Yoel Arbeitman replies to me:

>>The de facto ban, however, certainly doesn't make that society any
>>more attractive to me than, say, Pat Robertson's World o' Homophobia.
>
>This is an amazing comparison.  Playing Wagner to an audience which
>did not come to hear it is sort of like rape.

No, THIS is an amazing comparison -- or rhetorical inflation, if you
prefer.  There's lots of music played for me that I don't come to hear,
and if I had been sort-of raped by it, I think I would have known.

>The de facto ban is out of respect to survivors who still are alive.

I can't even imagine the horrors camp survivors went through.  The fact
that survivors function at all, let alone with the dignity and grace of
most is a miracle to me.  And, of course, many have triumphed to the
extent that they enjoy Wagner's music.  However, you make it sound as
if those offended by Wagner had no choice but to sit there and take it.
In the accounts I've read, Barenboim had separated the Wagner part from
the regular concert, giving the audience the chance to get up en masse
and walk out.  Perhaps those affected might stay home or leave the hall
temporarily, rather than dictate their taste.  It's like almost every
censorship: the action is always in the name of some higher good -- the
welfare of children, the moral purity of society.  Practically, it simply
means that a few control the intellectual lives of many.

>No one is hurt in the way that Mr. Robertson might be hurting some
>persons.  This is an extreme comparison in my view.  And of course
>anyone can have CDs or DVDs of Wagner.  I assure you that there is
>no such censorship.

Except, as you say, in the concert hall.  As to no one is hurt, we could
debate that.  I would contend that it fosters an attitude of ignorant
hate which does nobody any good.  And when the last survivor has died,
I'd be willing to bet another excuse, in the name of something good,
true, and beautiful, will be found for keeping Wagner's music out of
Israeli public venues.

>>The concert in Ramallah is a gesture, but an important one: a gift that
>>recognizes the humanity of the other.
>
>One not reciprocated, Steve, that is the thrust of what I have to say.

Have you actually asked anybody on the other side, not normally interviewed
by CNN?  The article, by the way, seems to indicate otherwise, but perhaps
that's just propoganda.  And we're not talking sudden conversions here,
but about a very small step, I think in the right direction.

Steve Schwartz