Derek Ball (composer)
Frances Bernstein (community choir leader)
Steve Bingham (violinist)
John Claydon (saxophonist)
Malcolm Crowthers (music photographer)
Raymond Deane (composer)
Tom Eisner (violinist LPO)
Nancy Elan (violinist LPO)
Deborah Fink (soprano)
Catherine Ford (violinist, Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment)
Reem Kelani (Palestinian singer, musician and broadcaster)
Les Levidow (violinist)
Susie Meszaros (violinist [actually, violist], Chilingirian Quartet)
Roy Mowatt (violinist, Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment)
Ian Pace (pianist)
Leon Rosselson (singer-songwriter)
Dominic Saunders (pianist)
Chris Somes-Charlton (artist manager)
Leni Solinger (violinist)
Sarah Streatfeild (violinist LPO)
Sue Sutherley (cellist, LPO)
Tom Suarez (violinist, New York)
Kareem Taylor (Oud Player/Guitarist and Composer)
Miriam Walton (pianist, organist and French horn player)

Just for the record, I give some well-known information about the reaction to the letter of the London Philharmonic Orchestra and the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment. I point out that the Chilingirian Quartet (violist: Susie Meszaros) hasn't issued any statement.

To describe Raymond Deane as a composer is so much more authoritative, so much more impressive, than 'Raymond Deane (Hezbollah supporter' - unless he's changed his mind), but his political views are much more relevant than his skill and artistry as a musician.

'LPO' is the London Philharmonic Orchestra. Four of its players signed the fatuous letter to The Independent. The four have been suspended. The statement issued by the orchestra's chief executive Timothy Walker and chairman Martin Hohmann: “The orchestra would never restrict the right of its players to express themselves freely, however, such expression has to be independent of the LPO itself and must not be done in any way that associates them with the LPO.

“The company has no wish to end the careers of four talented musicians, but the board’s decision in this matter will send a strong and clear message that such actions will not be tolerated by the LPO. For the LPO, music and politics do not mix.”

Stephen Carpenter, the Chief Executive of the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment, wrote to me, 'On Friday 2 September the OAE posted the following statement on our Facebook page

(www.facebook.com/orchestraoftheageofenlightenment):

'As freelance musicians who work for the OAE and other orchestras, the opinions expressed by any musician from the OAE are their own independent views and do not necessarily reflect those of the OAE as a whole on this matter or any other matter. The OAE was unaware that Catherine Ford and Roy Mowatt had expressed their views under the OAE name.

'Disciplinary procedures within the OAE are a private matter between the management and players concerned.'

In November 2009, a letter was sent to the Director of Music and the members of the choir of Clare College, Cambridge, calling for cancellation of the choir's visit to Israel. The OAE may be aware or unaware that nine of the signatories who called for cancellation gave their affiliation as the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment. More about this remarkable letter below.

This leaves the Chilingirian Quartet as the only professional musical ensemble which hasn't issued any kind of statement about the letter to The Independent, so far as I can ascertain. The members of the Quartet are Levon Chilingirian (violin), Ronald Birks (violin), Susie Mészáros (viola) and Philip De Groote (cello). A statement is needed, and overdue.

It would be wrong to assume that the 221 individuals who signed the letter to Clare College or the letter to The Independent, only 24 of them, or even all the disrupters, are united in their complete hatred for Israel. I don't have any detailed knowledge, but it's likely that they include, amongst other categories, haters, well-meaning innocents, very selective humanitarians - humanitarians who haven't, I think, for one reason or another, investigated in detail the evidence in favour of Israel, who have only the must superficial knowledge or no knowledge at all of, to give one example, human rights abuses in Iran.

As I look at it, this particular list is remarkable in its attempt at a show of strength, its attempt to impress. The letter to The Independent had 24 signatories, but the letter to Clare College, Cambridge had almost ten times as many: 221. This seems  excessive. Their letter began, 'We understand that you intend to tour Israel with the Choir of Clare College to perform J.S. Bach’s ‘Christmas Oratorio’ between 25th and 30th December this year ...' The attempt to stop performances of the Christmas Oratorio must have involved a phenomenal feat of organization. The signatories come from all over the world. One of them is 'Abdelaziz Abdelaziz, former Head, UNAMID Human Rights Office, North Darfur (Sudan).' UNAMID is the 'African Union/United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur.'

The musicians who signed this letter and who went on to sign the one to The Independent are: Tom Eisner, Nancy Elan, Deborah Fink, Catherine Ford, Susie Meszaros, Roy Mowatt and Thomas Suarez.

The letter contains the claim, ' ... , your choir will be performing in the capital city of the government which perpetrated acts now regarded as war crimes, according to the latest UN report from Judge Richard Goldstone.' Anyone expecting a statement such as this, 'at the same time, we unreservedly condemn suicide bombings and rocket attacks directed by Palestinians against Israeli civilians' would be disappointed. The tone of the letter is misleading. There's not the least attempt to be fair-minded.

The tour went ahead as planned.

Any letter-signers who disapproved of the disruption to the Proms concert should surely not have been taken by surprise,  unaware until then that opposition to Israel could lead to disruption of a concert. There had been disruption of concerts given by Israelis before the letter was written and signed: concerts given by the Jerusalem String Quartet in Edinburgh and the Wigmore Hall, London. The blogger 'Boulezian' gives a graphic description of the disruption to the Wigmore Hall concert. In particular, musicians  with contacts in the string quartet world and the world of anti-Israel activism, had heard nothing whatsoever about the disruption. Are we to take it that all the writers of the letter to The Independent knew nothing at all about plans to disrupt the Proms concert (apart from Deborah Fink, who signed the letter and took part in the disruption), that there was complete secrecy?

Raymond Deane (composer)

Raymond Deane on supporters of Israel: 'I’ve problems with the concept of “People who genuinely support Israel.” Of course there are such people, just as there are people who genuinely support paedophilia.' [Disrupter] Foul-mouthed windbag!

An extract of a letter from Raymond Deane. He condemns the killing of Osama bin Laden. (The Irish Times, May 4, 2011)

' ... this killing was an act of revenge for a crime – 9/11 – that was itself an act of revenge for US crimes against the supposedly subordinate peoples of the non-Western world.'

Raymond Deane is a foaming-at-the mouth type, with more lucid interludes. His lurid view of the world is concealed by his style, which is 'extremist drab,' a shade of grey which isn't enlivened by its lurid speckles, the flinging around of words such as 'genocide' and 'apartheid.' I don't discount the possibility that contradictory impulses rage in his psyche, some of them much more creditable. Contradictions are often interesting, but not here. They're the standard, predictable, tedious contradictions of so many of his fellow extremists.

For the record, his reply to my email was very courteous. He'd had a look at the page, although he was busy at the time. He didn't dispute anything he saw. Who can complain if composing takes up so much of the time of a composer? Even so, composition seems to leave him with ample time to pursue his attacks on Israel, but no time, it seems, to answer criticism of his attacks on Israel.
 

I have to confine myself to just one small example of his writing, which has the title, 'Raymond Deane: Disaster capitalism: Israel as warning.'

'Nonetheless, it is within this oppressive climate that the Lebanese people, Sunni and Shiite, trade unionists and Hizballah, have come together to oppose the attempts by the West and its client prime minister Siniora to remake Lebanon, in the wake of Israel's catastrophic 2006 assault, in the image of New Orleans in the wake of Katrina.'

Nothing shorter than a pamphlet or book would do justice to the multiple shortcomings of this one sentence. Realistically, I have to confine myself to just a few observations.

I need to quote too some of his comment on the 'oppressive climate,' which is unexpectedly critical of some states other than the usual, the US (and the states of the EU):

'The solidarity between Middle Eastern peoples that is surely a precondition of Palestine's liberation is frustrated at every turn by the repressiveness of Arab regimes (the Palestinian Authority now tragically included) backed to the hilt by the financial and military resources of the US and EU.'

Central to his flight from reality is the stress he places upon solidarity. Paying much closer attention to reality than he does discloses again and again conflicts of interest within groups only superficially united. Solidarity is more often short-lived than not. Raymond Deane has given a terrifying pessimistic estimate of the chances of 'Palestine's liberation.' If 'solidarity between Middle Eastern peoples' is the precondition, then the Palestinians will be waiting for ever: Iran, Syria, Egypt and the other states of the Middle East working in solidarity, like the workers marching in unison with clenched fists in a piece of propagandistic Stalinist art.

The same solidarity-delusion in his picture of solidarity in Lebanon, ' ... Sunni and Shiite, trade unionists and Hizballah.'

Raymond Deane's writings are full of detail, qualifications and reservations aren't completely absent, but his world is essentially a simple, utopian one, a matter of villains v. the virtuous. If only the villains were removed, or their power overcome, the virtuous could create their utopia. The villains here are the United States, Israel and the EU.

His picture of Sunni-Shiite harmony has been contradicted by events. This quotation is from the New York Times but reports such as this can be explained - or explained away - with complete ease: the New York Times is a capitalist organ which supports war-mongers, or words to that effect. I've no certainty that Raymond Deane would feel likewise, though.

'Sunni-Shiite tensions out in the open in Lebanon
By Robert F. Worth and Nada Bakri

'MENIEH, Lebanon — For two and a half days, Hussein al-Haj Obaid lay on the floor of a darkened warehouse in west Beirut, blindfolded and terrified. Militiamen loyal to Hezbollah had kidnapped him at a checkpoint after killing his nephew in front of him.

'Throughout those awful days, as his kidnappers kicked and punched him, applied electrical shocks to his genitals and insulted him with sectarian taunts, he could hear the chatter of gunfire and the crash of rocket-propelled grenades outside, as Hezbollah and its allies took control of the capital.

'He returned to this northern village only after family members won his release little more than a week ago by threatening the kidnappers with retaliation. By that time Obaid, a Sunni Muslim, had gained a whole new way of seeing his Shiite countrymen and his native land.

' "We cannot go back to how we lived with them before," he said as he sat with a group of cousins and friends at home. "The blood is boiling here. Every boy here, his blood is boiling. They push us, they push us, they push us."

'Those feelings are being echoed throughout Lebanon. After almost a week of street battles that have left scores dead and threatened to push the country into open war, long-simmering Sunni-Shiite tensions have sharply worsened, in an ominous echo of the civil conflict in Iraq.

'Hezbollah's brief takeover of Beirut led to brutal counterattacks in northern Lebanon, where Sunni Muslims deeply resented the Shiite militant group's display of power. The violence energized radical Sunni factions, including some affiliated with Al Qaeda, and extremist Sunni Web sites across the Arab world have been buzzing with calls for a jihad to avenge the wounded pride of Lebanese Sunnis.

'Although the crisis eased Thursday after Arab diplomats brokered a deal to restart political talks among the factions, the questions that have crippled the government for 18 months remain unresolved. It is not yet clear that enough international consensus exists among the main powers involved in Lebanon - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United States - for a durable power-sharing agreement.

'Meanwhile, many Lebanese agree that the hardening of Sunni-Shiite animosities - reminiscent of the Muslim-Christian fault line during the country's 15-year civil war - will probably make any future conflict here more violent.'

' "The Sunni-Shiite conflict is in the open now," said Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. "It's been triggered and operationalized."

...

'In a speech delivered the day before Hezbollah supporters seized the capital, the group's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, went out of his way to deny that Sunni-Shiite tensions were an issue.

'But after Hezbollah supporters humiliated Lebanon's main Sunni political leader, Saad Hariri - crushing his weak militia, forcing his party's television station off the air and burning two of his movement's buildings - many of Hariri's supporters were enraged and said they would look to another Sunni leader who would help them fight back.

'That sentiment has stirred fears that moderate, secular Sunni leaders like Hariri could lose ground to more radical figures, including the jihadists who thrive in Lebanon's teeming Palestinian refugee camps. Fatah al Islam, the radical group that fought a bloody three-month battle with the Lebanese Army in a refugee camp in the north last year, issued a statement Thursday condemning Hezbollah's actions.

...

The Sunni-Shiite conflict is relatively new in Lebanon, where the long civil war that ended in 1990 revolved mostly around tensions between Christians and Muslims and their differences over the Palestinian presence in the country. But after Iran helped establish Hezbollah in the early 1980s, Lebanon's long-marginalized Shiites steadily gained power and stature. They have also grown in numbers.'

More on Hizballah (more usually: Hezbollah), the organization Raymond Deane values so highly. These are quotations from Wikipedia. My admiration for Wikipedia is immense, and not only for the entries which deal with contentious issues. I donated to the fund for supporting the project. I don't use Wikipedia as my only source of comment and information, of course, and I use books as well as internet entries. In the case of all the Wikipedia entries I've consulted in writing this page - I repeat, I use so many other sources of information - the detail, the documentation, the attempt to give opposing points of view, again, in such detail, are very impressive. Raymond Deane may well disagree. He may think that Wikipedia is the stooge of imperialist, capitalist, reactionary forces and their Zionist allies. If he thinks that Wikipedia is 'slandering' Hezbollah (I'm not quoting him here: he doesn't use the word 'slandering') then the weight of evidence is against him.

Extracts. The original Wikipedia article provides citations.

'Hezbollah first emerged in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, during the Lebanese civil war. Its leaders were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.' Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto listed its four main goals ...' One of them was ' "Israel's final departure from Lebanon as a prelude to its final obliteration."

'In 1992, Hezbollah declared, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth.'

'Hezbollah also used anti-Semitic educational materials designed for 5-year-old scouts.

'In November 2009, Hezbollah pressured a private English-language school to drop excerpts from The Diary of Anne Frank, a book of the writings from the diary kept by the Jewish child Anne Frank while she was in hiding with her family during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands'

'Hezbollah receives military training, weapons, and financial support from Iran, and political support from Syria.

'Hezbollah says that its continued hostilities against Israel are justified as reciprocal to Israeli operations against Lebanon and as retaliation for what they claim is Israel's occupation of Lebanese territory.[50][51][52] Although Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and their complete withdrawal was verified by the United Nations, Lebanon now considers the Shebaa farms—a 26-km² (10-mi²) piece of land captured by Israel from Syria in the 1967 war and considered by the UN to be disputed territory between Syria and Israel—to be Lebanese territory.

'In 2010, Iran's parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani spoke of "pride in Lebanon's Islamic resistance movement for its steadfast Islamic stance. Hezbollah nurtures the original ideas of Islamic Jihad." While he also praised the group for "steadfast Islamic stance."

'Hezbollah's television station Al-Manar airs programming designed to inspire suicide attacks in Gaza, the West Bank, and Iraq.

'The 2006 Lebanon War was a 34-day military conflict in Lebanon and northern Israel. The principal parties were Hezbollah paramilitary forces and the Israeli military. The conflict was precipitated by a cross-border raid by Hezbollah during which they kidnapped and killed Israeli soldiers. In a speech in July 2008, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged that he had ordered the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers in order to free prisoners held in Israeli jails. The conflict began on July 12, 2006 when Hezbollah militants fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armored Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence, killing three, injuring two, and seizing two Israeli soldiers.

Israel responded with massive airstrikes and artillery fire on targets in Lebanon that damaged Lebanese civilian infrastructure, including Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport (which Israel said that Hezbollah used to import weapons and supplies), an air and naval blockade, and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah then launched more rockets into northern Israel and engaged the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in guerrilla warfare from hardened positions. The war continued until August 14, 2006. Hezbollah was responsible for thousands of Katyusha rocket attacks against Israeli civilian towns and cities in northern Israel,which Hezbollah said were in retaliation for Israel's killing of civilians and targeting Lebanese infrastructure. According to The Guardian, "In the fighting 1,200 Lebanese and 158 Israelis were killed. Of the dead almost 1,000 Lebanese and 41 Israelis were civilians."'

Is Hezbollah becoming more moderate? Evidence that it is, but not moderation 'taken to excess:'

'Hezbollah has not been involved in any suicide bombing since Israel withdrew from Lebanon. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Hezbollah condemned Al Qaeda for targeting the civilian World Trade Center, but remained silent on the attack on The Pentagon. Hezbollah also denounced the massacres in Algeria by Armed Islamic Group, Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya attacks on tourists in Egypt, and the murder of Nick Berg.

' In June 2002, shortly after the Israeli government launched Operation Defensive Shield, Nasrallah gave a speech in which he defended and praised suicide bombings of Israeli targets by members of Palestinian groups for "creating a deterrence and equalizing fear." Nasrallah stated that "in occupied Palestine, there is no difference between a soldier and a civilian, for they are all invaders, occupiers and usurpers of the land." '

Of course, I don't overlook the possibility that Raymond Deane has changed his mind about Hezbollah and the state of blissful solidarity in the Lebabon.

Reem Kelani

When Mubarak's grip on power in Egypt began to weaken, there were those who looked forward to a new era of freedom, and those who predicted a regime even worse than Mubarak's. They predicted that secular Egyptians would be rapidly marginalized by far more powerful islamic forces, including the Muslim brotherhood, and that before long Egypt would be a theocracy with sharia law. When the authiritarian rule of the Shah of Iran ended, Iran became less free, not more free: the rule of the Mullahs, and now President Ahmadinejad. In Egypt, the continued rule of Mubarak was the lesser of two evils.

I thought that this prognosis was justified in its extreme pessimism, but that continued support of Mubarak and his regime was no longer a realistic - or a morally defensible - possibility. Similarly for the other countries of the Arab spring.

There are limits to Realpolitik, times when Realpolitik becomes itself unrealistic. Egyptians were entitled to the hope of something better, and I believe the same is true of the Palestinians - but with recognition of the drastically limited options, with no encouragement at all for impossible demands. These include demands which take no note at all of power politics, the real, not the ideal, distribution of power at the moment and the real, not the ideal, chances of changing the distribution of power.

Now that Mubarak has gone, has the pessimistic prognosis been confirmed or not? To a large extent it has.

My own views on the politics of the Israel-Palestine issue and the wider politics of the Middle East are very different from those of Reem Kelani, of course. She signed the letter to The Independent and I consider that there are multiple objections to the call for cancellation of the concert. Reem Kelani is different from many other pro-Palestinian activists in her recognition of the harmful effects of radical Islam. Israel is the all-consuming or almost-all-consuming focus of attention for so many pro-Palestinian activists and they are oblivious to the atrocious acts committed in the name of radical Islam.

On the page www.labournet.net Reem Kelani writes about the group in Egypt called the 'Salafis,' who are prominent in Egypt now that Mubarak has gone: ' ... now they are all coming out of the woodwork with their bile, their hatred and their sectarianism.

'In recent weeks, they have been telling non-Muslims to “go elsewhere” if they don’t accept an “Islamic” Egypt, chopping off the ear of an Egyptian Copt, and causing grief in Qena over the appointment of a Christian governor in post-revolution Egypt.'

She also writes about the killing of two individuals.

'Juliano Mer-Khamis was killed by fundamentalists who didn’t approve of having a theatre in Jenin where boys and girls could meet, play and act together. For this, he deserved to die…

'Vittorio Arrigoni was killed by fundamentalists who didn’t approve of his purely humanist attitude towards helping people in Gaza, without bringing religion into it. For this, he deserved to die…'

The fundamentalists who killed Vittorio Arrigoni in Gaza were Salafists. They accused him of 'spreading corruption.' Italy, his home country, was, according to them, an 'infidel state.' The fact that he was a pro-Palestinian activist was irrelevant to them.

As in the case of music, there are differences of opinion regarding acting within Islam, but powerful forces which declare both haram (forbidden.) For example, the Questions and Answers section of the site www.islamic-truth.co.uk contains this:

- Are Muslims allowed to act?

'Islam forbids Tashkhees or acting. Acting is a type of lie and lying is Haram [ forbidden] known by necessity.'

Amongst Muslims who regard acting as haram, there are differences again when it comes to what action, if any, should be taken against theatrical performances: no action, but with disapproval, action in the form of calls to cancel theatrical performances or disrupting theatrical performances, killing of those who are directors or actors. The killers of Juliano Mer-Khamis were arbiters of this extreme kind, but they do not represent a tiny, insignificant minority.

Reem Kelani's account of the problems facing Egyptians in post-Mubarak Egypt is very, very concise. The problems facing democrats, Christians, women, actors and actresses, musicians, people in the tourist industry - and many others - are immense, given the ambitions and beliefs of those who oppose them.

Consider Sheikh 'Adel Shehato, who holds a senior post in Egyptian Islamic Jihad, just one of these intransigent opponents, imprisoned in 1991 after three years in Afghanistan and freed from prison in March 2011 as a result of the Eyptian revolution. Excerpts from an interview with him upblished in August 2011 by the Egyptian newspaper Roz Al-Yousef.

Sheikh 'Adel Shehato: 'The Term "Democracy" is Not in the Arab or Islamic Lexicon; Once Allah's Law Reigns Supreme, the People's Role will End.'

Q: Do you support the uprising?

Shehato: ...The [Egyptian] youth rose up for a certain ideal... They did not rise up in order to put the shari'a into practice, nor did they [complain] that Mubarak's regime did not rule in accordance with the shari'a ... As Muslims, we must believe that the Koran is our constitution, and that it is impossible for us to institute a Western democratic regime. I oppose democracy because it is not the faith of the Muslims, but the faith of the Jews and Christians. Simply put, democracy means the rule of the people itself over itself... According to Islam, it is forbidden for people to rule and to legislate laws, as Allah alone is ruler. Allah did not hand down the term as a form of rule, and it is completely absent from the Arab and Islamic lexicon...'

Q: "Are you against blowing up churches?"

Shehato: 'Yes and no. The Christian is free to worship his god in his church, but if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari'a, and it stipulates that they must pay the jizya tax while in a state of humiliation...

Q: 'These positions of yours frighten us, as Egyptians.

Shehato: 'I will not act [in ways] that contradict my faith just in order to please the people... We say to the Christians, convert to Islam or pay the jizya, otherwise we will fight you. The shari'a is not based on [human] logic but on divine law. That is why we oppose universal, manmade constitutions.'

If the Muslims Rise to Power in Egypt, They Will Form Muslim Battalions to Enforce the Shari'a Worldwide

Q: 'If you rise to power in Egypt, will you launch a campaign of Islamic conquest?'

Shehato: 'Of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world. As soon as the Muslims and Islam control Egypt and implement the shari'a [there], we will turn to the neighboring regions, [such as] Libya [to the west] and Sudan to the south. All the Muslims in the world who wish to see the shari'a implemented worldwide will join the Egyptian army in order to form Islamic battalions, whose task will be to bring about the victory of [our] faith. We hope that, with Allah's help, Egypt will be the spark [that sets off this process]...'

Q: 'You said that you endorse the ideology of Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Does this mean that your way of implementing shari'a in Egypt will be through violence and war, like their [way]?'

Shehato: 'No, we will implement the shari'a through da'wa [preaching], while violence will be directed only at the infidel Arab rulers. In their case, there is no choice but to use force, though the shari'a does not call it 'violence' but 'jihad for the sake of Allah.' There is no other way... because they have power and weapons...'

Q: 'How will the foreign ministry [operate] in an Islamic state?"

Shehato: 'There are Muslims and there are infidels. We will have ambassadors in every country. We want to call all other countries to join Islam, and that will be the task of the ambassadors. If [the countries] refuse, there will be war. We will not tolerate mutual trade and cultural ties with non-Muslims.'

'In the [Islamic] State, There will Be Only Islamic Culture.'

Q: 'If you rise to power, what will be your approach to tourism?'

Shehato: 'There will be tourism for purposes of [medical] treatment, but the tourism sites of the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Sharm Al-Sheikh will be shut down, because my task [as a ruler] is to get people to serve Allah rather than [other] people [i.e., tourists]. No proud Muslim will ever be willing to live off tourism profits, because the tourists come [to Egypt] to drink alcohol and fornicate.'

'[If they] want to come, they must comply with the conditions and laws of Islam. We will explain to them that, according to the shari'a, the pyramids are [the remains of] a pagan and polytheistic age.'

Q: 'What will be the state of art and literature in such a state?'

Shehato: 'In Islam, there is no such thing as art. Painting, singing, and dancing are forbidden. Therefore, in the [Islamic] state there will be nothing but Islamic culture, for I cannot teach [people] the infidel culture. As for literature, such as [the works] of Naguib Mahfouz, it is forbidden. Naguib Mahfouz was a criminal who stimulated [people's] desires and struck a severe blow to modesty. We will return to the decent culture of the Muslims and the Muslim forefathers, and to Islamic history.'

Tom Eisner

Tom Eisner believes that audiences shouldn't necessarily expect a planned concert to take place (he signed the letter calling for cancellation of the IPO's concert) or a concert which takes place to be without a political statement by the musician(s), if the political cause has his approval. I can't be sure that he agreed with disruption of the concert, so he may or may not believe that audiences shouldn't necessarily expect a concert which takes place to be free of disruption.

This is an example of a political statement which has his approval. There will be other political statements by other musicians which wouldn't have his approval.

From the LA Times arts blog:
 

'Before playing the final work on his recital [at the Disney Hall], Karol Szymanowski’s "Variations on a Polish Folk Theme," Zimerman sat silently at the piano for a moment, almost began to play, but then turned to the audience. In a quiet but angry voice that did not project well, he indicated that he could no longer play in a country whose military wants to control the whole world.

“Get your hands off of my country,” he said. ['His country' is Poland, where he was born, or Switzerland, where he now lives.]He also made reference to the U.S. military detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Tom Eisner wrote, Krystian Zimerman 'is one of the best pianists in the world, he gets listened to. Look it was in every paper the day after. More people need to stand up to the US and there [sic] murderous policy, Well done King Krystian!'

(The King of Spain? Dostoevsky, on 'a romantic:' ' ... he is never kicked out. At most, they would take him to the lunatic asylum as "The King of Spain" if he should go very mad.' 'Notes from the Underground,' in Constance Garnett's translation.)

'Also without wanting to sound arrogant I have and should have a much better ear than any amateur critic [Disrupter, solo] Tell me, my friends, what do the letters T, O, M, E, I, S, N, E and R spell? [Disrupters, tutti] PILLOCK! A 'stupid or annoying person!' simply because I have been a member of a pretty famous orchestra for 24 years [Disrupter, of mixed origins - genteel English and American] I rather suspect, if I may be so bold, that this guy's a complete jackass! and have played with just about every pianist you can mention.'

Tom Eisner and similar music-politicians advocate an end to the simple-minded view of concerts: the view that a member of the audience buys a ticket, and after taking the trouble to get to the venue listens to the music. The Eisnerian view is that the concert may be prevented from taking place and if a concert does take place, there may well be the political extras - not take it or leave it, but take it.

'I asked around in music circles, and found out that Tom Eisner was a violinist in the London Philharmonic who was notorious for semi-literate hard-Left rants against Israel.' This comes from 'Telegraph blogs,' not a selective source of information and opinion (like many others, of course.) But this comment seems remarkably perceptive.

More from Tom Eisner: ' ... I refuse to condemn Hamas.'

Charles Levinson, writing in 'The Daily Telegraph:'

... human rights groups and ordinary Gazans say Hamas is committing exactly the same crimes as its Fatah predecessors, whose corruption and brutality were one of the main reasons why support for Hamas grew. "We are receiving reports of political detentions every day," said Mahmoud Abu Rahma, of the Gaza City-based Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights. "Hamas is conducting wide sweeps and interrogations to collect information. The interrogations include harsh treatment, and in many cases, torture and beatings."

At a protest in Gaza City on Friday, Hamas gunmen broke up a demonstration by Fatah loyalists by firing on the crowd and smashing journalists' cameras. Similar treatment is often meted out in the opposite direction in the Fatah-controlled West Bank, where dozens, if not hundreds, of Hamas activists have been jailed - but since Hamas has long portrayed itself to the Palestinians as an upright alternative to decades of corrupt Fatah rule, such behaviour rankles all the more.

"Fatah arrested and tortured people too," said a senior official from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, an independent political faction. "But during Fatah's rule we could give our opinions, and say anything we wanted about the Fatah leadership. Today people are afraid of saying anything about Hamas."

 
Willem Meijs

After I'd published profiles of some letter-signers and disrupters here (but not a profile of Willem Meijs) I received an email from him in which he complained, 'I am of course greatly aggrieved that you have not given any bio information about me ...' I was happy to oblige. Now, instead of leaving him in obscurity on this page, I've given him the longest profile of all. If I hear from Bruce Levy complaining that he's been left out, I'll be happy to provide a profile for him as well.

On the evidence I have, Willem Meijs may be slightly less limited than the average Proms disrupter, at least the ones I know about. Even so, his urge to prohibit and to issue demands is impossible to ignore, his stupidity is impossible to ignore, a liability in the movement of which he's a part - but in this boycotting and disrupting movement, these are common enough. He's of Dutch origin. I've an interest in Dutch (and Flemish) language, society and culture (as well as an interest in non-Flemish, Francophone Belgium). On the page Seamus Heaney: translations and versions I give my translation of a poem by J.C. Bloem, 'Na de Bevrijding,' 'After the Liberation.' The theme of the poem has relevance to these issues.

I felt that his first email was poorly argued and that there was material in it which wasn't to the credit of the boycotting and disrupting movement. Before I discuss the email, this was my reply, which made clear this feeling:

'Dear Willem,

'Sorry to use a military or even militaristic analogy: I'm in no danger at all of running short of ammunition in the battle against the hard Israel-critics - not people, like myself, who think that Israel is a flawed state, like all the others - but people who think that Israel is uniquely flawed, far more flawed than Iran, for instance. As I say, I'm in no danger at all of running short of ammunition - arguments, evidence - but your email has kindly given me further ammunition, further arguments and evidence in favour of Israel and against the haters of Israel.

'I'll add comments on you to my Website when I'm able to. In the meantime, do let me have your thoughts - in the form of proper, developed arguments - on such issues as human rights violations in Iran (not that Iran is the only country guilty of the grossest human rights violations), the relative wickedness of Iran and Israel, and on suicide bombings and rocket attacks. Are these attacks on non-combatants to be condemned or ignored? You seem to have chosen the option of ignoring them, as inconvenient to your case.'

Actually, I wasn't including him in the 'haters of Israel.' I'd attempted to find out more about Willem Meijs, and although the information I had was fairly meagre, it was clear that he wasn't to be classed with such people as Raymond Deane. If the phrasing was loose, he could simply have pointed this out to me - but it was in an email,not included in the content of this page.

He will have seen this, if he'd read the page with care: 'It would be wrong to assume that the 221 individuals who signed this letter [one calling for cancellations of performances of Bach's 'Christmas Oratorio] or the letter to The Independent, only 24 of them, are united in their complete hatred for Israel. I don't have any detailed knowledge, but it's likely that they include, amongst other categories, haters, well-meaning innocents, very selective humanitarians - humanitarians who haven't, I think, for one reason or another, investigated in detail the evidence in favour of Israel, who have only the must superficial knowledge or no knowledge at all of, to give one example, human rights abuses in Iran.' Since then, I've revised the page thoroughly and in the case of this passage, extended it to include disrupters as well as letter-writers.

After I'd sent this email to Willem, he wrote,

' ... it was a mistake to send you my piece. I sent it in good faith, obviously thinking you were more open-minded than you turn out to be. I somehow get the feeling you lack a sense of humour as well [Disrupter, of mixed Australian and cockney origins] Fair dinkum, mate? Paul Hurt ain't got no sense of humour, not like Willem Meijs. Willem ain't 'arf a wit. [Literal-minded disrupter] A half-wit? That's a bit harsh! and that's almost as bad in my book. So, it's goodbye Paul, I'm afraid. [Cockney disrupter] Thank Gawd for that! You can stick your ammo in your gizmo, or wherever you like, but leave me out of your wargames - you no longer have my permission to use my text, in whole or in part.'

Use of 'ammunition' as an analogy is so common that there's absolutely no need for me to defend myself. Out of the huge number of possible examples, this is just one, from a site with the subtitle 'Art Advocacy for Educators:' '76 Pages of Arts Advocacy Ammunition. Last week I blogged a about the glut of new information that’s becoming available to arts advocates.'

This was Willem's overheated reaction to an email, his reaction to comments that nobody else would read. Not so long ago, Kenny Hodgart, a Scots journalist, published a piece critical of me in a newspaper, 'The Herald.' He wrote of me, 'You've met Mr Hurt's type: not thick exactly, just a bit impervious to nuance, a bit cognitively impaired, like Sarah Palin maybe.1

I contacted him. I didn't ask for a retraction or an apology. I didn't ask for the critical material on the Herald Website to be removed. Kenny Hodgart's opinion of me hasn't altered my favourable opinion of his writing. After wading through so much anti-Israeli writing which is stale, predictable, self-important, sometimes vile, maltreating and misusing language, such as the word 'genocide,' it's a relief to turn to writers such as him.

Many countries that can be considered free have been surrendering more and more of their freedoms. Complacency and lack of resolve have allowed them to slide towards an Age of Post-enlightenment. Most often, freedoms have been eroded by the growth of informal censorship, self-censorship, strong disapproval, but sometimes by new legislation. Kenny Hodgart writes well about one such piece of legislation in this country:

'Freedom of speech was hard-won in the West; the freedom only to speak inoffensively is no freedom at all ... Never mind the freedom to speak offensively: people have been invited to believe there is such a thing as the right not to be offended. Never mind that 'incitement to hatred' is a grey, disputable thing, and a different thing to incitement to violence, which was already a criminal offence. Never mind that most ideas are capable of giving offence ... And never mind that in the marketplace of ideas, 'hate speech' can be challenged, debated or ignored. What we now have is moderated free speech at best.'

The definition of 'hate speech' has become enormously wide, taken to include for example, for some ideologues, criticism of the Koran and Mohammed based on careful research and thought, in fact all criticism of Islam.

I don't think that my email was 'offensive' in the least, but Willem seems to have disagreed:

' ... you no longer have my permission to use my text, in whole or in part.' What? Is he serious? People who are sent an email can be forbidden to quote some of the email or all the email, if the sender disapproves? Anyone who has found evidence that the boycotters have too much of a tendency to prohibit, too much of a tendency to demand, that the boycotters have a limited view of freedom of expression, will find this demand of his not too surprising.

At the end of his first email, Willem Meijs wrote this: 'I would appreciate it if you put the above piece on your Linkagenet site in full. If you want to cut or alter things, please consult with me first via this email address, wjmeijs@gmail.com'

At least this was nearer to a request than a demand, but the urge to control seems never very far away. I was supposed to consult him, ask his permission. I wasn't supposed to decide what should and shouldn't appear on my own Website! If this isn't actual censorship, it's not libertarianism  either. So, an abrupt volte-face, and some contradictory demands. Publish my text in full! Don't publish any of my text! or publish only parts, after you've got my approval.

It's unrealistic to expect that a Website should publish a long email as a matter of course. An atheistic Website, which gives extended arguments against Christianity, can't be expected to publish a long email from an evangelical Christian - or ten of them, if ten evangelicals make the same request, or demand - adorned with quotes from The New Testament to establish the claim that everybody should accept Christ as their personal lord and saviour and quotes from The Old Testament, as 'evidence' that the authors were prophesying the coming of the saviour. Willem's arguments were 'standard stuff,' put forward very often, and  demonstrably partial, misleading or much worse - full of falsehoods.
 

I was so willing to aid the publication of an email I regarded as drastically flawed that I thought of offering him space on this site in an Advertisements Section, free of charge. I sometimes receive a request to place a paid advertisement. I wrote to the last person who made this request that I'd consider setting up a new Advertisements page, but that I'd never consider accepting payment. I've decided against the idea, at least for the time being and I was about to contact Willem Meijs to suggest that he should try to place his text on a 'Boycott Israel' site, or, if he had no luck, to place it on a site which had nothing to do with Israel or Palestine but which could be persuaded to accept an advertisement. The cost wouldn't be very great. If all else failed, I was willing to publish his text, but with a little persistence on his part there would surely be no need for that. I was saved from any effort by his abrupt reversal and his ban on all publication of the text on this site, as a whole or in part. I ignore the ban here, of course.

As for a lack of a sense of humour, if he looks around, he'll find a 'treatment' of a comedy script on this site, with photographs, and humorous poetry - but it would be a mistake to make an earnest attempt to prove that I do have a sense of humour after all. I didn't find the disruption of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra's concert, in which he took part, in the least humorous, If the disrupters had a wonderful and very enjoyable time, it wasn't widely shared.

The disrupters at the concert called themselves 'Beethovians for Boycotting Israel.' ['Beethovians' should surely be 'Beethovenians:' we add '-ian' to the composer's name and refer to 'Mahlerians' not 'Mahlians.' A prominent blog is called 'Boulezian,' not 'Boulian.'] They sang the theme of Beethoven's 'Ode to Joy' but with trite and embarrassing words, provided by a poet not as gifted as Schiller, Sue Blackwell.

Schiller's 'Ode to Joy' was written at a time when liberal ideas, ideas of enlightenment, were becoming more and more influential. The ode was originally not "An die Freude" ("To Joy"), but "An die Freiheit" ("To Freedom"). But the political climate was still not liberal enough. He was forced to drop the reference to freedom and to substitute "Freude" for "Freiheit." Quoting from the site of the Brandon Orchestra, 'It seems clear, however, that Beethoven, and probably numerous other people were perfectly aware that "Joy" was merely a thin disguise for "Freedom".'

Willem Meijs wrote to me, 'we tried to be as sensitive as possible to the audience’s musical sensibilities ... [Disrupter-beginner] Garbage! [Disrupter-conductor] You've come in too early! You really must watch me! And when you do come in, be sure to observe the dynamics - a crescendo. You're maximising the impact of the disruption on the audience's musical sensitivities, not minimising it. would like to emphasise that a great amount of meticulous and careful planning went into this protest. Press reports and website accounts in the media storm that followed were understandably not very accurate about the timing and the nature of what took place. So to put the record straight: each of the shouting interruptions took place (and were carefully planned to take place) before the beginning of a new item on the programme, just when the conductor had raised his baton, so the music as such would not be interrupted. In other words, these shouted protests, raucous as they may have sounded, were designed to minimise the impact [Disrupters, piano ma con fuoco] Garbage! on the audience's musical sensitivities.

'The only exception to this was the protest during the very first piece, Webern's Passacaglia. For strategic reasons this was planned to start a few minutes before the end of the movement, on the assumption that that far into the piece the conductor would go on conducting (he did), security would take a while getting to the protesters and evicting them (it took them several minutes), the BBC wouldn't stop transmitting, and they wouldn't start the concert all over again (they didn't). And to compensate somewhat for the inevitable disruption, [Disrupters, mezzo-forte] Garbage! this first intervention was cast in the form of a musical protest by an ad hoc choir group calling themselves ‘Beethovians for Boycotting Israel’(*), to mesh in with the ongoing performance of the Passacaglia. The result may not have been entirely melodious, but then Anton Webern was a progressive composer, a pupil of Schoenberg and steeped in 12-tonal music. Who knows, he might well have approved of the resulting subtle interplay between orchestra and choir as instantiating [Disrupters, forte] Garbage! a product of the age (i.e. our 21st century), reflecting its tensions and contradictions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzkRCGj-ays

'It appears that the postmodern effect [Disrupters, fortissimo] Garbage! [Disrupter-conductor] Not bad - but unsubtle. For one thing, you should have avoided any suggestion of a cadence - this is anti-Meijssiaen, after all, and anti-Meijssiaen should reflect Meijssiaen may even have been appreciated by the orchestra itself [Disrupters cooing and whistling like turtle doves, warblers, nightingales, blackbirds, thrushes and larks in tranquil and fervent anti-Meijssiaenic birdsong ] which went on playing, if anything louder than before. Indeed it was stated on the IPO’s own website that our additions to Webern’s Passacaglia “passed for most of the audience as a clever musical addition,and didn’t realize that anything was amiss.' [Disrupter] He doesn't realize that anything's amiss with his sanity! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Willem Meijs lives in cloud cuckoo land. (Followed by 4 minutes and 33 seconds of Cagian silence.)

As for his comment that the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra 'went on playing, if anything louder than before' as the 'Beethovians' sang, I'm slightly surprised that he didn't complain in something like these terms, 'The Beethovians continued their performance even though the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra showed gross discourtesy and rudeness by playing loud and attempting to stifle our singing.'

In his email, he describes the disruption he and the others caused as 'cultural hooliganism' but cultural hooliganism of a 'mild, non-violent brand.' Two opinions from members of the audience at the concert. (From the site www.greensengage.wordpress.com), not expressing overwhelming gratitude for the fact that the cultural hooliganism was so mild and for the fact that they weren't beaten up:

'I was unfortunate enough to be in the same row of the choir stalls occupied by the front row of “Ode to Joy” protestors. I was dismayed and disgusted by their juvenile protest.

'They have set back the Palestinian cause in this country by years having tainted it with intolerance and anti-social behaviour.'

He thinks that Islamic disrupters of concerts are likely to belong to a section of society which won't have heard about the disruption at the Royal Albert Hall. It may well be the case - but I point out that many of the most radical Islamists have received higher education. Willem Meijs continues:

'Ultimately ... we were aiming at  [Disrupter-conductor] Can we now have the Wagnians against Beethovians, please? They've been rehearsing Das Rheingold, from Der Ring des Nibelungen. Woglinde - your entry, after the opening prelude, if you will. [Disrupter, in a Deborah Fink wig, singing as if at the bottom of the Rhine, in the grating and strangled tones of Deborah Fink]

Weia! Waga!
Woge, du Welle,
walle zur Wiege!
Wagala weia!
Wallala, weiala weia!

a much wider audience, one that went far beyond those who were present in the Royal Albert Hall.' There's no doubt that they succeeded. Their disruption reached some people, or many people, in this much wider audience who might now be much more likely to imitate this disruption for a different cause. As I point out, they did no favours for musicians and audiences in the wider world. They haven't helped beleauguered musicians and they've made it more likely that the problem of disruption to concerts will get worse.

He refers to the man who interrupted the concert in Amsterdam, where Willem Meijs was born, as 'the somewhat confused man.' Unlike Willem Meijs, obviously, who is so very clear-sighted, not in the least confused.

He describes hardships and difficulties for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, but confines himself to hardships and difficulties - he's silent about Palestinian suicide bombings and rocket attacks which kill and cause horrific injuries to Israeli civilians. His outrage at being classed, as he thought, with the haters of Israel, gave him an excuse to break off communication with me, an excuse not to answer this request of mine: 'let me have your thoughts - in the form of proper, developed arguments - on such issues as human rights violations in Iran (not that Iran is the only country guilty of the grossest human rights violations), the relative wickedness of Iran and Israel, and on suicide bombings and rocket attacks. Are these attacks on non-combatants to be condemned or ignored? You seem to have chosen the option of ignoring them, as inconvenient to your case.'

He concentrates on matters which don't compare in horror with the deliberate, targeted death and dismemberment of civilians (not to be confused with the death of civilians and injury to civilians during military action) such as this: 'Palestinian musicians have at times been subjected to humiliating treatments - being asked to play a bit on their fiddle before being allowed to go through an IDF checkpoint, for instance.' At times?

I refer to the destruction of musical instruments by radical Islamists. He refers to destruction of the Gaza Music School and its musical instruments during 'Operation Cast Lead' in 2009. Operation Cast Lead had a military purpose - to put a stop to rocket attacks on civilians in Southern Israel and to stop the flow of arms into Gaza. It's this operation which was the subject of Richard Goldstone's UN Report.

To return to J.C. Bloem's poem 'Na de Bevrijding,' 'After the Liberation,' it portrays no feelings of happiness. Glorious, unalloyed happiness there may have been in the liberation of the Netherlands from Nazi rule, but like a spring stretched too far to return to its previous state, a common reaction was very likely happiness of a very sombre kind. The Netherlands capitulated soon after the German bombing of Rotterdam. Of the 140 000 Jews in the Netherlands before the invasion, only 30 000 survived. When Jews were arrested in 1941 and sent to concentration camps, the Dutch declared a general strike in Amsterdam, which spread to other cities. The strikes were suppressed, of course. In the final autumn and early winter of the war, the Dutch were starving. About 18 000 people died of malnutrition. At the end of April 1945, 'Operation Manna' began. The British used Lancaster bombers and other aircraft to drop food supplies to the starving people. In another operation, the Americans used Flying Fortress bombers and other aircraft to drop food. The country was liberated by Canadian forces in May.

The countries occupied by the Nazis were liberated by a coalition which was drastically imperfect in its behaviour, to varying extents. The racial segregation to be found in the American forces was only ended long after the war. The British bombing offensive against Germany, which had begun as the only feasible way of striking against Germany, had become in large part an area offensive, in which civilians were targeted: but defending the decency of the bomber crews is as easy as defending the decency of the fighter pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain.) The country which made the largest single contribution to ending the Nazi nightmare was itself a totalitarian country, Stalinist Russia, and Russian troops often terrorized the countries they liberated - and liberation was not always followed by freedom. When, after the ending of the war in Europe, Japan was defeated, it was after a bloody struggle in which Japanese cities were pulverized by conventional bombing as well as the two nuclear bombs.

The fight against Nazism was a just war, if ever there was one, but a just war conducted in a horrifically flawed manner. Critics who cite International law and human rights can often deliver their damning verdicts in conditions of safety, detached from the reality of combat. This is what I was getting at, when I referred, in my email to Sue Blackwell, to '... matters ... quite distinct from what happens in an idealized world ...'

Deborah Fink

See also, on the page 'About this site,' the section on Deborah Fink  singing, screeching, shrieking and screaming with links to historic recordings.

Deborah Fink posted this comment on an anti-Zionist weblog: 'Israel does not deserve to be called ‘The Jewish state.’ It should be called ‘The Satanic state.' [Disrupter, of mixed Cockney and South Yorkshire origins] Who gives a fuck what Deborah Fink finks? Deborah Fink don't know nuffink! Ah reckon there's summat up wi't lass. She's not reyt. She knows nowt.

Compare this statement of Deborah Fink and these:

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, described Israel as satanic and cancerous and praised the Lebanese group Hezbollah for its jihad against Israel. (2006)

The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, predicted that Muslims would uproot “satanic powers” and reaffirmed his prediction that the Jewish state will soon be wiped off the map, the Agence France-Presse news agency reported.

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," Ahmadinejad said.

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started," he stated. (2008)

Such people as Deborah Fink are listened to sometimes with respect, sometimes with skepticism, but a reaction much more robust than skepticism is in order - a reaction as robust as the Cockney-South Yorkshire heckler's, but phrased more carefully, obviously.

She's 'Deborah Fink (soprano) in the list of signatories. Deborah Cretin-Fink can be heard singing, to the tune of 'Happy birthday to you,' these words, 'Happy birthday to you, I'm ashamed I'm a jew.' When some policemen got hold of her in the ensuing disturbance, she called them 'fascist.' Tired, stale, predictable. To emphasize some essential differences between British policing and fascist policing, I quote something I wrote in connection with Seamus Heaney's misuse of the word 'interrogation:' Seamus Heaney had been stopped at a road-block during The Troubles in Northern Ireland and asked a few mild questions, although in this case by soldiers of the British army rather than the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

'The phrase in the poem 'everything is pure interrogation' can only impress as pure sound, devoid of moral content and almost devoid of meaning. So far from being pure and of one kind, interrogations are of the most varied kinds, from the kind common in totalitarian countries which remove finger-nails, smash bones, dislocate joints, break jaws, leave the victim blinded or with face unrecognizable, with health ruined for life, the kind of interrogation conducted by the Nazi Klaus Barbie, smashing vertebrae with his spiked ball on the end of a chain - to this far less stressful kind of 'interrogation,' amounting to a few questions and a few searching looks by the security forces, with perhaps a search of the car to find out if there's any explosive there which might smash the bones of innocent victims, break their jaws, leave the victim blinded or with face unrecognizable, health ruined for life, or dead.

'Anyone routinely questioned for a very short time, like innumerable other people, whether on the roads of Northern Ireland during the Troubles or now at the airports of North America, Europe and other places, in order to prevent bombings, who complains of a 'quiver in the self' or of feeling 'subjugated,' let alone 'gross intrusion' or 'sexual violation' should have their histrionics under better control.'

Deborah Fink should have her histrionics under better control. The distinction between liberal democracies which sometimes have recourse to drastic action to protect themselves (eg Britain, as during the Second World War, and Israel, Israel protecting itself against terrorism) and totalitarian or authoritarian regimes (eg Syria, Iran) is basic.


Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi

is a tireless campaigner against parking fines as well as against the state of Israel. She once chained herself to some railings as a protest against a fine. She only has the tirelessness of unending misdirected effort. She's a tired, stale, predictable person, capable of mechanically using words like 'genocide' but not of making scrupulous distinctions, or carrying out a wide and compassionate ((survey)): if she, and the others, had much genuine compassion, it wouldn't be so subject to {restriction}.

The literary critic F R Leavis wrote of the poet Edith Sitwell and her brothers (in 'New Bearings in English Poetry'): ' ... the Sitwells belong to the history of publicity rather than poetry.' The disruption of the Proms concert by Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi and the others belongs to the history of exhibitionism rather than authentic struggle. It's no more likely to lessen in the slightest the intractable problems of the Middle East than her parking protest.

Tony Greenstein


The site Harry's Place gives this interesting discussion of Tony Greenstein. It quotes Oliver Kamm:

'Tony Greenstein, is himself a political crank of the first order. I had a brush with him in the 1980s when he came to speak to my university Labour Club on behalf of his Labour Movement Campaign for Palestine. His views on terrorism ensured that a motion to affiliate to his organisation received only two votes in favour. A little while later he distinguished himself by writing in outrage to the far-Left London Labour Briefing complaining that it had praised Mrs Thatcher’s courage in defying the Brighton bombers ...'

'Tony Greenstein's response included this: 'The attack on Thatcher by the IRA was obviously legitimate. She was a military target.' Obviously legitimate to eliminate the Prime Minister of a democracy? You've got a lot to learn! Tony Greenstein has been described as an 'ignoramus.' This seems exceptionally generous.

Harry's Place points out that when he visited Syria, the visit was paid for by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and that he was involved in previous disruption of Israeli music-making, the disruption of the Jerusalem Quartet's concert at the Wigmore Hall.

It goes on to comment, 'But of course, it is not just boycotting Israel that will satisfy Greenstein. He admitted in a letter to Weekly Worker that his revolutionary aim is ”Yes, I want the state of Israel to be destroyed.' On the holocaust, he argued that “without a Zionist movement... it is hard to believe that anything like 6 million would have been allowed to die.”

He isn't popular in some radical left circles, either (which, for the record, aren't circles I very often frequent.) This is from 'Lies, Damn Lies and Tony Greenstein:' by Daniel Randall and Sacha Ismail of the AWL (the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, www.whatnextjournal.co.uk)

They write of him ''attacking the AWL in characteristic terms, even though he knew this would harm the coalition of which he himself was part. This sort of behaviour is illustrative of Tony’s general approach – not rational, worked-out criticism but frenzied slander. His diatribe in What Next? [‘The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty – Britain’s Revolutionary Imperialists’] is no different. It is embarrassing in its lack of rigour, in the way it substitutes anecdotal slander for political critique, and in its use of blatant lies, distortions and half-truths.'

And this, on Tony Greenstein's support for boycotts:

'The way Tony relates the AWL’s position on the AUT’s academic boycott of Israel typifies his entire approach. He starts with the "left common sense" – in this case that a boycott of "Apartheid Israel", whether cultural or academic, is a good thing – observes the AWL’s opposition to this and then fabricates a reason which he then doesn’t bother to substantiate. For those with a slightly more rigorous attitude than Tony, the AWL actually opposed the boycott because we have a general position against all boycotts, believing that positive acts of solidarity are more effective and that boycotts often harm most the people who are your potential allies (in this case the Israeli left and workers’ movement). The way he refers to "Apartheid Israel", or elsewhere to the IFTU’s "strike-breaking activities" simply regurgitates the buzzwords and received wisdom of the left without any political explanation whatsoever.'

Sue Blackwell

Gilad Atzmon is a well known saxophonist. Robert Wyatt, writing in 'The Guardian,' has described him as 'the best musician living in the world today,' which is grotesque, but quoted on the home page of Giland Atzmon's Website. He's a notorious figure even in some hard-line anti-Israeli circles, with many outbursts to his discredit, such as: 'I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act.' And, 'the Jewish tribal mindset – left, centre and right – sets Jews aside of humanity.'

But in an interview with Mary Rizzo, who, like Gilad Atzmon tempers fanaticism with civilized values, he says this:

'I truly believe in freedom of speech and oppose any form of Maccarthyism or intellectual censorship of any sort. Thus, interfering with academic freedom isn’t exactly something I can blindly advocate. Unlike some of my best enlightened friends, I am against any form of gatekeeping or book burning. But it goes further, I actually want to hear what Israelis and Zionists have to say. I want to read their books.'

The contrast with Sue Blackwell, who has taken a leading part in promoting the academic boycott of Israel, is stark. Sue Blackwell's Credo for Freedom isn't a resounding, uncompromising, heaven-storming, Beethovenian one but something more cautious. It goes something like this: 'I truly believe in limited freedom of speech and support some forms of Maccarthyism or intellectual censorship. Thus, interfering with academic freedom is something I can blindly advocate. Unlike some of my best enlightened friends, I'm not against some forms of gatekeeping or book-burning [figuratively, not literally, of course] ...'

Sue Blackwell is one of the people who have set themselves up as arbiters. Why such discredited people as this should feel competent to control in any way at all the musical life of this country, to control in any way at all its academic life, is difficult to credit.

I wrote to her - she didn't respond:

'Do please, if you can spare the time, let me have reasons why you think Israel is so much more vile than Iran, mentioning - more than mentioning, discussing honestly, in sufficient detail, with regard for their seriousness and their human cost - such matters as the execution of the 16
year old girl for unchastity in Iran - and other horrific cruelties in Iran, your reasons for supporting (or opposing) suicide bombings and rocket attacks on Israel. But you'd need to examine a far wider world of cruelty and injustice before you could feel in the least confident that out of all
the perpetrators of cruelty and injustice in the world, Israel is the worst, the most worthy of being boycotted. I hope your knowledge of the history of war and conflict is up to the demands of the task. I hope your appreciation of the imperfections of the world in general is up to the task. Such matters as the history of blockades, reprisals and war crimes - quite distinct from what happens in an idealized world - are surely relevant, as are such abstract issues as the use of evidence, interpretation and inference. And abstract-sounding but very concrete matters such as unintended consequences - I argue that one unintended consequence of your disruption may well be to cause difficulties, even extreme difficulties, for non-Israeli musicians worldwide.'

Her Website, feeble in thought, feeble in emotion, feeble in language (www.sue.be/) contains a feeble denunciation of Birmingham University for declining to host the Website any longer. The idea that her Website might not be in the least suitable for academic hosting seems never to have occurred to her. A university shouldn't be expected to host the Website of someone who posts entries such as 'What I did on my holidays.' Details of her wedding to Willem Meijs likewise. Most of the material is 'stuff / Nobody minds or notices.' (Philip Larkin, 'Livings.') Her writing on Palestine isn't stuff that 'nobody minds' but it hasn't the least trace of the precious academic virtues of careful reasoning, scrupulous use of evidence, and the rest. She writes of the University 'censoring' her. This is complete hypocrisy. She's in the business of censoring musical performances. Birmingham University wasn't Sue Blackwell's only, her last remaining chance, of conveying her thoughts to the long-suffering public. Obviously, the number of possible Web hosts was, if not astronomically large, far more than a few hundred possibilities.

This is also the Sue who threatened to sue 'Engage,' which puts forward arguments in defence of Israel. (Raymond foaming-at-the-mouth Deane threatened to sue an Irish journalist who wrote about him. Gilad Atzmon threatened to take legal action against Sue Blackwell.) Academics and others sometimes use the courts legitimately to protect their reputations, but the vast majority of academics never feel the need.

I quote Jim Denham, who is on the radical left. Some extracts from his insider's view of Sue Blackwell (www.http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com):

'I notice that one of the organisers and spokespersons for the disruption of the IPO’s Proms performance was Sue Blackwell. I know Sue of old and, in fact, usually get on with her reasonably well. But in my view, her obsessive (I understand, Christian in origin) hatred of Israel and Zionism (ie Jewish nationalism) has led her on many occasions to slide over from legitimate (if misguided) hostility to Israel into antisemitism (by which I mean “political”, or “left” antisemitism, not personal hatred of Jews per se).

'In the miasma, something nasty stirs
.
'In the poisonous miasma that envelopes the overlap between proper concern and anger over the plight of the Palestinians, and hysterical rage against all things Israeli, a new cry has gone out: “I feel another boycott coming on” says Sue Blackwell, one of the leading spokespersons of the (defeated) campaign to get the AUT to boycott Israeli academics for being Israeli.The target of Ms Blackwell’s boycotting zeal this time is the LabourStart website and email list, devoted to organising international trade union solidarity. Why Ms Blackwell, a trade union activist, wants to boycott LabourStart is an interesting question, and the answer tells you a lot about the sort of politics that she and her “anti-Zionist” co-thinkers represent. Blackwell’s “I feel another boycott coming on” has now been taken up by Mr Tony Greenstein ... a professional Israel-hater, supporter of the Iraqi fascist “insurgency” and – apparently – a member of Brighton’s Unison branch. Mr Greenstein denounces LabourStart for being, in reality a “Zionist front”. But then for Mr Greenstein, more or less everyone who fails to call for the destruction of Israel (and supports the only rational and just solution, two states) is a “Zionist”. And as Zionism equals “racism” and –indeed- apartheid, then, ipso facto,if you fail to call for the destruction of Israel you are an apartheid-supporting racist who should be boycotted.

'That LabourStart should become a target is of interest mainly because of what it tells us about the politics of the people behind this crazy campaign. It won’t succeed – any more than the AUT boycott campaign did, once it was exposed to the scrutiny of that union’s membership and a democratic vote of the rank and file. But it is worth noting that the campaign against LabourStart has gained a new momentum in the aftermath of the defeat of the AUT boycott campaign, as the embittered boycotters thrash about, blaming “well-funded” international conspiracies and biased media coverage for the fact that the membership of the AUT rejected them and overturned their boycott.

[After discussion of an 'Open Letter' and the 'Background' document which accompanies it]:

'This is made even more explicit in the final section of the “Background” document, which is devoted to promoting the notion that Israel is an “apartheid society”. This description of Israel is a favourite of those who seek the delegitimisation and destruction of Israel. The “new apartheid” accusation has been widely debated and is rejected as an inaccurate, simplistic and politically misleading description by many people who are far from uncritical supporters of Israel (including Susie Jacobs on the “Engage” website, Benjamin Pogrud, the South African anti-apartheid campaigner in a recent seminar paper, and the self-styled “Muslim refusenik” Irshad Manji in her book “The Trouble With Islam” – to name just three. Oh yes: I forgot the late Edward Said: “Israel is not South Africa”).

' ... Sue’s reaction to the defeat of the “boycott” position within the AUT: instead of acknowledging that she and her supporters had simply LOST, like many of us have lost within unions, over the years, Sue fell back upon bizarre allegations of “a massive and well funded campaign against us and incredible pressure put upon members in the run up to this debate”. I’ll ask you straight, Sue: WHO, exactly, ran and financed this “massive campaign” against you? Tell me, please. As far as I am aware, it was the rank and file AUT members Camila Basi, Jon Pike and David Hirsh, who ran the campaign to overturn the AUT’s “boycott” policy. None of them are particularly rich. None of them were financed from “outside”. So what, exactly are you –Sue- trying to suggest? And you continue to protest that your campaign is not antisemitic?

'They are rich Jews? Paid agents of Israel? If that is not what you are suggesting, then please explain what you mean by “a massive and well funded campaign against us”? You really do have to explain your bizarre outbursts since losing the vote. And also, why you felt able to defy your union’s national position and your own local association, and vote in favour of the boycott position at Birmingham Trades Council on 2nd June 2005, after the AUT special conference had overturned the “boycott” position: who did you think you were representing? An imaginary AUT membership who agree with you about the destruction of Israel but don’t need to be consulted because their “anti Zionist” views can be taken as read? Even though they voted against you at a Birmingham AUT Association meeting? Have you any understanding of rank and file trade union democracy, Sue?

...

'Greenstein and Blackwell’s ignorance concerning the basics of elementary working class politics might be dismissed as silly but harmless ultra-leftism if it had not lead them to attempt to destroy an invaluable organ of trade union solidarity: LabourStart. The fact that their campaign seems to be based upon the fact that its founder, Eric Lee opposed the AUT boycott of Israeli academics, and once ran his website from Israel, makes this nasty little campaign all the more distasteful and scabby.'

The indispensable Engage site, which has a moderate left perspective, contains so much of value on boycotts directed against Israel and other issues (to give just one example, Howard Jacobson's fine piece on the Gaza flotilla) has pages which give an insight into this not overwhelmingly impressive figure.

It's to their credit that Sue Blackwell and Tony Greenstein, amongst others, have resisted the Nazi apologists and holocaust deniers to be found in pro-Palestinian circles, but Mary Rizzo (http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com) claims that Sue Blackwell has made mistakes in 'naming and shaming.' This has led to some instructive skirmishes, some instructive infighting, amongst the pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli comrades/enemies.

Mary Rizzo writes, 'let’s focus ... on the smear campaign run by a known activist for Palestine, someone who actually believes that Zionism is responsible for the troubles in the Middle East. Some in the UK might be familiar with Sue Blackwell. She is a university professor who was one of the promoters of the failed PSC motion about Zionism, the DYR and anti-Semitism. She also managed to somehow not be able to pull off the Academic Boycott she was organising for a Union of British university Teachers ... What is rather interesting, however, is her personal crusade to lead the Palestinian Solidarity movement and to dictate who is acceptable and who is not, and she of course, is the one in the know. Just like the Zionists, it’s about what she feels and thinks, not what is objectively true.

'Let’s look at the facts: two years ago, upon consulting her “Jewish comrades”, as she puts it, Sue Blackwell added a page to her “famous” (like, where??) Palestinian Web Page. She called it Nazi Alert. Listed are some notorious right-wingers but also “people who should know better who give support to nazis, racists and holocaust deniers by circulating their material”. It makes things sound very sinister indeed, especially because connected in her mind to Nazi scum, we see the names and profiles of many Palestine solidarity activists who have nothing whatsoever to do with rightwing activity or have any Nazi affiliation in any way, shape or form. So ludicrous were her claims and so undocumented as to whom she put up there, before shifting some of the contents to another area, she even included my name on it. Besides having translated thousands of pages for the site commemorating Italians deported into Nazi camps, I’m known in Italy for having been involved in actions to nail Michael Seifert, the Nazi war criminal of the Bolzen Concentration Camp (see pages, 10, 11, 12, 13), so this placement on a page of "people who give support to Nazis, racists and holocaust deniers" is outrageous, as well as defamatory and false ...

...

'Back to the “famous” Nazi Alert list. Gilad Atzmon was on it, and still is on the “Removed links” page with this text:

“Gilad is Jewish (and plays great jazz) but there have been some disturbing reports about things he has allegedly said recently which appear to condone violence against civilians. Not sure whether he said them or not, but anyway I found his "Protocols of the Elders Of London" highly offensive, not least because it slagged off some of my closest Jewish comrades while cosying up to the highly dubious Israel Shamir. So long, Gilad, thanks for the music.”

“disturbing reports” – by whom?

“things he has allegedly said” – did he or didn’t he?

“appear to condone” – do they or don’t they?

“not sure whether he said them or not” – oh, but she sticks the idea in people’s heads of rumours as truth…. This is not a very firm basis to smear someone at levels that it creates something of a monster and anathema of them, but that did not stop Sue.

'Just like Sue, no one likes their friends being slagged off, but slagging off people seems to be the speciality of Sue and her own friends. Yet, if it is done, there should be a legitimate REASON for it and proof that there is something concrete behind the slagging. Crimes or instigation to crime, words and deeds that demonstrate the suppression of the rights of others, that sort of thing. Neither she nor her comrades could ever come up with a reason for it beyond affiliations that they have pumped to mean what they want them to mean, actions that they have blown out of proportion and wilfilly manipulated and distorted, and worst of all, intent. Wherever in the world does Sue Blackwell get the idea that Gilad Atzmon condones violence against civilians? Isn’t a claim that is this inflammatory and defamatory be one that should be substantiated? She has thrown the accusation around and hasn’t bothered to substantiate it in any way. Sue says it, that has to be enough.

Well, at a certain point, Gilad said to himself “Enough is enough,” and decided to have a London legal office look into the charges. Faced with having to actually substantiate her claims or face litigation, Sue Blackwell has now removed the text from the (nameless?) Poison Icon, created a separate page for Gilad, still full of insinuations, but inserted this text (errors in original) into the bottom of the page full of the people who are damaged goods (if they aren’t out and out Nazis, natürlich).

A note on Gilad Atzmon

My comments about Mr. Atzmon have been removed from this page at the request of his lawyers. I would like to make it clear that I have never called Mr. Atzmon a a nazi, a neo-nazi or a fascist. To the extent that readers of my website may have been misled into an impression that I regard Mr Atzmon as a Nazi sympathiser, I apologise to him.

And on the “former” Nazi Alert page writes:

“Please note: I have never suggested that Atzmon is a nazi. He just calls himself a "proud self-hating Jew" and has very poor taste in friends and politics, in my personal opinion.” [I agree fully].

'Well, if having poor taste in friends and political views that are in poor taste in her “personal opinion” is a hanging crime, get out the rope for Ms Blackwell herself.

'But, seriously, a question does remain and it should be an example and a reflection on how all of these smear campaigns start, grow, develop and ultimately end: if Gilad Atzmon is not and was not ever a Nazi or Nazi sympathiser, why did Sue Blackwell brand him as one or both for more than two years, lumping many others with him, and all of them with right-wingers? ... Now she is taking the advice of solicitors. Does someone slur just as long as they can get away with it, without any criterion besides “what people say” and stop doing it when threatened with litigation? Is this any way to operate in the task of campaigning for Palestinians?? Is this rendering service to their cause?'

Sue Blackwell and others have tried to combat anti-semitism and holocaust denial in the pro-Palestinian movement but it's entrenched. The site 'Holy Hoax: the Heretical Holocaust Museum' has this: 'We refuse to believe in dogmas' and mentions 'three core dogmas - a plan to kill most, if not all European Jews, 6 Million Jewish victims, and the use of chemical slaughter houses - is treated like medieval heresy ...' There are many pro-Palestinian anti-Israel activists who would agree, and many who, to their credit, would oppose this wholeheartedly.

But these opponents have overlooked or ignored the anti-semitism and holocaust denial to be found amongst Palestinians. Just a few examples, from the site Palestinian Media Watch which gives very disturbing insights into the Palestinian media: (Palestinian Media Watch is an Israeli organization, an excellent one, but a search for information and comment from other sources is recommended, of course.)

'Holocaust desecration, denial, and abuse, are all components of Palestinian Authority ideology. A PA TV children’s broadcast taught that Israel burned Palestinians in ovens, and at an exhibit in Gaza children put dolls in a model oven adorned with a Star of David and a swastika. A senior Palestinian academic taught adults on PA TV: “There was no Dachau, no Auschwitz; these were disinfecting sites.” A Hamas TV documentary explained that it was Jewish leaders who planned the Holocaust, in order to eliminate Jews who were "disabled and handicapped”.

A crossword puzzle clue in the official PA daily identified “Yad Vashem” (Israel’s Holocaust memorial) as a “Center for the Holocaust and Lies.” The same PA daily has published many articles denying the Holocaust, including one that termed the Holocaust a “hen laying golden eggs.”

'Source: Palestinian TV (Fatah), Nov. 29, 2000

Dr. Issam Sissalem, history lecturer, Islamic University Gaza, Palestinian expert on Jews and Judaism, appearing on PA TV educational program "Pages From Our History":
"Lies surfaced about Jews being murdered here and there, and the Holocaust. And of course these are all lies and unfounded claims. There was no Dachau, no Auschwitz! [They] were cleansing sites... '

'Mahmoud Abbas's thesis: Zionists were Nazi allies
Source: The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, by Mahmoud Abbas, Feb. 15, 1984
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s thesis, "The Other Side: The Secret Relations between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement" (Translation by Wiesenthal Center):
"A partnership was established between Hitler's Nazis and the leadership of the Zionist movement... [the Zionists] gave permission to every racist in the world, led by Hitler and the Nazis, to treat Jews as they wish, so long as it guarantees immigration to Palestine."

The 'Holy Hoax' Website has this as well:

'We consider Israel to be the most racist and evil country on this planet.'

Do Tony Greenstein, Sue Blackwell and the others disagree with this loathsome claim as well? If they disagree, why are they singling out Israel for boycotts? why do they give only Israel this pariah status? These are dangerously deluded people, surely, if not nearly as dangerously deluded as the contributors to 'Holy Hoax.'