2 Friday, January 15, 1982
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Purely Commentary
Columnist-Historian-Philosopher
Sydney Harris' Inexcusable
Blunders in Single Essay
Sydney Harris writes a popular column. He is
philosophic. He often touches on matters relating to the
historical. He touches upon social problems. When he blun-
ders and tampers with the innermost feelings of people, his
blunders become more inexcusable because one expects
better from him.
In a single column recently in the Detroit Free Press he
committed such blunders. When he wrote equating
Menahem Begirrwith Yasir Arafat, he encouraged a suspi-
cion that he does not read sufficiently, although he gives
the impression of being an authority in everything under
the sun. At a time when Israel Prime Minister Begin was
giving emphasis- on his adminsitration's determination to
be consistent in treatment of the Camp David agreement
and would withdraw on time from Sinai — in spite of the
protests of Jewish settlers in the area to be abandoned —
Harris was treating with respect the policies of the PLO
leader Arafat whose only aim is the destruction of Israel:
Though they are politically poles apart, Arafat
and Begin personally have more in common than
not: both are shrewd, narrow and fanatical, and
both will have to be supplanted before any real
dialogue can commence.
The Arafat program is Genocide and Harris subscribed
to Genocide with his approach to the Middle East issues by
equating Arafat with Begin. It was far from being a com-
mendable incitementin a column usually treated with the
utmost respect.
Then there was the second blunder, in the same. col-
umn, which was worded as an insult rather than an invita-
tion.to calm judgment. Harris wrote in that column:
The Israelis who objected to the playing of
Wagner's music in their country are as stupid and
provincial as the Germans who banned Jewish
composers during the Nazi regime; which only
proves that in psychology, as in physics, action
and reaction are equal.
There is insult added to injury in this comment. It
treats the sensibilities of the survivors from the most brutal
crimes in history as if they were villains.
The most eminent musicians are in. the ranks of those
who ask for elimination of Wagnerian music from public
symphonic programs. Julius Chajes, who is among the
eminent composers, recently wrote in disapproval of grant-
ing a platform to- the Wagnerian memory. Analyzing the
issue when it first arose in Israel several weeks ago, Gideon
Hausner, who was the prosecutor of Adolf Eichmarm, dealt
with the dispute rationally and calmly and offered views
Harris and the pro-Wagnerians had access to.
Hausner poses the question: "Is it possible to dissociate
Wagner's music from Wagner's Nazism, and listen to his
music with the elation which music deserves? Some people
say they can, others cannot. Everybody of course despises
Wagner's views, though it is not certain that everybody is
also acquainted with all the facts. Why is Wagner loath-
some?"
He provides the explanation:
It is not only because he was Hitler's inspira-
tion: not only because of what he wrote in his
despicable book "Jewry in Music" and in other
works in which he had transferred his jealous
hatred of Jewish composers, notably Meyerbeer
and Mendelssohn, to all Jews; not only because he
was one of the main precursors of rabid racism,
maintaining that all Jews were inferior creatures
who cared only for money; not only even because
his operas are interlaCed with Aryan superiority
and consequently with a bottomless hatred of
Jews. This would be reason enough to abhor him.
But he went even further: he actually called for
the physical destruction of the Jews.
The year was 1881, just a century ago. Terrible
pogroms had just swept through Ukraine. The
incited mob was murdering Jews, plundering
their homes and burning down their synagogues.
The slogan was: "Beat the Jews — Save Russia."
A wave of indignation followed in Europe, forc-
ing' the anti-Semitic czarist authorities to call a
shalt to the atrocities.
But not so the cultured Richard Wagner. To
him, the pogroms were an eye-opener; an example
to be followed and to be imitated in his own coun-
try. In an article published in Bayreuther Blatter,
he called on Germany "to know itself."
"See how it succeeded in Kiev," he wrote, glee-
ful over the murder of Jews. Then he added
an ominous appeal — to drive the Jews out in the
hope that they would find no shelter anywhere
and would thus ultimately disappear from the
face of the earth. Pogroms were a pattern advo-
cated by Wagner for Germany.
And this was eight years before-Hitler was born.
Wagner was two generations ahead of his time.
Wagner May Enchant Music Lovers, But That Does Not Excuse
Two Blunders in a Single Column by Writer Who Delves Into
History and Philosophy . . . Keeping the Biographical Records
Utterances like this and others in Wagner's
writings were later -fanfared by the Jew-baiter
Julius Streicher, the editor of Der Sturmer. The
International Tribunal at Nuremberg held his
fiery propaganda to have constituted incitement
to mass murder and, therefore, a crime against
humanity. For this, and for this alone, Streicher
was sentenced to death and hanged.
If anybody claims
that he personally can
divorce all these asso-
ciations from
Wagner's music, then
his system of intellec-
tual sensitivity is quite
different from that of
many other people.
Even if it were true —
and I don't believe it is
— that the majority of
Israelis support the
performance of
Wagner, the Israel
GIDE ON HAUSNER
Philharmonic ought
still to take into consideration the innermost feel
ings of the deeply offended minority. True democ
racy involves respect for such feelings.
Let it not be said that artistically, Wagner is " a
necessity." By not playing Wagner for over 4 0
years, the Philharmonic itself has established th
the
ban and has indicated that this music is unac-
ceptable to the Israeli public. Moreover, eve n
without including Wagner in its repertoire, th
the
Philharmonic has gained an honorable place i in
the world of music.
ll
The alleged
analogy to German products avail-
able in Israeli shops is completely misleading for
the simple reason that these goods, manufactured
in present-day Germany, do not generally invoke
the heart-rending associations with the
Holocaust. Wagner's music does. Why should the
national orchestra needlessly cause pain to many
people instead of bringing us joy and exaltation as
in the past?
"Artistic freedom" is not a valid answer. Before
turning to politics, Hitler was a water-color
painter. Would anybody propose an exhibition of
his pictures in Israel? If the argument of "artistic
freedom" alone prevailed, there would be no
reason to abstain even from such a monstrosity,
or from playing the works of other Nazi compos-
ers less known than Wagner.
Last and not least, we should consider the feel-
ings of the survivors of the concentration camps
who had been exposed for many months to the
incessant flow of Wagner's music from the SS
caserns, especially when the murderers were re-
laxing after working overtime, which meant that
they had just packed the gas chambers to burst-
ing point.
For these survivors, Wagner's music produces a
reflex reaction. It brings to surface, automati-
cally, the most horrifying memories. Not only is it
excruciating for them to hear this music, but it is
also extremely painful and bewildering to them
Separation Principle
By Philip
Slomovitz
that others can derive pleasure from it. Why
should this suffering be inflicted on people who
have already suffered so much?
The orchestra was founded by Huberman with
refugees from anti-Semitism in Europe.
Finally, a plea: The opposition to Wagner's
music is a matter fog public discussion, not for
violence. It must be resolved by reason, not by
fists. Let the Philharmonic, as it has announced,
study all the facts concerning "Wagneriana." If,
after that, it is still thick skinned enough to disre-
gard the deep feelings of a great part of our popu-
lation, let the disgust be expressed with a dignity
that is fitting to the occasion. For we are dealing
here with music and with the most sincere emo-
tions.
That two shockingly' abusive comments should
been included in a single column by a prominent wr,
cause for concern and deep regret. Harris did not invite
either understanding or compassion or resort to truth in
either case. Is there a way of properly rebuking such con-
duct?
CI]
,
(
Otto Lilienthal's Background:
His Non-Jewishness Noted
The section "Great Germans" in the current issue of
,the popular English-language magazine Scala, published
in Frankfurt, Germany, is devoted to the discoveries of Otto
Lilienthal.
Curiosity directed attention to the Lilienthal name as
it is treated in the Encyclopedia Judaica. The newest of
Jewish encyclopedias contains this item about the
aeronautics pioneer, whose mother was the daughter,of a
Protestant minister:
LILIENTHAL, OTTO (1848-1896), German in-
ventor and aeronaut. Born in Anklam,.
Pomerania, Lilienthal and his brother, Gustav,
studied the flight of birds and while still at school
succeeded in constructing a glider. During the
next few years the brother built many gliders and
executed a large number of flights.
Lilienthal demonstrated the superiority of
arched wings .over flat-surfaced types, and
brought gliding flight into regular practice. He
made over 2,000 flights, but finally while in flight
his machine was upset by a sudden guest of wind,
and he was killed near Rhinow.
He wrote "Der Vogelflug als Grundlage -der
Fliegekunst" (1939), and "Die Flugapparate"
(1894). Lilienthal also made technical improve-
ments -in steam boilers, and designed children's
building blocks. The Lilienthal brothers' Jewish
origin has been disputed.
The Scala article clarifies the latter quandary. Li-
lienthal was not a Jew, his mother's -Christian affiliation
now definitely determined.
It is to the credit of Encyclopedia Judaica that the note
of doubt about Lilienthal's Jewishness was attached to the
interesting piece about him.
The inclusion of his name in the Jewish encyclopedia
nevertheless raises the question of accuracy in all matters
relating to classifying people of eminence as Jews. It is a
delicate subject and it has always presented problems to
lexicographers.
. Avoiding Politicizing Religion
Judge William Overton has
his name indelibly
in the history of American libertarianism. In a period when
fundamentalism suddenly became a sacred cause in the
nation's political life, Federal Judge Overton ruled in de-
fense of the Separation principle in the Little Rock, Ark.,
Evolution versus Creation case.
It was during that period of conflict over the estab-
lished American ideal of keeping Church and State apart,
while respecting both, that the President of the United
States spoke religiously during the Christmas period. He
was undoubtedly honestly Christological, yet his remarks
necessitated a reminder of an ignored Americanism. That
reminder came from Rabbi Ben-Zion Gold, director,
Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel, who presented his views, which
were published as a letter to the New York Times, Jan. 7, as
follows:
In his address to the nation on Dec. - 23,
President Reagan dwelt on Christmas and its les-
son at some length.
Among the things he said was: we all renew our
sense of wonder in recalling the story of the first
Christmas in Bethlehem . . ." He then went on to
speak of the different ways in which people view
the birth of Jesus and concluded with, "Yes, we
have questioned why He who would perform
miracles chose to come among us as a helpless
babe." (Emphases added.)
Both theSe statements are expressions of Chris-
tian piety, appropriate for a congregation of
Christians. However, when the President of the
United States addresses the nation, his use of "we
all" or "we" refers to all Americans, including
those who are-not celebrating Christmas because
they are of another religious community.
True,,the President made reference to the
Jewish holiday of Hanuka, but it is this reference
which makes his "sermon" all the more disturb-
ing.
He said, "Just across the way from the White
House stand two great emblems of the holiday
season — a menora, symbolizing the Jewish festi-
val of Hanuka, and the National Christmas Tree
. ." (Emphasis added.)
Presidential addresses are carefully
scrutinized. One asks, therefore, Why such flag-
rant disregard of the religious sensibilities of
non-Christians? Surely, President Reagan is n- - -
proposing to do away with the First Amendmei.\
The President is an effective speaker. Does lie
not realize that the non-Christian children of this
nation who were listening to him were being
treated to a deeply perplexing lesson?
If the national "we" in the mouth of the
President means those who believe in Jesus and
who celebrate Christmas, what space has he left
for the others?
Truly, isn't religious fervor and genuine devotion
strengthened when it is not politicized? The President was
not motivated by partisanship. All the more reason for
caution to keep sanctity separated from politics.
Ci