By Michael Curtis, AMERICAN THINKER
This piece is written more in sorrow than in anger. Why is the left so often wrog about Israel?
Israel is a great country that has its problems, as do all countries and organizations, and sometimes, in the words of President Barack Obama, does “do stupid things.” Israel’s political culture has been shaped by many factors, especially its Zionist ideology, the resilience it has developed in fighting four wars, and the impact of incessant terrorist attacks that have caused disruptions in the life of the country.
But by any token the country is a remarkable success. Israel has integrated people from more than 100 countries into a diverse mosaic pattern in a democratic society of tolerance and freedom of expression and religion, not withstanding the still-existing inequalities and differences with Palestinian Arabs. It compares favorably with other democratic nations, scientifically, economically, and culturally with the largest number of art museums per capita of any country in the world.
Why then is a considerable part of those who consider themselves on the left, many of whom are well-meaning even if some are rabid anti-Semites, so critical and even hostile to the State of Israel, often to a greater degree than they are to almost all other countries? Why do those who consider themselves on the political “left” so eager to criticize Israel almost automatically, rather than acknowledge the contributions to science, medicine, innovations, and culture made by Israel in its 65 years of existence? The obvious answer is the Palestinian issue.
Since the French Revolution of 1789 originated the political terms “left” and “right” they have symbolized opposing political positions and ideologies. The Left has stood as the party of movement, progressive, calling for a more egalitarian society, supporting the underdog, and ending oppression and injustice. The Right has generally been regarded as the party of order.
But what is a “leftist” position on politics in the Middle East? Does it approve of the Hamas Charter that calls for the extermination of Israel? Does it mean sympathy for Islamist extremism, some of which can be seen as “Islamo-Fascism,” or for tribal and ethnic bigotry of Arabs, or for Arab dictatorial systems, or for expressions of unrelenting hatred of Jews? The silence, or occasional lip service, of many who proudly define themselves as “leftist” on the rising tide of antisemitism today and frequently expressed by Palestinian officials, can only be regarded as moral perversity.
In his tongue in cheek article in Social Text in 1996, Alan Sokol expressed concern about the increasing prevalence on the left of “a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking… that denies the existence of objective realities.” This is unfortunately applicable to well-meaning leftists who have tended to accept the validity of the Palestinian Narrative of Victimhood, that Palestinians are the most oppressed people in the world, that Israel is a cruel oppressor, and that the Arab-Israeli dispute is the most important in the world.
Do leftists have any real sense of right and wrong concerning Israel? Who of them criticized the fellow leftist German writer Gunter Grass, who joined as a young man the Waffen SS during the war, for his poem of April 2012 in which he called Israel a threat to world peace and aggressive towards Iran?
The result is that many on the “left” are in effect reactionaries, approving or silent about the attacks on democratic systems and even on Western civilization itself. They do not applaud a country in which there are peaceful, honest, elections, rule by secular law, and gay marches through the streets of Tel Aviv. Rather, though they are violating principles of free speech and the value of discussion, they refuse to approve speeches by black females such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Condeleezza Rice, call for boycotts of Israeli academic institutions and intellectual exchange. This in itself suggests a lack of sincerity about leftist adherence to their ideals of multiculturalism and of identity politics.
The essential question is why the “left” has reservations about criticizing the non-democratic countries, and specifically about the religious fanaticism in Arab Muslim countries. Even more strikingly, why cannot the “left” understand the basic hatred of Palestinians, as expressed by Abbas Zaki, a leader of Fatah, when speaking on August 22, 2014, regarding rocket attacks on Israel, “I think the Palestinian people’s weapon is pure… they don’t want to kill… but there are no innocent Israelis.”
The “left” critics, like others holding different political views, are concerned with problems concerning the disputed territories in Palestine and surrounding areas. But why do legitimate differences of opinion about the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict lead to mindless hostility and to Israel being regarded as a “pariah” state? It is true that Israel today is not a state with a Social Democratic ethos symbolized by kibbutzim. But why does this entail non-sensible accusations that Israel is a racist, imperialist, even an “apartheid” state, that has betrayed democratic ideals?
Proponents of the left, even those who were not anti-Semitic or Jews afraid of their Jewishness, or what Isaac Deutscher called “non-Jewish Jews,” always had doubts about Zionism. The traditional left saw the movement for Jewish self-determination as counter to universal socialism, and then, during the British Mandate, regarded Zionism as a tool of British imperialism, even though the Poale Zion, the party of David Ben-Gurion, was admitted into the Socialist International. Leftist perception of Israel became dogmatic with the so-called New Left in the late 1960s.
Of course, it is clear that after the god of communism has been proved a false god, except perhaps in North Korea and Cuba, leftists have no real lodestar to follow. As a substitute, they express a supposed concern about oppression by the West, and only by the West. Israel is seen as the remaining remnant of Western imperialism, as an associate or puppet of the U.S. trying to retain power in the Middle East.
Heroic struggle on behalf of Palestinians is typified as in the case of Edward Said by throwing rocks in June 2009 against an Israeli watchtower, or approving violence as a sign of individual authenticity as suggested by Jean-Paul Sartre and Carlo Fuentes. How many beheadings of innocent journalists and social workers have to take place before leftist begin to see the horrors of Islamist extremism and defend Western values?
Indeed, leftist moral indignation seems to relate only to actions of democratic countries. Or, outrageous behavior of Islamists is defended in bizarre terms: one instance is the explanation in June 2012 at Leeds University by Professor Gayatri Spivak of Columbia University. “Suicide bombing…and the planes of 9/11… is a purposive self-annihilation… they serenely destroy themselves (and many others) for the good of the cause.”
The difficult questions of Palestinian self-determination, of the disputed territories, of the refugees caused by the Arab aggression against Israel in May 1948, of the status of Jerusalem, of Israeli settlements, remain to be resolved by peaceful negotiation between the parties. They are issues on which the left can comment in rational and critical fashion. But the “leftists” who continually harp on the evils of “occupation” or discrimination are usually unaware of or discount the real factors, the main one being Palestinian intransigence, preventing the solution of alleged problems. Israel is not perfect and those problems have to be solved by discussion and negotiation. But the main one is the existential one, the survival of Israel.
Whatever one’s sympathy for the underdog, the Palestinians are not, in spite of leftist views, symbolic of those really fighting against colonial or oppressive rule in countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Their rhetoric is not addressed to helping their own people, nor on finding a way to live with Israel as a neighbor. Their expressions are to a large extent limited to hatred of the existence of the State of Israel, and frequently of Jews, irrespective of any particular Israeli actions.
Some leftists follow this point of view and its consequences. They ban drinking Coca Cola as they ban any relationship with cancer research in Israel. Some on the left have seen the pathological hated of Israel by Hamas as a radical political movement. They view homophobic, non-democratic, and religiously intolerant states and groups as worthy of support. One of the heroines of the left, Professor Judith Butler, referred on September 7, 2006 at UC Berkeley to the terrorist groups Hamas and Hizb’allah as “social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left.”
A final question: do those on the “left” supposedly concerned with the Palestinians approve of the goal expressed on October 29, 2006 by Mahmoud al-Zahar, Hamas’ foreign minister? His statement is clear, “Israel is a vile entity that has been implanted on our soil, and has no historical, religious, or cultural legitimacy… We say no to recognizing Israel, regardless of the price we have to pay.” He said that the day “we expel the Jews” is drawing near, and that they are headed for annihilation.
The decent people of the left can only be taken seriously if they deal with all the fictions of this irrational statement, if they raise voices to distance themselves from this kind of rhetoric. They should undertake the more difficult challenge of rational analysis of complex problems, including the highly controversial one of Israeli settlements, rather than adhere emotionally to a questionable Palestinian narrative of oppression.
This piece is written more in sorrow than in anger. Why is the left so often wrog about Israel?
Israel is a great country that has its problems, as do all countries and organizations, and sometimes, in the words of President Barack Obama, does “do stupid things.” Israel’s political culture has been shaped by many factors, especially its Zionist ideology, the resilience it has developed in fighting four wars, and the impact of incessant terrorist attacks that have caused disruptions in the life of the country.
But by any token the country is a remarkable success. Israel has integrated people from more than 100 countries into a diverse mosaic pattern in a democratic society of tolerance and freedom of expression and religion, not withstanding the still-existing inequalities and differences with Palestinian Arabs. It compares favorably with other democratic nations, scientifically, economically, and culturally with the largest number of art museums per capita of any country in the world.
Why then is a considerable part of those who consider themselves on the left, many of whom are well-meaning even if some are rabid anti-Semites, so critical and even hostile to the State of Israel, often to a greater degree than they are to almost all other countries? Why do those who consider themselves on the political “left” so eager to criticize Israel almost automatically, rather than acknowledge the contributions to science, medicine, innovations, and culture made by Israel in its 65 years of existence? The obvious answer is the Palestinian issue.
Since the French Revolution of 1789 originated the political terms “left” and “right” they have symbolized opposing political positions and ideologies. The Left has stood as the party of movement, progressive, calling for a more egalitarian society, supporting the underdog, and ending oppression and injustice. The Right has generally been regarded as the party of order.
But what is a “leftist” position on politics in the Middle East? Does it approve of the Hamas Charter that calls for the extermination of Israel? Does it mean sympathy for Islamist extremism, some of which can be seen as “Islamo-Fascism,” or for tribal and ethnic bigotry of Arabs, or for Arab dictatorial systems, or for expressions of unrelenting hatred of Jews? The silence, or occasional lip service, of many who proudly define themselves as “leftist” on the rising tide of antisemitism today and frequently expressed by Palestinian officials, can only be regarded as moral perversity.
In his tongue in cheek article in Social Text in 1996, Alan Sokol expressed concern about the increasing prevalence on the left of “a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking… that denies the existence of objective realities.” This is unfortunately applicable to well-meaning leftists who have tended to accept the validity of the Palestinian Narrative of Victimhood, that Palestinians are the most oppressed people in the world, that Israel is a cruel oppressor, and that the Arab-Israeli dispute is the most important in the world.
Do leftists have any real sense of right and wrong concerning Israel? Who of them criticized the fellow leftist German writer Gunter Grass, who joined as a young man the Waffen SS during the war, for his poem of April 2012 in which he called Israel a threat to world peace and aggressive towards Iran?
The result is that many on the “left” are in effect reactionaries, approving or silent about the attacks on democratic systems and even on Western civilization itself. They do not applaud a country in which there are peaceful, honest, elections, rule by secular law, and gay marches through the streets of Tel Aviv. Rather, though they are violating principles of free speech and the value of discussion, they refuse to approve speeches by black females such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Condeleezza Rice, call for boycotts of Israeli academic institutions and intellectual exchange. This in itself suggests a lack of sincerity about leftist adherence to their ideals of multiculturalism and of identity politics.
The essential question is why the “left” has reservations about criticizing the non-democratic countries, and specifically about the religious fanaticism in Arab Muslim countries. Even more strikingly, why cannot the “left” understand the basic hatred of Palestinians, as expressed by Abbas Zaki, a leader of Fatah, when speaking on August 22, 2014, regarding rocket attacks on Israel, “I think the Palestinian people’s weapon is pure… they don’t want to kill… but there are no innocent Israelis.”
The “left” critics, like others holding different political views, are concerned with problems concerning the disputed territories in Palestine and surrounding areas. But why do legitimate differences of opinion about the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict lead to mindless hostility and to Israel being regarded as a “pariah” state? It is true that Israel today is not a state with a Social Democratic ethos symbolized by kibbutzim. But why does this entail non-sensible accusations that Israel is a racist, imperialist, even an “apartheid” state, that has betrayed democratic ideals?
Proponents of the left, even those who were not anti-Semitic or Jews afraid of their Jewishness, or what Isaac Deutscher called “non-Jewish Jews,” always had doubts about Zionism. The traditional left saw the movement for Jewish self-determination as counter to universal socialism, and then, during the British Mandate, regarded Zionism as a tool of British imperialism, even though the Poale Zion, the party of David Ben-Gurion, was admitted into the Socialist International. Leftist perception of Israel became dogmatic with the so-called New Left in the late 1960s.
Of course, it is clear that after the god of communism has been proved a false god, except perhaps in North Korea and Cuba, leftists have no real lodestar to follow. As a substitute, they express a supposed concern about oppression by the West, and only by the West. Israel is seen as the remaining remnant of Western imperialism, as an associate or puppet of the U.S. trying to retain power in the Middle East.
Heroic struggle on behalf of Palestinians is typified as in the case of Edward Said by throwing rocks in June 2009 against an Israeli watchtower, or approving violence as a sign of individual authenticity as suggested by Jean-Paul Sartre and Carlo Fuentes. How many beheadings of innocent journalists and social workers have to take place before leftist begin to see the horrors of Islamist extremism and defend Western values?
Indeed, leftist moral indignation seems to relate only to actions of democratic countries. Or, outrageous behavior of Islamists is defended in bizarre terms: one instance is the explanation in June 2012 at Leeds University by Professor Gayatri Spivak of Columbia University. “Suicide bombing…and the planes of 9/11… is a purposive self-annihilation… they serenely destroy themselves (and many others) for the good of the cause.”
The difficult questions of Palestinian self-determination, of the disputed territories, of the refugees caused by the Arab aggression against Israel in May 1948, of the status of Jerusalem, of Israeli settlements, remain to be resolved by peaceful negotiation between the parties. They are issues on which the left can comment in rational and critical fashion. But the “leftists” who continually harp on the evils of “occupation” or discrimination are usually unaware of or discount the real factors, the main one being Palestinian intransigence, preventing the solution of alleged problems. Israel is not perfect and those problems have to be solved by discussion and negotiation. But the main one is the existential one, the survival of Israel.
Whatever one’s sympathy for the underdog, the Palestinians are not, in spite of leftist views, symbolic of those really fighting against colonial or oppressive rule in countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Their rhetoric is not addressed to helping their own people, nor on finding a way to live with Israel as a neighbor. Their expressions are to a large extent limited to hatred of the existence of the State of Israel, and frequently of Jews, irrespective of any particular Israeli actions.
Some leftists follow this point of view and its consequences. They ban drinking Coca Cola as they ban any relationship with cancer research in Israel. Some on the left have seen the pathological hated of Israel by Hamas as a radical political movement. They view homophobic, non-democratic, and religiously intolerant states and groups as worthy of support. One of the heroines of the left, Professor Judith Butler, referred on September 7, 2006 at UC Berkeley to the terrorist groups Hamas and Hizb’allah as “social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left.”
A final question: do those on the “left” supposedly concerned with the Palestinians approve of the goal expressed on October 29, 2006 by Mahmoud al-Zahar, Hamas’ foreign minister? His statement is clear, “Israel is a vile entity that has been implanted on our soil, and has no historical, religious, or cultural legitimacy… We say no to recognizing Israel, regardless of the price we have to pay.” He said that the day “we expel the Jews” is drawing near, and that they are headed for annihilation.
The decent people of the left can only be taken seriously if they deal with all the fictions of this irrational statement, if they raise voices to distance themselves from this kind of rhetoric. They should undertake the more difficult challenge of rational analysis of complex problems, including the highly controversial one of Israeli settlements, rather than adhere emotionally to a questionable Palestinian narrative of oppression.
@ yamit82:
To difficult for me to accomplish. I appreciate your effort and sentiments. I am busy today preparing for the party. Do keep in touch even if I cannot respond immediately.
honeybee Said:
I screwed up and don’t know yet how to correct it. It wasn’t geller I think but I change some details and Disgus blocked it on all of there sites.
The site still works for me and you would have to change your email details to get in I think. Go to skype it’s the best safest and most secure way. Nobody exxept you will know your private details or mine because we must approve anyone he might want to enter either of our sites….. Good system and very secure. Offfers online telephone calls through the computer as well. What I’m interested now is the availability to text with security.
@ honeybee:
HB Down load Skype from here http://filehippo.com/download_skype if you don’t already have it.
My address is roden_s once you make contact I will approve you and you me,
Then we can Text chat off line freely with complete security.
yamit82 Said:
I go there
yamit82 Said:
I do whisper, but the new blog site you recommended with accept any of my passwords. Yesterday morning there was no problem. Then something happen.
@ honeybee:
Too cryptic for me. You will have to whisper it to me softly so no one will hear.
@ honeybee:
Go Here and bookmark this link
or this
yamit82 Said:
Man proposes and G-d disposes.
honeybee Said:
No they got the IP blocked I’ll have to change computers
or find a more suitable venue alternative if I can’t get mine to work for you.
yamit82 Said:
I left a message on” like”. Take you migraine and go to bed.
No I see no link connection to the matter at hand but you can be a little more specific I would appreciate it it late here and I have a migraine.
yamit82 Said:
Short drive that!!!!!!!!!! Work perfectly this morning.
@ honeybee:
Doing the best I can under pressure so I will persever and get it right. EVENTUALLY!!!!
Not blaming just trying to solve a problem I don’t as yet understand and it’s driving me nuts!!!!!!!!
yamit82 Said:
Always blame the women.
@ honeybee:
Try this
They all work for me so It might be you?
I added two more items and all the comments are open take you pick.
@ yamit82:
Not luck !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am pissed!!!!!!!!!! Men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yamit82 Said:
Que, como qual
@ honeybee:
Go to the first item on this blog it’s open
yamit82 Said:
Not fond of European or leftist. Vinegar and sugar. The secret to Swedish cooking sweet/sour, eggs, butter. Sweden is a cold country and it’s food is calories packed.
As for PG, change you handle to Ranger boy.
@ honeybee:
no entiendo????
@ honeybee:
No but I took the chance anyway.
You are spit and vinegar tonight.
yamit82 Said:
Should I be surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ honeybee:
PG have blocked my comments 🙁
@ yamit82:
Ranger danger: http://www.westernjournalism.com/us-airways-fire-disgraceful-treatment-decorated-soldier/?utm_source=MailChimp&utm_medium=email&utm_content=top-story&utm_campaign=DailyEmail10.11.14
A lot leftist Jews and and liberal Jews need to change their personalities to see the truth of Islam. Until then they support Islam.
yamit82 Said:
It still has its legs crossed, it work so well this this morning. Don’t fix what ain’t broke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ honeybee:
Below where it say closed press previous post and it shoul return you to open.
@ honeybee:
Merde works. I know what happened.
@ honeybee:
Merde!!!!!
@ honeybee:
Try this
honeybee Said:
I’ll work on and let you know I get in OK. I have to learn how to operate the dam thing never was very good at tech stuff it’s all Greek to me.
That’s why I dropped it 5 years ago. I have to relearn all the tweaks. You can’t get in at all? What does it tell you?
The old adage if it ain’t broke don’t try to fix it seems to be correct. Left you a song.
@ honeybee:
honeybee Said:
Six shooter eh? If I ever get the chance I’ll have to where my superman suit.
@ yamit82:
you not Dag made a mess. am completely furblungent. TX say UT cheerleader wear chaps.
@ yamit82:
G@ honeybee:
Gotta take Dag out will be back soon.
@ honeybee:
Dunno I was tweaking and might have done something inadvertently. Try again or re register
@ yamit82:
Mark Twain has shut the book on me, how come, my fault?
yamit82 Said:
Oh, Darlin they smell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TX say I forgot to add six-shooter to the list.
@ honeybee:
Depends if it rains like last night. You know what happens when chaps, stetsons and especially spurs get wet?
@ yamit82:
You mean nine months from now Israel will be over run with Succoth babies.
@ yamit82:
Beautiful: this is what it’s all about Dove
dove Said:
You liked that?
I’m pleased.
@ yamit82:
What goes on in the sukkat…..STAYS in the sukkat! 🙂
It brought back memories from when I was on the ‘outside’. I remember when there were some Israeli families here on sabatacle and they had built a sukkot.
They partied til all hours of the night – dancing – singing. A neighbour and I were sitting out in our yard listening to their joy and thought… maybe being religious isn’t so bad. They sound like they are having alot more fun than us!!
@ dove:
What happened in the Succah????
Shalom ,
I really need your help with this, please share it.
Israeli cattle ranches and their passive European cattle are under attack by jackals, wolves and Arabs/Bedouin. And they are stealing our ancestral pasture and grazing land.
These cattle do not fit Israel’s hostile desert environment.
The Israel Longhorn Project can solve these problems.
Texas Longhorn cattle have a smaller carbon footprint; they use less water, less land and are adaptable to Israel’s very hostile desert environment. Texas Longhorn can defend themselves and their calves by simply threatening with their sharp horns.
We are working with; The Israeli Border Police, the New Shomrim, Israel’s Agriculture Department, the Prime Minister’s office, Chaim Dyan of AMBAL, (Israel Cattle Breeders Association), and many Israeli ranchers.
Help us reach our goal of $275,000 to start the project. A nominal donation of $250 from 1100 generous supporters will get us started.
The problem: http://youtu.be/hMF12Ru–yw
Texas Longhorn cattle will allow our ranchers to use less land, feed and water while at the same time producing the same amount of beef.
Robin Rosenblatt M.Sc. Hebrew University, School of Agriculture
The Longhorn Project
22 Yarnall Place
Redwood City, CA 94063
Tel: 650.631.9270 / 03.722.6108
robin@longhornproject.org
http://longhornproject.org
Nonprofit 501(c) 3 #74-3177354
@ mar55:
Canadians are finally waking up to reality. It has been divulged that 63 known terrorists who trained abroad are back on Canadian soil. They are planning attacks in Canada. Intelligence claims that they are planning shootings in malls and public beheadings and it was time to let the public know that these are real threats that they plan to carry out.
Sooooo life is normal here?
Shabbat shalom!
@ mar55:
mar55 Said:
The Mexican adore him, Del pueblo el es!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dElTHWbG1bk
mar55 Said:
Be blamed being held back from true stardom to antisemitism and the fact he was not a Homosexual.
Yet he was always working and did well financially.
@ yamit82:
I have been to several operas where the understudy filling in for a last minute cancellation by a tenor or a star soprano was better than the one schedule to sing.
City Opera was alive and doing very well under Beverly Sills administration. Rudolph Bing the musical director at the Met was a tyrant who for many years did not allowed Beverly Sills to sing at the Met. He had his favorite such as Renata Tebaldi who could do not wrong. A great soprano but he was not fair to Beverly. Sills had a smaller voice than Tebaldi or Callas. Being a very intelligent woman she used her voice so cleverly and to her advantage. Beverly became famous at the competing City Opera next door to the Met. Eventually she got to sing at the Met. to the delight of the audience. She became one of the box office sell-outs when she performed. She had a mos beautiful voice. Eventually and I forget some part of how. She became the music director Of City Opera next door at Lincoln Center. The success of City Opera has been well documented. Her discerning ear gave an opportunity to many gifted singers who started their successful careers At CO and became famous. It was great competition for the proud
tyrant next door. After her death under different management without the charismatic personality to raise funds it folded. It was a pleasure as long as City Opera existed. I suspect that Bing was probably anti-Semite but have no proof of it. He eventually died of Alzheimer. I was going to relate about his demise but better to remember the good things. She ran the Opera House like a military man. Complete authority and had everyone under his command. His aim for perfection had many singers in tears in more than one occasion.
You are right about your father being a dramatic tenor. Othello is an opera for a dramatic tenor. One of Domingo’s best roles was Othello. A lyrical tenor would not make a good Othello. Pavarotti after many years of a successful career when he had become a spinto did try Othello but was not at the same level as Domingo’s Othello. Contrary to popular perceptions, they were friends. Doming and Pavarotti did own condos on the same building very close to the Met. They were fiends.
Your father in law was as many of the famous operatic figures a real character. Unfortunately in the operatic circles being Jewish can go against your career. In New York City the Arts have attracted donors wealthy and political. Politics should not have a place in the arts but as the donors become part of the boards I guess it is inevitable.
BTW Levine, the conductor of the Metropolitan opera orchestra, has conducted auditions behind a curtain. He could not see the musician only listen to his playing. I do not know if it is still done. At one point the Met Orchestra performance was better than the NY Philharmonic.
Live it to a Jewish brain and everything works very well.
@ mar55:
My father in law was a dramatic tenor as opposed to lyric His forte and best roll according to critics and reviews was Othello. He sang Neapolitan songs as good as any. He studied for many years in Italy and 20 years worked mostly in Europe especially in Holland. Came to the States understudied lead tenors at the Met. played NYC opera leads. performed In the Met touring company. In his last years he had Parkinsons and for a short time I was the care giver. Not fun. His kids put him in a home and he killed himself by starving himself I suppose due to depression over his condition.
Funny guy though once he was visiting and I had put my dogs kibble in a bowl which was on the coffee table and he actually ate some. I didn’t say anything but removed the dog food he said they were quite tasty.
I got stories about him that wold make a great movie.
@ yamit82:
For some reason the system did not allow me to correct the previous comment.
I was not a wealthy patron of the Met. Only a patron at the lowest level with some benefits. Not a wealthy person who does not knows jack about opera. I grew up listenig to operas and, knowledgeable adults discussing it. Not the snob appeal that it is for many people. When I go to the opera it is for enjoyment not to be seen. Many of these people leave the opera before the first act finishes. Forgive me, English is not my first language and I need to correct the text.
@ yamit82:
@ honeybee:
I think I can clarify something about Domingo.
He was born in Spain but grew up in Mexico. When talking with the Spaniards he sounds Spaniard. The rest of the time he sounds Mexican.
His parents own and ran a zarzuela company in Mexico. Both Zarzuela proceeds from Spain and it is a short operatic presentation similar to an operetta but shorter and less complicated than an opera. I’m not talking about being uncomplicated perhaps in the singing but he presentation itself is not of the same magnitude as an opera.
His parents both did sing zarzuelas. His mother was a soprano and his father a baritone. Domingo grew up listening to his parents sing and, to this day; even though he has the range of a tenor, he sounds like a baritone. For awhile he took lessons with the master of all tenors technically speaking Alfredo Kraus who in spite of his name is considered a Spaniard because he was born in the Canary Islands. After taking some coaching from Mr. Kraus he develop the sound of a tenor but. So many years listening to his father sing…Well I would call him a baritone with an extension. His diction is terrible and, he rushes and goes s bit too fast in most arias. He went to school in Mexico. The Marist Brothers to be exact.
Pavarotti on the other hand has perfect diction. In the history of opera there has never been anyone with Pavarotti’s diction. He pronounces every word, every syllable so clearly that at times is like listening to a poem.
His voice is a pure lyrical tenor. AS he became older he turned into a spinto. The combination of the voice and his diction made of him something unique. Even the famous Caruso could not compare. I do not blame you HB for liking Pavarotti better. Personality wise Domingo is friendlier, more gregarious than Pavarotti. Very pleasant fellow. Pavarotti on the other hand is sort of shy. He does not comes across as a friendly person. In spite of following and his fame at times he seems insecure. Many people at the Met hated him because of his last minute cancellations.
Domingo is energetic and always willing to please the board or anyone who will ask him to do any operatic changes. He is a management dream.
About your father in law. If you send me his stage name I”ll be glad to tell you his entire history. I’m not any longer a patron at the Met (now less than ever) but still should be able to access the files where I can find the information. That is if the present slime of Peter Gelb has not changed the system. Even some traditional operas like La Traviata has been performed in modern fashions. Some even with cell phones. The biggest AH in the history of the Met. What a SH. Last time I saw the slime was at a Patron’s dress rehearsal and was acting like the politician he is with his crooked smile which I would like to erased from his hypocritical face.