Non Ho Culpa

oh, the lovely taste of irony in the -- well, at any time of day.

so i notice that the berlin opera is gearing up for a rather intemperate future "audience" at its staging of mozart's idomeneo. i say "gearing up" because the berlin opera is installing metal detectors and other weapon-detecting devices at its entrance. i say "audience" because these devices are meant to prevent angry muslim extremists from blowing the place up when they see a staging of their prophet getting beheaded. these extremists, who have yet to materialize, are not your grandfather's opera aficionadoes -- unless of course your grandfather wanted to blow up an opera house when it saw its idol artfully degraded.

i think it's safe to say that we all recognize how ridiculous muslim extremists are. we recognize the need we all have for uninhibited artistic expression -- even if certain audiences think the "art" is offensive, stupid, and ill-considered (see the former UPN, anything britney spears has done, and of course the entire sandra bullock ouvre).

but aren't open societies -- societies that are at the forefront of quality of life for their citizens -- predicated on a shared willingness to entertain and explore any kind of expressive speech, be it offensive or brilliant or just plain low-brow (again -- UPN, britney spears, sandra bullock)?

hmmm -- granted. but, then, what of jimmy carter? what of this country's "discussion" of israeli policy toward palestinians and the sad sad bashing of his book for its alleged "anti-semitism" (i hardly need to link anywhere, though if you've been under a rock start with michael kinsley's review in the washington post for an idea of how unfairly carter is being treated)? i say "discussion" because virtually no where in this country is there an honest parsing of israel's conduct toward an occupied people. and i don't mean israeli treatment of suicide bombers. for, as carter details in his new book, the israeli army is completely justified in killing former or current terrorists. whether or not suicide bombing is a reaction to the desolate conditions of military occupation is irrelevant.

i say "anti-semitism" because carter makes exactly this point time and again. he also stresses the miserable and quite certainly illegal conditions under which native inhabitants of palestine are forced to live under. this is not a judgment about any essential idea of "jewishness." not in the least.

it's a socio-political analysis of state oppression and quite a lively one at that.

or not. and that's the point. let's at least talk about it. let's grant, at the beginning of this "discussion," that criticism of israeli governmental policy is NOT anti-semitism. then deal with carter's ideas and opinions on their merits. certainly there is a lot to disagree with from a policy perspective (though, if you haven't already imagined, i largely agree with him). i find myself, if we're being disagreeable now, a bit uncomfortable with the christian agenda he pushes -- but i'm not calling him a born again freak. i'm simply saying his analysis is at times a bit too fraught with christian symbolism to maintain a realistic claim on both parties.

i hate to say it -- actually, i relish saying it, so kiss off -- but until americans, who are right in condemning muslim extremist censorship, are willing to have a frank discussion about the ramifications of israeli policy in the occupied territories, we deserve the UPN. and britney. and sandra.