ForumGarden

Protesters have disrupted a BBC Proms concert by the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra at the Royal Albert Hall in London. The soloist, Gil Shaham, was about to play Bruch's violin concerto conducted by Zubin Mehta when some people in the audience began booing and shouting.

BBC News - Anti-Israel protests disrupt BBC Proms concert

I've always liked Bruch's violin concerto.

The protest reminds me of Barbara Castle disrupting the London Commonwealth Conference in the early 60s.

And I love Zubin Mehta, from his years at the Hollywood Bowl. (and it is a good concerto too) That was a sad display of political protest at an inappropriate time. Music is a unifying factor of mankind.

I do not know the 1960s you have mentioned, maybe a link, if possible?

chonsigirl;1367852 wrote: That was a sad display of political protest at an inappropriate time.That's an interesting viewpoint. The choice of occasion meant that the protest was entirely non-violent, for example, which can rarely be arranged when confronting counter-protesters in the open air. I'm wondering when you'd think was more appropriate.

Here's a link to Barbara Castle's protest:In March 1961, Labour MP Barbara Castle (who became the AAM [Anti-Apartheid Movement] Honorary President in the first half of 1962) was very helpful in organising a 72-hour vigil outside the Commonwealth Conference in London. Pressures for South Africa to leave the Commonwealth eventually led to the first major success when, after the proclamation of the Republic in May 1961, Verwoerd (South Africa`s Prime Minster) withdrew South Africa`s application for renewed membership.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement, Britain and South Africa: Anti-Apartheid Protest vs Real Politik

Thank you for that link, I like learning something new everyday.

I think all protests should be nonviolent. The choice of a musical setting, guest conductor and orchestra, is a negative view on the protestors. Why would disruption of a musical setting call a positive attention to their appeal? It shows a disrespect towards the invited guests who are performing. Like being invited to a wedding, and causing a rucus. Tacky, tacky. It puts the protest and the people supporting in a very negative light, much better to have planned an alternative place to protest.

The anniversary of 9/11 is a week away. Given that the State of Israel, a democracy (something rare in the Middle East) has been in existence for some fifty plus years ... Is the world any less terrorist free now than it might have otherwise been had we read Palestine for Israel today?

I say yes it is and based on what has happened since 1948 its a good thing too. 9/11 would have happened a great deal earlier as well.

jones jones;1367862 wrote: The anniversary of 9/11 is a week away. Given that the State of Israel, a democracy (something rare in the Middle East) has been in existence for some fifty plus years ... Is the world any less terrorist free now than it might have otherwise been had we read Palestine for Israel today?

I say yes it is and based on what has happened since 1948 its a good thing too. 9/11 would have happened a great deal earlier as well.


If Israel's a democracy then I'd perhaps agree with your post. Israel's rather less of a democracy than the American South was under Jim Crow laws, where aboriginal residents were refused civil rights by law. It's rather less in that at least the US Constitution guaranteed those rights to those citizens whereas Israel's constitution does the opposite. If you'd like to engage with that idea on a reasoned rather than a partisan emotional basis in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... srael.html where I started it last month I'd be interested to see where it leads. We can then bring the conclusion back here where it will be starkly relevant.

chonsigirl;1367859 wrote: The choice of a musical setting, guest conductor and orchestra, is a negative view on the protestors. Why would disruption of a musical setting call a positive attention to their appeal? It shows a disrespect towards the invited guests who are performing.One of the main international protests at apartheid South Africa was the sports boycott in which every South African international team sports engagement inside or outside of South Africa was disrupted - tennis, golf, rugby, cricket, the lot. Would you have disagreed with that at the time? Do you, in retrospect, disagree with it now? Is disrupting a sports event similar in any way to disrupting a music concert?

spot;1367871 wrote: If Israel's a democracy then I'd perhaps agree with your post. Israel's rather less of a democracy than the American South was under Jim Crow laws, where aboriginal residents were refused civil rights by law. It's rather less in that at least the US Constitution guaranteed those rights to those citizens whereas Israel's constitution does the opposite. If you'd like to engage with that idea on a reasoned rather than a partisan emotional basis in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... srael.html where I started it last month I'd be interested to see where it leads. We can then bring the conclusion back here where it will be starkly relevant.


You know that I enjoy nothing better than a good debate Spot ... especially with you. However from my experience these formal debates tend to go on and on and on. Due to my writing commitments, I only have a limited time each day in which to frolic here on Forum Garden. So if I can come and go in the link you posted and like maybe post a point or rebuttal and than vanish for a day, sure I'll join a "reasoned" debate.

I don't regard anything that happens on a forum to be a debate. The nearest we came to a debating structure was in the Westcliffe area where we set rules limiting the post count to a pre-agreed one or two posts each from two or four contributors. It's rarely used because the format scares people. What happens here is discussion. Debate is what happens in debating chambers.

My impression is that unstructured discussions go on and on which is why I'd quite like to go to the formal Westcliffe setting where they're drastically curtailed to a single statement and a single rebuttal, period, shut up no more talking it's over let the readers make their own minds up in the "discuss" side-area.

Meanwhile, any reasoned comment on that thread or on this one would be welcome. We've seen your opinion above but we have no idea why you hold it because you haven't let us know. There's one step down from "discussion" and that's "I think well I think oh but I think no but I think" without justifying why.

It seems likely there will be disagreement about the meaning of "aboriginal". I've used it in the sense, in the USA, South Africa and Israel, of "those distinctly identifiable groups resident in the nation when it was founded" - from the origin of the State rather than the origin of human inhabitation, since few people seem prepared to accept genetic evidence in that regard.

If anyone would prefer a different definition they might like to give it in which case we could discuss the meaning of "indigenous" at the same time.

I still can't quite get over the Boer contention that South Africa was empty when they got there.