The Murder Of Leon Klinghoffer

“To be good, and to do good, is all we have to do.” Those were the words of John Adams.

President John Adams.

The modern composer who bears his name seems to have a different perspective. Or, at the very least, a perverse view of what is “good.”

Much has been written about his opera, “The Death of Klinghoffer,” and I am reluctant to rehearse all of it here, but there are a few aspects on which I want to comment. The first relates to the concept of the opera – which, we are told, is to present both sides of the controversy regarding the incident. Since I missed Adams's opera based on the virtues of Charles Manson, I cannot comment on any pattern, but from what I have learned about his latest work I know that much of it is devoted to the expression, by Palestinians, about the injustices done to their people and the justification of the murder they committed. The producers make clear that there is no anti-semitism involved. It is interesting, but only coincidental, that the librettist converted from Judaism while working on the opera.

The Metropolitan Opera's General Manager states, in yesterday's New York Post, “The libretto attempts to explore the motives of the criminals who perpetrated the Klinghoffer crime, something we should all strive to understand.” It is his view that the opera is a work of art and that people should see it and decide for themselves (though it is not clear what they should decide and what they should be judging).

It appears that his goal – having no choice but to defend himself and the Met – is to tell the audience that their responsibility is to judge the artistic nature of the work. Perhaps they should also evaluate the arguments on both sides and decide on those for themselves as well, but first and foremost they should attend. Both the Met's economic interests and the General Manager's reputation depend on good attendance; cancelation of the opera would result in both a loss of face and of money. And possibly the General Manager's job.

The idea that the audience should decide for themselves, however, totally (perhaps intentionally) misses the point. The opera should not be on stage for people to make such a decision. Any attempt to defend the act it depicts represents support of evil and does not merit a hearing. The Met should not be an accessory after the fact.

Much is made about the First Amendment and the idea that not presenting the opera would be a violation of the composer's rights. But we must not overlook the fact that before there were amendments to the Constitution, there was a Constitution. And in that document it states clearly “No person shall…be deprived of life ... without due process of law.” Defending a violation of the Constitution as “art” cannot be justified. Calling such an act a “right” is an insult to all of us.

In addition, the First Amendment may give the composer the right to spew whatever comes to mind, but it places no obligation of anyone to publish or produce it. In this case that was a decision of the Met, and they are accountable for it.

Although there is much more to be said on the subject, let me conclude with the following. As a sop to the Jewish community, and after negotiations with the Anti-Defamation League, the Met agreed not to air the opera world wide, even though they would not cancel the New York production. The ADL may have considered it a major victory, but it is an example of the truth that the lesser of two evils is evil. President Adams was speaking of politics in his letter to Horatio Gates, but the same is true of the current situation, “... the middle way is none at all.”

The presentation of “The Death [the composer's sanitized version of 'murder'] of Klinghoffer [first name omitted in order to dehumanize the victim]” is indefensible. I don't have to see it to decide for myself.