Letters to the Editor: Oct. 22, 2014
Published October 22, 2014
St. Louis reaction to ‘Klinghoffer’ production was ‘nothing to boast about’
On Oct. 20, the New York Jewish Community is protesting “The Death of Klinghoffer.” Meanwhile, the St. Louis Jewish community is bragging about the discussion of this opera when it was shown here two years ago. For the first time in my life, I wish I were a New Yorker.
As Judah Pearl stated “(This opera) is not an artistic expression that challenges the limits of morality, but a moral deformity that challenges the limits of art.”
From the title, which should not be “death” but “brutal murder,” the opera places terrorists and a disabled Jewish man on a morally equal plane. It does not recognize the purpose of the hijacking, which was to free other terrorists. It does not recognize the suffering of the passengers, with one passenger singing that a terrorist is “nice.” The opera has more arias for the terrorists than for the Jews, and the music is used to underscore the terrorists words that Jews are “fat, polluting, defilers of virgins, etc.” as noted by musicologist Richard Tarushkin. The only version of the birth of Israel is presented as the story of Jews brutally displacing Palestinians, which is pure Arab propaganda.
Given the rapid increase of anti-Semitism in the world, why is the Jewish community here patting itself on the back for its discussions of the reasons men become terrorists? What is next, “The Death of James Foley and Steven Sotloff?”
I would rather be in the 100-wheelchair protest in New York than listen to why St. Louis was so wonderful not to protest “The Death of Klinghoffer.” Our response to a blatantly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel opera is nothing to boast about. We should be ashamed to support an opera that would be boycotted if it were about any minority group besides the Jews.
Laura Goldmeier, Creve Coeur
President Obama and Israel’s security
It’s very important to comment on the Oct. 8 article regarding what it would mean for Israel if Republicans win the Senate next month (“What a GOP Senate would mean for the Jewish communal agenda”). Very few Americans believe that President Obama really would strike Iran militarily. I agree with the often-expressed opinion that Obama is too cerebral and overly cautious (i.e., unwilling to take military action). Both of his former Secretaries of Defense have recently written books criticizing the president for being weak and I strongly agree.
Nevertheless, the security of Israel is the most important issue, but was not mentioned in the article. In this regard, we should be grateful that Obama has been the first president to honor Israel’s long-standing request for “bunker-busting” bombs, which are the only non-nuclear bombs able to penetrate six levels underneath the various mountains in Iran where Russia has constructed Iran’s nuclear facilities.
American money (thanks to President Obama) paid for the “Iron Dome,” which in the recent Gaza war saved Israel from much damage and will continue to do so. Finally, President Obama is the first president to give to any country — repeat, any country — nuclear submarines. Six nuclear submarines have already been delivered to Israel. They are an incredibly powerful weapon. Iran will be forced to think twice before attacking Israel when it succeeds in building nuclear weapons.
Harvey J. Schramm, Brentwood
