PDA

View Full Version : Roger accused to be an Anti-Semitist



creamcheese
10-07-2010, 06:36 AM
Did you read this one?
This is kind of funny. Especially the conclusion of Roger's Letter.
Read carefully.

Roger Waters fights back against claims of anti-Semitism (http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/latest/roger-waters-fights-back-against-claims-of-anti-semitism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+brain-damage-news+%28Pink+Floyd+News+-+Brain-Damage.co.uk%29)

AnyColourYouLike
10-07-2010, 06:21 PM
ridiculous. That segment of the show contains many symbols Christian & Jewish alike.

moc622
10-07-2010, 08:58 PM
this is the risk you run when you are being provocative. i can't believe that he is surprised that something like this would happen (whether it is right or wrong).

oldpink
10-08-2010, 10:44 AM
While I hesitate to call Roger an anti-Semite, I do think he is (as nearly all those who see things in his political corner) on the wrong side of the Israel situation.
Anyone ever hear of the Grand Mufti of Palestine?
He was actively working to see that as many Jews as possible were sent to Hitler's ovens before there was even an Israel at all.
I have to ask how is it that a nation smaller than the U.S.'s smallest state of Rhode Island must not be allowed to exist in a land dominated by other religions?
Roger Waters may make some good music and even better lyrics, but Roger can afford to be cavalier about the very real situation of religious fanatics who strap TNT to mentally handicapped, youthfully naive, or brainwashed people - who are then sent into pizza parlors and other public areas of Jerusalem to detonate themselves and as many of the hated Israelis with them as possible.
If Roger demands that Israel take down the wall that separates the fanatics from the Israelis, then how come he doesn't prove his conviction by moving into those areas most likely to have those fanatics target for self-detonation?
Oh, but wait, Roger would rather not do that, content to instead watch the nearly daily reports of other people dying at the hands of said fanatics.
Yeah, I'm one of those evil Republicans.
Bring on the hate.
:rolleyes:
/off soapbox

emmapeelfan
10-08-2010, 11:20 AM
Though I'm sure Roger is being genuinely sincere, this again proves that musicians should never get involved in religion and politics because you're ALWAYS gonna upset and offend some group or other. That is a guarantee.

I do like Roger's response and taking the time to read their writings to hurl a quote back at them to defend himself.

But ultimately whether it's John Lennon, Bono, Bob Geldof or Roger Waters, at the end of the day they are musicians, writers and performers. Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, but I would had thought Roger would know better than most that people are sick to the teeth with politics and when they go to a live show, they want to "escape" from such things.

BarneyMcGrew
10-08-2010, 12:21 PM
I don't think he's anti semite or on the wrong side of the argument. The super powers, mainly the USA are responsible for the Palestinian situation just as the UK is responsible for the Pakistan situation.

I agree, most nations of the middle east and the Jews have been in some sort of conflict since their inception but setting up countries exclusively for people of the same religious faith is asking for trouble and just shows our hormones are far more potent than the intellect in our craniums.

oldpink
10-08-2010, 12:50 PM
I don't think he's anti semite or on the wrong side of the argument. The super powers, mainly the USA are responsible for the Palestinian situation just as the UK is responsible for the Pakistan situation.

I agree, most nations of the middle east and the Jews have been in some sort of conflict since their inception but setting up countries exclusively for people of the same religious faith is asking for trouble and just shows our hormones are far more potent than the intellect in our craniums.

For what it's worth, Israel has large numbers of Muslims, Christians and various other faiths allowed to freely practice their religions, and many of them also serve in political office.
They choose to be citizens instead of nuts.
Now, just try and openly worship as a Christian or (worse) a Jew in Saudi Arabia, and see just how long you are even allowed to LIVE.
Not really trying to turn this into an us/them argument, but have some perspective here.

BarneyMcGrew
10-08-2010, 01:38 PM
This thread is an excellent example of why Rog has done what he's done, its generating discussion but should it have any place in music? I dunno, it feels like what I'm writing now belongs somewhere other than here but then Pink Floyd were never just a rock band. Anyway to continue the debate.

I don't know about Islam but to call yourself a Christian means you have a responsibilty to persuade non-Christians to convert.

I've been bothered on numerous occasions by Christians trying to persuade me, they even come knocking on my door. No Muslim has ever done that so I can see why such a faith which also celebrates alcohol would be considered a threat to any government.

I don't accept in creating a new country (1948) in the heart of the middle east the Jews couldn't see the reaction it would provoke. But they went ahead feeling secure enough in their own strength as a minority to dominate the majority.

Regarding Palestine, how might the English react if the Welsh backed by the USA tried to take the Forest of Dean using ancient history as justification?

We are humans not angels and government is as close to the devil as you can get.

oldpink
10-08-2010, 01:42 PM
There's a huge difference between persuasion (however annoyed you may be) by knocking at your door and flying planes into skyscrapers.
hth

BarneyMcGrew
10-08-2010, 01:56 PM
Yeah, but I don't think 9/11 was designed to convert people to Islam, maybe only if you want the really evil ones. I thought it was an attack against western capitalists. Roger's one of those.

Olly37
10-08-2010, 07:25 PM
I don't think Roger Waters will give a toss what anyone thinks of him. He has his opinion and thats all that matters to him.

The bit I don't like is his view is put into the musical domain, whereas personally I feel, music is music, religion/politics/blah should stay out of it and vice versa.

Quotes of PF were more than a band is rubbish. I can't see Nick or Rick giving a thought to anything other than the band, both being the quieter members of the band. David allies himself with his various charities but doesn't put them in your face. Only Roger has opinions and tells them as he sees fit.

Personally I like to go to a show and listen to the music, I'm not interested in the baggage that comes with it.

If politics/religion comes into it, I choose to ignore it as it may not reflect my own opinion anyway. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, whether they chose to share it is irrelevant especially in a musical domain.

Just my opinion... (ironically)

Peace,
Olly.

emmapeelfan
10-08-2010, 07:43 PM
The bit I don't like is his view is put into the musical domain, whereas personally I feel, music is music, religion/politics/blah should stay out of it and vice versa.

...Personally I like to go to a show and listen to the music, I'm not interested in the baggage that comes with it.

If politics/religion comes into it, I choose to ignore it as it may not reflect my own opinion anyway. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, whether they chose to share it is irrelevant especially in a musical domain.


Right on! :worthy:

radiowaves
10-08-2010, 07:56 PM
HaHaHaHa...This is a laugh. Mr. Foxman seems to be playing from his cuff. Is he himself inciting hatred towards Roger? Are there any Jewish kids in his show? (Sure there is). Roger is a staunch supporter of human rights. So where is the Pope shouting when Roger uses the Crucifix? Is Mr. Foxman so far up his Arsehole that he does not realise that their are more important things going on in this world besides his Anti-Christian message. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Bono can do it. Neil Young can do it. Pearl Jam can do it. But the minute Roger does it, up jumps Mr. Foxman on his wagon and sounds off. Does he forget that Roger played in Neve Shalom (Peace Village) Israel in 2006 in front of 50,000 fans, in a neutral zone, in the middle of nowhere, and every one of those fans loved the show. And that he held a show between the old East and West Germany AGAINST the building of Walls (not to mention the fact that Mr. Foxman's own country flagrantly shoved international law aside and built a wall themselves to keep in the innocent palestinian people)

Shame on you, Mr. Foxman. For highlighting the fact that YOU think the use of your religious symbol is a crime. If you really cared for your people, you would mourne silently for the millions that lost their lives in WW2. Those poor souls would be ashamed for you to be called one of their own kin. Roger Waters is a Performing Artist, that has played in front of millions of happy fans. no matter of race, creed, colour. Who the **** are you, Mr. Foxman? I have never heard of you until now.

In the words of Roger....

You don't have to be a Jew
To disapprove my murder
Tears burn my eyes
Moslem or Christian Mullah or Pope
Preachers or poet who was it wrote
Give any one species too much rope
And they'll **** it up


Rant over

oldpink
10-08-2010, 11:13 PM
FWIW, I am no fan of Abraham Foxman, as he is rather overeager to throw the anti-Semite card, pretty much as the self-styled "civil rights leaders" Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton over here gleefully to throw the race card.
He has on more than one occasion unfairly branded as anti-Semites those whom a reasonable person could see are anything but that.
I just think it is ridiculous for someone who lives in the comfort of a mansion in Great Britain or America, with all the attendant comforts of civilization and (more importantly) civilized people, lecturing those whose very lives are in extreme peril at the hands of those who believe they will be forever rewarded in the hereafter for killing themselves and as many who practice other religions as possible.
Whichever side anyone may be on the whole Israeli debacle, it should be painfully obvious that having to live constantly in fear of religious fanatics incited to suicidally commit mass murder is something that almost none of us has to deal with, nor can we little imagine how it must be.
In some ways, it's even worse than the air raids in Great Britain in WWII, since at least the British fully recognized their enemy and took cover, instead of having the enemy walking among them, ready to randomly wipe out scores of them at a time.

RonToon
07-24-2013, 11:01 PM
Here we go again...

Anti-Semitic display at Roger Waters concert

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4409388,00.html

The problem is that Waters thinks he’s out to solve a problem, but all he’s really done is choose a side. His stance against the policies of the Israeli government is taking the form of the Jewish star. The problem is that this symbol transcends the Israeli government and is symbolic of all Jewish people as well.

He's not anti-Semitic. Just a misguided old fool.

fatoldpig
07-24-2013, 11:18 PM
all religions are evil in my view

popeyebonaparte
07-24-2013, 11:47 PM
Here we go again...

Anti-Semitic display at Roger Waters concert

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4409388,00.html

The problem is that Waters thinks he’s out to solve a problem, but all he’s really done is choose a side. His stance against the policies of the Israeli government is taking the form of the Jewish star. The problem is that this symbol transcends the Israeli government and is symbolic of all Jewish people as well.

He's not anti-Semitic. Just a misguided old fool.

A MISGUIDED OLD FOOL!!! It's not the symbol it's the meaning put behind it by certain people.

radiowaves
07-25-2013, 12:40 AM
Roger is an anti political streamer...Politics NOT religion....I disbelieve in American, German and Jewiish politics because they are anti-PEOPLE. I am not a racist, but hate any scource that is against my beliefs. Ask any anarchist about their own views. Where is this thread going??? Another Roger the Racist bullshit...

pf94
07-25-2013, 07:09 AM
zionist see anti semitic everywhere, in my country (france), an humorist (dieudonné), is banned because he's laught about an integrist rabbin 10 years ago...

BarneyMcGrew
07-25-2013, 11:38 AM
Semitic is a propaganda word. Because of that I consider it meaningless. I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to religion, hard to concentrate on something of such a rancid nature involving very ugly people from such a poisoned gene pool. Is a Jew a Semite? Why are there two words? Is it like English and Pom? or Italian and Wop? Catholic and Republican? Protestant and Loyalist?

If being anti-semitic means you are part of a movement of people who dislike any race or religion who believes itself to be superior to everyone else and thinks it has a divine right to farm the population and consume the world at it's pleasure just because it's are more driven in that intent than anything else then thats a group I'm proud to be part of and one I'm sure Roger would fully endorse.

I've always thought of religion as the broken mirror of humanity. Regarding being anti-jew, well Jesus didn't think much of them coz he set up his own shop to get a piece of their pie. So does that mean all Christians follow a jewish anti-jew or should that be a semitic anti-semite?

radiowaves
07-25-2013, 12:16 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people


Arabs, and people living in Lebanon are included in the word ''Semite''

pinkfloyd977
07-25-2013, 12:26 PM
Anti Semitic is the new N word these days, rediculous....the people who are getting upset are misguided!

RonToon
07-25-2013, 02:48 PM
A MISGUIDED OLD FOOL!!! It's not the symbol it's the meaning put behind it by certain people.I feel that the article was written with bias, taking advantage of the writer's own beliefs (totally opportunistic), and as I've stated before, no way is Roger being anti-Semitic. But for the uninformed, which includes most in attendance at these shows, the message of employing a Jewish star is unfortunately left up to interpretation. It's much different than, let's say, a dollar sign. The Jewish star transcends current Israeli politics, it stands for all Jewish people as well. Leaving this up to interpretation, especially at the Euro shows, to a great point serves to add fuel to the fire of growing anti-Semitic attitudes in Europe. Don't forget that the Pig referred to in this article also comes out during In The Flesh where Roger is playing a fascist dictator who wants to shoot all Jews (along with black people, gays, pot smokers, and those afflicted with acne). I can understand how it fits in with the graphics during GBS but painting the Star of David on the Pig who emerges during this song is much more ambiguous... especially when it's lowered into the crowd to be shredded. Let's face it, if you wear a KKK hood people are bound to make assumptions.

The problem is that Waters thinks he’s out to solve a problem, but all he’s really done is choose a side. Believing that a music boycott will solve such a complex problem in the Middle East is misguided and foolish. And he's old... so there ya go. :p

radiowaves
07-26-2013, 12:26 AM
I feel that the article was written with bias, taking advantage of the writer's own beliefs (totally opportunistic), and as I've stated before, no way is Roger being anti-Semitic. But for the uninformed, which includes most in attendance at these shows, the message of employing a Jewish star is unfortunately left up to interpretation. It's much different than, let's say, a dollar sign. The Jewish star transcends current Israeli politics, it stands for all Jewish people as well. Leaving this up to interpretation, especially at the Euro shows, to a great point serves to add fuel to the fire of growing anti-Semitic attitudes in Europe. Don't forget that the Pig referred to in this article also comes out during In The Flesh where Roger is playing a fascist dictator who wants to shoot all Jews (along with black people, gays, pot smokers, and those afflicted with acne). I can understand how it fits in with the graphics during GBS but painting the Star of David on the Pig who emerges during this song is much more ambiguous... especially when it's lowered into the crowd to be shredded. Let's face it, if you wear a KKK hood people are bound to make assumptions.

The problem is that Waters thinks he’s out to solve a problem, but all he’s really done is choose a side. Believing that a music boycott will solve such a complex problem in the Middle East is misguided and foolish. And he's old... so there ya go. :p

Yeah...But his opinions and views are ancient...The Koran is s a peaceful message to the world, as well as the bible...Everything that is dropped from the B52 bomber is modernistic and man-made.....Let he who is without sin :drool:

groovechapel
07-27-2013, 04:43 AM
Gentlemen,
I must admit I'm astonished that some of you stand surprised by Roger's views on Israel. He has long been a reader and fan of Noam Chomsky, who articulates perhaps the most eloquent indictments of Israeli policy ever published. It is also surprising (if not plain weird) that some of the "Senior Members" on this site disdain musicians getting involved with "politics and religion" or that "music is music, religion/politics/blah should stay out of it." This is what distinguishes artists from entertainers (since the beginning) and Roger has always forwarded strong political positions, both in his music and public life. His willingness to raise awareness about nuclear disarmament, the abuses of capitalism, poverty, war, torture, imperialism, etc. to devote entire tours to raising money for Amnesty International or for mosquito nets in Africa, etc. or to openly oppose US policy in Iraq and, yes, Israeli policy, distinguish him and make his work more than just meaningless entertainment. Few other major musicians have the courage to do this. As Roger himself put it "in the final article, the only thing that matters is whether it moves you." Roger is an artist and has as his goal to move people on issues he feels are important. If you want to be entertained and "tune out" go to a Clapton concert.

BarneyMcGrew
07-27-2013, 01:24 PM
Gentlemen,
I must admit I'm astonished that some of you stand surprised by Roger's views on Israel. He has long been a reader and fan of Noam Chomsky, who articulates perhaps the most eloquent indictments of Israeli policy ever published. It is also surprising (if not plain weird) that some of the "Senior Members" on this site disdain musicians getting involved with "politics and religion" or that "music is music, religion/politics/blah should stay out of it." This is what distinguishes artists from entertainers (since the beginning) and Roger has always forwarded strong political positions, both in his music and public life. His willingness to raise awareness about nuclear disarmament, the abuses of capitalism, poverty, war, torture, imperialism, etc. to devote entire tours to raising money for Amnesty International or for mosquito nets in Africa, etc. or to openly oppose US policy in Iraq and, yes, Israeli policy, distinguish him and make his work more than just meaningless entertainment. Few other major musicians have the courage to do this. As Roger himself put it "in the final article, the only thing that matters is whether it moves you." Roger is an artist and has as his goal to move people on issues he feels are important. If you want to be entertained and "tune out" go to a Clapton concert.

They're all entertainers to me. When people talk about Floyd today the last thing they talk about if they ever talk about them at all is Roger's lyrics. OK so everyone says "yah, Roger did great lyrics, yah" but noone actually talks about them or what they meant. Its because they were never relevant and made no difference to anything other than the bank balances of the privileged few. When Pig Man appears in public today its not disdain which greets him, its rapturous applause.

Its really all about making money the best way you can and when Roger's riffs dried up in '75 he employed a new template he pursues to this day. Does he believe what he says? Problem is when people are making money from what they say its impossible to tell. He may love Israel for all we know and is just dissing them to make money. How is what Israel is doing any different to what everyone else is doing? Are its actions any worse than those of the long gone British Empire?

When people talk about Floyd today the words which come up most frequently are "Big Three", "Immersion Set", "Special Edition", "Limited Edition", "Exclusive", "personally signed" and my current personal favourite "copyright".

When I'm drinking wine I see artists everywhere, when I'm drinking beer they're all entertainers and when I'm smoking pot I see them for what they really are... workers.

darryll
07-27-2013, 04:41 PM
Denying Roger is an anti-semite is ignorant. It's about as silly as saying Pink Floyd didn't reunite at Live8 because Roger wasn't an official member of the band anymore.

I also love how if someone is attacking jews/zionists/israelis and called on it people say that's not anti-jews/zionisits/Israelis...in other words, anti-semitic. Before any discussion of whether Roger's views are ignorant or just, people have to get past the label and quit fixating on it because then it becomes an argument on the label and never gets to the real issue.

Like, why does Roger only hold the Israelis responsible, and not the Palestinians.

And why does there seem to be so much anger even on this thread towards Jews.
People of a culture are obviously more attuned to attacks against them, than those who are not of that group.
Y'all might not see Roger's anti-semitic bias, but as a Jew it's clear as the blue sky to me. For the record, I don't practice my religion nor do I particularly enjoy organized religions. Pink Floyd is essentially my religion, Floyd is God. The fact that I was born Jewish was beyond my control. But because I am I realize that there have been people trying to rid the planet of us for any varying reasons.

popeyebonaparte
07-27-2013, 05:10 PM
Denying Roger is an anti-semite is ignorant. It's about as silly as saying Pink Floyd didn't reunite at Live8 because Roger wasn't an official member of the band anymore.

I also love how if someone is attacking jews/zionists/israelis and called on it people say that's not anti-jews/zionisits/Israelis...in other words, anti-semitic. Before any discussion of whether Roger's views are ignorant or just, people have to get past the label and quit fixating on it because then it becomes an argument on the label and never gets to the real issue.

Like, why does Roger only hold the Israelis responsible, and not the Palestinians.

And why does there seem to be so much anger even on this thread towards Jews.
People of a culture are obviously more attuned to attacks against them, than those who are not of that group.
Y'all might not see Roger's anti-semitic bias, but as a Jew it's clear as the blue sky to me. For the record, I don't practice my religion nor do I particularly enjoy organized religions. Pink Floyd is essentially my religion, Floyd is God. The fact that I was born Jewish was beyond my control. But because I am I realize that there have been people trying to rid the planet of us for any varying reasons.

Roger Waters is NOT an anti-semite. He is not against all jewish people. He has stated in interviews "I have various jewish friends" and so on. He is anti-israeli but more so anti-israeli goverment and Gaza blockade. Does anyone remember Rachel Curry? She was a peace keeper and she was bulldozered in to the ground. Does anyone remember the aid ship sent to Gaza named after her. They used arms like guns and worse againt the ship that only wantes to bring food, medicine and education to gaza. All the crew members had to defend themselves with were marbles. I'm sure there are great people in Israel. I've met some of the nicest people you can meet who were israeli. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PEOPLE IN ISRAEL. THERE ARE GOOD AND BAD PEOPLE EVERYWHERE.
However, the israeli government are preventing the people of Palestine and Gaza from being free. THAT is why Roger Waters is anti-israeli goverment.

darryll
07-27-2013, 05:19 PM
...
However, the israeli government are preventing the people of Palestine and Gaza from being free. THAT is why Roger Waters is anti-israeli goverment.

The Palestinians and their elected officials also are keeping them from being free. The Arab world at large isn't trying to solve the conflict either.

goldenband
07-27-2013, 06:01 PM
They're all entertainers to me. When people talk about Floyd today the last thing they talk about if they ever talk about them at all is Roger's lyrics. OK so everyone says "yah, Roger did great lyrics, yah" but noone actually talks about them or what they meant. Its because they were never relevant and made no difference to anything other than the bank balances of the privileged few.

How do you define "making a difference"? Roger's lyrics surely affected me, and significantly shaped/changed my outlook on life as a teenager.

(If the standard for "making a difference" equates to "upending the global capitalist system", well, (1) good luck with that, and (2) by that definition all art is essentially irrelevant, and you've basically ended up with "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" -- i.e. a worldview in which power and violence are the only thing that matter.)


Its really all about making money the best way you can and when Roger's riffs dried up in '75 he employed a new template he pursues to this day. Does he believe what he says? Problem is when people are making money from what they say its impossible to tell.

You do realize that this kind of purity/authenticity fixation is a form of "beautiful soul syndrome", right? The only way to never get your hands dirty is to never do anything.


I also love how if someone is attacking jews/zionists/israelis and called on it people say that's not anti-jews/zionisits/Israelis...in other words, anti-semitic.

Whoa, those three issues are very different, and I know more than a few Jewish Israeli citizens (co-workers of mine) who'd say so without hesitation. Equating criticizing Israel with anti-Semitism, i.e. a racially-based agenda, is bullshit.


Like, why does Roger only hold the Israelis responsible, and not the Palestinians.

Using the phrase "hold...responsible" is a canard, but otherwise the answer is simple: like many people, Roger believes that when there's a conflict between two groups, and one of those groups has a lot more power than the other one, the more powerful group should be subjected to more intense scrutiny (I won't say "held to a higher standard", but something like that). Since Israel is an affluent, nuclear-armed state with a modern army, and the Palestinians are pretty much the opposite of those things, it's not hard to see why his sympathies lie where they do.

More broadly, I'd say that Roger is instinctively opposed to anyone who defines an "us" that excludes a "them", especially when that definition leads to conflict and the loss of human life. He sees WWII, the Falklands war, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, all these things as a product of the same basic human failing: the unwillingness to forswear tribalism in favor of a definition of "us" that includes everyone and excludes no one. So it may well be that Roger doesn't support the existence of Israel on a philosophical level (as opposed to a practical one), because he thinks that the act of defining a state in these terms -- "this place is for us (people of Jewish descent), not for you (everyone else)" -- is itself a root of evil.

RonToon
07-27-2013, 06:19 PM
Equating criticizing Israel with anti-Semitism, i.e. a racially-based agenda, is bullshit.Agreed. But one of the problems (of his own making) is that his message is not clear in regards to the use of the Star of David during the concert which represents more than just Israel's government. You'd need to read an interview with Waters to find out what it's all about leaving the majority of concertgoers to draw their own conclusions. I've been thinking about this lately, he's mixing his mixed-messages. Roger, on stage during In The Flesh (when the Pig comes out) is portraying a role where he envisions himself as a facist dictator. He yells about killing all queers, jews, coons, etc and even fires a fake machine gun into the crowd. We all know that this is parody. But the messages that are painted on the Pig are supposed to be taken seriously and I find this a bit of a contradiction, another schizoid aspect of the show.

darryll
07-27-2013, 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by darryll http://yeeshkul.com/forum/images/styles/vb3/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://yeeshkul.com/forum/showthread.php?p=201629#post201629) I also love how if someone is attacking jews/zionists/israelis and called on it people say that's not anti-jews/zionisits/Israelis...in other words, anti-semitic.




Whoa, those three issues are very different, and I know more than a few Jewish Israeli citizens (co-workers of mine) who'd say so without hesitation. Equating criticizing Israel with anti-Semitism, i.e. a racially-based agenda, is bullshit.

I was not equating those three issues, thus the / between them. I was making a point that quite often anti-semitic rhetoric is cloaked in rantings against jews, and/or zionnists, and/or Israelis. It obviously can surface in many formats. And don't be simplistic and think I'm suggesting that all criticism is equatable to anti-semitism.


Originally Posted by darryll http://yeeshkul.com/forum/images/styles/vb3/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://yeeshkul.com/forum/showthread.php?p=201629#post201629) Like, why does Roger only hold the Israelis responsible, and not the Palestinians.



Using the phrase "hold...responsible" is a canard...

Using a word canard to try to make it more emphatic that you think my statement is untrue doesn't negate my statement. If you think it's a canard, thus a false and baseless statement on my part, please show me in any article where Mr. Waters has criticized or "held responsible" the Palestinians. Then I would agree with you that it's not true statement or a canard.



but otherwise the answer is simple: like many people, Roger believes that when there's a conflict between two groups, and one of those groups has a lot more power than the other one, the more powerful group should be subjected to more intense scrutiny (I won't say "held to a higher standard", but something like that). Since Israel is an affluent, nuclear-armed state with a modern army, and the Palestinians are pretty much the opposite of those things, it's not hard to see why his sympathies lie where they do.

More broadly, I'd say that Roger is instinctively opposed to anyone who defines an "us" that excludes a "them", especially when that definition leads to conflict and the loss of human life. He sees WWII, the Falklands war, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, all these things as a product of the same basic human failing: the unwillingness to forswear tribalism in favor of a definition of "us" that includes everyone and excludes no one. So it may well be that Roger doesn't support the existence of Israel on a philosophical level (as opposed to a practical one), because he thinks that the act of defining a state in these terms -- "this place is for us (people of Jewish descent), not for you (everyone else)" -- is itself a root of evil.

Right, so the poor weak downtrodden have no responsibility, because they're poor weak and downtrodden. I didn't even know that Bin Laden was a Palestinian. Yet he used the conflict in Israel as one of his justifications. Perhaps the forces on both sides of this battle are more equal than you'd care to acknowledge.

Roger is not helping. He's doing the same shit you're accusing the State of Israel is doing. Us vs Them, rather than trying to find fault with both sides, and go further by trying to find a way to mediate and bring the conflict to an end.

Of course he won't do that because he's smart enough to know that there is no end to this conflict. We came damn close, but Arafat refused to take the best negotiated compromise the Palestinians had ever been offered in the Clinton Peace Plan. If I remember he would have everything they asked for, except control over Jerusalem.

darryll
07-27-2013, 07:05 PM
Whoa, those three issues are very different, and I know more than a few Jewish Israeli citizens (co-workers of mine) who'd say so without hesitation. Equating criticizing Israel with anti-Semitism, i.e. a racially-based agenda, is bullshit.

Do you live in Israel? If not, where do you work that you're able to have a "few Jewish Israeli citizens" as co-workers?

Also, are you saying Israel has a racially-based agenda? Israel has many types of "races" as citizens. It's a religiously based country. As I'm sure you understand, but others don't, being Jewish is either defined as a religion, or an ethnicity. But it is not a race.

Although being an anthropologist myself I understand there are no "races". Only one, the human race. Physical characteristics are on a continuum with no clear distinction when one physical characteristic clearly defines any such man made races.

goldenband
07-27-2013, 08:04 PM
Agreed. But one of the problems (of his own making) is that his message is not clear in regards to the use of the Star of David during the concert which represents more than just Israel's government.

This is certainly a good point, though I'd want to see the footage myself to assess it. The symbology of criticizing Israel, so to speak, is a horrendous quagmire because of the conflation between the state of Israel, the political leadership of Israel, the people of Israel, the Jewish people of the world, etc. -- none of which are in any way the same thing.


I was not equating those three issues, thus the / between them. I was making a point that quite often anti-semitic rhetoric is cloaked in rantings against jews, and/or zionnists, and/or Israelis. It obviously can surface in many formats. And don't be simplistic and think I'm suggesting that all criticism is equatable to anti-semitism.

You may not be suggesting that but, as any cursory survey of Israeli right-wing journalism or politicians will make clear, there are plenty of people who do! It's a well-known trope along the same lines as "You're either with us or against us". But more to the point, when you splice all three issues into one --


I also love how if someone is attacking jews/zionists/israelis and called on it people say that's not anti-jews/zionisits/Israelis...in other words, anti-semitic.

-- surely you can see how you're encouraging the reader to equate the three as all leading inexorably to anti-Semitism? You could've made a point of separating them, but didn't, for whatever reason.

In addition, you load the deck by choosing the word "attacking", instead of a more neutral word like "criticizing", which I think is revealing.


Using a word canard to try to make it more emphatic that you think my statement is untrue doesn't negate my statement. If you think it's a canard, thus a false and baseless statement on my part, please show me in any article where Mr. Waters has criticized or "held responsible" the Palestinians. Then I would agree with you that it's not true statement or a canard.

My point is that the whole idea that Roger should be expected to "hold" any party "responsible" is a canard. Criticizing and "holding responsible" are two very different things, and I don't see Roger's role as the latter.


Right, so the poor weak downtrodden have no responsibility, because they're poor weak and downtrodden. I didn't even know that Bin Laden was a Palestinian. Yet he used the conflict in Israel as one of his justifications. Perhaps the forces on both sides of this battle are more equal than you'd care to acknowledge.

He's doing the same shit you're accusing the State of Israel is doing.

I'm not really willing to carry on a conversation with someone who writes with this kind of sneering tone, who throws in total irrelevancies (Bin Laden, for ****'s sake?!), and who puts words in my mouth. (You'll note that I'm articulating what I perceive Roger Waters's position to be, not my own.)


Do you live in Israel? If not, where do you work that you're able to have a "few Jewish Israeli citizens" as co-workers?

I work outside New York, and share an office with someone with dual citizenship, another of my closest colleagues was in the IDF, etc. Beyond that, I'm not interested in putting up my "I have lots of Israeli friends" CV on Yeeshkul.


Also, are you saying Israel has a racially-based agenda?

No, I'm saying that most of the anti-Semitism of the last 150 years (vs., say, the anti-Semitism of the Middle Ages) has been expressed in racially-based terms. In other words, modern anti-Semitism is -- in the minds of its most significant proponents, like Hitler -- mainly about race, not religion.

I don't meant to be unkind, and I know the Internet can obfuscate even the best intentions. But if you're allowing yourself to get so blind with rage that you can't even gloss a crystal-clear phrase like "anti-Semitism, i.e. a racially-based agenda", then what hope do we have of having a worthwhile dialogue?

darryll
07-27-2013, 08:59 PM
You may not be suggesting that but, as any cursory survey of Israeli right-wing journalism or politicians will make clear, there are plenty of people who do! It's a well-known trope along the same lines as "You're either with us or against us". But more to the point, when you splice all three issues into one --

-- surely you can see how you're encouraging the reader to equate the three as all leading inexorably to anti-Semitism? You could've made a point of separating them, but didn't, for whatever reason.

In addition, you load the deck by choosing the word "attacking", instead of a more neutral word like "criticizing", which I think is revealing.

I already clarified this. Yet you're repeating your issue with my semantics of a previous post again, as if my clarification doesn't mean anything to you or the "reader".

I find it funny that you're finding issue with the word "attack". That's what criticism is. You'll also notice I used your more preferred word "criticism" in my posts. Sorry if I'm not speaking in a language you prefer. I'd ask you to tell me whatever else you think this "reveals" but I see you're personalizing our discussion, so I'll pass.



My point is that the whole idea that Roger should be expected to "hold" any party "responsible" is a canard. Criticizing and "holding responsible" are two very different things, and I don't see Roger's role as the latter.

Again with the semantics. Fine you win. I don't see Roger "criticizing" the other side.



I'm not really willing to carry on a conversation with someone who writes with this kind of sneering tone, who throws in total irrelevancies (Bin Laden, for ****'s sake?!), and who puts words in my mouth. (You'll note that I'm articulating what I perceive Roger Waters's position to be, not my own.)

Sneering? Just because you disagree with my point that it's laughable to say the Palestinians are all by their lonesome, doesn't make it sneering. Perhaps you find it irrelevant, but I did not find his rhetoric irrelevant as one of his justifications for his aggression against the US. Would you prefer if I substituted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to support my argument that this conflict is not as unequal as you portend. I mean he's only threatening to annihilate Israel with a nuclear strike.

Fine, don't carry on this conversation with me. You're also being disingenuous when you claim you've only been articulating Roger's views. Since you no longer wish to engage in this conversation, I won't bother to highlight where your opinions crept into the discussion.



I work outside New York, and share an office with someone with dual citizenship, another of my closest colleagues was in the IDF, etc. Beyond that, I'm not interested in putting up my "I have lots of Israeli friends" CV on Yeeshkul.

Good point. Using hearsay about some Israeli co-worker friends of yours to support your argument, is just as silly when people proffer that Roger isn't anti-semitic because he has a few Jewish friends.



No, I'm saying that most of the anti-Semitism of the last 150 years (vs., say, the anti-Semitism of the Middle Ages) has been expressed in racially-based terms. In other words, modern anti-Semitism is -- in the minds of its most significant proponents, like Hitler -- mainly about race, not religion.

I don't meant to be unkind, and I know the Internet can obfuscate even the best intentions. But if you're allowing yourself to get so blind with rage that you can't even gloss a crystal-clear phrase like "anti-Semitism, i.e. a racially-based agenda", then what hope do we have of having a worthwhile dialogue?

You're funny. Because you're rhetoric was confusing to me, you equate that to meaning I don't understand what anti-semitism is. But I shouldn't interpret your writing as sneering should I?

Lastly, if I do understand finally what you meant by your comment using the words "racially based". I think you're implying that today's "criticism" of Israel by the Palestinians is not racially based (I believe you used your Israeli co-workers to help make this point). Yet, just like Hitler, the Palestinians call for the destruction of Israel (or the Jewish people as Hitler did. Suicide bombers or gas chambers bring about death. Just because the scale of death is smaller with a suicide vest doesn't negate the user's wish to wipe Jews off of the planet if they were able to). They're trying to accomplish the same endgame. So to me it sounds like the same old end result that anti-semites desire, however you want to qualify their rhetoric.

I don't think we can have a worthwhile dialogue, since you seem to be projecting. I'm not full of rage, but I thought we were having a discussion that is obviously highly controversial and not about flowers. Yet, it seems you've been attacking on a personal level, not I. If I have, I apologize.




Using a word canard to try to make it more emphatic that you think my statement is untrue doesn't negate my statement. If you think it's a canard, thus a false and baseless statement on my part, please show me in any article where Mr. Waters has criticized or "held responsible" the Palestinians. Then I would agree with you that it's not true statement or a canard.

Right, so the poor weak downtrodden have no responsibility, because they're poor weak and downtrodden. I didn't even know that Bin Laden was a Palestinian. Yet he used the conflict in Israel as one of his justifications. Perhaps the forces on both sides of this battle are more equal than you'd care to acknowledge.

Roger is not helping. He's doing the same shit you're accusing the State of Israel is doing. Us vs Them, rather than trying to find fault with both sides, and go further by trying to find a way to mediate and bring the conflict to an end.

Of course he won't do that because he's smart enough to know that there is no end to this conflict. We came damn close, but Arafat refused to take the best negotiated compromise the Palestinians had ever been offered in the Clinton Peace Plan. If I remember he would have everything they asked for, except control over Jerusalem.

Not sure why you didn't decide to counter my comments above, rather than the route you took and make it about you and I. Where is Roger's criticism of the other side? What about my supposition that Roger is not helping? What about the intentions of the Palestinian's government to ever exist peacefully with the State of Israel?

radiowaves
07-27-2013, 09:13 PM
Stop quoting multiply....The B52 not only dropped the Star Of David, but also the Catholic cross......Religious SYMBOLS....and he likened them to Shell and other ''quasi-religious' icons that today's world eyes views....

goldenband
07-27-2013, 09:32 PM
I think you're implying that today's "criticism" of Israel by the Palestinians is not racially based

No, my sole point was that this sentence of yours --


I also love how if someone is attacking jews/zionists/israelis and called on it people say that's not anti-jews/zionisits/Israelis...in other words, anti-semitic.

-- is meant to insinuate that all or most people who criticize Israel are secret Jew-haters (my aside about a "racially-based agenda" meaning that they're motivated primarily by Hitler-style racism, not by religious sentiment). And I'm afraid I stand by that interpretation, and regard your later "clarifications" as not-entirely-honest attempts to distance yourself from a statement you realized was highly inflammatory.

Anyway, the best take I've ever heard on the whole thing was something my officemate said once (loosely paraphrased): "You've got two groups of people in a tiny piece of land. They eat the same food and they're practically cousins, but they can't stand each other and don't want to live together. But neither of them has anywhere else to go. So what can you do, really?"

I think there are plenty of people on both sides who would gladly and unhesitatingly push a button to exterminate the other side en masse, and would view it as their right to do so. And that's sad, because the differences between them are far smaller than the similarities. I can see why a critic would focus on the group that actually has that ability, and not level as much criticism at the group that doesn't, but nothing Roger Waters (or anyone else) says or does is likely to change the underlying issue: deep-seated, mutual hatred.

popeyebonaparte
07-27-2013, 10:23 PM
What has this got to do with Pink Floyd, anyway??? Someone please close this thread!

voices2010
07-27-2013, 11:43 PM
What has this got to do with Pink Floyd, anyway??? Someone please close this thread!

me doy un balazo cada vez que accidentalmente te leo y siempre me juro fijarme quien escribe y te leo... un poco de neuronas a tus comentarios no estaría nada mal

TANSTAAFL!
07-28-2013, 05:56 AM
Read George Orwell's 1945 essay Antisemitism in Britain (it's available in numerous places on the internet). Antisemitism was pervasive in Britain at the time of Roger Waters' birth. He would have had it surrounding him all during his childhood and adolescence. I don't know if he in fact was able to throw this type of brainwashing off, or if it still has some hold on him. That said, I don't think Waters' Wall show is antisemitic. He uses symbols of corporations he rails against, along with the Star of David, the Islamic Crescent Moon and Christian Cross symbols (I know because I've collected all of these in the confetti released at the end of the show as souvenirs). Waters' political statements are subject to various interpretations, but since I don't subscribe to the belief that any popular entertainer has any more knowledge of what's right in politics than any other idiot on the street, I don't care what he says.