Music and Politics: Religious leaders react angrily to Roger Waters' latest outspoken attack on treatment of Palestinians

[Snowmonkey]

I don't know any Israeli who denies the 48 war caused refugees. How and why they became refugees is a question certainly open to debate, and the fact that few Israelis wholly accept the Palestinian mythology about what happened in 1948 doesn't make them "deniers".

Well my friend, we could argue interminably about the circumstances surrounding the Palestinian displacement, but as neither of us was there at the time, we must rely on the accounts of historians. I invite you to examine the Wikipedia article on the subject and its various citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus Ironically, though the article details systematic intimidation and expulsions of Palestinians by the Hagenah and the Irgun, the only dispute which is registered to the article is a claim that it is excessively pro-Zionist.

 

Israel was established to be a national home for the Jewish people.

Also ironic, considering that this little dialogue between us started with you taking exception to my statement that the state of Israel is defined by race.

[firedog]

 

Also ironic, considering that this little dialogue between us started with you taking exception to my statement that the state of Israel is defined by race.

 

Uh, no. I think sometimes you don't even understand English. A national home isn't a racial definition. It's a national one. Nothing in the term national home excludes anyone. Does it say non-Jews can't live there or have rights?

 

I think France is the national home of the French people. If you aren't French you can't necessarily move there and become a citizen. Same goes for Australia. So according to your definition Australia must be a racist state, because I, as a non-Australian, can't move there and automatically become a citizen.

[firedog]

Well my friend, we could argue interminably about the circumstances surrounding the Palestinian displacement, but as neither of us was there at the time, we must rely on the accounts of historians. I invite you to examine the Wikipedia article on the subject and its various citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus Ironically, though the article details systematic intimidation and expulsions of Palestinians by the Hagenah and the Irgun, the only dispute which is registered to the article is a claim that it is excessively pro-Zionist.

 

 

 

Yeah, it's an article in Wikipedia....

 

Interestingly, you didn't note that the article quotes Benny Morris as saying the number of expulsions by the Haganah and Irgun was insignificant.

 

The article extensively quotes from some dubious sources. It refers to action according to a Haganah Plan that was written down as a contingency plan but has been shown never to have been implemented. Another dubious source is Ilan Pappe, a "historian" who's been widely discredited. Even Benny Morris published an article detailing his at best sloppy, and at worst, deliberately deceptive writing. Not what one academic usually does to another supposed colleague. Pappe left his post in Israel after he was shown to have mentored/accepted a thesis by one of his students who wrote about a massacre of a Palestinian village - except that it was shown that the massacre never happened and the writer invented quotes from supposed survivors to back up his claims.

 

Pappe is mainly quoted by Palestinian propagandists. In the wider academic world he isn't taken seriously.

[Paul R]

Actually Paul, I haven't said anything to you. I've only asked you to elaborate on what you have to say.

 

I know, and was trying to divine and encourage you to speak out about what you believe. The tactic of asking questions like you are doing is to only a way to reserve judgement, but also a way to be judgmental.

 

1. You stated that maybe is was time to take Waters off your playlist. I basically asked you to explain why and so far you seem to be reluctant to do so.

I pointed out that was saying maybe, which is a clear indication I am thinking about changing my mind about it. The first post in this thread has a link to what was actually said.

 

2. You suggested maybe there should be a restriction on free speech. I asked you who gets to decide what is allowable and you are interpreting that as a diatribe in favour of free speech.

 

I did not interpret it as a diatribe about anything. I was saying I think that is what you are saying, and asked you if I got it right. It requires discussion, not a doctoral defense, to understand what each other is talking about. One side asking all the questions is an interrogation.

 

I think I was pretty clear in any case, when I replied that each group will need to define its own standards of what is and is not acceptable. I even pointed out that is something that is happening on CA. Not without some BS&T either.

 

I have made no statement about my opinion on either Roger Waters or free speech. I am just asking those who have stated opinions on these matters to explain themselves and perhaps help me to arrive at an informed opinion.

 

I strongly suggest you share your opinion as well. Nobody likes to be at the business end of what feels like an inquisition. If you only want to ask questions, expect replies to include questions as well. (grin) I am *not* jumping on you by the way, just pointing out what it looks like. I know very well you are willing to share your opinions about most things.

 

PS I am not aware of anyone being prosecuted in Australia or anywhere else for advocating global warming (whatever that means). If you are aware of such a case, I'm all ears (grin)

 

The incident I was thinking of did not result in prosecution, merely a reprimand from the government and the loss of his job. That would be Graeme Pearman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeme_Pearman

 

I was also thinking of Albert Langer, but he was imprisoned on contempt of court charges, and never prosecuted.

 

Finally was was flowing through my mind was the Refused Classification bit you guys have for media over there. That effectively at least, bans anything that you refuse to classify. That was flowing through my mind because if the RAP lyrics I detest here were aimed at Aboriginals, they would almost certainly get banned in Australia.

 

In any case, yes, you were correct, as far as I can tell, except for cases that involve political speech, you guys have not pursued much if any persecution on this. Which is admirable, I think.

[Paul R]

Well my friend, we could argue interminably about the circumstances surrounding the Palestinian displacement, but as neither of us was there at the time, we must rely on the accounts of historians. I invite you to examine the Wikipedia article on the subject and its various citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus Ironically, though the article details systematic intimidation and expulsions of Palestinians by the Hagenah and the Irgun, the only dispute which is registered to the article is a claim that it is excessively pro-Zionist.

 

On needs to be exceptionally careful about Wikipedia articles - especially articles about anything controversial. The Wiki will get constantly edited to reflect one side or another. Better to go for more academic sources.

 

Just my $0.02.

[wgscott]

[Priaptor]

Well my friend, we could argue interminably about the circumstances surrounding the Palestinian displacement, but as neither of us was there at the time, we must rely on the accounts of historians. I invite you to examine the Wikipedia article on the subject and its various citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus Ironically, though the article details systematic intimidation and expulsions of Palestinians by the Hagenah and the Irgun, the only dispute which is registered to the article is a claim that it is excessively pro-Zionist.

 

Also ironic, considering that this little dialogue between us started with you taking exception to my statement that the state of Israel is defined by race.

 

Actually, my 103 year old father-in-law was there and long before. It is all very fresh in his mind, despite being 103. Snowmonkey, your unwillingness to accept history AS IT HAPPENS, is unfortunately your biggest flaw. But hey, you can't even see the anti-Semitism behind Waters so why bother.

[Snowmonkey]

Uh, no. I think sometimes you don't even understand English. A national home isn't a racial definition. It's a national one. Nothing in the term national home excludes anyone. Does it say non-Jews can't live there or have rights?

 

I think France is the national home of the French people. If you aren't French you can't necessarily move there and become a citizen. Same goes for Australia. So according to your definition Australia must be a racist state, because I, as a non-Australian, can't move there and automatically become a citizen.

French is not a race. Australian is not a race. Jewish is a race. I can think of no other country that is defined in terms of a race. I'm not even saying that is inherently bad, just that it leads to attacks on Israel being interpreted as attacks on the Jewish people (à la Waters). About 70% of Australians are Anglo-Saxon. Australia receives much condemnation, some harsh and some from celebrities, for its policy of incarcerating people who arrive by boat claiming political asylum. Never have I heard any of Australia's critics accused of racism against the Anglo-Saxon race.

[Snowmonkey]

I strongly suggest you share your opinion as well. Nobody likes to be at the business end of what feels like an inquisition. If you only want to ask questions, expect replies to include questions as well. (grin) I am *not* jumping on you by the way, just pointing out what it looks like. I know very well you are willing to share your opinions about most things. .

Paul, I genuinely have not formed an opinion on Waters because I am not aware of all his public statements. If he has made any overtly racist statements, I will certainly form an opinion. I keep asking, nay beseeching, all those who condemn Waters to provide a single statement he has made which would appear to be racist to an objective observer.

 

As to the Wikipedia article, I know better than to accept a Wikipedia article as gospel, but I did mention you should look at the citations, of which there are 115. You may pick some as biased one way or the other, but overall the view comes out fairly balanced. As I said, the only objection at present registered is that the article is excessively pro Zionist.

[Priaptor]

French is not a race. Australian is not a race. Jewish is a race. I can think of no other country that is defined in terms of a race. I'm not even saying that is inherently bad, just that it leads to attacks on Israel being interpreted as attacks on the Jewish people (à la Waters). About 70% of Australians are Anglo-Saxon. Australia receives much condemnation, some harsh and some from celebrities, for its policy of incarcerating people who arrive by boat claiming political asylum. Never have I heard any of Australia's critics accused of racism against the Anglo-Saxon race.

 

Really, you can unquestionable describe "Jewish as a race" despite all the arguments for and against that point of view?? First it proves your incredible desire to describe us Jews as a race is intimately tied to your tortuous logic to prove some point that being against Israel and Jews is OK, why, I don't know, he is on first base, not that I give a damn;

 

and

 

second, why fight it, so for now on, I will consider myself a Judeo-American thanks to your classification of us Jewish people

[Snowmonkey]

Actually, my 103 year old father-in-law was there and long before. It is all very fresh in his mind, despite being 103. Snowmonkey, your unwillingness to accept history AS IT HAPPENS, is unfortunately your biggest flaw. But hey, you can't even see the anti-Semitism behind Waters so why bother.

I gather history AS IT HAPPENS means your or your father-in-law's version. I again invite you to provide me with a statement by Waters which is anti-Semitic. He's very angry, he insults people with different views and he doesn't pay as much attention to the plight of the Tibetans are not reasons to view him as anti-Semitic except to those who choose to interpret it that way.

[Snowmonkey]

Really, you can unquestionable describe "Jewish as a race" despite all the arguments for and against that point of view?? First it proves your incredible desire to describe us Jews as a race is intimately tied to your tortuous logic to prove some point that being against Israel and Jews is OK, why, I don't know, he is on first base, not that I give a damn;

 

and

 

second, why fight it, so for now on, I will consider myself a Judeo-American thanks to your classification of us Jewish people

 

Being against Israel (or at least its policies) is OK. Being against Jews is not OK - it's racist. It is you who choose to conflate the two, not me.

 

For the record, I am not against Israel as a state. I would not deign to judge the actions of the Jewish people after WWII. The Western allies sat on their hands and watched millions of Jews slaughtered, even while the Jewish community begged them to bomb the death camps, or at least the train lines in. I respect that many Jews vowed never again to be beholden to outside powers for their protection and took up arms to create a defend-able territory for themselves.

What troubles me is the attempt to whitewash history and pretend that nothing untoward happened to the Palestinians. To me that is a betrayal of what Israel should be about. It was Nelson Mandela who had the insight to establish the truth and reconciliation commissions in South Africa, who realised that until the truth is told and acknowledged, there can be no way forward.

[oso]

I am not against anybody.

But I do not like walls.

And especially if they; ;''just got ten feet higher''

[Paul R]

Paul, I genuinely have not formed an opinion on Waters because I am not aware of all his public statements. If he has made any overtly racist statements, I will certainly form an opinion. I keep asking, nay beseeching, all those who condemn Waters to provide a single statement he has made which would appear to be racist to an objective observer.

 

As to the Wikipedia article, I know better than to accept a Wikipedia article as gospel, but I did mention you should look at the citations, of which there are 115. You may pick some as biased one way or the other, but overall the view comes out fairly balanced. As I said, the only objection at present registered is that the article is excessively pro Zionist.

 

Yep - but you don't find anything objectional in the article that was originally linked?

 

Former Pink Floyd frontman sparks fury by comparing Israelis to Nazis | Music | The Guardian

[Priaptor]

I am not against anybody.

But I do not like walls.

And especially if they; ;''just got ten feet higher''

 

Do you live in a house or apartment? If you do, then I guess you like walls, no?

[christopher3393]

From what I've read, Roger Waters could easily be accused of gross insensitivity, one-sidedness, and the use of highly inflammatory language. Is he anti-semitic? I can see how some could interpret him that way, but I have not seen enough evidence to warrant that claim. One has to read what might be implied cumulatively from the body of public comments he has made and the responses to those comments. I haven't seen any convincing case made either here or in what I've been able to read at this point to come to that conclusion. On this point I would tend to agree with what snowmokey and wgscott have stated: a request for evidence that Roger Waters is antisemitic. Does he hate Jews generically? I really don't think so. Does he hate a number of Israeli policies? Yes. Are there grey areas here? I think so. So while one might harbor the suspicion of anti-semitism and interpret his statements through that lens, there are other lenses as well. I am open to being convinced otherwise by an argument grounded in evidence.

 

 

Ted Nugent? That's another story.

[Snowmonkey]

Namaste brother.

[Snowmonkey]

Yep - but you don't find anything objectional in the article that was originally linked?

 

Former Pink Floyd frontman sparks fury by comparing Israelis to Nazis | Music | The Guardian

 

No, though he comes across as somewhat insensitive. If you could help me by posting a relevant extract, I would be obliged.

[Tintinabulum]

Anyone read "The Holocaust Industry" Norman Finkelstein, son of a survivor. Apropos of nothing in particular.

[odelay]

Do you live in a house or apartment? If you do, then I guess you like walls, no?

 

 

Maybe Oso lives in a Pendopo? [emoji846]

 

http://indohoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Omah-Sinten-pendopo-style-restaurant.jpg

[odelay]

I would very much hope we can separate criticisms of the Israeli government from attacks on Jewish folk at large.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I am very keen for people - worldwide - to criticise the Australian government (particularly on its asylum seeker policy that Snowmonkey alludes to). It is difficult to imagine learning much if we are not exposed to divergent views and ideas. That is not to say that we expect someone to have a magic bullet to make all the problems go away. Nobody here seems to be under any illusion about that [emoji846]

 

While robust discussion about sensitive issues may well be challenging, any democracy worth its salt, should be able to handle.

 

Do celebs talk more about Tibet or Palestine/Israel? I'd think the former - but happy to be corrected.

 

 

Hard to fathom

 

Maybe I missed it, but didn't find anything in the original article to offend.

[firedog]

French is not a race. Australian is not a race. Jewish is a race. I can think of no other country that is defined in terms of a race. I'm not even saying that is inherently bad, just that it leads to attacks on Israel being interpreted as attacks on the Jewish people (à la Waters). About 70% of Australians are Anglo-Saxon. Australia receives much condemnation, some harsh and some from celebrities, for its policy of incarcerating people who arrive by boat claiming political asylum. Never have I heard any of Australia's critics accused of racism against the Anglo-Saxon race.

 

Again, you simply are wrong on facts.

 

There are two aspects that define someone being Jewish: nationality and/or belief. You don't have to be a religious believer to be a Jew. People of the Jewish faith are also members of the Jewish people. But a person can also be a member of more than one nation - as that's a matter of choice, not one of race. Thus a Jewish person can define himself as a member of the Jewish people, but choose that his nationality is American or Australian or anything else. A non-Jewish person can become a Jew. So by definition the Jews aren't a race. No more so than Australians.

 

A people/nation isn't a race. Drop your simplistic and incorrect definitions, do some reading and get a clue. You don't seem to know the difference. The Australians are a people, just like the French or the Germans. The same for the Jews.

 

There are Jews and Israelis from virtually every country in the world, with the genetic and cultural background to match. In every color from white to black. Israel is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world. Your insistence on the word race regarding Jews and Israel is peculiar. You throw around the word race with no understanding of it.

 

Can you define race? I think not. Or at least not in a way that works in science. As far as I know, modern research is divided, some saying there is no such thing as race, and others saying there are 3 races: African, Asian, and Caucasian. There are Jews from all three of those groups and many with mixed heritage.You really aren't qualified to even use the term racism, as you have no clue about how to use the term.

 

But even granting your incorrect definition, Israel isn't defined on the basis of what you call race. But many other countries are. Check just about every Arab country and you will see that they define themselves legally as the "Arab Republic of...". How do you think the Scottish National Movement defines Scotland? Sounds pretty "racial" to me. But for some reason you seem to latch on to Israel and call it racist. I think that says a lot more about your prejudices (and possibly deliberate misunderstanding) than it does about Israel.

[firedog]

From what I've read, Roger Waters could easily be accused of gross insensitivity, one-sidedness, and the use of highly inflammatory language. Is he anti-semitic? I can see how some could interpret him that way, but I have not seen enough evidence to warrant that claim. One has to read what might be implied cumulatively from the body of public comments he has made and the responses to those comments. I haven't seen any convincing case made either here or in what I've been able to read at this point to come to that conclusion. On this point I would tend to agree with what snowmokey and wgscott have stated: a request for evidence that Roger Waters is antisemitic. Does he hate Jews generically? I really don't think so. Does he hate a number of Israeli policies? Yes. Are there grey areas here? I think so. So while one might harbor the suspicion of anti-semitism and interpret his statements through that lens, there are other lenses as well. I am open to being convinced otherwise by an argument grounded in evidence.

 

 

Ted Nugent? That's another story.

 

anti-Semitism isn't limited to simple vulgar prejudice such as "Jews like money" or "Jews have big noses". It's prejudice against Jews.

 

If you create a double standard by which you judge the world, and apply one standard to Israel and another standard to everyone else, that's a form of prejudice and anti-Semitism. Same as if I judged black skinned people by one standard and white skinned people by another, I'd be guilty of prejudice against black people. I don't have to do something like use the "N-word" to be prejudiced against black people.

 

Roger Waters certainly does that. In addition, read various comments he has made: he talks about conspiracy theories, "Jewish influence", and uses the same imagery often used by anti-Semites. You know, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....

 

The Anti-Defamation League, who's purpose is to expose and fight anti-Semitism said, Rogers' views have “morphed into conspiratorial anti-Semitism.”

 

Lots of people criticize Israeli policy. That doesn't make them anti-Semitic. It's how you do it. Rogers has certainly crossed the line from legitimate criticism to anti-Semitism.

[firedog]

About 70% of Australians are Anglo-Saxon. Australia receives much condemnation, some harsh and some from celebrities, for its policy of incarcerating people who arrive by boat claiming political asylum. Never have I heard any of Australia's critics accused of racism against the Anglo-Saxon race.

 

Irrelevant example.

 

If there were critics who only criticized and campaigned against Australian policy, and didn't/wouldn't make the same claims against any other country with similar policies, they'd be guilty of Anti-Australian prejudice. If there was some actual tradition of anti-Anglo Saxon prejudice in the world (other than a few mild jokes and stereotypes, I'm not aware of any) and these same people used that imagery and the claims that are often spouted "by anti-Anglo - Saxons", then those critics would be rightfully accused of racism.

[christopher3393]

anti-Semitism isn't limited to simple vulgar prejudice such as "Jews like money" or "Jews have big noses". It's prejudice against Jews.

 

If you create a double standard by which you judge the world, and apply one standard to Israel and another standard to everyone else, that's a form of prejudice and anti-Semitism. Same as if I judged black skinned people by one standard and white skinned people by another, I'd be guilty of prejudice against black people. I don't have to do something like use the "N-word" to be prejudiced against black people.

 

Roger Waters certainly does that. In addition, read various comments he has made: he talks about conspiracy theories, "Jewish influence", and uses the same imagery often used by anti-Semites. You know, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck....

 

The Anti-Defamation League, who's purpose is to expose and fight anti-Semitism said, Rogers' views have “morphed into conspiratorial anti-Semitism.”

 

Lots of people criticize Israeli policy. That doesn't make them anti-Semitic. It's how you do it. Rogers has certainly crossed the line from legitimate criticism to anti-Semitism.

 

I appreciate your position. It is quite understandable. Waters has made statements that leave him open to these accusations. But I'm not yet convinced that yours is the only reasonable way to read Waters' statements, and I think he may very well not be antisemitic. Probably best for me to leave it at that and provide a few more links to Waters' own words on this matter:

 

Roger Waters on 'The Wall,' Socialism, His Next Concept LP | Rolling Stone

 

Pink Floyd's Roger Waters Launches "Campaign to Close Guantánamo" for Obama's Last Year in Office | Democracy Now!

 

https://www.facebook.com/notes/roger-waters/an-open-letter-from-roger-waters/688037331210720/