Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roger Waters Anti-Semite?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Jordan.
    Last edited by Doktor; 19 Jun 14,, 09:41. Reason: added link to wiki
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • #47
      Sorry, but that's also wrong.

      The 1947 partition plan stated that a Jewish and Arab state would be founded, but the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan. This means, that in essence, the West Bank belonged to nobody, as soon as the British Mandate up and left.

      When Jordan captured the land in 1948 and annexed it, the annexation was declared across the board as being illegal, with the only countries recognizing the annexation being Britain, Iraq and Pakistan. Even the Arab states rejected the annexation as being illegal. Also consider how the Arabs in Jordan were kept in refugee camps in sub-par, inhumane conditions, and you realize the annexation was a sham.

      Now, since the land didn't belong to Jordan, I ask again, who did Israel occupy the land from in 1967? It wasn't Jordan, so who was it?
      Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

      Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
        Sorry, but that's also wrong.

        The 1947 partition plan stated that a Jewish and Arab state would be founded, but the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan. This means, that in essence, the West Bank belonged to nobody, as soon as the British Mandate up and left.

        When Jordan captured the land in 1948 and annexed it, the annexation was declared across the board as being illegal, with the only countries recognizing the annexation being Britain, Iraq and Pakistan. Even the Arab states rejected the annexation as being illegal. Also consider how the Arabs in Jordan were kept in refugee camps in sub-par, inhumane conditions, and you realize the annexation was a sham.

        Now, since the land didn't belong to Jordan, I ask again, who did Israel occupy the land from in 1967? It wasn't Jordan, so who was it?
        If it didn't belong to Jordan, it doesn't belong to Israel now. What's your point?

        It was labeled as "occupied", same as now. Jordan lost it to Israel. It was not theirs to lose it, but still. Israel could make it just by calling a Conference and form the proposed state in accordance to the UN Resolution. I believe it's the same one that laid ground for Israel to become a state.
        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

        Comment


        • #49
          That's exactly my point, that the land can't be occupied, rather it is disputed. Occupied contains within its name the fact that one state took it from another. Because that isn't the case here, the land is disputed, with two states (or a state and an entity, in this case) arguing over it.

          And not go get into too many things, but UN General Assembly resolutions do not a state make. As much as they like to praise the 1947 partition plan in Israel, the fact of the matter is that the resolution had very little to do with the founding of the state, aside from the fact that it put a timeline on the Mandate quitting the region. Israel was founded by a declaration, backed up by military might (such as when the USA was founded), which is a good thing, considering that every single one of Israel's neighbors tried destroying her as soon as independence was declared (such as Britain tried when the USA was founded).

          Further proof of this is the fact that the Palestinians went to the UN General Assembly to get themselves declared a state, and succeeded. What happened then? Absolutely nothing. They are a state only in name, and in nothing else.
          Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

          Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Doktor View Post
            Jews are OK with this?
            Do you mean Jews or Israelis, in the wrong sentence the difference could lead one to being seriously misconstrued...

            Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
            I said that many anti-Israel actors are actually anti-Semites, hiding the anti-Semitism under the guise of being anti-Israel.
            Undoubtedly, you are correct, but you have not demonstrated it imo with Waters. The reverse can also be true, people coming across as anti-Semitic with certain comments and actions, when their opinions are really anti-Israel.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by tantalus View Post
              Do you mean Jews or Israelis, in the wrong sentence the difference could lead one to being seriously misconstrued...
              Jews living in Israel.
              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by tantalus View Post
                Undoubtedly, you are correct, but you have not demonstrated it imo with Waters. The reverse can also be true, people coming across as anti-Semitic with certain comments and actions, when their opinions are really anti-Israel.
                I beg to differ, I feel that I most definitely have proven that he is an anti-Semite hiding his hatred under the guise of being anti-Israeli, but that's just me. You are welcome to agree or disagree, I think you'll find that most people who are able to look at the situation objectively hear his words and see his actions and realize that he is a bigot.
                Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                  I beg to differ, I feel that I most definitely have proven that he is an anti-Semite hiding his hatred under the guise of being anti-Israeli, but that's just me.
                  Proven, there is no such thing on a matter like this, you cant see into someone's mind. We should all have at least a minor doubt to what Waters really is.

                  Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                  You are welcome to agree or disagree,
                  Likewise

                  Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                  I think you'll find that most people who are able to look at the situation objectively hear his words and see his actions and realize that he is a bigot.
                  I doubt it, but I wont be conducting a poll on it. I'm inclined to repeat again that the misinterpretation can go both ways. I don't think your presentation of Waters comments on Israel or Jews in totality represent a balanced, objective position.

                  Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                  Jews living in Israel.
                  It was rhetorical, I was attempting to illustrate a point that initiated earlier in the thread, post 19. That the use of Jew instead of Israeli can lead to confusion to what someone is really saying.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by tantalus View Post
                    It was rhetorical, I was attempting to illustrate a point that initiated earlier in the thread, post 19. That the use of Jew instead of Israeli can lead to confusion to what someone is really saying.
                    I figured. However, my response was for those who live in Israel. Israeli would cover everyone living in Israel, and I had only the Jewish part in mind.

                    To my defense, they have always been special.
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                      That's exactly my point, that the land can't be occupied, rather it is disputed. Occupied contains within its name the fact that one state took it from another. Because that isn't the case here, the land is disputed, with two states (or a state and an entity, in this case) arguing over it.
                      legally its status per international law and UNSCR is occupied not disputed. Disputed applies to unoccupied rocks in the middle of nowhere, or populated areas resultign from unjust treaties. But like I said, Israel plays both sides of the fence. Lets say it is disputed. Disputed means Israel has laid claim to it (along with some other group or power)- all of it not just the land but the inhabitants. For examples; at this time 100 years ago both Germany and France claimed the Alsace-Lorraine. Both claims the whole of it the tons villages, land resources and people. If we accept your claim of disputed, that would mean the inhabitants are Israeli not Palestinian. To claim the land but not the inhabitants= planned genocide to get the pesky inhabitants to move. But if the inhabitants are Israeli (because Israel claims the territories as its sovereign soil) not Palestinians then the control regime= apartheid.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        legally its status per international law and UNSCR is occupied not disputed. Disputed applies to unoccupied rocks in the middle of nowhere, or populated areas resultign from unjust treaties. But like I said, Israel plays both sides of the fence. Lets say it is disputed. Disputed means Israel has laid claim to it (along with some other group or power)- all of it not just the land but the inhabitants. For examples; at this time 100 years ago both Germany and France claimed the Alsace-Lorraine. Both claims the whole of it the tons villages, land resources and people. If we accept your claim of disputed, that would mean the inhabitants are Israeli not Palestinian. To claim the land but not the inhabitants= planned genocide to get the pesky inhabitants to move. But if the inhabitants are Israeli (because Israel claims the territories as its sovereign soil) not Palestinians then the control regime= apartheid.
                        Once again, wrong and wrong. Disputed means that final status must be determined through negotiations between both sides, and that unilateral moves on either side do much more harm than good. Disputed also means that there is no problem building there, as both the Israelis and Palestinians routinely do.

                        There are two entities involved here, the Palestinians, a people, who it should be mentioned, formed the PLO in 1964 but only began claiming the West Bank as their ancestral homeland AFTER the Israelis captured it in 1967, and the Israelis, who captured the land from a country that had illegally annexed it, meaning the land technically didn't belong to anyone and therefore can't be occupied.

                        The fact that it is disputed means that there is a disconnect between the land and the people. Israeli Prime Minsters since Ehud Barak have agreed to a two-state solution, one that is based on, but is not set in stone, on the 1967 borders. Since Israel has agreed in principle to a two-state solution, it is up to the Palestinians to come to the table and actually negotiate to work out the details. However, since Arafat turned down Barak's offer in Camp David in 2000, the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity to bring about a true, lasting peace. Until the Palestinians are willing to talk real peace, the status-quo will remain, not because Israel desires it that way, but because we've seen that the Palestinians can't be trusted to act towards peace, and unilateral moves don't work.
                        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Uhm...

                          Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights
                          in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk*
                          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            Current state of affairs is that the US will veto any UN action that would bring Israel into compliance with international law. This means the civilian BDS is the most powerful tool until the American public gets tired of it. Only when the choice for Israel is allow a for real viable Palestinian state or become a pariah until you do will the Israeli leadership change its tune.
                            I wanted to empahsise the word 'current' because what is current today may not be the case ten years from now just like it was not ten years prior. Things were slightly different, and if we ;ook at Israel's behaviour since 1967, this is the rule. Every time you put a label on Israel it comes with a sell by date, applicable or relevant for a certain period of time but not beyond.

                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            The loop hole is the US veto...
                            Allows the undefined, ambiguous situation to continue. Makes it harder to attach labels because of this. If you have a partisan agenda then you can get away with it.

                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            Notice those maps show 2 things. First they show how fragmented the Palestinian areas are by Israeli enclaves and roads. Second those maps do not address the issue of sovereignty.
                            Sovereignty is undefined. I use them for illustrative purposes. Israeli kids do not get to see clean blue maps in school or if they do it excludes certain areas. This they are taught is Israel. Don't know what settler kids are taught.

                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            The current term (since 1967) is occupied territories.
                            It's a controversial term, applicable in one era and less so in others because Israel changes. If we take '67, Israel is the Zionist expansionist state, then we get to '81 and they are no longer interested in Sinai. Then they move into Lebanon, again, expansionist, zionist state, only to move out in 2001. meanwhile, the term 'zionist' gets dropped as a result of Oslo thanks to Jim Baker, henceforth they are referred to as Israeli.

                            The pull out in 2005 from Gaza i have to think is a watershed moment. If ever there was a bigger body blow that could never be delivered to settlers by Hamas or whomever than the Israeli govt did, that too with the world cheering them on. As a settler you got to move to Gaza and are told you are safe and then one fine day they say its not ok and if you refuse we will forcibly evict you and that is what Israel did.

                            What person in their right mind would ever believe the Israeli govt will not do this again in other disputed areas. Why would people even consider moving there regardless of any settlements that are built. If the Pals don't get you then the Israeli govt surely will. You must be crazy, gullible and desperate.


                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            That would make the Palestinians overnight into Israeli-Arabs or rip the thin veneer off the apartheid like policies if Israel did not grant citizenship. Either or would be a disaster for Israel proper and endanger the valid purpose Israel serves for Jews. But formally admitting they are occupied per intenrational law would force Israel to remove the settlers which would be politically painful. So far, Israel's right-wing politicians have not had to face that prospect because of US protection.
                            What i want to say is South africa had none of this inconsistent behaviour, there were no fuzzy lines where one minute a space of land is defined and at other times it is not.

                            We will use rubber bullets when they start throwing rubber bricks.

                            That is how one south african cop responded in the 80s when questioned by the media over excessive use of force. Not only was there control there was also ownership as well. No alternative govts existed in those ghettos. All part of the same country, all south african citizens.

                            I don't see this clarity with Israel, shoe horning analogies from other parts of the world is harder than inserting square pegs into round holes when it comes to Israel.

                            Not a fan of 'looks like, walks like, sounds like' therefore must be...
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Jun 14,, 19:54.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Who did the West Bank belong to in 1967, or for that matter 1948? The answer is: the inhabitants of the West Bank. Simple, cut and dried. All this lawyering around with defintions, Balfour this, Jordan that, blah blah blah, serves to perpetuate this endless occupation, and occupation is precisely what it is.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                                I beg to differ, I feel that I most definitely have proven that he is an anti-Semite hiding his hatred under the guise of being anti-Israeli, but that's just me. You are welcome to agree or disagree, I think you'll find that most people who are able to look at the situation objectively hear his words and see his actions and realize that he is a bigot.
                                Zionists and pro-Israel patriots aren't the appropriate sort to label Roger as anti-Semitic. In fact they are uniquely excluded from that right in my opinion. Why? tradition, precedent, the tendency of them to slam anyone who criticizes Israel as a Jew hater. What's needed are significant numbers of the unaffiliated to label Roger Water's an anti-Semite. Without that, there's no case.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X