Adams said in a 1995 interview with David Beverly that "Clearly his (Klinghoffer's) death was a kind of a crucifixion. He was crucified for the class of people that he happened to fall into." Adams thus has Palestinian terrorists crucifying a disabled American Jew for what he believed mind were the sins of the State of Israel against the Palestinians. What the h... is he talking about?
The question has been repeatedly asked of Gelb and his staff why this isn't old fashioned Christian anti-Semitism - but never answered. Add to this, the background of the librettist - a Jewess who converted to become a rector in the church of England. No red flags here?
Even the beginning chorus has exiled Palestinians being abused by the Israelis - but it was the Palestinians who started a war of genocide against the Jews - throw them into the sea- rather than accept a Jewish state next to theirs. And in the course of this war which killed 1% of the Jews, Palestinian Arab refugees were created because of their own bad decision not to accept a state ow thier own and their aggression/ The graphic narrative of the "exiled Palestinian" victims with its powerful music is simply propaganda. Most Palestinians left at the behest of the Arab leaders who told them to leave until they had finished off the Jews - some were driven out, especially of areas from which they were attacking, in the course of the war that the Arabs started. The confusing and musically weak "exiled Jews" bears no relationship to the age old Jewish longing to return to the land of Israel from which they were driven out by the Romans 2000 years ago after a thousand year presence, but did in fact maintain a continuous presence even in small numbers; nothing about Jerusalem being at the center of Jewish prayers, while there never was a Palestinian Arab entity - never a state, a language, a history. The Palestinian narrative in the opera is simply propaganda, which is so prevalent today.

I see a lot of talk about whether this opera is offensive to Jews, but little consideration of how it might misrepresent Palestinians and Muslims. The Met took pains to engage with Jewish leaders and address their concerns about the opera. I have heard nothing about whether the Met and the producers attempted to solicit Palestinian viewpoints of how the opera represents them. If did seek Palestinians input, I'd like to see evidence of it.
Here's a perspective on the liberties the opera takes with representation and questions of anti-semitism.: http://www.merip.org/palestine-adrift-met

By the logic of those who want to censor Klinghoffer, Carmen and Otello should be banned because they depict spousal abuse/murder. So, following the logic, producing those two works must mean that the Met condones domestic violence.

Following the logic further, Dialogues of the Carmelites should also be banned because it portrays the murders of Catholics nuns - so mounting that work MUST mean that the Met is anti-Catholic. The list goes on and on.

Clearly, this version is anti-Semitic lite. The one at BAM years ago was appalling. That the Met would want to stage this travesty of an opera in a predominantly Jewish city demonstrates amorality at its worst.

First, at a time when anti-semitism is undeniably rampant throughout many parts of the world - attacks on Jews in France, England, Canada, Turkey Universities in California - solely because they are Jews, it is disingenuous to argue the merits of an objective viewing of anti-semitic vitriole. Second, I ask everyone who speaks on behalf of the opera's presentation to ask if they would be equally positive about a play that spews anti-moslem bigotry in a presetation "The death of (note the use of the word "death" vs "callous murder" of thousands on 9/11" or anti-black canards in a musical about the lynching of Jesse Washington... Be honest about it. It is not "art" to sing about an elderly man being brutally thrown overboard simply and clearly only because he was Jewish. Ask the daughters of Mr. Klinghoffer if they agree with portrayal/spin on the opera.

@Dan - in half the time it took you to wrote the words "a first amendment lawyer, presumably there to defend the Met's rights" you could have googled and found that Floyd Abrams is very critical of the performance and even posits a counterfactual similar to yours: http://online.wsj.com/articles/floyd-abrams-klinghoffer-and-the-two-sides-of-terrorism-1413414330

It seems one thing we're learning about Klinghoffer critics is that they are willing to pass judgement on something they haven't actually seen or heard. The segment airs in two days.

Are you kidding me? THIS is a balanced roundtable discussion? Two members of the Metropolitan Opera, an opera critic from the Washington Post, a first amendment lawyer, presumably there to defend the Met's rights, and an Arab who wrote a book on the struggles of being an Arab.

There are strong arguments against this production and it doesn't seem as though anyone on the panel will represent them.

Terrible. Just terrible.

Would you have any concerns with an opera entitled "The Misunderstood Martyrs of 9/11"

We have a series at the Met. Klinghoffer was not on it. We got tickets and saw it last week. We found it remarkable, and enjoyed it immensely, and did not see it as antisemitic. The four hijackers are not portrayed sympathetically. We saw an atrocity, and a grieving widow. We traded in one that WAS on our series: Die Meistersinger. We did not want to see an overtly antisemitic opera.

Did Brian say there is a way to stream Klinghoffer from WNYC?