a very backwards-thinking country. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they'd go in for this sort of pointless censorship.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

*Yawn*... and to make the post longer, once more...*yawn*.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> *Yawn*... and to make the post longer, once more...*yawn*.


Forget the article then just get straight into the music and let it wash over us! That's the best!


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Rapide said:


> Forget the article then just get straight into the music and let it wash over us! That's the best!


I do that almost every day, that is why all these objections are so laughable to me. Also, Wagner was by no means a wretched man.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Jobis said:


> Israel is a very backwards-thinking country. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they'd go in for this sort of pointless censorship.


In light of what goes on in the countries around Israel this does emerge as a statement bred on ignorance. Have you been to Israel?

The thing which is most laughable to me is the way we think we have the right to dictate to people what music they listen to. Then call them 'backward looking' if they don't agree with is. A sort of reverse censorship. I don't think whether or not they listen to Wagner will effect Israel's progress. They have rather more pressing issues!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I do that almost every day, that is why all these objections are so laughable to me. Also, Wagner was by no means a wretched man.


You've just read an article by a Wagner supporter saying the man was an all round stinker. How on earth can you ignore history in such a fashion?


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

I can see this getting ugly in several different ways


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Getting back to the article, which I thought was balanced and well reasoned, the essence was there is really no justification for censoring great art.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Oy, so many "Wagner v. _the Jews_" threads lately. It's enough to make me wish for "modern music is objectively bad" to rear its ugly head once more.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Interesting article, especially the thought that Wagner might have been part Jewish himself, and also the jealousy that might have driven him early on. But also, very valid points about Strauss and Carl Orff. I would think there's certainly a double standard at play here, but then again, Wagner is the poster boy for classical music anti-semitism and seems to have first used the Final Solution phrase.

I applaud Israel for constantly confronting this and battling with itself over whether and when to play his music. That's a sign of good health and it seems to be that most people there are in favour of it...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Rapide said:


> Getting back to the article, which I thought was balanced and well reasoned, the essence was there is really no justification for censoring great art.


I think you are missing the point. They don't like Wagner in Israel because of his association with the Nazis. The same reason that Isaac Stern and Richard Tucker refused to appear with Karajan. Other Jews like his concertmaster, Schwable, took a different line. This is not censorship but people having the right to choose. Perhaps if you visit Yad Vashem in Jerusalem then you might just see where people are coming from when they do not want to listen to Hitler's favourite composer.


----------



## Oreb (Aug 8, 2013)

Jobis said:


> Israel is a very backwards-thinking country. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they'd go in for this sort of pointless censorship.


 I think that's a pretty contentious statement, particularly given the fact that Israel is a democracy surrounded by failed states led by corrupt, racist, mysoginistic, bomb-toting thugs.

Try being a gay man or woman or Christian or Jew in some of those places before deciding that Israel should be singled out as backward!


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Oreb said:


> corrupt, racist, mysoginistic, bomb-toting thugs.


Pretty good description of the IDF


----------



## Fermat (Jul 26, 2013)

I see this thread potentially not ending well.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I think you are missing the point. They don't like Wagner in Israel because of *his association with the Nazis*. The same reason that Isaac Stern and Richard Tucker refused to appear with Karajan. Other Jews like his concertmaster, Schwable, took a different line. This is not censorship but people having the right to choose. Perhaps if you visit Yad Vashem in Jerusalem then you might just see where people are coming from when they do not want to listen to Hitler's favourite composer.


Two matters:

(1) The part I highlighted of your post in bold is precisely the problem with the whole matter, and you either consciously or sub-consciously wrote it: "...his association with the Nazis". That is plainly mistaken (and weaved into loose conversation as a manner of speaking these days everywhere in general) - Wagner himself was obviously not associated with Nazism (born and died in the 19th century, long before WWII and Nazism) but the other way round indeed: Nazism was associated with Wagner's music.

(2) Israel banned the music. Banning means you don't have the choice even if you wanted to. Smoking is banned in some places, which means you cannot smoke at those places if you wanted to - your choice is restricted to nought.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Rapide said:


> Two matters:
> 
> (1) The part I highlighted of your post in bold is precisely the problem with the whole matter, and you either consciously or sub-consciously wrote it: "...his association with the Nazis". That is plainly mistaken (and weaved into loose conversation as a manner of speaking these days everywhere in general) - Wagner himself was obviously not associated with Nazism (born and died in the 19th century, long before WWII and Nazism) but the other way round indeed: Nazism was associated with Wagner's music.


That's true. We have no way of knowing how Wagner might have reacted to the consequences of fascism. He may even have been appalled. But we know that some composers and conductors were willing members of the Nazi party and yet they seem to get a free pass...


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the principles of connecting a composer's values and attitudes to his music, and the potential influence of the music and its champions on others.

It seems no-one wants the "principles" debate, just the "Wagner was a bad man / God" argument.

If anyone wants the debate, or knows where it has already been joined in another thread, please let me know.

[edit]
I did try previously...

http://www.talkclassical.com/27212-wagner-racism-jealousy-13.html#post511257

And thanks to Ingenue, the sole respondent to my question at the time (page 13 of 23!)


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I have a lot of respect for Israel for surviving, maintaining a high living standard and holding on fast to their language and culture, while being surrounded by neighbors who would love to wipe it off the Earth together with everyone who supports it, but that has nothing to do with Wagner. Anyway, why are people so fixated on the Israelis' opinion of him? If they don't want to listen to Wagner, there are still lots of places in the world where he is welcome. If Barenboim or someone else want to win new audiences, he should come play Wagner here in Minsk. He would get crowded concert halls every time, I assure you.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> There is a legitimate debate to be had about the principles of connecting a composer's values and attitudes to his music, and the potential influence of the music and its champions on others.
> 
> ...


Ask the Far East audience, say the Japanese or the Chinese who listen to Wagner's music for the first time. I doubt they would hate Jews after their listening experience.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

Rapide said:


> (2) Israel banned the music. Banning means you don't have the choice even if you wanted to.


And yet the article gives examples of those who, outside of Israel, chose to play or to not play Wagner. This is not just about 'censorship' but about personal decisions as well.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

Rapide said:


> Ask the Far East audience, say the Japanese or the Chinese who listen to Wagner's music for the first time. I doubt they would hate Jews after their listening experience.


I'm not sure how what you've posted is any kind of answer to my post - you still bring it all back to Wagner.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> And yet the article gives examples of those who, outside of Israel, chose to play or to not play Wagner. This is not just about 'censorship' but about personal decisions as well.


Outside of Israel, I agree completely about it as being personal decisions. (The article was more interested about Israel's banning of the music, using it as the pinnacle example of conflation).


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Oreb said:


> I think that's a pretty contentious statement, particularly given the fact that Israel is a democracy surrounded by failed states led by corrupt, racist, mysoginistic, bomb-toting thugs.
> 
> Try being a gay man or woman or Christian or Jew in some of those places before deciding that Israel should be singled out as backward!


You're right, of course, but everything is subjective. You can't excuse certain behaviours because they're not as bad as some others.

The zionist movement is unjust and insensitive to anyone but those behind it.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Jobis said:


> You're right, of course, but everything is subjective. You can't excuse certain behaviours because they're not as bad as some others.
> 
> The zionist movement is unjust and insensitive to anyone but those behind it.


Zionism and the right of Israel, like any other nation, to it's own homeland, to living in peace and free from fear, within that homeland, and to defending that homeland when it is attacked, is not the same.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Zionism and the right of Israel, like any other nation, to it's own homeland, to living in peace and free from fear, within that homeland, and to defending that homeland when it is attacked, is not the same.


Doesn't that rather depend on your definition of 'Zionism' and 'own homeland'?


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Zionism and the right of Israel, like any other nation, to it's own homeland, to living in peace and free from fear, within that homeland, and to defending that homeland when it is attacked, is not the same.


What about the people who were living there before the zionists settled in and claimed it for their own? Two wrongs don't make a right, despite all the injustices shown to the jewish people, you're not going to make it better by unjustly seizing a country as some kind of recompense.


----------



## Pennypacker (Jul 30, 2013)

Garlic said:


> Pretty good description of the IDF


I can live with corrupt, racist and bomb-toting. But mysoginistic?! Maybe horny (you try to go for a few weeks away from home and not wish to screw any woman you see. Unless you're female, then apologies, ma'am), but the only place where women have to serve and get to the highest ranks is pretty far from mysoginistic.



Kieran said:


> I would think there's certainly a double standard at play here, but then again, Wagner is the poster boy for classical music anti-semitism and seems to have first used the Final Solution phrase.


There's always double standard involved in censorship. These words are OK, these are not. Grossly graphic violence is OK, sex is not. It always starts with someone deciding that something is wrong. Add a little disinformation and the rest will follow.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Doesn't that rather depend on your definition of 'Zionism' and 'own homeland'?


Do I really have to explain to you what the words "country" and "state" mean? It is you, not I who is the native English speaker. As for "Zionism", I have always understood it to be Jewish supremacism, that is why I say it is not the same as Israel's legitimate right to have a home.



Jobis said:


> What about the people who were living there before the zionists settled in and claimed it for their own? Two wrongs don't make a right, despite all the injustices shown to the jewish people, you're not going to make it better by unjustly seizing a country as some kind of recompense.


What would you have them do then? Go settle in Madagascar, like the Nazis wanted them to? This is their home and they have surely built a better country out of it than a terrorist state like Palestine would.

Same hold true for the English, the Germans etc.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> What would you have them do then? Go settle in Madagascar, like the Nazis wanted them to? This is their home and they have surely built a better country out of it than a terrorist state like Palestine would.
> 
> Same hold true for the English, the Germans etc.


Terrorism is pretty subjective sometimes. To Palestinians, Israel is the terrorist state, and the more powerful one at that.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Pennypacker said:


> I can live with corrupt, racist and bomb-toting. But mysoginistic?! Maybe horny (you try to go for a few weeks away from home and not wish to screw any woman you see. Unless you're female, then apologies, ma'am), but the only place where women have to serve and get to the highest ranks is pretty far from mysoginistic.


Maybe that was a bit of a stretch. But Israel is hardly the egalitarian paradise (regarding gender or anything else) that a lot of people seem to want to believe.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Do I really have to explain to you what the words "country" and "state" mean? It is you, not I who is the native English speaker. As for "Zionism", I have always understood it to be Jewish supremacism, that is why I say it is not the same as Israel's legitimate right to have a home.


I know, it's just so exhausting to have to explain these things when they're so obvious, isn't it? I mean, we all know and fully understand the geographical (and associated political) implications of Israel's definition of 'homeland', don't we?

Look up Zionism. Your understanding is over-simplified. It's a term that, like so many hotly-politicised terms, can mean different things to different users.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Do I really have to explain to you what the words "country" and "state" mean? It is you, not I who is the native English speaker. As for "Zionism", I have always understood it to be Jewish supremacism, that is why I say it is not the same as Israel's legitimate right to have a home.
> 
> What would you have them do then? Go settle in Madagascar, like the Nazis wanted them to? This is their home and they have surely built a better country out of it than a terrorist state like Palestine would.
> 
> Same hold true for the English, the Germans etc.


The Jewish people are welcome to stay anywhere they like, there are far more important things in life than having a homeland. In fact it is even xenophobic to assume that Jews are some different, special group of people who deserve special treatment and couldn't possibly integrate into western society.

Also; a better country maybe, but at what cost?


----------



## Pennypacker (Jul 30, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> As for "Zionism", I have always understood it to be Jewish supremacism, that is why I say it is not the same as Israel's legitimate right to have a home.


Nope. It's just what you've said about the Jewish right for their homeland and the legitimacy of Israel. It also says that every Jew should live in Israel. There's a sense of supremacy in this, as in any sort of nationalism. The real Jewish supremacy is found on the religious side, where it's told that the Jews are the chosen people and all that crap.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Jobis said:


> The Jewish people are welcome to stay anywhere they like, there are far more important things in life than having a homeland. In fact it is even xenophobic to assume that Jews are some different, special group of people who deserve special treatment and couldn't possibly integrate into western society.
> 
> Also; a better country maybe, but at what cost?


Actually, there _is _something different about them: people keep trying to wipe them out. They're not actually "welcome to stay anywhere they like", and even my own travels around Europe and chatting to relatives from eastern Europe etc, shows that there's a deep mistrust of Jews, at best, and something worse is often revealed in longer conversations.

The foundation of Israel was one step to trying to address this, and just as Pakistan is an ideological made-up state (which few people seem to mind, by the way, despite the horrors that go on there), Israel was created for a reason. I think we must accept that there is a huge fear among Jews that the Holocaust will not be a one-off and most things that emanate from the Jewish state are based on this wise assumption...


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Jobis said:


> The Jewish people are welcome to stay anywhere they like, there are far more important things in life than having a homeland. In fact it is even xenophobic to assume that Jews are some different, special group of people who deserve special treatment and couldn't possibly integrate into western society.
> 
> Also; a better country maybe, but at what cost?


I have never said the Jews deserve special treatment as compared to other people. I said they deserve to have their own home _just as the English, the Germans, the French and other nations _ (about whose right to national self-preservation I personally care somewhat more than about that of the Jews). They have preserved their distinct identity, language and culture throughout all the centuries they have been scattered all over Europe, and now they want to live in peace and build a Western-like society in the country that belongs to them. And they seem to be actually capable of building such a society unlike many of the surrounding nations. So why should they not do it?

Also, if the Jews had their own country to live in a bit earlier in the 20th century, the Holocaust would most likely not have happened.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Actually, there _is _something different about them: people keep trying to wipe them out. They're not actually "welcome to stay anywhere they like", and even my own travels around Europe and chatting to relatives from eastern Europe etc, shows that there's a deep mistrust of Jews, at best, and something worse is often revealed in longer conversations.
> 
> The foundation of Israel was one step to trying to address this, and just as Pakistan is an ideological made-up state (which few people seem to mind, by the way, despite the horrors that go on there), Israel was created for a reason. I think we must accept that there is a huge fear among Jews that the Holocaust will not be a one-off and most things that emanate from the Jewish state are based on this wise assumption...


There needs to be some kind of relationship between those distrustful of Jews and Jewish people in order for those problems to be resolved. To flee from it is admitting defeat, and means that sadly such issues will not go away.

I don't see why America does not have space to accomodate the Jewish people, sure its no Israel but its safe and I hardly think the Messiah is going to be too fussed over the geography when he returns to save his people.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Why are so many TC threads endings with a bunch of nationalism Bullshizz lately?


----------



## Pennypacker (Jul 30, 2013)

Garlic said:


> Maybe that was a bit of a stretch. But Israel is hardly the egalitarian paradise (regarding gender or anything else) that a lot of people seem to want to believe.


From "corrupt and racist" to "not an egalitarian paradise". That was quick. Who are these people and what have they been smoking? Yeah, it's not a paradise in terms of anything. Few places are.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

violadude said:


> Why are so many TC threads endings with a bunch of nationalism Bullshizz lately?


It must be Wagner's spirit, disturbed by what they are doing to his art in Bayreuth, rising from the grave and coming to wherever they talk about him.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Jobis said:


> There needs to be some kind of relationship between those distrustful of Jews and Jewish people in order for those problems to be resolved. To flee from it is admitting defeat, and means that sadly such issues will not go away.


I'm not sure who is fleeing from it. We see from the OP that Israel is busy confronting issues such as Wagner's music, which is huge for them from many perspectives. Most peoples view on Israel/Jews is to say they're bad nasty characters, Zionists and so forth (and many more of the ancient stereotypes), but to me this is "fleeing from dealing with it", too...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Kieran said:


> I'm not sure who is fleeing from it. We see from the OP that Israel is busy confronting issues such as Wagner's music, which is huge for them from many perspectives. Most peoples view on Israel/Jews is to say *they're bad nasty characters, Zionists* and so forth (and many more of the ancient stereotypes), but to me this is "fleeing from dealing with it", too...


I think the judgement of what Israel's government does and the character of individual Jewish people are two totally separate issues. I wish more people would make the distinction.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

violadude said:


> I think the judgement of what Israel's government does and the character of individual Jewish people are two totally separate issues. I wish more people would make the distinction.


So do I, but also I wish that people would weigh their judgments the same across the board, including Israel's government and their neighbours rulers too...


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Israel's government is protecting their citizens' right to life and peace. I wish our governments were more loyal towards their populations as well, instead of imposing those same terrorists who would wipe Israel out, on us (including the Jews still living in Europe. In some Swedish towns like Malmo, Jews fear for their life again, because of all the Palestinians who live there).


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Kieran said:


> So do I, but also I wish that people would weigh their judgments the same across the board, including Israel's government and their neighbours rulers too...


Alright. Fair enough. I haven't claimed any specific affinity for Ahmadinejad or anything (ya I know he's not the leader anymore, but I haven't memorized the new guys name yet  )


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Israel's government is protecting their citizens' right to life and peace.


Yes, this sure looks like protection alright:


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Israel's government is protecting their citizens' right to life and peace. I wish our governments were more loyal towards their populations as well, instead of imposing those same terrorists who would wipe Israel out, on us (including the Jews still living in Europe. In some Swedish towns like Malmo, Jews fear for their life again, because of all the Palestinians who live there).


Imposing terrorists on us? Are you talking about Muslims? Because that would be rather bigoted of you.


----------



## Pennypacker (Jul 30, 2013)

Jobis said:


> There needs to be some kind of relationship between those distrustful of Jews and Jewish people in order for those problems to be resolved. To flee from it is admitting defeat, and means that sadly such issues will not go away. .


Nothing like sitting on your computer and reflecting so bravely on history. "Hey Jews, sorry about that holocaust thing, maybe it went a bit too far. But we don't want you to get the wrong impression, so maybe we should sit down and talk about it, you know?"



violadude said:


> Yes, this sure looks like protection alright:


Well... Yeah. How do you imagine it?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Jobis said:


> Imposing terrorists on us? Are you talking about Muslims? Because that would be rather bigoted of you.


An interesting issue here, though probably going off-topic, but if you live in the EU, the EU *does *impose terrorists on us and recently, British attempts to get rid of hate-clerics and men wanted for terrorism back in their own Middle-Eastern countries have been blocked by the EU on the grounds that the terrorists human rights are being affected. :lol:

So at huge expense to the tax payer, the guy who hates us and wants to destroy our way of life gets to live in a huge house in the country - all thanks to the bureaucratic tyranny that is the EU...


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I said they deserve to have their own home _just as the English, the Germans, the French and other nations _ (about whose right to national self-preservation I personally care somewhat more than about that of the Jews)


In your opinion. What you continue to assert is that the de facto position - that there are nation states - is also the universally accepted ideal position.

Clearly, the Old Testament story of the Tower of Babel at least explores the idea that mankind arrived at this undesirable position when we should all have been living as one happy family, speaking a single language...etc


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Rapide said:


> (2) Israel banned the music. Banning means you don't have the choice even if you wanted to. Smoking is banned in some places, which means you cannot smoke at those places if you wanted to - your choice is restricted to nought.


This is an important point because it is completely wrong. An unwillingness to play or listen to a certain composer and an unspoken agreement to not play his works is not a banning. Censorship requires an authority (usually political) making an actual rule proscribing something, it isn't about choice and unless there is an Israeli law banning Wagner the word censorship is merely polemical.

It isn't Israel's "problem" that you can't watch Wagner there, it is more Wagner's problem, almost the same problem Rubinstein or Porpora has. There's little chance of seeing operas from either of those composers, because Israel, like much of the rest of the world chooses not to show them. America isn't censoring Popora every time they don't stage him, they are merely making a choice based on who might wish to perform it and more importantly who the audience is.

Go on, form an opera company and take a production of the Ring and stage it in Jerusalem, no one is going to stop you. You'll probably get people protesting and maybe booing but that's assuming you have plenty of money because not many people would be daft enough to fund that. Will there be bacon sandwiches in the interval?


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Kieran said:


> An interesting issue here, though probably going off-topic, but if you live in the EU, the EU *does *impose terrorists on us and recently, British attempts to get rid of hate-clerics and men wanted for terrorism back in their own Middle-Eastern countries have been blocked by the EU on the grounds that the terrorists human rights are being affected. :lol:
> 
> So at huge expense to the tax payer, the guy who hates us and wants to destroy our way of life gets to live in a huge house in the country - all thanks to the bureaucratic tyranny that is the EU...


Well, he has been deported now. I think it's outrageous that someone can be forced to leave a country because of their religious or political views. It's not like he was building bombs.

The increasing contempt with which many in my country talk about "human rights" makes me very scared indeed.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Pennypacker said:


> Well... Yeah. How do you imagine it?


Bombing innocent people isn't protecting anyone. Unless you just think the whole city is guilty of everything Hamas or similar groups do.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Garlic said:


> Well, he has been deported now. I think it's outrageous that someone can be forced to leave a country because of their religious or political views. It's not like he was building bombs.
> 
> The increasing contempt with which many in my country talk about "human rights" makes me very scared indeed.


He was deported because he was wanted for terrorist crimes in Jordan, not because of his religion. But even then, his hate views should be enough for the British to say he's not welcome in their country...


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

quack said:


> This is an important point because it is completely wrong.


Thank you for this information. I had taken the banning as fact, without checking.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

Kieran said:


> He was deported because he was wanted for terrorist crimes in Jordan, not because of his religion. But even then, his hate views should be enough for the British to say he's not welcome in their country...


We know for sure do we that Abu Qatada is guilty of the crimes he is alleged to have committed in Jordan, and that his 'hate views' have been documented as contravening our current 'hate laws'?


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Pennypacker said:


> Nothing like sitting on your computer and reflecting so bravely on history. "Hey Jews, sorry about that holocaust thing, maybe it went a bit too far. But we don't want you to get the wrong impression, so maybe we should sit down and talk about it, you know?"
> 
> Well... Yeah. How do you imagine it?


How on earth did you get the impression I am excusing the holocaust??

Also, talking things through never killed anyone, unlike the IDF.


----------



## Pennypacker (Jul 30, 2013)

violadude said:


> Bombing innocent people isn't protecting anyone. Unless you just think the whole city is guilty of everything Hamas or similar groups do.


Good point. The army should be informed of that. Maybe use those AI bombs that target the terrorists alone. 
I don't blame anyone for being born into a certain state and history of their surroundings. But the ones who elected Hamas...



Jobis said:


> How on earth did you get the impression I am excusing the holocaust??


How on earth did you get the impression that I got the impression that... 
I was referring to your "to flee from it is admitting defeat" sentence. It's a very bold statement. I think the holocaust is a pretty damn good reason to admit defeat and get the hell out of there.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> We know for sure do we that Abu Qatada is guilty of the crimes he is alleged to have committed in Jordan, and that his 'hate views' have been documented as contravening our current 'hate laws'?


His trial takes place in Jordan, a sovereign state that's entitled to make an application for extradition. The only relevance from the British point of view is that the application is valid.

Based upon his views alone, however, I would stick him on a ship and set him adrift, with a good few more of his hate-cleric type...


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

Pennypacker said:


> But the ones who elected Hamas...


Unfortunately, the allegedly democratic west (as represented by its media and politicians at least) holds to the notion that there is only one desirable democratic way, and that surely everyone everywhere except the 'terrorists' also subscribes, and, given free and fair elections, would always choose the civilised and democratic way.

What they fail to realise is that this is not so. If you live in Palestine, you might well think that the only way to achieve the freedoms you want for your children is to elect a political party that will take the fight to those that oppress you.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Kieran said:


> His trial takes place in Jordan, a sovereign state that's entitled to make an application for extradition. The only relevance from the British point of view is that the application is valid.
> 
> Based upon his views alone, however, I would stick him on a ship and set him adrift, with a good few more of his hate-cleric type...


A civilised country does not deport people to places where they will be tortured, or where evidence obtained through torture will be used to convict them.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

Kieran said:


> His trial takes place in Jordan, a sovereign state that's entitled to make an application for extradition. The only relevance from the British point of view is that the application is valid.
> 
> Based upon his views alone, however, I would stick him on a ship and set him adrift, with a good few more of his hate-cleric type...


And his views are...what? I've never heard the man speak, nor read any of his writings.

Would you stick anyone on a ship and set them adrift if they held views with which you did not agree?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Garlic said:


> A civilised country does not deport people to places where they will be tortured, or where evidence obtained through torture will be used to convict them.


Maybe he's getting justice there? The EU themselves have decided that Jordan meets their criteria for the extradition.

By the way, I'm appalled that the EU has a say in these things. If the British wish to deport an illegal immigrant who espouses fascist views, then that should be their right. It's a disgrace that the tax-payer footed the huge bill for this person to stay and preach their hatred for Britain and the west.

We've become too liberal in defending mad fascists...


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> And his views are...what? I've never heard the man speak, nor read any of his writings.
> 
> Would you stick anyone on a ship and set them adrift if they held views with which you did not agree?


It's very easy to Google him to find out. This is from the BBC, a news source which some people trust, though I can take it or leave it. It's beyond dispute, however, that he's a hardline Islamist with a hatred of the west, "indistinguishable" from al-Qaeda.

And no, I don't propose deporting anyone with a view I disagree with. How did you draw that conclusion?


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Maybe he's getting justice there? The EU themselves have decided that Jordan meets their criteria for the extradition.
> 
> By the way, I'm appalled that the EU has a say in these things. If the British wish to deport an illegal immigrant who espouses fascist views, then that should be their right. It's a disgrace that the tax-payer footed the huge bill for this person to stay and preach their hatred for Britain and the west.
> 
> We've become too liberal in defending mad fascists...


I'm British and I didn't want this man deported. I wouldn't want someone with fascist views deported either. I'd like to think we're better than that, of course that's just wishful thinking.

If by your reference to the tax payer you're talking about welfare payments, I can think much worse abuses of public money.


----------



## Pennypacker (Jul 30, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Unfortunately, the allegedly democratic west (as represented by its media and politicians at least) holds to the notion that there is only one desirable democratic way, and that surely everyone everywhere except the 'terrorists' also subscribes, and, given free and fair elections, would always choose the civilised and democratic way.
> 
> What they fail to realise is that this is not so. If you live in Palestine, you might well think that the only way to achieve the freedoms you want for your children is to elect a political party that will take the fight to those that oppress you.


I know that and I fully agree with that. Unlike many people in my country, I can see both sides of the story. Exploding in a civilian bus is not different from just the "conventional" fighting of bombing the hell out of each other. But voting for war, you should expect the consequences, there's no innocence here. 
With that being said, the Hamas issue is entirely different than Fatah for example. Its resistance to Zionism is just a part of the Islamist ideology, and it won't end with the oppression being relieved. They killed a lot more Arabs in their own streets than Jews.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

Kieran said:


> It's very easy to Google him to find out. This is from the BBC, a news source which some people trust, though I can take it or leave it. It's beyond dispute, however, that he's a hardline Islamist with a hatred of the west, "indistinguishable" from al-Qaeda.
> 
> And no, I don't propose deporting anyone with a view I disagree with. How did you draw that conclusion?


Thanks for the link.

I didn't draw the conclusion: I asked the question. So, you will accept the freedom for us to express some views (without wanting to set the viewholder adrift in the proverbial boat) but not others. Where do you draw the line? At what point do the views become 'adriftable'?

[edit]

The article you have linked to seems to me to draw a picture of a man whose _reported _pronouncements may have been irresponsible, in that he seems to carry an influence with those who would carry out 'terrorist' acts. What it doesn't clearly show is that he is a terrorist, nor that he is guilty of any terrorist acts, nor even that he was a threat to the UK. One interesting 'quote'...



> Abu Qatada [...] said that Islamic law justified taking up arms against despots and foreign invaders because they were the enemies of Muslims.


And would not other citizens in the West want to take up arms against invaders or despots who were their enemies too?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Garlic said:


> I'm British and I didn't want this man deported. I wouldn't want someone with fascist views deported either. I'd like to think we're better than that, of course that's just wishful thinking.
> 
> If by your reference to the tax payer you're talking about welfare payments, I can think much worse abuses of public money.


Absolutely, there are worse abuses. My point of course being, an elected government wasn't allowed to govern. I don't think a tolerance of fascism is a sign of being better than anyone else. The fact is, fascism isn't tolerant and your own tolerance is only seen by religious fascists as obsequiousness and indifference...


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> I didn't draw the conclusion: I asked the question. So, you will accept the freedom for us to express some views (without wanting to set the viewholder adrift in the proverbial boat) but not others. Where do you draw the line? At what point do the views become 'adriftable'?


Obviously, with hate speech. In that case, there are laws against this.

Especially bear in mind, abu Qatadu was an illegal immigrant. He was staying as a guest and the British were right to presume they could remove that welcome at their own discretion...


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Obviously, with hate speech. In that case, there are laws against this.
> 
> Especially bear in mind, abu Qatadu was an illegal immigrant. He was staying as a guest and the British were right to presume they could remove that welcome at their own discretion...


So, anyone who advocates breaking the law might be set adrift, irrespective of whether it is a good law? And you're happy that our hate laws are fit for purpose, and that Abu Qatada was guilty of hate crime?

On your last point, I thought Qatada was an asylum seeker. He sought permission to stay, didn't he? And he was as entitled to the legal process, including appeals, that all asylum seekers are entitled to?


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Obviously, with hate speech. In that case, there are laws against this.


Then you have to start worrying about defining what "hate speech" is. It's a thorny issue, and hard to come to a consensus, even among reasonable people.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> In your opinion. What you continue to assert is that the de facto position - that there are nation states - is also the universally accepted ideal position.
> 
> Clearly, the Old Testament story of the Tower of Babel at least explores the idea that mankind arrived at this undesirable position when we should all have been living as one happy family, speaking a single language...etc


I apologize in advance for sounding harsh, but please, spare me all that happy-clappy-crappy, one-family, hippie, leftist, dope-smoking, kumbaya-singing B*S*. It is unrealistic and will never become realistic, and the dreamers who believe in it will only end up sacrificing human lives for the sake of it.

First of all, even those who really believe in the Tower of Babel, believe that its destruction came about because of human sin. Sin has not gone anywhere after that, and therefore, what was before it, is impossible to bring back.

Second, with that speaking a single language thing you have insulted all of the "tribe" of language lovers, which I also happen to belong to. Different languages are a beautiful thing, which also deserves to be preserved, and for a lot of people life would be hell without it. But of course you would sacrifice that too for the sake of your illusions.

Third, it may be a surprise for you, but not all people think the same way about the idea of "living as one family". Those nations that would wipe Israel out, and that threaten our nations too, certainly do not. They are simply not interested in living as one family, they are interested in conquest and in spreading their religion to as much of the world as they can. They view your pacifist thinking as nothing more than weakness which should make our lands easy for the taking.

A while ago I've read a book written by a young German woman who had been brainwashed into thinking that all nations and all cultures share the Western view of romance, marriage, women's rights and other suchlike issues. The lesson that taught her it is not so, almost cost her her life, and even until now she lives under police protection hiding from the relatives of her Turkish fairytale prince who want to kill her for getting away from him. I am afraid that is the lesson many of our people would have to learn the hard way, before the lose faith in the illusions of "living as one happy family".


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I apologize in advance for sounding harsh, but please, spare me all that happy-clappy-crappy, one-family, hippie, leftist, dope-smoking, kumbaya-singing **.


Spare me the rest of your post, then. Dismiss with easy labels, by all means.

[edit]You draw some extraordinary conclusions from your interpretation of my posts.

Reference to a biblical story has 'insulted' language lovers? And I would 'sacrifice' languages?

Why would it surprise me that not all people think the same way as me (even assuming you know how I think)? It seems to surprise you, however, that there are some who don't share your views of the inviolability of the nation-state.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> Then you have to start worrying about defining what "hate speech" is. It's a thorny issue, and hard to come to a consensus, even among reasonable people.


Actually I think reasonable people have a pretty easy time figuring out what speech can be safely ignored and which can't be.

Reasonable people can ignore the silly rantings of the Westboro Baptist Church because they've never actually incited any terrorist acts against homosexuals. They are clowns and treated as such.

Reasonable people see that the inciteful speech of the Jihadist preachers are a whole other ballgame and deserve to be treated as such.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> So, anyone who advocates breaking the law might be set adrift, irrespective of whether it is a good law? And you're happy that our hate laws are fit for purpose, and that Abu Qatada was guilty of hate crime?
> 
> On your last point, I thought Qatada was an asylum seeker. He sought permission to stay, didn't he? And he was as entitled to the legal process, including appeals, that all asylum seekers are entitled to?


Yes, he went through the system and the system ejected him - but only after the cuddly brutal EU stepped in with their own brand of bureaucratic nose-poking. The British were satisfied that he should be exported, after due process was observed.

As for the first part, I think you're maybe taking a simplistic view. If, for instance, I suggest that MacLeod's garden fence is legally of a right height, but I want the law to change so his fence is higher (so I don't catch you nude sunbathing again, tut tut, we all know about it), then in this case, obviously advocating a change of law is my right and I wait to see what happens.

I may even affect your fence myself, breaking the law, and then I'd be due a day in court. All good neighbourly fun so far.

But if I advocate blowing up your fence because you're sunbathing out your own back, I think you might want to be protected from me. Especially if you believe my speech will turn into deed.

The fact is, hate speech is a crime in most places, and issuing threats and making calls to violence is against the law. The hate clerics know this but they're protected by liberals who see it maybe as a free-speech issue, or maybe just an opportunity to assert their right-on lefty credentials. Whichever way you see it.

By the way, I said it at the time, but I think this has moved the thread off topic! :lol:

No matter, though I apologise to rapide! :tiphat:


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Kieran said:


> . . . By the way, I said it at the time, but I think this has moved the thread off topic! . . .


And with that, we return you to our regularly scheduled program ...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Rapide said:


> Two matters:
> 
> (1) The part I highlighted of your post in bold is precisely the problem with the whole matter, and you either consciously or sub-consciously wrote it: "...his association with the Nazis". That is plainly mistaken (and weaved into loose conversation as a manner of speaking these days everywhere in general) - Wagner himself was obviously not associated with Nazism (born and died in the 19th century, long before WWII and Nazism) but the other way round indeed: Nazism was associated with Wagner's music.
> 
> (2) Israel banned the music. Banning means you don't have the choice even if you wanted to. Smoking is banned in some places, which means you cannot smoke at those places if you wanted to - your choice is restricted to nought.


Yes, I should have said, 'because of the Nazis' associations with Wagner' - just so happens their opinions on the Jews were pretty much identical.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

It just comes down to whether or not you can separate the man from the music. Some people are not able to do so and for them, it's impossible to listen to Wagner's music without the concept of anti-Semitism flashing through your heard. Other people just want to hear the music and don't really care what Wagner may or may not have believed (e. g. me). I don't believe in any form of censorship, but I guess that would make my views extreme in some places. I don't think Holocaust denying, as despicable as it may be, should be illegal the way it is in some European countries. And I don't think that Wagner's music should be banned even if it is a symbol of anti-Semitism for some.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tristan said:


> It just comes down to whether or not you can separate the man from the music. Some people are not able to do so and for them, it's impossible to listen to Wagner's music without the concept of anti-Semitism flashing through your heard. Other people just want to hear the music and don't really care what Wagner may or may not have believed (e. g. me). I don't believe in any form of censorship, but I guess that would make my views extreme in some places. I don't think Holocaust denying, as despicable as it may be, should be illegal the way it is in some European countries. And I don't think that Wagner's music should be banned even if it is a symbol of anti-Semitism for some.


It's quite comfortable to talk so blithely about the Holocaust having not experienced its horrors.

And if some country bans Wagner they are not going to be that deprived anyway! I listen to it sometimes but I can take it or leave it.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Tristan said:


> It just comes down to whether or not you can separate the man from the music. Some people are not able to do so and for them, it's impossible to listen to Wagner's music without the concept of anti-Semitism flashing through your heard. Other people just want to hear the music and don't really care what Wagner may or may not have believed (e. g. me). I don't believe in any form of censorship, but I guess that would make my views extreme in some places. I don't think Holocaust denying, as despicable as it may be, should be illegal the way it is in some European countries. And I don't think that Wagner's music should be banned even if it is a symbol of anti-Semitism for some.


That's often it these days. It's like watching a particular TV commerical too often and they used some classical tune. The next time you listened to that tune elsewhere, it reminded you of the product from the TV commercial.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

quack said:


> This is an important point because it is completely wrong. An unwillingness to play or listen to a certain composer and an unspoken agreement to not play his works is not a banning. Censorship requires an authority (usually political) making an actual rule proscribing something, it isn't about choice and unless there is an Israeli law banning Wagner the word censorship is merely polemical.
> 
> It isn't Israel's "problem" that you can't watch Wagner there, it is more Wagner's problem, almost the same problem Rubinstein or Porpora has. There's little chance of seeing operas from either of those composers, because Israel, like much of the rest of the world chooses not to show them. America isn't censoring Popora every time they don't stage him, they are merely making a choice based on who might wish to perform it and more importantly who the audience is.
> 
> Go on, form an opera company and take a production of the Ring and stage it in Jerusalem, no one is going to stop you. You'll probably get people protesting and maybe booing but that's assuming you have plenty of money because not many people would be daft enough to fund that. Will there be bacon sandwiches in the interval?


If it is legislated banning, then it is restricted choice. If it is not legislated banning but the people's choice as you put it, then Israel has even more a problem with it than I presumed.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

EricABQ said:


> Actually I think reasonable people have a pretty easy time figuring out what speech can be safely ignored and which can't be.
> 
> Reasonable people can ignore the silly rantings of the Westboro Baptist Church because they've never actually incited any terrorist acts against homosexuals. They are clowns and treated as such.
> 
> Reasonable people see that the inciteful speech of the Jihadist preachers are a whole other ballgame and deserve to be treated as such.


Well, I disagree. (Hey, maybe I'm not a reasonable person.)

If you want "hate speech" to be against the law (which I think is what's at issue here), you have make a legal determination as to what speech is allowable and what's not. That opens a big can of worms, and in my opinion, it's better to err on the side of being too permissive. The chilling effect on free speech is too great, especially when you consider the vagaries of political power. Better we all develop thick skins than make laws against free expression.

As for "inciteful" speech, I don't trust the whole "you know it when you hear it" argument that I think you're channeling here. There are too many opportunities for bias and prejudice to creep in.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Rapide said:


> If it is legislated banning, then it is restricted choice. If it is not legislated banning but the people's choice as you put it, then Israel has even more a problem with it than I presumed.


People have a problem because they don't want to listen to Wagner? What planet are you on? Look at the challenges facing people in that region - whether or not they want to listen to Wagner is a very minor issue indeed, apart from in the minds of Wagner fanatics.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

DavidA said:


> People have a problem because they don't want to listen to Wagner? What planet are you on? Look at the challenges facing people in that region - whether or not they want to listen to Wagner is a very minor issue indeed, apart from in the minds of Wagner fanatics.


The planet I am on is based on reasoning; objective reasoning without conflation on events that occurred many decades or a century after the music was composed.

It's all double standards in reality. Not just in music but in day to day consumption items - cheap clothing made from child labor in India, advanced smart phones made by workers in China without legislated and enforced minimum workers' conditions and pay, imported foods from the destruction of forests in a tropical zone we have never heard of, etc. etc. I suppose we don't ban these because we can't afford the more expensive alternative anyway. 

Edit: I do knowingly purchase shirts "Made in Bangladash", and an iPhone assembled in China. I have been for years and will probably continue to do so.


----------



## jekluc (Oct 16, 2012)

Lol. My favorite is when people ask you, have you been to country X that you are criticizing? As if you're not allowed to have an opinion on a country without visiting there. I guess poor people who can't afford plane tickets should just not have opinions at all. I've been meaning to learn more about Wagner, by the way. His harmonies are fascinating.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> Well, I disagree. (Hey, maybe I'm not a reasonable person.)
> 
> If you want "hate speech" to be against the law (which I think is what's at issue here), you have make a legal determination as to what speech is allowable and what's not. That opens a big can of worms, and in my opinion, it's better to err on the side of being too permissive. The chilling effect on free speech is too great, especially when you consider the vagaries of political power. Better we all develop thick skins than make laws against free expression.
> 
> As for "inciteful" speech, I don't trust the whole "you know it when you hear it" argument that I think you're channeling here. There are too many opportunities for bias and prejudice to creep in.


Let me be clear that I do not want hate speech to be against the law. I'm a strong believer in the first amendment and would never advocate people being arrested for saying racist, hateful things. Mainly because for the most part the people who do that are cranks and fools that no one takes seriously anyway and very rarely does any actual harm come from the speech. From my vantage point, the EU and our neighbors to the north have gone way to far trying to regulate that kind of speech.

However, the Jihadists have earned their extra scrutiny because it is a demonstrable fact that when certain Muslim preachers start advocating violent action again infidels, and certain young Muslim men hear those sermons, violent action does in fact occur. I could provide links, but I'm sure that's not necessary. It would be an incredibly negligent government that allowed that sort of thing to be done by guests in their country.


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

Banning Wagner for reason of corruption in music is no different from Chinese Revolutionaries' rationale for banning western music. I'm just wondering if the ban should eventually create future generations of Wagnerians in Israel, as it created future generations of wicked-awesome classical musicians in China.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I shall now attempt to bring this thread back to topic.

A very interesting article. The author refers to "double standards". Is it fair to ban Wagner, while the works of other controversial composers are played? Or is Wagner really in a anti-Semitic "class" of his own?

Clearly, a number of musicians have made efforts to bring Wagner's music to Israelian concert halls with varying degrees of success. Do you think these efforts are worth while? Will they discourage ignorance, or will they simply result in undesirable controversy?


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

Thank you Celloman (always it is to the 'cellists to bring order to the world). 
We are forgetting *Bruckner* who was also a great favourite of Herr Hilter-Skelter [sic], and for whom the Nazis set aside considerable sums for further academic research (that set out to prove 'foreign' intervention in his various revisions, to simplify the argument somewhat).
I was in Nuremberg just this last July (the site of ugly Nazi rallies and consequent post-defeat trials) and am reminded that Bruckner (as much as pink satin cross-dresser Wagner) was also used for propaganda purposes in stirring up the lumpen prols.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Celloman said:


> I shall now attempt to bring this thread back to topic.
> 
> A very interesting article. The author refers to "double standards". Is it fair to ban Wagner, while the works of other controversial composers are played? Or is Wagner really in a anti-Semitic "class" of his own?
> 
> Clearly, a number of musicians have made efforts to bring Wagner's music to Israelian concert halls with varying degrees of success. Do you think these efforts are worth while? Will they discourage ignorance, or will they simply result in undesirable controversy?


Not hearing Wagner will not promote notable 'ignorance'. If knowing Wagner is a required knowledge then the vast majority of people in the West are ignorant!


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

And Celloman, what is that tremolo chord that is your avatar?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Thank you Celloman (always it is to the 'cellists to bring order to the world).


There is always room for cello.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

TalkingHead said:


> And Celloman, what is that tremolo chord that is your avatar?


Looks like the "Petrushka Chord"


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

violadude said:


> Looks like the "Petrushka Chord"


Correct! Fifty points to Slytherin! (just kidding...Gryffindor!) :lol:


----------



## muzik (May 16, 2013)

Wagner is a great composer. There is no doubt about this.


----------

