Anti-Israel Protesters Disrupt Classical Music for All at BBC;

[jbg]

Earlier today, anti-Israel chants disrupted a performance of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra intended for broadcast. When Mehta stepped up to conduct Bruch's violin concerto, he was drowned out by chants and shouts of a largely uncivilized audience. Music lovers got a riot rather than a stimulating cultural evening. Link to story in headline, excerpts below:

Anti-Israel protests disrupt BBC Proms concert

(link)

Protesters have disrupted the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra's BBC Proms concert at London's Royal Albert Hall.

Several demonstrators in the hall shouted as Zubin Mehta stood to conduct Bruch's violin concerto. The rest of the audience booed in response.

BBC Radio 3 said it had to interrupt its live broadcast twice "as a result of sustained audience disturbance".

**********************

The BBC's Tom Symonds said: "As Zubin Mehta stood up and began each piece a small group of protesters each time tried to stop the music.

"They sang, they shouted, they were met by boos by the audience and they had to be removed by the security staff."

**********************

Theartsdesk.com music reviewer Igor Toronyi-Lalic, who was at the show, said: "The whole hall was groaning and trying to slow clap them out.

"It had the atmosphere of a riot."

Edited September 7, 2011 by jbg

[Bonam]

I really don't understand these "protesters". Even if they had a legitimate grievance, don't they have better things to do? Don't they have a life at all? Trolling classical music symphonies? Seriously? I condemn human rights abuses, in, say, Syria, but will you see me wasting time yelling and making a nuisance at some event where a Syrian is performing? Nope, never, not a chance, I got better things to do. I don't know whether it's a good or bad reflection on our societies that people have so much spare time and money that they'd waste it on things like this.

[jbg]

Seriously? I condemn human rights abuses, in, say, Syria, but will you see me wasting time yelling and making a nuisance at some event where a Syrian is performing? Nope, never, not a chance, I got better things to do.

That about sums it up.

[Wild Bill]

I really don't understand these "protesters". Even if they had a legitimate grievance, don't they have better things to do? Don't they have a life at all? Trolling classical music symphonies? Seriously? I condemn human rights abuses, in, say, Syria, but will you see me wasting time yelling and making a nuisance at some event where a Syrian is performing? Nope, never, not a chance, I got better things to do. I don't know whether it's a good or bad reflection on our societies that people have so much spare time and money that they'd waste it on things like this.

I don't understand either, Bonam. I do understand their "official" reasoning. They want attention and publicity for their cause.

What to me doesn't make sense is that usually their actions just don't do that! Rather, they just look like assh*les!

Once again I think it "religious" thinking rather than rational thought. The protesters think that their cause is so "holy" that if people's attention is drawn to it that will be enough! They will be so awed as to instantly become converts to the faith!

The protesters appear to lack even the basic concept of convincing others to their cause with evidence and reason.

Or as Manny, the lead character in Robert Heinlein's book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" called them - "yammerheads"!

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't know whether it's a good or bad reflection on our societies that people have so much spare time and money that they'd waste it on things like this.

Or on threads like this.

[Saipan]

The British government is the real culprit - for letting them into the country.

[jbg]

Or on threads like this.

Obviously you're here.

[Sir Bandelot]

Obviously you're here.

I don't understand what it is you want to discuss. There is no question in the OP.

And the title is misleading too.

[jbg]

I don't understand what it is you want to discuss. There is no question in the OP.

And the title is misleading too.

I was putting ut there the creeping delegitimization of Israel, and the fact that the authorities did not ensure that the show went on sans the "protesters".

[Sir Bandelot]

I was putting ut there the creeping delegitimization of Israel, and the fact that the authorities did not ensure that the show went on sans the "protesters".

It seems that they were just a minority who hold extreme views, or views that were wholly out of place in that venue.

As evidenced by the line in your post "they were met by boos by the audience and they had to be removed by the security staff.... The whole hall was groaning and trying to slow clap them out."

So, not to fear. Sounds like Israel is still legitimized

[jacee]

I don't understand either, Bonam. I do understand their "official" reasoning. They want attention and publicity for their cause.

What to me doesn't make sense is that usually their actions just don't do that! Rather, they just look like assh*les!

Once again I think it "religious" thinking rather than rational thought. The protesters think that their cause is so "holy" that if people's attention is drawn to it that will be enough! They will be so awed as to instantly become converts to the faith!

The protesters appear to lack even the basic concept of convincing others to their cause with evidence and reason.

Or as Manny, the lead character in Robert Heinlein's book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" called them - "yammerheads"!

They certainly got the publicity! They also put the Israeli government on notice that their aggression has consequences for all international ventures, including cultural.

All in all, a very successful protest, meaning there will be more of similar nature. Too bad they didn't think to bikelock themselves together to prevent their removal by security.

"Yammerheads" ... would be anybody who exercises freedom of speech?

Edited September 5, 2011 by jacee

[jbg]

They certainly got the publicity! They also put the Israeli government on notice that their aggression has consequences for all international ventures, including cultural.

All in all, a very successful protest, meaning there will be more of similar nature. Too bad they didn't think to bikelock themselves together to prevent their removal by security.

"Yammerheads" ... would be anybody who exercises freedom of speech?

Given your intense dislike of Jews this post does not surprise me in the least.

[Wild Bill]

They certainly got the publicity! They also put the Israeli government on notice that their aggression has consequences for all international ventures, including cultural.

All in all, a very successful protest, meaning there will be more of similar nature. Too bad they didn't think to bikelock themselves together to prevent their removal by security.

"Yammerheads" ... would be anybody who exercises freedom of speech?

"Yammerheads" ... would be anybody who exercises freedom of speech?" Not at all! It's not a yammerhead speaking that makes him a yammerhead. It's what he says!

A yammerhead is someone who if your city is dying as businesses keep closing and/or moving, will insist the agenda be switched to the discussion of bike lanes!

Or a union negotiator who brags about the contract he won, while six months later the plant closes down.

Or like a local politician here in my town of Hamilton, Ontario who, while acknowledging that our business and residential taxes are the highest in the province thus driving new business away, our roads and streets are a minefield of cracks and potholes and our city core looks like downtown Detroit, prides himself on initiating a "flowers on every street median" program!

Or, again using the Arab/Israeli conflict as an example, a yammerhead is someone who expects Israel to just smile and do nothing while rockets rain down on them! I don't agree with everything Israel does either but that idea is just whacked!

In the book I mentioned, the lead character normally couldn't care less about yammerheads but once caught up in a political movement finds himself forced to listen to yammerheads who all have unworkable ideas that they expect SOMEONE ELSE (mainly him!) to implement!

Edited September 6, 2011 by Wild Bill

[jacee]

Given your intense dislike of Jews this post does not surprise me in the least.

Correction: Intense dislike of Israeli aggression, as do many Jews. Edited September 6, 2011 by jacee

[jacee]

"Yammerheads" ... would be anybody who exercises freedom of speech?" Not at all! It's not a yammerhead speaking that makes him a yammerhead. It's what he says!

A yammerhead is someone who if your city is dying as businesses keep closing and/or moving, will insist the agenda be switched to the discussion of bike lanes!

Or a union negotiator who brags about the contract he won, while six months later the plant closes down.

Or like a local politician here in my town of Hamilton, Ontario who, while acknowledging that our business and residential taxes are the highest in the province thus driving new business away, our roads and streets are a minefield of cracks and potholes and our city core looks like downtown Detroit, prides himself on initiating a "flowers on every street median" program!

Or, again using the Arab/Israeli conflict as an example, a yammerhead is someone who expects Israel to just smile and do nothing while rockets rain down on them! I don't agree with everything Israel does either but that idea is just whacked!

In the book I mentioned, the lead character normally couldn't care less about yammerheads but once caught up in a political movement finds himself forced to listen to yammerheads who all have unworkable ideas that they expect SOMEONE ELSE (mainly him!) to implement!

/thread drift.

These protesters were successful.

[bloodyminded]

I don't agree with everything Israel does either but that idea is just whacked!

Like what, for example?

[bloodyminded]

The title of the OP seems disingenuous at best.

Protests against Israel do not automatically connote "bigotry." We've come to a pretty pass when such assertions become all-too common.

Having said that, I can't get behind these protesters. There are times when folks should be left alone. To claim that the musicians are "complicit" in any bad behaviour by Israel is only true in the broadest, most institutional sense, in the way that people of all democracies can be argued to share responsibility. Israelis are certainly not unique in such matters, so I wouldn't personally think they should be singled out.

Sharing in the arts is a positive thing, and should be celebrated.

I've said elsewhere that there is an irritating component to the activist Left that relies on disruption of one sort or another.

And while I'm not flatly opposed to the very idea of disruption for activist purposes, I think a little more reflection is often in order, a more civic-minded response. Such things can work, perhaps, but they take organization and dedication, and a strict adherence to behaving well. I mean this not only for its own sake--but even for the sake of the protesters' own causes. Ultimately, you want folks to sympathize with your cause...therefore, act sympathetically.

As I've told pro-lifers: if you want to get people onto your side, calling them "babykillers" is no doubt precisely counter-productive. Something vaguely similar applies here.

[jbg]

Protests against Israel do not automatically connote "bigotry." We've come to a pretty pass when such assertions become all-too common.

I appreciate the rest of your post. What do you think would be a better thread title?

[bloodyminded]

I appreciate the rest of your post. What do you think would be a better thread title?

Oh, heck, I don't know. I might even have left out "anti-Israel," as it's loaded...though I can understand that part, it's true. (Notice we never hear about "anti-Palestinians"--though there are plenty--instead, they are always the benign-sounding "pro-Israel.")

"Protesters Disrupt Classical Music at BBC" doesn't have much bite, but that's probably about what I'd write. But then, what do I know?

[Argus]

I don't understand what it is you want to discuss. There is no question in the OP.

And the title is misleading too.

I think all the protestors should have been arrested and held until they paid a collective fine which reimbursed the audience for the cost of their tickets.

[Saipan]

As I've told pro-lifers: if you want to get people onto your side, calling them "babykillers" is no doubt precisely counter-productive. Something vaguely similar applies here.

Just like common to blame sportsmen for somethng like Columbine shooting by Wendy's and Brady's bunch.

[bloodyminded]

Just like common to blame sportsmen for somethng like Columbine shooting by Wendy's and Brady's bunch.

I don't know what you mean by "Wendy's and Brady's bunch," and I'm not sure how common it is, but yes, I can see some sort of rough comparison here if I understand you correctly.

Edited September 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

The title of the OP seems disingenuous at best.

Protests against Israel do not automatically connote "bigotry."

These ones do. Punishing/disrupting an event simply based on the national origin of some of its performers/participants is a sure sign of bigotry. Or do you not consider discrimination based on national origin to be a form of bigotry? As you said, these musicians have no specific complicity in any alleged wrongdoing, no more than general citizens of any country do for the actions of their government. Therefore, targeting them in a protest means targeting someone merely because they are Israeli. Hence the very apt description, anti-Israeli bigotry.

Same goes for academic boycotts of Israel by the way.

[jacee]

The title of the OP seems disingenuous at best.

Protests against Israel do not automatically connote "bigotry." We've come to a pretty pass when such assertions become all-too common.

Having said that, I can't get behind these protesters. There are times when folks should be left alone. To claim that the musicians are "complicit" in any bad behaviour by Israel is only true in the broadest, most institutional sense, in the way that people of all democracies can be argued to share responsibility. Israelis are certainly not unique in such matters, so I wouldn't personally think they should be singled out.

Sharing in the arts is a positive thing, and should be celebrated.

I've said elsewhere that there is an irritating component to the activist Left that relies on disruption of one sort or another.

And while I'm not flatly opposed to the very idea of disruption for activist purposes, I think a little more reflection is often in order, a more civic-minded response. Such things can work, perhaps, but they take organization and dedication, and a strict adherence to behaving well. I mean this not only for its own sake--but even for the sake of the protesters' own causes. Ultimately, you want folks to sympathize with your cause...therefore, act sympathetically.

As I've told pro-lifers: if you want to get people onto your side, calling them "babykillers" is no doubt precisely counter-productive. Something vaguely similar applies here.

The protesters were very successful in getting international media attention, and hopefully media attention in Israel as well. The Israeli people need to be aware that their aggression against the people of Gaza is not viewed sympathetically by the rest of the world, because only they can change their government.

If protests didn't disrupt some peoples' comfort, they wouldn't bring about any change. The purpose of protest is to disturb people, to make them think about the issues and to take what actions they can, including educating themselves.

I used to agree with you but the fact is that active goal directed protest by a few is much more productive than many people quietly holding a sign in 'the designated protest area'.

Edited September 7, 2011 by jacee

[jbg]

"Protesters Disrupt Classical Music at BBC" doesn't have much bite, but that's probably about what I'd write. But then, what do I know?

Thread title modified. These protesters qualify as rats on two legs, in my opinion.