Category: America

Selma- It is our story

This weekend marks the 50th anniversary of the march in Selma. As Americans and as Jews we are proud of this landmark achievement in our nation’s history and our part in it. Jewish Americans have been on the forefront of civil rights movement and we continue to champion civil rights and social justice for all. But the march in Selma is a seminal moment and we burst with pride, kvelling, at the sight of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel along side of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We are deeply moved that so many American Jews stood bravely and fought during the struggle, most notably including those who gave their lives for these ideals.

This was our story. We Jews had found our place in American society and we found our voice. The prophetic ideals that are a foundation of our Jewishness galvanized us to support the civil rights movement because we believed that until all were free, none were free.   So Jews stood proudly along side the African-American community demanding change.

However, the movie Selma does not tell this story. In fact, unless you looked carefully and unblinkingly during the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, you probably missed the man in the kippah off to the side.   The story told in Selma, is moving, but it is not a story that includes us. It is told from the perspective of the African-American community and glorifies the struggle that was theirs. Although the time is the same, the march is the same and the facts are the same, the stories however are different. But that is okay.

The tellers of this story needed to share their perspective, which did not have room for us. Selma was about empowering their heroes to assert themselves. It is not an unreasonable thing to look through a different lens and tell a different story that has meaning even though it is not the telling of the story we might choose. That does not detract from the contribution that Jewish leaders made, nor does it lessen the pride that we might feel for their participation. It only shows that there are particular and more universal stories that might be told about the same unfolding of events.

As we approach the Pesach Seder, this gives us an opportunity to re-examine the telling of our quintessential freedom narrative. What do we emphasize and what do we leave out? Many different versions of the Exodus story will be told this night, each of them valid, each of them part of the larger story. The recollection of events only remains meaningful when we can make the connection to those events in a way that speaks to us. Only then is it more than a recounting of events, but rather a moving story that evokes emotion and prompts us to action. We share at our Seder tables the hope that “Next year may we all be free,” but until that time, may our stories keep the dream alive.

 

 

A New Deal for Iran

No agreement is better than a bad agreement. On this both Benjamin Netanyahu and Susan Rice agree, and likely most of the rest of us. But unfortunately, the definition of a “non-bad agreement” appears elusive. And Mr. Netanyahu has dismissed the present agreement as thoroughly unacceptable despite the fact that the agreement is still being negotiated and we have not seen its details.

So, there is the back and forth, the shifting of the negotiations and terms, the use of sanctions and threats of sanctions, other options on the table, an established time line as opposed to open-ended non-proliferation. There are those who would like to impose sanctions; and nothing short of a permanent and complete dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program should be accepted. However, these talks seem to be aware of a dangerous pragmatic reality, namely, we cannot stop Iran from developing the technology of a nuclear bomb and ultimately a bomb itself.   This seems to be the great unspoken bottom line. We can put it off but we cannot stop it completely. For those of us who question this assessment, look no further than North Korea.

So Prime Minister Netanyahu is making a “hail Mary” pass to the end zone. Unfortunately there is no one downfield able to catch the ball (please pardon the football analogy). This is the dawn of an era of a “nuclearized” Middle East. Iran’s inexorable march to the bomb likely means that an arms race will ensue with Iran’s neighbors seeking parity as a means of self-defense.

The question is not whether we can prevent Iran from having a weapon, or even for how long we might delay it. The real question is how to manage the world with a nuclear capable Iran?

That is the single strongest argument for integrating Iran into the world, for eliminating sanctions and bringing the West with its freedom of ideas and wealth to the people of Iran. The people and the government of Iran must view the West as an ally, not as a threat to the Iranian way of life, but that also means that Iran cannot be a platform to support terrorist activity around the world, dedicate itself to the annihilation of Israel and seek a dominant position exercising its influence in the Middle East and beyond. The existential threat understood by Israel needs to be defused while the Iranian hegemony of the Middle East is managed towards a peaceful coexistence with the West. This is no small task to say the very least. This is a very long road.

In many ways we have created and facilitated this monster. Can we now help Iran move toward next steps that make it counted among the community of nations and not our adversary? We need to acknowledge our part in the creation of present day Iran, from the assassination of their democratically elected leader, Mossadeq; installation of the pro-western Shah; instigation of a protracted Iran-Iraq conflict; incubation of radicals to fill a vacuum created once brutal dictators became vulnerable or were eliminated. Then we might understand them with the end goal of working with them.

By placing pressure on Iran, we have created economic pain, exacerbated by a collapsing price for oil, Iran’s primary of revenue. This can only take us so far before it begins to have the opposite of the intended effect by boxing them into a corner. Additionally, it is clear that the world contains bad players who would be prepared to help Iran to furthering its own self-interest despite the hopes of the West, even thwarting those hopes.

The United States cannot go it alone, nor can it impose its will around the world. An alternative where the participants understand the benefits of collaboration outweigh obstruction or undermining is vital in a world order that is undergoing a rapid metamorphosis. As of now, Germany, France, Great Britain, The United States, China and Russia, the “P5+1” group, is responsible for the negotiations with Iran. The agendas of each do not easily align with each other.

No deal is better than a bad deal. So lets finally talk about the right deal.

The Morning After

 At this moment we are awaiting the appearance of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before the joint session of the United States Congress. Whether you think it is a good idea or not, it is happening. We will listen to the messages, which we can anticipate will be: Israel believes Iran cannot possess the ability to create a nuclear bomb, which would pose an existential threat to Israel and to the world; and therefore must be stopped by any means necessary. The Prime Minister will also appeal to the deep and constant support of its most important ally, the United States, and attempt to minimize the issues that exist between him and the President of the United States.

 I do not know how successful Mr. Netanyahu will be at conveying either message. I do know that we, the American Jewish population, needs to increase its voice of support for the American-Israeli alliance, to strengthen a relationship that finds itself tested harshly and deeply at this point in time. We have much work to do to repair any damage that has been done, and particularly to move past the political partisanship dangerously inserting itself into the conversation.

 We also be aware of the Iran issue and remain vigilant. And we must demand to know the terms of any negotiated deal will be and why. A rising Iran, particularly a nuclear capable Iran, is a global concern. A solid, strong unwavering alliance between the United States and Israel is also very important to the free world and particularly to us. We must work to make sure despite stress to this relationship, the relationship remains sound.

It is all about what we do tomorrow.

G*d’s Burning Questions: A Tribute to Deah Barakat, Yusor Abu Salha, and Razan Abu Salha

The following is a re-post of Rabbi Michael Bernstein’s piece.  Thoughtful and wise as always, Rabbi Bernstein’s words are worth contemplating.

Shabbat Shalom

 On Tuesday, February 13th, Deah Barakat, Yusor Mohammed Abu Salha, and Razan Mohammed Abu Salha were shot to death by a man living next door to them at an apartment complex in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.  Because they were observant Muslims and the man who murdered them had expressed what he called anti-theist views against believers of all faiths, there is an open question as to what motivated this murderer to pull the trigger and whether the killing was an act against the faith professed by these three students – whether they died because they were Muslims in America. For me, however, as I learn more about the incredible acts of devotion, kindness, and service to humanity performed by newly wed Deah and Yusor, and Yusor’s younger sister Razan, I am moved above all by how being Muslims in America shaped how they lived.

  Deah Barakat was a dental student who, among other projects, raised money for and led a mission to Turkey in order to provide urgent medical procedures and preventative oral care for Syrians whose lives had been ripped apart by war and turmoil.  His work on behalf of those in need also informed his messages on behalf of seeking peace for all without exception.  While the  views of the world and its conflicts he expressed were in solidarity with Palestinians and other Muslims, he explicitly spoke out against violence done against Jews and against anyone who thought killing was the answer.   He was a supporter of interfaith programming, including participation in sharing Ramadan with Beth Meyer Synagogue in Chapel Hill.

   What would be the last months of his life was a celebration of his love for his wife Yusor, a Muslim woman and fellow dental student.  Yusor spoke powerfully about the blessing of being a Muslim in America on this StoryCorp recording and posted on social media about the practice of wearing the hijab, a full head covering, from the perspective of women’s empowerment.  Her sister, Razan, was an award winning artist who, along with Deah’s brother Farris, was instrumental in helping to create an incredible video that affirmed the forward looking and hopeful mindset of Muslim students at North Carolina State University in a way that also showed the playfulness and individuality of a community often treated as monolithic by others.

  Deah, Yusor and Razan spent a significant part of their lives responding to a burning question read this week in the Book of Exodus (Mishpatim).  This question arises in an unexpected place, an enumeration of laws of civil behavior that is explicitly concerned with not favoring any party in a dispute or legal proceeding.  And yet in the midst of cases involving oxen being gored or goring others, and the laws of lending to those in need, the text breaks out of its legalistic tone and demands to know what would happen if a lender insisted on taking the only coat of a poor person as collateral and did not make sure to return it before the sun set.

  “This is his only cloak, in what will he sleep?”  If a person has no cloak, no wealth, no protection either from nature or from malice, no one to care about his or her well-being —- “In what will they sleep?” And in many ways it was questions such as this that led Deah Barakat to dedicate his talents and his time to trying to alleviate suffering in Syria seeing what he could provide as a dentist as his version of the cloak. It is the revelation that G*d demands our attention for each person’s well-being  that drives the kind of reflection on faith that inspired Yusor and Razan to articulate so powerfully how their beloved traditions must lead to understanding between different people and be a source of communal responsibility.

  For me, this bittersweet opportunity to learn more about these three remarkable people, “three winners,” as those dear to them have chosen to name them, has made me think of Matthew Eisenfeld and Sara Duker, may their memories be a blessing, dear friends murdered  nineteen years ago by Hamas terrorists practicing a faith that is so unlike the understanding of Islam that these three students professed .  Unlike the killers of Matt and Sara, it is not clear that the man who murdered Deah, Yusor, and Razan hated everyone like them.  However, like Matt and Sara it is clear that the murderer’s cruel, unfathomable act of violence took from the world people whose incredible faith, talents and commitments to do good would have brought so much more compassionate insight into a world so in need of love. I imagine them having much to learn from each other should they meet  beyond this world.

  A beautiful commentary called the Kli Yakar (“Precious Vessel”) reads the question “In what will he sleep?” also as a reference to the tradition that when a person dies their soul is cloaked in the good deeds they have done on behalf of others.  If a person refrains from helping someone in this world, “In what will that person sleep” in the next world?  Deah Barakat, Yusor Mohammed Abu Salha, and Razan Mohammed Abu Salha are, I believe, among those clothed now in the deeds of the righteous.  Yet we are poorer for not having the new answers that they would have provided to G*d’s burning questions.

 May G*d, to whom we call by many names, provide for these witnesses an abode in Paradise, may their memories be a blessing to all they touched and the entire world.

 Shabbat Shalom,

Rabbi Michael

 

The Bibi Blunder

 The Prime Minister’s decision to speak before Congress at the invitation of Speaker Boehner is poorly thought out and ultimately does not serve him, Israel or American Jewry.

 Although Mr. Netanyahu is ostensibly coming to speak to the issue of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon capability, everything about this visit undercuts this message and works against him. First, is the matter of propriety. Acceptance of Mr. Boehner’s invitation is also effectively a snub of the President of the United States. This is bad. Neither Israel nor American Jewry wants the Prime Minister creating tensions between these two important allies. This is the time for the two countries to be joined ever more closely. Interests align as never before.

 There exists a political power play in this country. Congress and the Executive branch are engaging in a process.   While this is going on, the Israeli Prime Minister should not want himself or his country to become embroiled in the internal politics of the United States, becoming a pawn of one branch of government only to alienate the other. This would run counter to the interests of Israel, as the State needs to maintain and deepen its relationships at every level to the United States.

 The timing of this reflects badly within the Israeli political system as well. This visit is scheduled in close proximity to the Israeli elections. Therefore the appearance before Congress is cynically seen as a ploy to bolster the Prime Minister’s position at home. This does not serve anyone’s interest either.

 Finally, there is a policy and plan that the President has put forth regarding sanctions against Iran and negotiations with that country. Congress and the Prime Minister may both disagree with that policy and have legitimate reason to do so, but publicly displaying such a disagreement is imprudent. It is divisive at a time when divisiveness precisely the opposite of what you need to achieve. It is more than a bad idea, it is a ham-fisted attempt to voice legitimate concerns and circumvent the President that will cause far more damage to an important relationship than it will do to further Israel’s concerns for its security.

 It is in the best interests of Mr. Netanyahu to pass on this opportunity to appear before congress. He should go home, campaign to win the election to become Prime Minister of the new government and then approach the United States to make his case for a different approach to the Iran nuclear problem.

A Bad Mistake

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNIST

A Bad Mistake

The decision by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and House Speaker John Boehner to cook up an address to Congress by Netanyahu on why the U.S. should get tougher on Iran is churlish, reckless and, for the future of Israeli-American relations, quite dangerous.

If Netanyahu wants some intelligent advice, he should listen to the counsel of his previous ambassador in Washington, the widely respected Michael Oren, who was quoted as saying that the whole gambit was creating the impression of “a cynical political move, and it could hurt our attempts to act against Iran.” He urged Netanyahu to cancel the speech.

And if Netanyahu and his current ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, who organized the gambit with Boehner, want to know how offensive the whole thing is to average Americans they should listen to conservative Fox News Sunday talk-show host Chris Wallace, not a usual critic of Israel, who gutsily said of the Bibi invite on Friday, Jan. 23: “To make you get a sense of really how, forgive me, wicked, this whole thing is, the Secretary of State John Kerry met with the Israeli ambassador to the United States for two hours on Tuesday, and Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador, according to the State Department, never mentioned the fact that Netanyahu was in negotiations and finally agreed to come to Washington, not to see the president, but to go to Capitol Hill, speak to a joint session of Congress and criticize the president’s policy. I have to say I’m shocked.”

Imagine that Israel’s Labor Party invited President Obama to address its Parliament about why Israel should give negotiations on Iran more time, and it was all worked out with the U.S. ambassador in Tel Aviv behind the back of the Likud Party prime minister. A lot of Israelis would see it as an insult to their democratically elected leader. I’ve polled many of my non-Jewish friends, who follow world politics and are sympathetic to Israel, and they really don’t like this. It doesn’t only disrespect our president, it disrespects our system and certain diplomatic boundaries that every foreign leader should respect and usually has.

You know how this happened: Netanyahu; his ambassador; the pro-Israel lobby Aipac; Sheldon Adelson, the huge donor to Bibi and the G.O.P.; and Boehner all live in their own self-contained bubble. You can tell that nobody was inside there telling them: “Bibi, this speech to Congress two weeks before your election may give you a sugar high for a day with Israeli voters, but it’s in really poor taste for you to use America’s Congress as a backdrop for your campaign. Many of Israel’s friends will be uncomfortable, and the anti-Semites, who claim Israel controls Washington, will have a field day.”

Already, in reaction to this maneuver, 10 Senate Democrats — who had advocated putting more sanctions on Iran now — have instead parted company with the Republicans and granted the White House the two-month reprieve it was seeking to see if negotiations can still work. It was exactly the opposite of what Netanyahu wanted, and it shows how upset are many Democrats.

But this isn’t just churlish. For Israel’s leader to so obviously throw his lot in with the Republicans against a Democratic president is reckless. Israel and its defenders are already under siege on college campuses across America, where many university boards are under pressure to divest from companies doing business with Israel. Making support for Israel more of a Republican cause is not at all in Israel’s interest — or America’s. Israel needs the support of more than just Congress or one party.

Netanyahu’s concerns about Iran are not without merit. But his aggressiveness is also not without critics in Israel. If Congress wants to get Israel’s perspective on how to deal with Iran, then it should also invite the top Israeli intelligence and military officers, current and retired, who have been arguing publicly against Netanyahu’s threatened use of force against Iran. Why are we getting only one Israeli view? How is that in America’s interest?

Personally, I’m still dubious that the U.S. and Iran will reach a deal that will really defuse Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Such a failure would be very serious and could end up, one day, with the U.S. deciding it has to use military force to set back Iran’s program. We surely don’t want Iran to get a bomb that sets off a nuclear arms race in an already unstable Middle East.

But, even if we do use force, success is hardly assured and the blowback unpredictable. That is why it is absolutely not in Israel’s interest to give even the slightest appearance of nudging America toward such a military decision. Israel should stay a million miles away from that decision, making clear that it is entirely a U.S. matter. Because, if we do have to strike Iran, plenty of Americans will not be happy. And if it fails, or has costly consequences for us and our military, you can be sure a lot more Americans will not be happy — and some will ask, “How did we get into this mess?” One of the first things they’ll dig out will be Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.

Why in the world would Israel risk putting itself in that situation? Just lie low, Mr. Netanyahu. Don’t play in our politics. Let America draw its own conclusions.

Are You Ready for some Football?

 Although nuisances occasionally distract us, such as the King of Saudi Arabia dying, or a coup in Yemen, slaughter in Syria, murder in France, we fortunately are able to soon refocus on the Superbowl. Briefly however it seemed that this fundamental American Rite might be tainted by scandal, the deflation of the game balls held by the Patriots in the playoff game. One might argue that a violation of game rules could have repercussions. One might be right, but the NFL is clear in its priorities. First and foremost among these priorities is to generate vast sums of money though this entertainment business behemoth. Nothing shall keep these messengers from their appointed rounds. Violation of game rules, cheating or wife/fiancé beating and who knows what else, will not keep the NFL from is mission, namely to suck in as much cash as it can and put it into the pockets of those who work to perpetuate this bizarre and perverse sport cum religion.

 Might there be a punishment for the bad behavior of the team caught cheating? Maybe, but it will certainly happen after the great Superbowl and the spectacle including advertising sales is done. Maybe there will be an asterisk along the name of the Patriots whether winners or losers. But if they win, the name of the team shall certainly be listed. Maybe the responsible parties will be fined or punished severely sanctioned or maybe even forced to resign. Too bad it wont be the coach or the quarterback but rather the ball boy, or some other low-level salary-man who likely was doing only as instructed.

 The system will do anything to keep the glory of the game alive and the Superbowl the great event of America despite the fact that its dark underbelly embraces so much of what is wrong and sick in our society. Although, the truth is that this can only happen as long as the American public facilitates the behavior by zealously patronizing the game.

 Oh yes, one final note, don’t forget to watch the ad against domestic violence. It is a wonderful way for the NFL to give back to the community.

 Are you ready for some Football?

A Time for Somber Reflection

It is more than just bad policing

We are in the throes of mourning the death of two New York City Policemen, on the heels of the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. We are raw. Emotions have spilled like blood from deep wounds. We need time to process. We need time to grieve. We need to catch our collective breath.   We need time to come to grips with the tragic series of events that have shaken our country. What we do know is that the violence is overwhelming and somehow we must get it to stop.

The deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner have galvanized people across the country. Initial protests over the deaths of these two individuals increased dramatically in the wake of the Grand Juries not indicting the police officers involved. Uncovered a deep gulf between the police and the people they serve.

My concerns run deeper than whether indictments were handed down. There are other frankly more important issues that must be addressed. I am deeply troubled when a man repeatedly pleads 11 times that he cannot breathe and the police who have subdued him are unable to move from actively bringing him under control to actively engaging in the humanity of helping him once he was down. I am deeply troubled that a man’s body remained laying in the street for four hours rather than being treated with basic dignity. The lack of humanity is deeply distressing, and it goes far beyond bad actions of particular police.

Our problems are a deep divide separating whole segments of society from the institutions that are supposed to protect, defend and nurture them. Oppression is the result of the separating segments of society already prejudged as unsavory from the rest of “civil” society. It is more than a new approach to policing and re-examining the way our criminal justice system metes out punishment, as important as these changes are. It goes to the fabric of our country. It permeates our society and cannot be simply fixed by changes implemented at the top. All of us have responsibility to understand what is wrong and how we might change it.

Government can make the police of Ferguson look more like the people of Ferguson. But it is the people of Ferguson who must also invest in the infrastructure the schools and the families to build minds and to instill values. It is up to the locals and their police to be sensitive to each other. It is up to the broader society to bring economic opportunity and the possibility of upward mobility, the opportunity to aspire to become something more. It is up to us.

Marching is important if it serves as a first step to spur the people. Now the next step is to organize and develop goals and a strategy with political clout to effect change. And the rest of us need to support this work knowing that through this process we are all strengthened. This is the beginning of the next important phase of the Civil Rights movement in our great country.

The Attorney General of the United States seems as perplexed as many of us and has ordered a Federal Investigation into the death of Eric Garner. This might shed light on a process that many found disappointing to say the least. But this investigation cannot provide justice for Eric Garner; it is for our future. The civil rights advances of the past did not happen solely by new law or court order. The advances happen and endure only when there is sufficient will of the people to demand we overcome the status quo and demand better of our institutions and ourselves.

Our demonstrations proclaim “Black Lives Matter.” All lives matter. Everyone deserves to live. We are a nation of laws. And those laws must apply to all to protect the weak so that all may have the opportunity to pursue, free from violence and fear, the inalienable rights upon which our nation was founded.

But for now, let us take time to grieve and bury our dead. Then let us return and start the process of making change.

I Love Santa

I love Santa. As a boy growing up, my mom would dress me in my “Sunday Best” and take me to Macy’s to sit on the big guy’s lap and tell him about all the stuff I was supposed to get. This lovely tradition stopped when I started checking each Santa to see if the beard was real. The presents and the love however did not cease. Even way back then, Santa was an American experience that I enjoyed and fondly remember.

The Santa Claus experience was not rooted in my maternal line of Orthodox and Conservative Jewish generations preceding my mother. On my father’s side however, my Grandmother, a Southern Baptist, embraced Christmas and helped to push the borders of Judaism in our world.

My Grandma was a lady, full of grace in every sense of the words. She was elegant, kind, sweet, devoted and deeply loving. My grandfather and she fell in love while he was on the road as a traveling salesman staying in my great-grandmother’s boarding house in Dallas, TX (a wonderful story unto itself). They eventually returned with a child in tow to the Orthodox world of the Jewish Bronx. But Grandma never converted.   Grandpa once remarked that he would never ask that of her, and for reasons of her own, she never did. Grandma did however fully support the raising of a Jewish family and I remember her actively participating in every holiday and ritual, even including supporting the State of Israel. I recall her standing with me at my Bar Mitzvah, lighting the Chanukiah and making latkes, and so many more experiences too numerous to mention. She could not have been more involved or a more important part of my Jewish identity and upbringing even though she remained a Southern Baptist.

As a way to honor my Grandma, we celebrated Christmas. It was a time that the Levin family gathered together to share a family meal and exchange presents. In actuality, the kids received the presents. I remember sitting in Grandma’s living room in the apartment on Schenk Avenue surrounded by wrapped boxes impatiently waiting for my turn to open them up; we opened gifts one at a time according to age, so that each child would savor the experience. We usually came to this celebration wearing the new cowboy boots and cowboy shirt with the snap buttons that Grandma had already bought each of us, a nod to our Dallas heritage. My mom struggled for years with the Christmas tree, but eventually she learned to embrace it. These childhood experiences were ones of love and warmth that remain in my heart.

My experience of Christmas is not religiously Christian. It is however deeply beautiful and meaningful and incorporates some of the best values religion has to offer. It has enriched my life and filled me with wonderful memories of people I hold dear. It has helped to shape me into the person and rabbi I am today. My concern is that I am able to share the wonderful blessings that I enjoyed with others.*

* A few of my colleagues are engaged in a conversation about the topic of Santa and Christmas in the public domain.  These were my thoughts on the matter.

Klinghoffer Continued

In response to my teacher and friend who posted a comment on my last submission on “The Death of Klinghoffer”

 My quarrel is with the Met not the writer of Klinghoffer.

I am a defender of free speech even when that includes writing something reprehensible. I recall the Nazis marching in Skokie and the right of these evil hate-mongers to spout their bile. My commitment this core constitutional and human value required I defend the right to march in the public space of the town even though the march was designed to promote hate and incite anger due to the venue. But the Met is different.

The Met has selectively and deliberately decided to produce Klinghoffer. This season there are 24 productions, six (6) new and 18 revivals. The names include: Mozart, Bizet, Verdi, Puccini, Rossini, Tchaikovsky, Bartok, Shostakovich, Donizetti, Wagner, Lehar and Offenbach. Englebert Humperdinck’s Hansel and Gretel is also on the schedule for a bit of fun and amusing fare. And then there is John Adams’ “The Death of Klinghoffer.” It is outrageously conspicuous. For an institution of the Met’s esteem, the choices it makes for its productions are important sending a message to the world. The Met sullies her reputation and gives an imprimatur of respectability to this work by producing it without regard to the repercussions.

 I do not usually stand on the side of censorship. And in fact, I am not. I would be deeply offended if some lesser institution, the off-Broadway equivalent of the Met, were to produce Klinghoffer. But I probably would not be adamantly opposed. I am struggling with the fact that I have not actually seen Klinghoffer and yet I have taken a stand against its’ production. I accept the inherent problem with my situation.

 I guess the immediate contrast would be to argue that I would see Richard Strauss’ Salome at the Met. It too has outrageous and highly provocative material. For a substantial amount of time, it was banned- sometimes due to the sexuality involved sometimes due to the depravity involved, sometimes due to a combination of both. Ultimately, Straus’ gravitas forced people to give it the benefit of the doubt. Adams has a few noted pieces in his repertoire and has earned critical acclaim. However, at this stage, I am not prepared to put John Adams and Richard Strauss in the same category.

So I conclude that this is a very bad misstep for the Met. It is inappropriate and unworthy. The subject is vile and contemptible. The production almost seems like a gratuitous attempt to be controversial and relevant. But it is not. It is merely offensive, inappropriate and wrong. I understand that Peter Gelb (the Met) and Abe Foxman (ADL) have been working together to lessen the impact of this production. I probably will need to experience this opera to better understand it, which may alter my opinion. But for now, the Met would have served all of us including itself better were Klinghoffer not part of this season’s lineup.