Is it ‘antisemitic’ to accuse Israel of genocide in Gaza?

First published in Canadian Dimension August 28, 2024

Stripped, blindfolded, and bound Palestinian civilians are taken prisoner and ordered into a line by Israeli occupation forces in Gaza in December 2023. Photo from a social media post by an Israeli soldier.

Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.
—John Stuart Mill


Supporters of Israel’s current “war” against Gaza often ask why critics don’t show equal concern for the victims of no less horrific conflicts elsewhere.

The implication, which is spelled out in the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition” of antisemitism, is that while “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” we are guilty of antisemitism if we single out Israel for criticism while remaining silent on comparable atrocities in Sudan, or Myanmar, or Yemen.

While the IHRA definition has been accepted by many Western governments (including Canada), it has been challenged as “unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations” by 350 leading international scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies who came together to sign the alternative Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) in 2020.

Pointing out that “The IHRA Definition includes 11 ‘examples’ of antisemitism, 7 of which focus on the State of Israel,” the JDA offers an alternative set of guidelines and examples.

The authors caution:

In general, when applying the guidelines each should be read in the light of the others and always with a view to context. Context can include the intention behind an utterance, or a pattern of speech over time, or even the identity of the speaker, especially when the subject is Israel or Zionism. So, for example, hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State. In short, judgement and sensitivity are needed in applying these guidelines to concrete situations.


Since October 7 I have published more on the Gaza genocide—I choose the word advisedly, for reasons that have recently been eloquently spelled out by former Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldier and world-renowned historian of genocide Omer Bartov—than I have ever published on any contemporary conflict in my 73 years on this planet, which have seen genocides in Bangladesh, East Timor, Cambodia, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, and elsewhere, in many cases resulting in more deaths. This is an exception to my usual writing. As a rule, I seldom comment on current affairs.

Does this make me an antisemite?

Or is there something truly exceptional in the Gaza situation itself that calls for exceptional attention—and action?

Self-defence?

What has been going on in Gaza for almost a year now is not a conventional war between states. Indeed, to describe it as a war at all is misleading.

According to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion of July 19 on “Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” Gaza remains an occupied Palestinian territory because Israel:

continue[s] to exercise, certain key elements of authority … including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone, despite the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005.


“This is even more so,” the judgment pointedly adds, “since October 7, 2023.”

What triggered Israel’s latest assault on Gaza was thus not an attack by a foreign state, like Russia’s assault on Ukraine or Israel’s 1973 Yom Kippur war, but an uprising by an occupied populace exercising a right of armed resistance that is recognized in international law.

This does not mean that Hamas committed no war crimes on October 7, but that Israel’s retaliation cannot be construed as self-defence.

A state cannot defend itself against a population whose land, per the ICJ, it has been illegally occupying for the last 67 years. This is not a war but a policing operation, albeit one of exceptional savagery.

October 7 may have seen “the worst horrors perpetrated on Jews since the Holocaust,” as Benjamin Netanyahu admonished Justin Trudeau when the latter questioned Israel’s “killing of women, of children, of babies” in the Gaza Strip. But contrary to its leaders’ frequent comparisons with the Holocaust, Israel is not facing an existential threat.

Hamas’s founding covenant promised “to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine” by Holy War—a statement that may be, but need not be interpreted as threatening a genocide of the Jewish population rather than elimination of an Israeli state in which “the right to exercise national self-determination … is unique to the Jewish people.” But Hamas is no more in a position to achieve this aim than it was in 1988.

It has no nukes, nor fighter planes, nor warships, nor tanks, nor high-tech drones and bombs. October 7 was launched on the back of hang-gliders, motorbikes, bulldozers, and the kind of assault rifles Americans can buy at Walmart.

In any case, Hamas revised its covenant in 2017 to accept a two-state solution, which has supposedly been the cornerstone of Western foreign policy since the 1993-5 Oslo Accords.

Managing terrorism

The total death toll on October 7—including those killed by IDF friendly fire—was 1,139 people, and one-third of the Israeli victims were not civilians, but members of the security forces. Horrific as the Hamas massacres were, this is paltry compared with the slaughter and destruction Israel has wreaked upon Gaza since.

The figure for known deaths in Gaza from Israeli military action now exceeds 40,000, while a recent article in the Lancet conservatively estimates the likely cumulative death toll from all war-related causes, including famine and disease, at upward of 186,000.

There was never any military necessity for Israel to cause so many civilian casualties. Hamas’s future threat could have been handled as Spanish governments did the Basque separatist terrorists of ETA or British governments did the IRA, by a combination of military containment and political engagement.

Instead, Israel consciously and deliberately chose the genocidal Amalek option. Sending his soldiers off to war, Benjamin Netanyahu recalled an episode from the Bible:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says,” the prophet Samuel tells Saul. “‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”


According to official Israeli figures, 4,688 people were killed in “Palestinian terrorist attacks” since 1948, including the October 7 victims. For comparison, around 3,500 people died in the Irish Troubles between 1969 and 1998—meaning that the number of deaths from terrorism per annum in the Troubles was almost double that of Israel.

Despite this, neither Margaret Thatcher—who narrowly escaped death when the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel in Brighton in 1984 during the Conservative Party annual conference, killing five people and injuring 34 others—nor any other British prime minister responded by bombing West Belfast and Derry back into the Stone Age, even if the IRA was as embedded in the Catholic civilian population as Hamas is in Gaza.

Nor did Northern Ireland’s British occupiers cut off electricity, water, food, and fuel to Republican areas, as Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant promised he would do to Gaza’s Palestinian “human animals” on October 9 (a promise Israel largely fulfilled).

The IRA’s indiscriminate pub bombings (and “kneecapping” of suspected informants and collaborators) were appalling too. But I suggest that had the British or Spanish authorities acted like Netanyahu or Gallant toward Gaza, the reaction among other Western governments—not least, the US government—would have been very different.

As a response to a terrorist attack from an occupied territory, Israel’s Gaza campaign is wholly exceptional, at least among Western democracies that claim to be governed by international law—the club to which Israel repeatedly and proudly claims to belong, and on whose behalf, Netanyahu frequently says, it is fighting.

Israel exists in a state of exception, to use the German jurist Carl Schmitt’s concept, in which the rule of law is suspended and the normal rules don’t apply.

Tooling genocide

Although a handful of countries have broken ranks as the conflict has ground on, the majority of Western states, led by the US, the UK, and Germany, have unconditionally supported Israel irrespective of the ever-rising death toll and destruction in Gaza.

Such unanimity is exceptional. Under President Eisenhower, the US condemned the British, French, and Israeli 1956 invasion of Suez, while Canada, like France and Germany, refused to participate in the US-led “coalition of the willing” that invaded Iraq in 2003.

As remarkably, this consensus extends across the mainstream democratic political spectrum, with so-called centre-left governments—Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s Democrats in the US, Keir Starmer’s Labour Party in the UK, Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats in Germany, Anthony Albanese’s Labour Party in Australia, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in Canada—being as “ironclad” in their support for Israel (and as McCarthyite in their tarring of Israel’s critics as “antisemitic”) as their right-wing counterparts.

This support includes massive provision of arms, without which Israel could not continue its genocide. The US is Israel’s largest supplier of armaments (69 percent in 2019-23), followed by Germany (30 percent in 2019-23).

On August 13 the Biden administration approved a further $20 billion in weapons sales to Israel, including 50 F-15 fighter jets, 30 medium range air-to-air missiles, tactical vehicles, 32,739 tank cartridges of 120-mm rounds and 50,400 120-mm high-explosive cartridges for mortars.

The US’s one and only brief suspension of a munitions shipment (of 1,800 2,000-pound and 1,700 500-pound bombs) was lifted after Biden quietly forgot his threat to withhold further supplies of offensive weapons if Israel invaded Rafah.

Genocide Joe has now thankfully bowed out, but his anointed successor Kamala Harris has let it be known that her administration will not countenance an arms embargo on Israel either.

To be sure that the world got the message, no Palestinian American was permitted to speak on the main stage at the recent Democratic National Convention in Chicago—despite the risks of alienating Arab American voters in swing states like Michigan, which the Democrats need to win in November to hold the White House.

Canada has supposedly officially halted its arms sales to Israel, though it has now emerged that $60 million of made in Québec military hardware is still destined for murdering Palestinian children as part of the US$20 billion package.

Despite pro forma calls for a ceasefire by their foreign ministers, Germany and the UK are still providing Tel Aviv with arms. Having repeatedly called upon the previous Tory government to make public the legal advice it had received on doing so, the new British Foreign Secretary David Lammy has so far resisted calls to publish the advice himself.

At best, Western governmental representatives have criticized this or that individual IDF action or Israeli politician’s inflammatory statement or expressed “heartbreak” at the Palestinian people’s “suffering”—as if it were the result of an earthquake or tsunami rather than a war in which Western governments themselves are deeply implicated.

These mild admonishments are invariably prefaced (and thereby framed) by affirmations of Israel’s “right to defend itself” and ritual invocation of the horrors of October 7, as if these could somehow mitigate the evils perpetrated by Israel since.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in Tel Aviv, October 13, 2023. Photo by US Department of Defense/Wikimedia Commons.

Diplomatic cover

Recent calls for a ceasefire from the USUK, and the settler-colony troika of Canada, Australia and New Zealand are long on pieties and short on proposals that might actually achieve the purported objective—like UN Security Council mandated sanctions on Israel or an embargo on the supply of arms.

David Lammy, for example, issued a statement on July 14 that began: “The death and destruction in Gaza is intolerable. This war must end now, with an immediate ceasefire, complied with by both sides.” He continued:

I am meeting with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to stress the UK’s ambition and commitment to play its full diplomatic role in securing a ceasefire deal and creating the space for a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution. The world needs a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.


Nothing came of Lammy’s Middle East trip. Netanyahu refused to meet with the British foreign secretary, following the incoming Labour government’s decision to withdraw its predecessor’s objection to the International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor’s pursuit of an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and the Israeli defence minister.

Since October 7 the US and its allies have consistently blocked any effective diplomatic initiatives to end the war through the international body that is best placed to do so, the United Nations. This sharply contrasts with America’s unsuccessful attempts to use the UN as a cloak for its unprovoked invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Having vetoed two earlier UNSC attempts to mandate a ceasefire, the US finally abstained on resolution 2728 demanding “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, the immediate and unconditional release of hostages and the urgent need to expand the flow of aid into Gaza,” allowing it to pass on March 25 on a vote of 14-0.

In a press conference immediately afterwards, US State Department spokesman Max Miller sought to undermine the resolution by repeatedly denying that it was binding.

Israel predictably ignored this resolution, as it has since ignored resolution 2735, which was presented by the US and passed unanimously on June 10 with one abstention (Russia). This endorses the three-stage US “roadmap to an enduring ceasefire and the release of all hostages” that Joe Biden unveiled in a televised address to the nation on May 31 as “a comprehensive new proposal” which, he said, “Israel has now offered.”

The ball was now firmly in Hamas’s court, US representative Linda Thomas-Greenfield assured the Security Council:

“The only way to bring about a durable end to this war” is a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, she stressed, adding that Israel has agreed to a comprehensive deal on the table, which is nearly identical to Hamas’ own proposal. “Now we are all waiting for Hamas to agree to the ceasefire deal it claims to want, but we cannot allow to wait and wait,” she stated, noting that “with every passing day, needless suffering continues.”


Either Biden and Thomas-Greenfield were lying or the Israeli government was stringing them along.

The day after Biden’s TV address, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters that “Hamas accepts a UN Security Council ceasefire resolution and is ready to negotiate over the details,” adding that “it was up to Washington to ensure that Israel abides by it.”

Benjamin Netanyahu meantime declared, contrary to Biden, that Israel’s “conditions for ending the war have not changed”:

The destruction of Hamas’ military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel … The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter.


Negotiations have continued in Doha and Cairo, but every time a breakthrough seems in sight Israel moves the goal posts and comes up with new conditions it knows are likely to be unacceptable to Hamas. The latest have included continuing IDF military occupation of the Philadelphi Corridor on the Gaza-Egypt border and the newly-bulldozed Netzarim corridor that now divides the north and south of the Gaza Strip.

Crucially for Hamas, Netanyahu has repeatedly refused to commit to what Biden, in his May 31 address, assured the American people would be the outcome of the process—namely, that in phase two of the proposal,

Israeli forces would withdraw from Gaza; and as long as Hamas lives up to its commitments, a temporary ceasefire would become, in the words of … the Israeli proposal, “the cessation of hostilities permanently.”

Notwithstanding these repeated attempts to derail the talks—not to mention Israel’s assassination of Hamas’s political leader Ismail Haniyeh, the chief negotiator in the Cairo ceasefire talks, in Tehran on July 31—the US continues to blame the failure to reach an agreement on Hamas.

These are not good faith negotiations. They are political theatre.

Legal aid

On January 26, in response to South Africa’s request that the ICJ impose provisional measures “preserving … the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts,” the court ruled that there was a “plausible” risk of genocide in Gaza. It required Israel, inter alia, to:

take all measures within its power to prevent … (a) killing members of the group [Palestinians]; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.


A US state department spokesperson dismissed the ICJ findings (and the extensive and compelling evidence on which they were based), with the blithe assertion: “We continue to believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded.”

This is typical of US attempts to undermine the authority and discredit the judgments of the world’s two highest courts.

While paying lip-service to the ICJ’s “work in upholding the international rules-based order,” Canada made clear that “Our support for the ICJ does not mean that we accept the premise of the case brought by South Africa.” As ever, Mélanie Joly’s statement, which conspicuously ignored the question of genocide, went on to affirm “Israel’s right to exist and defend itself” and condemn “Hamas’s brutal attacks of October 7.”

On May 20, Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan asked the ICC to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity that included “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare,” “wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health,” “wilful killing … or murder as a war crime,” “intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population,” “extermination,” “persecution,” and “other inhumane acts.”

Khan concurrently requested warrants for three Hamas leaders for crimes including “murder,” “taking hostages,” “rape and other acts of sexual violence,” “torture,” “cruel treatment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity.” Dispensing its own brand of summary justice, Israel has since assassinated two of them, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh.

Predictably and ludicrously, Israeli politicians branded the ICC, as they previously had the ICJ, as “antisemitic.”

“We haven’t seen such a show of hypocrisy and hatred of Jews like that of the Hague Tribunal since Nazi propaganda,” proclaimed far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. This is a man who recently complained to a conference in support of Jewish settlements that:

It’s not possible in today’s global reality to manage a war—no one will allow us to starve two million people, even though that might be just and moral until they return the hostages.


By ignoring the rulings of its own highest international courts, the West, led by the US, is allowing Israel to do exactly that.

Ignoring the substance of Khan’s charges, many Western governments—this time France and Germany were more circumspect—responded to his request for arrest warrants for Israeli leaders with outrage. Urged on by the US, Rishi Sunak’s UK government launched proceedings at the ICC challenging its jurisdiction in Gaza.

Joe Biden issued a White House statement that read, in full:

The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence—none—between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security. 


Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrote that:

We reject the Prosecutor’s equivalence of Israel with Hamas. It is shameful. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and is still holding dozens of innocent people hostage, including Americans.


On June 4, the US House of Representatives passed a bill “To impose sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies.”

This time Mélanie Joly refrained from any official Canadian comment beyond noting that “All parties must make sure that they abide by international law.” But Justin Trudeau, too, found “the sense of an equivalency between the democratically elected leaders of Israel and the bloodthirsty terrorists that lead up Hamas” “troubling.”

For these Western leaders, what was outrageous or troubling was Kamil Khan’s even-handed focus on the crimes committed, irrespective of the status of their perpetrators.

What is more troubling is the unspoken assumption that elected representatives of “democracies” deserve different treatment to those whom the West has branded as terrorists—even if their crimes are the same (or worse). Do I need to remind today’s politicians that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected as German Chancellor too?

In a press release summarizing its advisory opinion of July 19 on “Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” the ICJ unambiguously spelled out the obligations of states regarding Israel’s behaviour in the occupied Palestinian territories, including Gaza:

all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.


The West’s continuing military and diplomatic support of Israeli action in Gaza and the other occupied Palestinian territories, in short, has been and continues to be in flagrant violation of international law.

Israel again inhabits that state of exception, beyond and outside the law, rather like the absolute immunity the US Supreme Court has recently granted Donald Trump.

States of exception

If Israel inhabits one state of exception, Palestinians inhabit another—and the two are mutually complementary.

The Palestinian state of exception is one of perpetual homelessness, hunger, disease, and violence. It is policed by IDF snipers who shoot Palestinian children in the head, the torturers and rapists of Sde Teiman and other Israeli detention camps and prisons, and the depraved young soldiers of “the most moral army in the world” who post videos of themselves prancing around in underwear stolen from displaced—or dead—Palestinian women on social media.

It is Israel’s state of exception, guaranteed by the West, that enables this reduction of Palestinian existence to bare life.

So to return to the question with which I began: is it antisemitic to single out Israel for criticism over Gaza while remaining silent on comparable atrocities elsewhere?

I do not think I—or the thousands of others across the West who are appalled by the genocide in Gaza—have suddenly morphed into antisemites. We refuse, rather, to make Palestinians an exception to human rights or Israelis an exception to human obligations.

My short answer to the question “Why Gaza?” and not Sudan, Myanmar, or Yemen—or East Timor, Bosnia, or Rwanda—is that inadequate as their responses to other atrocities may often have been, Western governments (and other institutions, like corporations, the mainstream media, or universities) were rarely actively complicit in perpetrating these horrors. Gaza is different. We are up to our necks in it.

I refuse to turn away and pretend the genocide in Gaza is a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.

As a citizen of two Western democracies, Canada and the UK, I want to say, loud and clear: not in my name.

‘Unwavering support’ versus ‘ironclad commitment’—a tale of two strategies

First published in Canadian Dimension October 1, 2024 / 14 min read

The Great Mosque of Gaza in the late nineteenth century. Photo by Maison Bonfils/Library of Congress.

The discrepancy between Western framing of the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza has often been noted. In the words of one critic, Kari McKern, writing in July 2024:

In Gaza, Palestinian suffering is often sanitised or contextualised to diminish its horror. When an Israeli airstrike hit a UN school sheltering civilians in July 2024, killing dozens, many Western outlets led with the Israeli military’s claims of militant activity in the area rather than centring the civilian deaths. Meanwhile, Ukrainian civilian casualties are presented as unambiguous tragedies, with individual stories examined and highlighted to evoke empathy. This asymmetry extends to the language used to describe combatants and their actions. Hamas fighters are invariably “terrorists,” while Ukrainian forces are “defenders” or “freedom fighters.” Israel “responds” or “retaliates,” while Russia “invades” or “attacks” …

The human toll in both conflicts is staggering, yet the West’s reaction has been wildly inconsistent. [When] Ukrainian apartment buildings are destroyed Western leaders were quick to decry war crimes. But similar accusations against Israel for its actions in Gaza are absent, muted or included so as to be dismissed entirely. As one Palestinian journalist put it, “Our dead don’t seem to count the same way.”


There is one instance of the West’s double standards, however, that has received little if any comment. Arguably, it is the most important—and revealing—inconsistency of all. It concerns Western, and especially American, policies regarding arms supplies to “allies.”

When US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer met in Washington, DC, two weeks ago for “an in-depth discussion on a range of foreign policy issues of mutual interest,” the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza dominated their conversation.

According to the official White House readout of their September 13 meeting, “The two leaders reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine as it continues to defend against Russia’s aggression.” In that connection, they “expressed deep concern about Iran and North Korea’s provision of lethal weapons to Russia and the People’s Republic of China’s support to Russia’s defense industrial base.”

While paying lip-service to “the urgent need for a ceasefire deal that will free the hostages and enable increased relief in Gaza, and the need for Israel to do more to protect civilians and address the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza,” the self-appointed leaders of the free world “reiterated … their ironclad commitment to Israel’s security.”

No doubt diplomats can explain the subtle differences between “unwavering support” and “ironclad commitment.” On previous form, they would seem to be considerable.

Unwavering support, or the “slow yes” Ukraine strategy

Kari McKern’s point was nicely illustrated in Keir Starmer’s address to the UN Security Council on September 25.

Directly addressing the Russian representative, he said he deplored the 35,000 Ukrainian civilians killed or injured, the six million forced to flee and the 20,000 Ukrainian children kidnapped since Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022—not to mention “Six hundred thousand Russian soldiers … killed or wounded in this war.”

And for what? The UN charter, which they [Russian representatives] sit here to uphold, speaks of human dignity. Not treating your own citizens as bits of meat to fling into the grinder.


“I think of Yaroslav Bazylevych, whose wife and three daughters were killed earlier this month by a Russian strike on civilians in Lviv,” the British PM went on. “And I wonder how Russia can show its face in this building.”

We must ensure accountability for those violating the UN charter and this council must recommit to the values that it sets out. This should go without saying. Yet, the greatest violation of the charter in a generation has been committed by one of this council’s permanent members.


We have yet to hear Starmer shedding any tears over Israel’s killings of five-year-old Hind Rajab and seven-year-old Sidra Hassouna, or the assassination of Palestinian poet Refaat Alareer, who was murdered along with his brother, his brother’s son, his sister, and four of her children in a targeted Israeli airstrike on his Gaza apartment on December 7—or any criticism of Israel’s condemnation of scores of its own citizens to fiery deaths at IDF hands on October 7 as a result of applying the Hannibal Directive.

The British PM also had little to say about “flagrant violations of the charter” when Israel disregarded four UN Security Council ceasefire resolutions this year, ignored two rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the plausible risk of genocide in Gaza and the illegality of its continuing occupation of the Palestinian territories seized during the 1967 Six Day War, and refused to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into possible war crimes in the Occupied Territories. But let that pass.

The crucial point, in the present context, is that despite what Starmer (rightly) represents as a blatant act of aggression by Russia—and notwithstanding the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for “the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children)”—the West has consistently not provided Ukraine with all the armaments it has requested, nor permitted their unconditional use against Russia.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s repeated pleas that these restrictions harm Ukraine’s ability to defend itself have so far fallen on deaf ears—not least in the US.

Though the line is not always an easy one to draw, the Biden administration has mostly limited its “unwavering support” to provision of defensive weapons for use in fighting within Ukraine or immediately adjacent border areas, and conditioned supplies of arms on their not being used to strike the Russian heartland.

Hardware requested in the course of the war by Ukraine and denied or delayed by Western states includes Patriot air-defence missiles (not supplied by the US until 300 days into the war), US Abrams and German Leopard and Marder tanks, long-range high precision HIMARS artillery, and F-16 fighter jets (which the US embargoed until 29 months after the Russian invasion).

Provision of ATACAMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems), which have a range of around 190 miles and could hit many Russian cities, has so far remained a particular no-no.

While the UK now wishes to give Zelensky permission to deploy British-made Storm Shadow long-range ballistic missiles to strike targets deep within Russia, the US, which makes some components for the missiles, has so far refused to entertain this. Despite the urgings of Starmer and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy on their recent visits to Washington, at the time of writing the US is continuing to veto Britain’s suggestion.

Criticizing what he calls the Biden administration’s “slow yes” strategy in Time magazine in December 2023, Elliot Ackerman wrote that:

This has led to a kind of phony war, in which the US and NATO cheer Ukraine’s victories and gradually provide Ukraine with high-end weapons, but dole them out slowly and in numbers small enough to allow Ukraine to fight but not to win.


The key considerations behind this strategy, at least as publicly stated by Biden and other American officials, appear to be avoidance of provoking a potentially nuclear escalation, as Putin has threatened, and fear of exacerbating disagreements among NATO European members, whose support for the Ukrainian cause differs widely.

These are eminently reasonable concerns. We might therefore equally reasonably ask: why has similar caution not prevailed when it comes to arming Israel?

Ironclad commitment, or the “we never say no” strategy

While the united Western support for Israeli action that followed Hamas’s attacks of October 7 has slowly fractured as the carnage in Gaza has grown, with Ireland, Spain, Norway, Belgium, Portugal, and even France among others becoming more critical of Israel and supportive of the Palestinian cause—though not of Hamas—Israel’s major Western arms suppliers have stood fast in their commitment to the Jewish state.

The UK and Germany have recently introduced (very) limited restrictions on licenses for arms sales to Israel following the ICJ advisory opinion of July 19 on the illegality of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories—presumably in the hope that this will protect them against any future charges of complicity in Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

A German government spokesman was nonetheless adamant that “There is no ban on arms exports to Israel, and there will be no ban,” while David Lammy assured the UK Parliament that it was “with regret” that “we are announcing the suspension of around 30 export licences to Israel,” affirming once again that “The UK continues to support Israel’s right to self-defence in accordance with international law.” Those 30 licenses represented a mere eight percent of the UK’s total arms sales to Israel.

According to Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly, Canada officially ceased approving new arms supplies to Israel in March. The details, however, including continuing use of Canadian-made components in US-supplied weapons, remain distinctly murky.

Michael Bueckert, vice president of Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East, is one of many who argues that because of lack of clarity and loopholes in the law:

this government is misleading Canadians into thinking that we aren’t exporting weapons to Israel at all. As Canadians increasingly demand that their government impose an arms embargo on Israel, politicians are trying to pretend that the arms trade doesn’t exist.


Most consequentially, the US (which supplies around 70 percent of Israel’s arms imports) has remained determinedly immune to any pressure to restrict or condition these supplies, whether from international bodies like the UN, the ICJ, the ICC, and a raft of human rights and charitable NGOs, or from domestic critics.

I am not just referring here to the usual left-wing suspects like Jill SteinBernie Sanders, or “Squad” members Ilhan Omar and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

Even the self-described “highest-ranking Jewish elected official in our government, and a staunch defender of Israel,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, warned back on March 14:

If Prime Minister Netanyahu’s current coalition … continues to pursue dangerous and inflammatory policies that test existing US standards for assistance, then the United States will have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course.

The United States’ bond with Israel is unbreakable, but if extremists continue to unduly influence Israeli policy, then the Administration should use the tools at its disposal to make sure our support for Israel is aligned with our broader goal of achieving long-term peace and stability in the region.


While Schumer did not explicitly call for conditioning future US arms supplies on Israel “changing course,” the inference is difficult to avoid.

Despite widespread speculation at the time that “There is a very real chance that the United States will halt the sale of offensive weaponry to Israel by month’s end should it fail to dramatically improve the amount of aid entering Gaza, or if it launches a military operation in Rafah without a credible plan for the million-plus Palestinians sheltering there,” the Biden administration instead doubled down on arming the genocide.

On May 8 Biden told CNN that “I made it clear that if they go into Rafah … I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities—that deal with that problem.” The subsequent US suspension of a shipment of 1,700 500-pound bombs and 1,800 2,000-pound bombs—its only restriction of arms supplies to date—proved to be short-lived. Israel ignored Biden’s “red line” and launched its bloody assault on Rafah. The US lifted its halt on 500-pound bombs on July 10.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken reportedly twice played fast and loose with US law in cases that would have required the US to cease supplying arms to Israel.

In late April, Blinken allegedly ignored misgivings in the State Department over whether Israel’s use of US-supplied arms in Gaza was “consistent with all applicable international and domestic law and policy, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law,” and certified Israel’s own assurances as “credible and reliable.” This was required under the Biden administration’s National Security Memorandum (NSM) 20, a measure adopted on February 8 with the declared aim of ensuring accountability.

Around the same time, per a recent scoop in Politico, Blinken was aware of both a US Agency for International Development (USAID) 17-page memo to the State Department claiming that Israel was “subjecting US humanitarian aid destined for Gaza to ‘arbitrary denial, restriction and impediments,’” and emails from the head of the State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration which asserted that “Israel was blocking humanitarian aid and that the Foreign Assistance Act should be triggered to freeze almost $830 million in taxpayer dollars earmarked for weapons and bombs to Israel.”

Blinken chose to ignore both sets of recommendations, testifying to Congress on May 10 that “We do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of US humanitarian assistance.”

On July 2, 12 former Biden administration officials who had resigned over US policy toward Gaza issued a joint statement in which they argued that:

America’s diplomatic cover for, and continuous flow of arms to Israel has ensured our undeniable complicity in the killings and forced starvation of a besieged Palestinian population in Gaza.


Ongoing weapons transfers to Israel despite its actions in Gaza, they added, have “put a target on America’s back.”

Notwithstanding the Rafah offensive and other subsequent Israeli atrocities including airstrikes on schools and hospitals, on August 13 the Biden administration approved a further $20 billion in weapons sales to Israel, including 50 F-15 fighter jets, 30 medium range air-to-air missiles, tactical vehicles, 32,739 tank cartridges of 120-mm rounds and 50,400 120-mm high-explosive cartridges for mortars.

America’s “ironclad commitment” to Israel seems unlikely to change whoever wins the November US presidential election. Interviewed on CNN on August 30, the only person standing in the way of a second Donald Trump presidency offered little “joy”—am I the only one who finds this campaign motif obscene in the circumstances?—to Palestinians:

Let me be very clear: I am unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defense and its ability to defend itself. And that’s not going to change …


Asked whether this means there would be “no change in policy in terms of arms and so forth?” Kamala Harris responded: “No, I—we have to get a deal done.”

This refusal to countenance any deviation from Biden’s policy is all the more remarkable given that opinion polls suggest the election is likely to be extremely close.

According to a recent YouGov poll in the crucial swing states of Arizona, Pennylvania, and Georgia, “80% or more of Democrats and Independents support a permanent cease-fire and 60% or more disapprove of more weapons to Israel.” Polls cannot be treated as reliable predictors, but the successes of the “uncommitted” campaign in the Democratic primaries earlier this year suggest that in refusing to reconsider the party position on arms to Israel Harris is risking losing substantial Arab American, Muslim American, and youth support and votes in the swing states where she needs them most.

There could be no more eloquent—or sadder—testimony to the US “ironclad commitment” than the Democrats’ apparent willingness to throw the election to Donald Trump rather than even consider conditioning arms supplies to Israel on its behaving in accordance with international law.

Beyond realpolitik?

The contrast between Western, and especially US, policies on arms supply to Ukraine and Israel, is glaring. It is also difficult to rationally comprehend, let alone morally justify.

While the figures for Ukrainian casualties cited by Keir Starmer in his September 25 address to the UN are undoubtedly horrific, they look positively benign when compared with the casualties in Gaza. In eleven months of war (compared with two years and eight months of war in Ukraine), at least 41,534 Palestinians have been killed and more than 96,092 injured. More than 10,000 are missing, presumed buried under the rubble.

Though Gaza’s Health Ministry casualty figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants, even Joe Biden conceded back in March that “more than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed—most of whom are not Hamas” (my emphasis).

Israel has slaughtered nearly 16,500 children in Gaza—surely a more heinous war crime than Russia’s kidnappings of Ukrainian kids. Around 1.9 million people—nearly nine in ten Gazans—have been “displaced,” i.e., forced to flee from their homes, at least once.

In making these comparisons, we need to remember that while the pre-war population of Ukraine was 37.9 million, that of Gaza was a mere 2.3 million.

If ever there was a case for embargoing or at least conditioning arms supplies on purely humanitarian grounds, Gaza provides it. The IDF makes Putin’s butchers of Chechnya, Georgia, and Syria—not to mention Mariupol—look like the most moral army in the world.

Ukraine is facing a genuine existential crisis provoked by an invasion by a great power that possesses the largest nuclear armory on the planet. Should Russia win this war, the implications for European—and Western—security are potentially profound.

By contrast, however appalling (or criminal) the events of October 7 may have been, Israel is confronting what some have likened to a prison breakout by a people whose territories it has been illegally occupying for 67 years, in an area around twice the size of Washington, DC, whose borders it has blockaded since 2007.

Hamas might wish to destroy Israel but it does not remotely have the capacity to do so. October 7 is not evidence of an existential threat to the Israeli state, but of unforgiveable lapses in security while its leaders’ minds were on other things.

The costs to the West of its “ironclad commitment” to Israel far outweigh any benefits. Whatever potential geopolitical, economic, or domestic political advantages may once have been conferred by support for Israel are forever buried in the rubble of Gaza. We are beyond realpolitik, and the world is slowly realizing it.

On September 18 the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted “a historic text demanding that Israel brings to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, no later than 12 months from the adoption of the resolution,” in accord with the ICJ advisory opinion of July 19.

With a recorded vote of 124 nations in favour, 14 against, and 43 abstentions, the resolution calls for Israel to comply with international law and withdraw its military forces, immediately cease all new settlement activity, evacuate all settlers from occupied land, and dismantle parts of the separation wall it constructed inside the occupied West Bank.

The General Assembly further demanded that Israel return land and other “immovable property”, as well as all assets seized since the occupation began in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions.

The resolution also demands Israel allow all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their place of origin and make reparation for the damage caused by its occupation.


Apart from Israel and the US, the opponents of the resolution were Argentina, Czechia, Hungary, Malawi, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, and the Pacific states of Fiji, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Tonga, and Tuvalu—a tiny minority of the international community.

Several European nations, including the UK, Germany, and Italy, abstained, as did Australia, Canada, India—and Ukraine, whose supply of US arms, as we have seen, has always been conditional on doing what Uncle Sam says.

It is noteworthy—and shows how far opinion has shifted over the last eleven months—that supporters of the resolution included Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, and Spain. Most of the BRICS countries, including Russia, China, South Africa, and Brazil, voted in favor of the resolution.

Israel and the United States are increasingly isolated in the court of world opinion.

Yet still the carnage continues and still the arms flow. On September 27, in what may prove to be a cataclysmic escalation of the war to Lebanon, Israel dropped US-supplied 2,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on the Dahiya residential area of Beirut, flattening six apartment blocks and killing Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Benjamin Netanyahu authorized the strike by telephone from his hotel room in New York, where he was addressing the UN General Assembly and scores of delegates walked out.

The cost of Nasrallah’s scalp was likely several hundred Lebanese civilian lives. The Palestinian journalist got it right. Their dead don’t seem to count the same way.

An entertainment in four acts

DEREK SAYER

First published on Substack, August 9, 2024

Act 1   The curtain rises

“When the clarinet slithers up a disjointed scale at the outset of the piece,” writes The New Yorker‘s opera critic Alex Ross, “the curtain effectively goes up on twentieth-century music.” 

The piece in question is Richard Strauss’s opera Salome, which had its world première at the Semper Opernhaus in Dresden on December 9, 1905. Like Igor Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring, which caused a (literal) riot when it made its debut at Paris’s Théâtre des Champs-Elysées eight years later on May 29, 1913, Salome was a succès de scandale. This was not just because of the modernist dissonance of its musical score.

The first Salome, soprano Marie Wittich, found Strauss’s reworking of Oscar Wilde’s notorious 1891 play “distasteful and obscene.”  She flat out refused to perform the Dance of the Seven Veils—a professional dancer took her place, as would become the norm in many later productions—or to kiss the severed head of John the Baptist at the climax of the opera. “I won’t do it, I’m a decent woman,” she protested. 

The audience had no such scruples. “It was received with unbounded enthusiasm,” Lawrence Gilman informed readers of The North American Review:

There were thirty-eight recalls for the singers, the conductor and the composer, when the curtain fell after the brief performance (the work lasts but an hour and a half). Since then, it has traversed the operatic stages of the Continent in a manner little short of triumphal. It has been jubilantly acclaimed as an epoch-making masterwork, and virulently denounced as a subversive and preposterous aberration: yet it has everywhere been eagerly listened to and clamorously discussed.

Over the next two years Salome was staged in more than fifty European opera houses. Having been banned by the censor in Vienna (where it was not performed until 1918), it had its Austrian première at the Stadtteater in Graz on May 16, 1906.  Such was its allure that Gustav Mahler, Arnold Schoenberg, Giacomo Puccini, and Alban Berg (and according to Richard Strauss, the young Adolf Hitler) were all in the Graz audience.

Salome’s New World première took place at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York on January 22, 1907, with Olive Fremstad in the title role.  According to the Met’s chief archivist Peter Clark, Fremstad was “a daring Salome … perhaps too daring in her fondling the severed head of John the Baptist.”  Two days later, the New York Times carried a letter from an eminent psychologist castigating Strauss’s opera as

a detailed and explicit exposition of the most horrible, disgusting, revolting features of degeneracy (using the word now in its customary social, sexual significance) I have ever heard, read of, or imagined … the fact that it is phrased in limpid language and sung to emotion-liberating music does not make it any the less ghastly to the sane man or woman with normal generic instincts.

Banker J. Pierpoint Morgan’s daughter Anne, who is nowadays remembered as a pioneering feminist and member of the “Mink Brigade” of wealthy society ladies who supported the New York garment workers’ strike of 1909, was equally distressed by the opera’s immorality. Luckily Daddy sat on the Met board.  Five days later Salome was pulled as “detrimental to the best interests of the Metropolitan Opera House.” 

The lone performance and abrupt cancelation of Strauss’s opera may not have been the only factor in the wave of “Salomania” (as the New York Times baptized it) that swept the US in 1907-9, but it certainly helped things along. Before long a Salome dance craze was conquering burlesque and vaudeville stages across the nation.

Never one to miss the opportunity to document a popular trend, the painter Robert Henri, founder of the Ashcan School, hired a vaudeville dancer to model Salome’s Dance of the Seven Veils for him in the privacy of his studio. He painted two versions of Salome Dancer in 1909, which today hang at the Mead Art Museum at Amherst College and the Ringling Museum of Art in Saratosa, Florida. One critic wrote

Her long legs thrust out with strutting sexual arrogance and glint through the over-brushed back veil. It has far more oomph than hundreds of virginal, genteel muses, painted by American academics. [Henri] has given it urgency with slashing brush marks and strong tonal contrasts. He’s learned from Winslow Homer, from Édouard Manet, and from the vulgarity of Frans Hals.

Others were less enamoured of this salacious European import. The actress Marie Cahill, who had previously “startled Broadway by entering a strong protest to theatrical managers against compelling chorus girls to wear tights and excessively short skirts against their will,” wrote to Teddy Roosevelt and other political leaders in August 1908 demanding “the establishment in the state of New York of a commission with powers of censorship over the dramatic stage.” She recommended the “very successful” Lord Chancellor’s censorship of London theaters as a model to follow.

Her fear, she said, was “for the young and innocent,” in particular “the large body of foreign youths and girls” thronging the city:

Is it not the duty … of the true citizen to protect the young from the contamination of such theatrical offerings as clothe pernicious subjects of the ‘Salome’ kind in a boasted artistic atmosphere, but which are really only an excuse for the most vulgar exhibition that this country has ever been called upon to tolerate?

The New York Times took a lighter view, reassuring its readers that “In spite of rumors which have been prevalent of late, it is extremely improbable that a ‘Salome’ dance will be substituted for the ‘Merry Widow’ waltz at the New Amsterdam.”

It is announced on good authority that the management there has been exceptionally active in guarding against outbreaks of Salomania among members of the company. As soon as any chorus girl shows the very first symptoms of the disease she is at once enveloped in a fur coat—the most efficacious safeguard known against the Salome dance—and hurriedly isolated.

Irving Berlin, who was then working as a waiter at Jimmy Kelly’s on Union Square, had his first hit with a little ditty called Sadie Salome (Go home!). There is a fine recording of him singing it with a mock Yiddish accent. The song was popularized by eighteen-year-old Fanny Brice, the original funny girl, in Max Spiegel’s burlesque musical The College Girls, in which she performed a spoof of Salome dancing. Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr. saw the show and immediately hired Fanny for his Follies of 1910.

It’s nice to know that the opera whose opening chords raised the curtain on twentieth-century music was indirectly responsible for Irving Berlin getting his first job in Tin Pan Alley and Fanny Brice joining the Ziegfeld Follies. But Irving’s story of a good Jewish girl gone to the bad confirmed all Marie Cahill’s worst fears: 

Sadie Cohen left her happy home
To become an actress lady
On the stage she soon became the rage
As the only real Salomy baby
When she came to town, her sweetheart Mose
Brought for her around a pretty rose
But he got an awful fright
When his Sadie came to sight
He stood up and yelled with all his might:

Refrain:
Don’t do that dance, I tell you Sadie
That’s not a bus’ness for a lady!
‘Most ev’rybody knows
That I’m your loving Mose
Oy, Oy, Oy, Oy
Where is your clothes?

Act 2   The return of the repressed

Writing in the Brooklyn Eagle in 1926 from Paris, where Salome had by then long been recognized as “an opera that undoubtedly ranks in importance with the greatest works of the post-Wagnerian period,” Edward Cushing lamented that “the severed head of John the Baptist remained among properties blackballed by the moralistic indignation of a Powerful Few.”  Salome would not be performed at the Met again until 1934.

Happily, New Yorkers with a taste for degeneracy were able to satisfy their perverse instincts when Salome was staged at Oscar Hammerstein’s Manhattan Opera House in 1909, with the Scottish-born, Chicago-raised, Paris-trained soprano Mary Garden as Strauss’s lascivious heroine. 

Famous for creating the leading role in Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande at the Opéra-Comique in 1902—she recorded a brief excerpt from Act 3 in 1904, accompanied by Debussy on the piano—Garden performed the Dance of the Seven Veils herself, stripping down to a bodystocking.  

After Hammerstein’s opera company folded, Mary took her Salome to her hometown, reprising the role in the Chicago Grand Opera Company’s inaugural season at the Auditorium Theater in 1910. The city’s guardians of public morality were not pleased by what they heard and saw.  The Chicago Tribune reported that patrons were ”oppressed and horrified. But of any real enjoyment, there was little or no evidence.”  

The Tribune’s theater critic Percy Hammond seems nevertheless to have relished the star’s erotic writhings:

She is a fabulous she-thing playing with love and death—loathsome, mysterious, poisonous, slaking her slimy passion in the blood of her victim … She is Salome according to the Wilde formulary—a monstrous oracle of beauty. 

Like Velasquez’s Rokeby Venus or Courbet’s L’Origine du mondeSalome hits that sweet spot where highbrow and lowbrow meet and transmute base instinct into high art. 

Chicago police chief Roy T. Stewart, who was invited to witness the spectacle for himself at the next showing, was having none of that. He threw his weight squarely behind the middlebrow:

It was disgusting. Miss Garden wallowed around like a cat in a bed of catnip. If the same show was produced on Halsted Street, the people would call it cheap, but over at the Auditorium they say it’s art.

Salome was scheduled for four performances—all of which were sold out in advance—but the company’s board of directors followed the Met’s moral compass and canceled the production after just three nights.

Back in the Old World, the Lord Chamberlainkept Salome off London’s stages until Thomas Beecham negotiated a compromise that permitted a censored production to be staged at the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden on December 8, 1910.

“We had successfully metamorphosed a lurid tale of love and revenge into a comforting sermon,” Beecham claimed. To soothe Christian sensibilities, the setting was shifted from Judea to Ancient Greece and all Biblical references were removed.  Jochanaan (John the Baptist) became simply “The Prophet,” and his severed head was replaced by a bloodied sword.  

Still the Freudian does have a habit of slipping, come what may, and the repressed insists on returning. As Beecham  related in his autobiography, the cast did not play ball with the censors. On opening night, 

Gradually I sensed […] a growing restlessness and excitement of which the first manifestation was a slip on the part of Salome, who forgot two or three sentences of the bowdlerised version and lapsed into the viciousness of the lawful text. The infection spread among the other performers, and by the time the second half of the work was well under way they were all giving in and shamelessly restoring it to its integrity, as if no such things existed as British respectability and its legal custodians. 

After two World Wars, opera audiences became more liberal—or at least more blasé.  Strauss’s onetime shocker took its place in the standard repertoire alongside The Marriage of FigaroCarmen, and La Bohème

When Salome was revived at the Met in 1949 under the baton of Fritz Reiner, the Bulgarian soprano Ljuba Welitsch sang and danced the title role, “her ripe form swathed in flimsy green garments that set off a mop of carrot-coloured hair.”  This time, “when the great gold curtains finally swept together, the audience set up a thunderous roar, an ovation that lasted for fifteen minutes.”[1]

New York Times opera critic Olin Downes hailed Salome as “a vital modern opera”:

The music is white hot … Strauss’s use of dissonance, which is now child’s play, but which in 1905, or 1907, was the last word of harmonic writing, is still very effective … It still seizes you. But the whole score, with its inherent banalities intact, remains an astonishingly unified and indestructible whole, which, as of 1949, stands up astonishingly well.

Downes went on to suggest that Salome’s place in the repertoire would be safe until producers began to find it “hopelessly old hat” and “impossible to take seriously. Then it will be interpreted superficially, and begin to sound frayed and of the past.”

Seventy-five years on, Salome seems in no danger of falling out of fashion. That has not stopped producers outdoing themselves in more or less successful attempts to recapture its shock factor. 

Adam Yegoyan thought it cool to stage the Dance of the Seven Veils as a gang rape for the Canadian Opera Company in 1996.  Lydia Steier’s production at the Paris Opera in 2022 also climaxed in a mass rape, with the added refinement of having her Salome stand stock still on a pedestal while her stepfather Herod danced around her, removing her garments once by one.

Catherine Malfitano has the distinction of being the first Salome to dispense with the bodystocking and bare her all for art in Peter Weigl’s production at the Deutsch Oper Berlin in 1990. Maria Ewing spectacularly did the same for (her husband) Peter Hall’s production at Covent Garden in 1992—a more than adequate atonement for Thomas Beecham’s bowdlerization in the same house eighty-two years before. 

The Met finally caved in 2004.   New York Times reviewer Anthony Thommasini couldn’t get enough of “attractive blonde-haired Finnish soprano” Karita Mattila:

Ms. Mattila was so intense, possessed and exposed in the role that she pummeled you into submission.

And I use the word exposed literally. For her slithering and erotic interpretation of Salome’s ”Dance of the Seven Veils,” cannily choreographed by Doug Varone and sensually conducted by Valery Gergiev, Ms. Mattila shed item after item of a Marlene Dietrich-like white tuxedo costume until for a fleeting moment she twirled around exultant, half-crazed and completely naked. 

Nowadays exposing the soprano seems to have become par for the course. Among recent interpreters, Mlada KhudoleyNicola Beller Carbone, and Patricia Racette have all ended Salome’s dance au naturel. 

In the end what endures is the music. As Lawrence Gilman told readers of the North American Review back in 1907,

in harmonic radicalism and in elaborateness and intricacy of orchestration [Salome] is [Strauss’s] most extreme performance. His use of dissonance—or, more precisely, of sheer cacophony—is as deliberate and persistent as it is unabashed. The entire score is a harmonic tour de force of the most amazing character—a practically continuous texture of new and daring combinations of tone.

Of the many recordings, Ljuba Welitch’s 1944 Vienna Radio broadcast of the closing scene, conducted by Lovro von Matacic, is hors de concours. In part, as Bryan Crimp writes in his liner notes, this is “because the voice is so youthful.”[2]  But only in part. It’s not just the voice, which indeed shines gloriously, but what Welitsch does with it.

Welitsch and Matacic rehearsed the performance with the composer himself, who was by then in his eightieth year. “Richard Strauss was terrific,” Welitsch told an interviewer for the magazine Opernwelt later, “he went through every bar, every phrase with Matacic and me. For example, this ‘Ich habe deinen Mmmmmuuuunnnd geküsst’ (I have kissed your mouth), this desire, he said, must come out in you, it was fantastic.”

Ljuba didn’t disappoint. Especially in that exultant, incandescent final passage. For Jürgen Kesting

In the 1944 recording, for the climactic phase, on the last syllable of “Jochanaan” … the slenderly sensual voice not only sparkles like a diamond, it burns. What Welitsch has left behind is not only the ominous best rendering or representation of this scene—but the only one ever.

Listen to it, if you dare. Here we really do have the Salome of Strauss’s dreams (or should I say nightmares?)—”a sixteen-year-old princess with the voice of an Isolde.”

Act 3   What is this shit?

Salome may have raised the curtain on twentieth-century music, but Strauss grew weary of being portrayed as the torch-bearer for modernism by his opponents and fans alike. As early as 1900 he had confessed to Romain Rolland that

I am not a hero; I haven’t got the necessary strength; I am not made for battle; I much prefer to go into retreat, to be peaceful and to rest. I haven’t enough genius … I don’t want to make the effort. At this moment what I need is to make sweet and happy music. No more heroisms.

Elektra (1909) took Salome’s dissonance even further, but with Der Rosenkavalier, which premiered in Dresden in 1911, Strauss and his librettist Hugo von Hoffmannsthal offered something completely different—a camp pastiche of Mozart and (Johann) Strauss’s comic operas which the critics panned and audiences loved.

On February 11, 1909 Hofmannsthal had written to Strauss, “My dear Doctor, I have spent three quiet afternoons here drafting the full and entirely original scenario for a new opera, full of burlesque situations and character.  It contains two big parts, one for baritone and one for a girl dressed up as a man, à la Farrar or Mary Garden.”  

Geraldine Farrar wanted too much money. Mary Garden turned down the role of Count Octavian “because it would bore me to make love to a woman.”  She was referring to the fact that at the beginning of the opera the curtain rises on 17-year-old Octavian in bed with the 33-year-old Marschallin, with whom he had spent the night. Strauss loved to write for the soprano voice, and casting Octavian as a trouser role enabled him to compose some luscious soprano duets and trios.

Der Rosenkavalier was the operatic equivalent of Bob Dylan’s infamous 1970 album Self-Portrait. Griel Marcus began his review of the latter in Rolling Stone with the words “What is this shit?”

Imagine a kid in his teens responding to Self-Portrait. His older brothers and sisters have been living by Dylan for years. They come home with the album and he simply cannot figure out what it’s all about. To him, Self-Portrait sounds more like the stuff his parents listen to than what he wants to hear; in fact, his parents have just gone out and bought Self-Portrait and given it to him for his birthday. He considers giving it back for Father’s Day.

But Richard Strauss had found his operatic métier, and he never looked back. He knew well indeed, he said, that as an art form opera was dead. Wagner was so gigantic a peak that nobody could rise higher. “‘But,’ he added, with a broad, Bavarian grin, ‘I solved the problem by making a detour around it.’” 

The detour produced a string of Strauss/Hoffmannsthal hits: Ariadne auf Naxos (1912), Die Frau ohne Schatten (1919), Die ägyptische Helena (1928), and Arabella (first performed in 1933). After Hoffmannsthal died in 1929 Strauss turned to the Jewish writer Stefan Zweig for his next opera, Die Schweigsame Frau (The Silent Woman).

By the time Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, Strauss was Germany’s pre-eminent living composer. At first he thought he could quietly retreat to the villa in the Munich suburb of Garmisch he bought with the proceeds from Salome until the storm passed. 

“I made music under the Kaiser,” he supposedly told his family. “I’ll survive under this lot, as well.” Considering himself above politics, he assured them: “I just sit here in Garmisch and compose. Everything else is irrelevant to me.”  He soon discovered that for an artist of his stature, neutrality was not permitted.

Strauss “met frequently with Hitler, Goering, and Goebbels,” recalled Stefan Zweig, “and at a time when even [Wilhelm] Furtwängler was still in mutiny, allowed himself to be made president of the Nazi Chamber of Music.” 

Strauss’s open participation was of tremendous importance to the National Socialists at that moment. For, annoyingly enough, not only the best writers, but the most important musicians as well had openly snubbed them, and the few who held with them or came over to the reservation were unknown to the wide public. To have the most famous musician of Germany align himself with them at so embarrassing a moment meant, in its decorative aspect, an immeasurable gain to Goebbels and Hitler. Hitler, who had, as Strauss told me, during his Viennese vagabond years scraped up enough money to travel to Graz to attend the premiere of ‘Salome,’ was honouring him demonstratively; at all festive evenings at Berchtesgaden, besides Wagner, Strauss songs were sung almost exclusively.

The Reichsmusikkammer (Reich Chamber of Music) regulated all aspects of German musical life. Its brief was to make “good German music,” which meant such modernist deviations as expressionism and atonality, together with jazz (“Negro music”), swing, and anything by Jewish composers like Mendelssohn, Mahler, or Schoenberg—not to mention Irving Berlin—were banned. Fortunately Strauss’s years of dissonance were far behind him. 

Strauss’s works during his time at the Reichsmusikkammer include the suitably pompous Olympic Hymn for the 1936 Berlin Games. But by the time the hymn was played at the opening ceremony, he had been forced to resign his position. He was already in trouble over his insistence on including Stefan Zweig’s name in the program for the première of Die Schweigsame Frau, when a letter to Zweig in which Strauss criticized Nazi racial politics was intercepted by the Gestapo.  Die Schweigsame Frau was canceled after the second performance and banned throughout Germany.

Strauss was undoubtedly vain, loved fame and money, and hoped to use his position at the Reichsmusikkammer to improve the lot of German musicians. But as Zweig makes clear, the composer had other reasons for working with the Nazis too:

To be particularly co-operative with the National Socialists was … of vital interest to him, because in the National Socialist sense he was very much in the red. His son had married a Jewess, and thus he feared that his grandchildren whom he loved above everything else, would be excluded as scum from the schools; his new opera was tainted through me, his earlier operas through the half-Jew, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, his publisher was a Jew. 

After 1936 the regime kept Strauss on a tight leash, and his daughter-in-law Alice and grandsons Christian and Richard were hostages for his good behavior. Alice and her sons were harassed during the Kristallnacht pogrom of November 1938. After Alice’s grandmother Paula Neumann was detained in Prague in 1942, Strauss drove to the gates of Terezín concentration camp to demand her release. He was unsuccessful. Together with twenty-five other relatives of Alice’s, Paula Neumann perished in the camps. 

By the time Strauss came to rehearse that incandescent final scene of Salome with Lovro von Matacic and Ljuba Welitsch, he had been living in Vienna for two years. He moved there with Alice and her children in 1942, promised protection by Baldur von Schirach, the Gauleiter of Vienna. The Gestapo arrested Alice together with Strauss’s son Franz in 1944, but Strauss was able to secure their release and allowed to take them back to Garmisch, where they were held under house arrest till the war ended.

The final months of the war hit Strauss hard as he watched opera house after opera house where his works had played—the Lindenoper in Berlin, the Semper in Dresden, the Vienna State Opera house—reduced to rubble and ashes by Allied bombs. 

A famous photograph by Lee Miller shows the young Irmgard Seefried singing an aria from Madame Butterfly in the ruins of the Vienna State Opera in 1945. A year earlier, on June 11, 1944, at the outset of her career, Seefried was “a Composer of one’s dreams” in Ariadne auf Naxos, conducted in the same building by Karl Böhm in a special performance to celebrate Richard Strauss’s eightieth birthday. 

The performance was recorded.  “[Seefried] is in magnificent voice,”  writes Ken Melzer, 

and ever attentive to the character’s mercurial changes of moods; from frustrated artist, to inspired creator, to an impetuous young man in love (both with his art and, for a bit, with Zerbinetta). The Composer’s final apostrophe to his art is everything it should be, radiantly sung, and brimming with humanity.

Strauss poured his grief into the “solemn, dark, and resigned music from the end of a sorrowing composer’s life” of Metamorphosen, a suite for 23 solo strings composed between 13 March—the day after the destruction of the Vienna Opera House—and 12 April 1945. In its conclusion, Strauss quotes the opening bars of the Funeral March from Beethoven’s Eroica symphony, beneath which he wrote on the final page of the score: “In memoriam.” 

A few days after finishing Metamorphosen, he recorded in his diary:

The most terrible period of human history is at an end, the twelve-year reign of bestiality, ignorance, and anti-culture under the greatest criminals, during which Germany’s 2000 years of cultural evolution met its doom.

Listening to Metamorphosen, scored for ten violins, five violas, five cellos, and three double basses, one might well ask “Ist dies etwas der Tod?” (Is this perhaps death?)  In keening music of unrelenting ferocity, the 23 strings plumb the depths of sorrow, grief, misery, despair. 

Act 4   Ist dies etwas der Tod?

David Bowie’s favorite albums, as listed in Vanity Fair in November 2003, include The Fabulous Little Richard, Steve Reich’s Music for 18 Musicians, John Lee Hooker’s Tupelo BluesThe Velvet Underground and Nico, Charles Mingus’s Oh Yeah, The Fugs self-titled debut album, and Stravinsky’s Le Sacre du Printemps—the latter on Woolworth’s Music for Pleasure budget label with Australia’s Ayres Rock blazing red on the cover, which David bought in the late 1950s when he was in his early teens. That MFP recording was my introduction to The Rite of Spring too. 

In their time and in their way, all of these were “edgy.”  But Bowie’s “one album that I give to friends and acquaintances continually” may come as more of a surprise— 

Although Eleanor Steber and Lisa della Casa do fine interpretations of this monumental work, [Gundula] Janowitz’s performance of Strauss’s Four Last Songshas been described, rightly, as transcendental. It aches with love for a life that is quietly fading. I know of no other piece of music, nor any performance, which moves me quite like this.

“At the end of a long and successful career, when a composer still has the power to move his audience with a swansong of such sublime beauty that it takes your breath away—well, you know that work is a masterpiece,” writes Jane Jones: 

The words are all warm, wise and reflective with no hint of religious consolation as death approaches, but rather a deeply felt appreciation of the world before leaving. This isn’t some maudlin notion with the benefit of hindsight, although these songs do have a profound sense of longing and melancholy, but the overwhelming effect is one of a feeling of serene peace. It’s simply one of the most touchingly beautiful ways for a composer to end his career. 

“Strauss clearly is making a final statement, offering a credo of sorts, particularly in the song Im Abendrot (At Sunset), which describes death as a vast, tranquil peace after the weariness of wandering,” agrees soprano Renée Fleming, who has sung Strauss’s cycle more often than any other work in her repertoire. 

Strauss did not know that these would be his last songs when he composed them at the age of 84, less than a year before his death. The title was given by his publisher.  

In the same way that it is now almost impossible to look at photographer Francesca Woodman’s teenage self-portraits without seeing in them a foreshadowing of her suicide at 22, it is difficult today to hear the Four Last Songs as anything but an envoi. But would we hear them the same way if Strauss had lived ten more years? 

Ist dies etwas der Tod?” is the last line of Im Abendrot (At Sunset), the Alfred von Eichendorf poem that concludes the last of the Four Last Songs in the order in which they are usually performed (although it was actually the earliest of the four to be composed—its conventional placing at the end is for poetic and dramatic effect).

The musical mood could not be more different than that of Metamorphosen.  Here the strings soar, the soprano shimmers and shines, the horns softly glow, and the flutes trill in imitation of Eichendorff’s two skylarks nightdreaming as they climb into the sky at dusk. Despite the fact that three of the four poems Strauss chose to set (the others are by Hermann Hesse) ostensibly deal with death, the music makes us feel that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds to leave behind.

When I was much younger I used to love these songs. They moved me as they did David Bowie. But at the age of 73, I am more ambivalent—and the more so, the more I have learned about the circumstances of their creation. 

In ill health, short of money, his reputation sullied by his association with the Nazi regime, Strauss and his wife, soprano Pauline de Ahna, left defeated Germany in October 1945 for Switzerland where they lived in hotels. The recent past continued to shadow him. 

Between finishing Im Abendrot in Montreux on May 6, 1948 and completing Frühling (Spring) on July 18 in Pontresena, Strauss faced a de-Nazification hearing. In the event, he was cleared of collaboration. He finished Beim Schlafengehen (Going to Sleep) in Pontresina 17 days later, and September in Montreux on September 20. 

There are undoubted moments of astonishing beauty in these works. The violin solo before the lines “Und die Seele unbewacht/will in freien Flügen schweben” (And the unguarded soul/wants to float in free flight) in Beim Schlafengehen is breathtaking. 

But—for me at least—it also brings back another violin solo, in Janáček’s opera Jenůfa, ascending from the orchestra pit up to the gods where I was sitting in Glasgow’s Theatre Royal way back when—only, that solo came at the climax of Kostelnička’s aria Co chvila (A Moment) in which the sextoness resolves to kill her daughter Jenůfa’s illegitimate baby. 

The violin ratchets up the tension unbearably as Kostelnička snatches up the child and rushes out into the icy night. Compared with this, the violin solo in Beim Schlafengehen feels like cheap artifice.

And this is my problem with Strauss’s entire cycle.  Not least, with those trilling skylarks with which Im Abendrot, and the cycle, concludes. What kind of shit is this? I ask. Especially coming from the composer whose scandalous, vulgar, cacophonous Salome lifted the curtain on twentieth-century music? 

When all is said and done, the poems are trite, the sentiments shallow, the music less a coming to terms with death than a determined looking away from it, cloaking its terrors in a blanket of saccharine loveliness with not a dissonant note to disturb the reverie.

The cycle is an ersatz envoi, a camp masquerade, fit to stand alongside Frank Sinatra’s My Way and John Lennon’s Imagine as an enduring memorial to the middlebrow.  There can be few better examples of kitsch as Milan Kundera defines it—“the need to gaze into the mirror of the beautifying lie and to be moved to tears of gratification at one’s own reflection.”

The Four Last Songs bear the same relation to Metamorphosen as Der Rosenkavalier does to Salome and Elektra. Richard is up to his old tricks again. Taking a detour. 

Or is he?

As I sat down to write this piece, I listened for the first time in years to Gundula Janowitz’s rendition of the Four Last Songs, the one recommended by David Bowie. 

This recording is frequently cited as a favourite for obvious reasons,” writes Ralph Moore in his review of forty-six of “the most notable” renditions of the cycle—there have been many more, for what soprano worth her salt could resist the challenge of such beauty? He praises

the silvery, soaring ecstasy of Janowitz’ lirico-spinto soprano, the mastery of Karajan’s control of phrasing and dynamics and the virtuosity of the Berlin Philharmonic at their peak. Janowitz’ voice has an instrumental quality which blends beautifully with the orchestra. The rapt quality essential to these songs making the necessary impact is present throughout; the requisite trance-like atmosphere is generated without risking torpor or languor. For me, as for many others this is as close to a flawless recording of these masterpieces as can be achieved.

I agree. Janowitz strikes the perfect balance between the lightness of a Lisa Della Casa or Elizabeth Schwarzkopf and the sumptuousness of Jessye Norman, whose recording, to my ears, drowns under the weight of its own splendor. Norman’s Im Abendrot clocks in at a stately 9 minutes and 56 seconds, where Janowitz is done and dusted in 7:09. 

Detail, Gustave Moreau, Salome Dancing, known as Salome Tattooed, 1874, oil on canvas, 92 x 60 cm (Musée Gustave Moreau, Paris)

By chance, as I was listening to Janowitz my laptop was open on Gustave Moreau’s 1874 oil painting Salome Dancing, aka Salome Tatooed, which I had downloaded while searching for possible illustrations for this essay. More high camp.  On the face of it, Moreau’s salacious painting and Strauss’s sublime music couldn’t be further apart.

This “fortuitous meeting of two distant realities on an inappropriate plane” (Max Ernst) produced a remarkable synesthesia. Call it hasard objectif. Letting the music wash over me, I continued to gaze—with, no doubt, a very male gaze—at Moreau’s Salome.

And Salome returned my gaze: while her head is modestly averted, the eyes tatooed beneath her breasts look full frontally into yours.  

Strauss’s lush orchestration mirrors all the dark richness of Moreau’s colors, the glowering reds, the glints of blue and gold. Janowitz’s voice, soaring effortlessly over the orchestra, is the perfect aural counterpart to Salome’s luminous dancer, exposed and vulnerable and yet commanding the rapt attention of all. 

I briefly wondered what might happen if we were to stage the final scene of Salome to the accompaniment of the Four Last Songs, or substituted the words “Ich habe deinen Mund geküsst, Jokanaan” for “O weiter, stiller Friede! so tief im Abendrot” (O vast, silent peace, so deep in the sunset) in Im Abendrot. The idea is not so preposterous.

After all, a mere four years separated Strauss’s Four Last Songs from that definitive recording of the final scene of Salome for Vienna Radio in 1944, when the old master coached Ljuba Welitsch on how to pour every last ounce of desire into the princess’s triumphant “Ich habe deinen Mmmmmuuuunnnd geküsst, Jokanaan.” 

Somewhere, I’m sure, Richard Strauss is grinning that broad Bavarian grin.


Notes

[1] Frank Merkling, sleevenotes to Ljuba Welitsch, Final Scene from Salome and Other Arias, CBS Legendary Performances 61088.

[2] Ljuba Welitsch, soprano. The HMV Treasury, HLM 7006