Helene

Nayon Iovino (Senior Male) and Arianni Martin (Senior Female) have made it to the semi-finals of the USA IBC. Congratulations to them! http://www.usaibc.com/2014-usa-international-ballet-competition-announces-semi-finalists/ Round II runs today-Sunday.

No it’s not, but I don’t understand what Israel itself has to do with whether the K’s see the work as anti-Semitic. The daughters decried what they saw as"Rational(izing), legitim(izing), explain(ing)" terror against a Jew.” The reason for terrorizing Klinghoffer was because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It wasn't a random act of anti-Semitism. Obviously we disagree whether supporting a specific claim of falsification and not the claim of anti-Semitism means the ADL supports the claim of anti-Semitism and every other claim made by the Klinghoffer daughters. I understood you meant "false charges" were charges by the daughters that the piece is anti-Semitic, something with which many in the article you cited agreed. If you do mean this, then you misunderstand the ADL's position, which is that what they agree (with the daughters) is that the great misrepresentation in the opera, the false moral equivalency between Palestinian rights and the murder of a Jew, is what will incite acts of anti-Semitism. The ADL is not saying that because the work is anti-Semitic, it will cause acts of violence against Jews. There are plenty of anti-Semitic works that they don't feel will do so (or have the same danger of doing so), because they don't create a false moral equivalency, and they must pick their battles, not having unlimited time and resources. They have also not protested movies, plays, and books that express "the other side's point of view" in much more critical ways, but ways they don't think would incite violence.

"Rational(izing), legitim(izing), explain(ing)" terror against a Jew . . . that's anti-Semitic in my view (what other motive would someone have?), so characterizing a work of art as such seems tantamount to calling it anti-Semitic.Anti-Israel or anti-Israeli policy is not the definition of anti-Semitism. Many organizations and individuals believe it is the same -- there is at least one Hassidic sect, the Satmarers, who believe that a man-made State of Israel is blasphemy, while other Jews call them anti-Semites -- and many do not and view the Israeli/Palestinian dispute as a separate, but sometimes related political dispute. That is very clear from the Fink article to which you linked, and that is only on the subject of the opera. To believe that the work is anti-Semitic is well within the mainstream, although hardly exclusively so. (Again, see Fink.) I don't see how it would have hurt the ADL to call it anti-Semitic, but they didn't in an environment where it isn't an automatic assumption. I stand corrected: I had searched for the daughters' early reactions to the opera and couldn't find such a quote made at the time of the premiere. However, that doesn't change the *fact* that the ADL's and the daughters' stated interest intersects with believing that the opera "dangerous juxtaposition of the plight of the Palestinian people with the coldblooded, terrorist murder of an innocent disabled American Jew," and that the ADL believed that what it considers a fallacy would be a motivation to incite anti-Semitic actions. The rationale is not simply that the daughters are upset, and we must stand by their emotional, yet wrong reactions -- a quite sexist view, in my opinion -- but that the false content will incite violence. That suggests that you think that the ADL (or any organization) must agree 100% with every position held by anyone on whose behalf they advocate; I think that is wrong. The ADL has made it clear on which point they agree, and they argue that this will incite anti-Semitic action. You've skipped the step in which they state that they believe because the opera depicts a false equivalent of a rights' movement with the murder of a single Jewish individual, that there will be people who will be swayed that argument to attack Jews. They are pointing to a specific point of view in a specific work to say that they feel it is dangerous. When they quote the daughters' statement about what they believe the opera falsifies, they're supporting that statement, and they go further to say that they believe it will incite anti-Semitic actions, which is the basis of their complaint to the Met. There are plenty of anti-Semitic works that the ADL might decry, but they don't believe all of them will end in terror, and if they acted every time a Jew's feelings were hurt, they'd be hogtied. The Metropolitan Opera is a tiny stage in the big picture for the organization. Even if the news was reported widely, the chances of it staying in the news are very low. The arts are not that important in America. They would get far more press coverage and mileage out of many other incidents. The daughters have been vigilantly representing their own views for over two decades; their views were part of the program of the recent Long Beach Opera performances of the work.

ABT just tweeted this: https://twitter.com/ABTBallet/status/479712937318555649

So all terrorism is anti-Semitic? You have no way of knowing whether the Klinghoffer daughters would have felt the same way if their father had been killed by white supremacists or the Shining Path and Adams had given these groups similar treatment in his opera. You can puts words into the mouths of the Klinghoffer daughters, who've been consistent since 1991 that their two objections are: the work is historically inaccurate and it creates a false dichotomy. Since not all Jews equate anti-Israeli with anti-Semitism, and many feel there are far more layers and subtleties at the heart of the matter, it is hardly a given that the Klinghoffer daughters believe that the opera is anti-Semitic, especially since they have had every chance to say so, from the heat of the moment until now, and they haven't. They feel their father is being used for political gain through the opera. The ADL agrees and believes the opera will stoke anti-Semitism that is on the rise. As shown by the ZOA statement, the ADL's stand on asking the Met to cancel the HD broadcast intersects with those who do feel it is an anti-Semitic work and have said so. That hardly means that two groups that come to the same conclusion come to it for the same reasons or that agreement means they support each others' reasons. I'm sure at some point Jesse Helms and Bernie Sanders voted for the same bill, even if from different houses. The ADL is an advocacy group that takes people's money to fulfill a specific mission; your definition of "right" and "charitable" is no more relevant than mine as far as their judgement goes on how to fulfill their mission. As far as resolving any conflicts in the Middle East, their stance is consistent with the Klinghoffer daughters' objections to the work, which is that there can't be any basis for resolution when the underlying assumptions are false, which is also what many Palestinians and Israel Arabs believe, and which has made resolution impossible. The Met was presented with an request by the ADL, to act upon on not. The ZOA also pressed the same issue by contacting AMC theaters, which is head-quartered in a state where a recent synagogue attack by a self-proclaimed anti-Semite is still raw, and Met board members.

Congratulations to them! It harkens back to the old days when Balanchine let d'Amboise among others leave to make films. I hope Fairchild makes a big pile of money from this. Ballet dancers don't often get the chance.

A great photo of Rachel Foster, Kylee Kitchens, and Maria Chapman posted on PNB's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/PNBallet/photos/a.439537898951.224264.21358443951/10152288243398952/?type=1&theater to announce that Working Mother Magazine did an article on them: http://www.workingmother.com/content/pregnant-ballerinas-pacific-northwest-ballet

Why should it have to say that the opera is not anti-semitic? Their mission is broader -- five-prong -- in which anti-Semitism is just one category. They listed their specific objection in their own press-release, which falls under the "Israel and International" category, and they support the Klinghoffer daughters' assessment of the work: Why would they have to list all the things the opera isn't and that aren't part of its complaint? Which of their own principles are they violating? Their interpretation is that their action supports their mission. The Met is the one that backed down from their own judgement about the work and, after making a fuss about not getting involved in politics, did exactly that by pulling the HD of the work and agreeing to add a statement by the Klinghoffer daughters in the program, which was done when the opera was presented by the Long Beach Opera earlier this year. The ADL acted according to its mission. They couldn't force the Met to act. That was the Met's decision. Edited to add: the Met cites ADL and the Klinghoffer family's objections in its press release, but thanks to a heads up from Richard A. Walter of the opera(-l) universe, it does not mention the Zionist Organization of America, which according to its own website, calls the opera anti-Semitic and contacted the Kansas-headquartered AMC movie chain which airs Met in HD broadcasts. As a result, they claim that AMC contacted the Met to voice opposition to broadcasting the opera in HD and told ZOA that they had done so.

Please link to any statement that calls the "Death of Klinghoffer" anti-Semitic. ADL press release, and the ADL National Director stated, as well as expressing concern that the broadcast will enflame anti-Semitism. No where do either state that the opera is anti-Semitic. They don't even state that it's anti-Israel. The Klinghoffer family has the right to its opinion about the content of the opera, just as people who knew Margot Fonteyn believe that several recent bios and documentaries do not depict her accurately. The family has every right to put any legal kind of pressure to keep it from being shown. http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jun/18/new-york-metropolitan-opera-cancel-death-of-klinghoffer-simulcast The text which I've bolded speaks to the heart of the matter: the views of the Klinghoffer family have been well known from the start, and the Met didn't make an informed decision in the first place, whether they decided to go ahead with it or skip it.

I don't think there's anything in the Met's statement that defames John Adams. There are plenty of things that are used to inflame nationalistic, racial, ethnic, and religious divisions and heinous actions that have nothing to do with works themselves. I don't think that the 200K people who go to see Met in HDs would be inspired to commit hate crimes; I do think that the production might have been slightly more noticed in a few previews without this decision, but pulling it, the Met not only shows its own hypocrisy after making a big show of not getting involved in political issues during the "Eugene Onegin" protests, but also has made the issue much more visible than it would have been and pretty much has written the press release for those who disagree.

Sweet! It would be great if they eventually have an online only subscription, even a .pdf of their print version.