an blog | AJBlog Central | Contact me | Advertise | Follow me:

Kennedy follow-up: Pink Floyd man calls for Israel boycott

In what appears to be a summer propaganda offensive by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Pink Floyd co-lead vocalist Roger Waters has called on musicians to join him in a boycott of Israel.

‘I write to you now, my brothers and sisters in the family of Rock and Roll, to ask you to join with me, and thousands of other artists around the world, to declare a cultural boycott on Israel,’ appeals Waters. He had written the appeal in July but was ‘inspired’ to release it now after the Nigel Kennedy outburst at the BBC Proms.

Suspicion of political manipulation cannot be ruled out. Waters has a long tail of pro-Pal activism.

roger waters

Full text here:

18th August 2013 Warsaw

To My Colleagues in Rock and Roll

 

Nigel Kennedy the virtuoso British violinist and violist, at The Recent Promenade Concerts at The Albert Hall in London, mentioned that Israel is apartheid. Nothing unusual there you might think, then one Baroness Deech, (Nee Fraenkel) disputed the fact that Israel is an apartheid state and prevailed upon the BBC to censor Kennedy’s performance by removing his statement. Baroness Deech produced not one shred of evidence to support her claim and yet the BBC, non political, supposedly, acting solely on Baroness Deech’s say so, suddenly went all 1984 on us.  Well!! Time to stick my head above the parapet again, alongside my brother, Nigel Kennedy, where it belongs.  And by the way, Nigel, great respect man. So here follows a letter last re-drafted in July

 

25th July 2013

To My Colleagues in Rock and Roll.

 

In the wake of the tragic shooting to death of un-armed teenager Travon Martin and the acquittal of his killer Zimmerman, yesterday, Stevie Wonder spoke at a gig declaring that he will not perform in the State of Florida until that State repeals it’s “Stand your ground” Law. In effect he has declared a boycott on grounds of conscience. I applaud his position, and stand with him, it has brought back to me a statement I made in a letter I wrote last February 14th, to which I have referred but have never published.

 

The time has come, so here it is.

 

This letter has been simmering on the back burner of my conscience and consciousness for some time.

 

It is seven years since I joined BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions) a non violent movement to oppose Israel’s occupation of the West Bank ,and ,violations of international law and Palestinian human rights. The aim of BDS is to bring international attention to these Israeli policies, and hopefully, to help bring them to an end. All the people of the region deserve better than this.

 

To cut to the chase, Israel has been found guilty, independently, by international human rights organizations, UN officials, and the International Court of Justice, , of serious breaches of international law.  These include, and I will name only two:

 

1.The Crime of Apartheid:

The systematic oppression of one ethnic group by another.

On 9 March 2012, for instance, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.ISR.CO.14-16.pdf) on Israel to end its racist policies and laws that contravene the prohibition against racial segregation and apartheid.

 

2.The Crime of Ethnic Cleansing:

The forcible removable of indigenous peoples from their rightful land in order to settle an occupying population. For example, in East Jerusalem non Jewish families are routinely physically evicted from their homes to make way for Jewish occupants.

 

There are others.

 

Given the inability or unwillingness of our governments, or the United Nations Security Council to put pressure on Israel to cease these violations, and make reparations to the victims, it falls to civil society and conscientious citizens of the world, , to dust off our consciences, shoulder our responsibilities, and act. I write to you now, my brothers and sisters in the family of Rock and Roll, to ask you to join with me, and thousands of other artists around the world, to declare a cultural boycott on Israel, to shed light on these problems and also to support all our brothers and sisters in Palestine and Israel who are struggling to end all forms of Israeli oppression and who wish to live in peace, justice, equality and freedom.

 

I am writing to you all now because of two recent events.

 

  1. Stevie Wonder.

Word came to me, the first week of last December that Stevie Wonder had been booked to headline at a gala dinner for the Friends of The Israeli Defence Force in LA on 6th December 2012. An event to raise money for the Israeli armed forces, as if the $4.3,000,000,000 that we the US tax payers give them each year were not enough? This came right after The Israeli defence Force  had concluded yet another war on Gaza, (Operation Pillar of Defence), according to human rights watch, committing  war crimes against the besieged 1.6 million Palestinians there.

 

Anyway, I wrote to Stevie to try to persuade him to cancel.  My letter ran along these lines, “Would you have felt OK performing at the Policeman’s Ball in Johannesburg the night after the Sharpeville massacre in 1960 or in Birmingham Alabama, to raise money for the Law Enforcement officers, who clubbed, tear gassed and water cannoned those children trying to integrate in 1963?”

 

Archbishop Desmond Tutu also wrote an impassioned plea to Stevie, and  3,000 others appended their names to a change .org petition. Stevie, to his great credit, cancelled!

 

2.    Earlier that week I delivered a speech at The United Nations. If you are interested you can find this speech on YouTube.

 

The interesting thing about these two stories is that there was NOT ONE mention of either story in the mainstream media in the United States.

 

The clear inference would be that the media in the USA is not interested in the predicament of the Palestinian people, or for that matter the predicament of the Israeli people,. We can only hope they may become interested as they eventually did in the politics of apartheid South Africa.

 

Back in the days of Apartheid South Africa at first it was a trickle of artists that refused to play there, a trickle, that exercised a cultural boycott, then it became a stream, then a river then a torrent and then a flood, ( Remember Steve van Zant, Bruce and all the others? “We will not Play in Sun City?”) Why? Because, like the UN and the International Courts of Justice they understood that Apartheid is wrong.

 

The sports community joined the battle, no one would go and play cricket or rugby in South Africa , and eventually the political community joined in as well. We all as a global, musical, sporting and political community raised our voices as one and the apartheid regime in South Africa fell.

 

Maybe we are at the tipping point now with Israel and Palestine. These are good people both and they deserve a just solution to their predicament. Each and every one of them deserves freedom, justice and equal rights. Just recently the ANC, the ruling party of South Africa, has endorsed BDS. We are nearly there. Please join me and all our brothers and sisters in global civil society in proclaiming our rejection of Apartheid in Israel and occupied Palestine, by pledging not to perform or exhibit in Israel or accept any award or funding from any institution linked to the government of Israel, until such time as Israel complies with international law and universal principles of human rights.

 

Roger Waters

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Comments

  1. Well…sure.

    I mean, “everybody knows” it’s true.

    Please excuse me if I am just a bit skeptical of the depth of Roger Waters’ study of the region’s history.

    • Michael Schaffer says:

      What does that matter? I read your contributions in the other thread with great interest, yet you haven’t stated your “credentials” anywhere. Nor do you need to. You want what you say be taken seriously for what it is you have to say, not for what others think what or who you are or aren’t, don’t you?

      So lets just stick with the issues. For instance, is this statement from the above text true?

      “For example, in East Jerusalem non Jewish families are routinely physically evicted from their homes to make way for Jewish occupants.”

      • Yes, it’s true. It’s been going on since 1948.

        • Really? In East Jerusalem, non-Jewish families have routinely been evicted to make room for Jewish occupants,since 1948?

          Well, you should blame Jordan, then, and not Israel, since Jordan controlled East Jerusalem from 1948-1967. During that time, by the way, no Jews — not “no Israeli”, but “no Jew” — was allowed to visit the holy sites.

  2. José Bergher says:

    If Mr. Water’s brothers and sisters of the rock and roll family boicot Israel or any other country, it’s no big loss to civilization. To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894), if all of Mr. Water’s recordings were thrown into the ocean, it would be good for Mankind and very bad for the fishes.

    • Neil van der Linden says:

      Dear Mr or Mrs Bergher,
      Whatever thinks of Roger Waters’ views or consequences of his views on the world politics, apart from the pun on Waters and the ocean, your remark completely misses the point that Waters and Pink Floyd have contributed massively to the music culture of the second half of the twentieth century, from the first album of 1967 on. Just because you apparently hate his opinions, you make a senseless paraphrase.
      It sounds very childish.

      • José Bergher says:

        Very esteemed Mrs. Van der Linden, I really can’t say which I find more repulsive, whether Mr. Water’s massive contributions to music culture or his opinions on the Middle East. Civilisation will not suffer from a boicot by Mr. Water or by his rock and roll brothers and sisters. And I think he should read “Battleground – Fact and Fantasy in Palestine” by Samuel Katz and understand what has been going on in that part of the world.

        • Lyndon Crabbe says:

          Oh oh oh … I can suggest a book too … try Patrick Tyler’s “Fortress Israel: And Why They Can’t Make Peace”

  3. stanley cohen says:

    It’s good to know that such illustrious purveyors of Rock Music, drug culture and limitless promiscuity for the majority of their active careers can take time off to enlighten us with their mature reflections concerning the only democratic regime in the Middle East.
    We look forward with eager anticipation for their personal input on the Higgs Boson and the cure for uterine cancer.
    Stanley cohen
    London & Jerusalem

    • Michael Schaffer says:

      Have you figured out the Higgs Boson and the uterine cancer treatment stuff in the meantime? I hope so because if you haven’t, then – according to yourself – you aren’t qualified to make any statements about this subject either. According to yourself!

    • Not taking sides, but it is irrelevant here if a regime is democratic or not. Democracy doesn’t give any legitimacy to crimes against humanity and international law. It is also irrelevant how many nobel price laureates one holds. That also doesn’t legitimize crimes against humanity and international law. (to preemptively strike against another common hasbara strategy of our lost brothers.)

  4. Jack Becker says:

    Waters hasn’t been a co-vocalist of Pink Floyd since 1985. Yet, though this political statement comes from a musician (always entertaining), his accomplishments in music have no place in any commentary on it.
    Besides, 250 million albums sold — one of them staying on the charts for 15 years and 5 months — isn’t exactly something to scoff at.

    • “his accomplishments in music have no place in any commentary on it.”

      Just for relativity on music and real art. Once upon a time there was a composer musician by the name of BACH.
      His music was mainly an adoration to God. If you take a chart from 1 to 10 then his music was a 10 consistently.
      Then there were Mozart and Bethoven , an 8 or an 9.
      Many years later in the 60s there was some music revival, but the music including Waters never broke the level 3.
      So if waters wants to be a 5 or a 6 he should leave politics and get back to the music score

      • Neil van der Linden says:

        Giving marks suggests something that is absolute, while I think you are expressing a personal taste.
        Irony has it that music history itself teaches us that the absolute has a relative meaning. At the end of his own time the general appreciations for Bach would have been a 6 maximum maybe and that lasted for quite a few decades. Goethe would have done so, while he was very confident about his own music tastes. He gave Mozart a 10, Beethoven a 9, and Schubert a 5.
        There may be criteria along which one could sort of half scientifically give musical works and their composers points, and for sure in most of these systems the three composers of the past you mention rank high. But it is also difficult to assess music one has not been brought up in or music that one is not used to listen to or music that belongs to certain subcultures. There are many criteria possible, inside the score and the pure musical structure, and outside. Goethe definitely would have given Rzewsky low marks, and Boulez even lower marks. Probably also Bach would not have been able to make much of it. And at the time of Bach the different but masterly counterpoint of De Machaut and Dufay was forgotten, and one wonders what he would have made of it, from a (transposed) score or when hearing it. Music is also acquired taste. The first records of the Beatles now belong to the general canon, but there were music connoisseurs in those times who ‘scientically’ were able to burn that music down to the ground, with ‘academic’ criteria; it was among other Bernstein who showed the world of traditional musical values how to appreciate this new music. But even without Bernstein it is clear that the works of artists like the Beatles, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Bob Dylan etc. and outside Europe Umm Kulthumm, Joao Gilberto, Antonio Carlos Jobim, Vilayat Khan or Shahid Parvez Khan will never be overlooked, unless our whole human civilisation as we know it vanishes. Or let us take even a more confusing case. The first records by the Sex Pistols created the punk music and helped create a cultural revolution. This will ensure them an eternal place in music history, while according to some musical criteria they were just average (but not according to ‘impact’, even musical impact, sound innovation, which partly had to do with deliberately ‘bad’ sound quality etc.)
        Maybe personally I would not give Roger Waters a 10 and certainly not for all of his works. In fact Pink Floyd is hardly ever on my music players, while I listen constantly to music. But Beethoven or Bach are hardly there either, and Mozart never, while I have a lot of their music on CD. I will not elaborate on what is on my CD player and MP3 player, it also regularly shifts, but I am voracious in music and unknown territories music, while through the years I also have my own canon to which I return, and, as I follow a lot of new music, a lot new is added.
        After the first wave of innovative pop music in the sixties, mostly coming from England, in which a permanent development took place, Pink Floyd and their Roger Waters were part of a second wave. I think a simple look on Wikipedia already explains a lot. From the initial success the group has permanently developed, until after about some fifteen years the musical development came to a standstill, and there was only more evolution in the quality of the recording technique and the stadium acts. While their first music was part of the end of the sixties revolution, with the Wall and its political meaning they reached or in fact half-created a new audience. This effect still goes on. In fact in many parts of the world The Wall is part of the musical culture of discontent youth, especially in half or whole dictatorial states. This is the case from China to Iran and from Egypt to Indonesia. The text about dictatorship was quoted before here in this blog and directly attributed to Roger Waters himself, but now, his text there is his phrasing of the mindset of dictators and dictatorial institutions in (also our) society. Like what Charlie Chaplin says in The Dictator are not his opinions, except in the end, while he uses the film to express his opinions. But at other moments Pink Floyd and Roger Waters have contributed considerably to the development of the music of the twentieth century. While Boulez’ Reponse is a tightly composed and thorough work, I m sure that in the future The Wall will still be seen as more relevant. And I am even sure that in the future Reponse will not even be appreciated in a way we now, thanks to scientific research, recording technique and sound thinking of interpreters like Paul van Nevel, can appreciate some esoteric reclusive music of the 15th and 16th century. (And about Reponse, and I was at the premiere of its first full performance, I always say it is admirable, but for the progress of electronic music Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis in the same year did more when they started to explore the full potential of the Yamaha DX7 in the also almost atonal Janet Jackson hit Nasty Boys; which was a transition record, but pivotal for the development of electronic music after that – and a composer like Louis Andriessen or John Adams would agree).

      • Neil van der Linden says:

        By the way what is also important is that the early music of Pink Floyd helped lead the way to Jimi Hendrix and I am sure that Miles Davis listened to not only Jimi Hendrix but also Pink Floyd, the Grateful Dead and even the more experimental work by the Byrds (who listened to Coltrane) when he took his giant step including music instruments from rock and roll into jazz, like the electric piano, and further developing the use of electric guitar and bass in jazz, which led to In a Silent Way and the Bitches Brew, music that changed the face of jazz.

  5. I despise the views expressed by Waters and his fellow travellers and despair to the point of rage at the ill-informed views of the anti-Israel crowd but I would respectfully say to those who make disparaging remarks about rock and roll or Pink Floyd, please don’t!

    Waters was a major component and writer of the masterpiece Dark Side of the Moon and as a musician and music-lover (rock and roll, jazz, folk and classical) I’ve been moved by some of his music, albeit a long time ago. As to his subsequent work, I know nothing of it and don’t care, but it’s best to attack the man’s views or even the man, not the field in which he works as there are hugely talented musicians there, some of whom have risen above the propaganda and have played concerts in Israel quite recently, the guitar virtuoso Jeff Beck being one example.

  6. I’m a huge fan of classical music, particularly that for the piano. Over the years, I’ve come to know many musicians personally. I hate to say this, but there are very few of them whom I would describe as first class intellects. Some are moderately intelligent and some are dumb as doorposts and have have uttered the most insipid and astoundingly uninformed words.
    It would probably be best if the majority of classical musicians, including Kennedy and Barenboim, (and even more so, actors!) would make it a policy to never comment on politics, religion, or just about anything other than music. In the case of rock/rock and roll, “musicians” such as Roger Waters, most of whom have a history of being over-familiar with illicit substances and booze, it would probably behoove them to keep their mouths firmly shut at all times. This last group has only the most tenuous connection with “culture” anyway.

    • “This last group has only the most tenuous connection with “culture” anyway.”
      OUCH
      I’m no big follower of Rock music but this is a spectacularly mis-informed and nasty comment.
      At its best this music has a place in culture as well. Pink Floyd is a case in point.

      Also,there’s are some good precedents for music and politics mixing in a very exciting way.
      For example, Rzewski’s piano variations ” The People United will never be Defeated” which tackles the Chilean dictatorship.

      • OK, I’ll give you that, Steve. I guess anything can be considered “culture” these days. My comment was indeed nasty, but not ill0informed. Believing that such “musicians” are exemplars of culture is one of the reasons the position of classical music has gone so far downhill. Everything is NOT beautiful in its own way.
        As to “The People United,” I love the piece, but it does not come with lyrics and stands on its own as a piece of music. Are you actually putting the “music” of Pink Floyd on the same level as Rzewski’s compositions?

        • i’m not putting the music of Rzewski in the same category/level as Pink Floyd. Clearly they are different categories.
          i chose to mention the Rzewski because it shows that ‘classical’ musicians are capable of taking on board political issues-whether verbalized ( Barenboim, Christie ), or in the case of Rzewski’s piano variations, part of the inspiration behind a piece of music..
          You seemed to suggest that musicians have moderate intellect at best, and should stay clear of politics.

          • Neil van der Linden says:

            Here is a nice interview with an Egyptian musician and music patron, Selim Sednaoui, who was involved in the first plans for the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. Somebody here said that Barenboim founded it, but he cofounded it. I met Selim in 1998 in his home in Cairo when he was involved in the first steps. Sednaoui is an ancient Egyptian mixed Christian and Jewish family name.
            http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/769/bo3.htm

            Al-Ahram Weekly Online 17 – 23 November 2005
            Issue No. 769
            Books Supplement
            Current issue
            Previous issue
            Site map

            Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875
            RecommendRecommend CommentComment Printer-friendlyPrinter-friendly

            Notes from a life of music
            As a young man growing up in Cairo in the 1950s, Edward Said showed enviable talent in many directions, not least in music, remembers Selim Sednaoui in an interview with Fayza Hassan and Nancy Roberts-Moneir
            Click to view caption
            Ignace Tiegerman (1893-1968) was a Polish pianist who in 1931 settled in Cairo, where he remained until his death; Sednaoui with Said in Cairo in 1993 (top); and with Said and Barenboim in Weimar in 1999

            Edward Said would sometimes say that from his childhood years until his early manhood he suffered from an identity crisis. Who was he? Was he Palestinian or American? Was he an English-speaking Arab, or an Arabic-speaking American? And what about the languages he spoke? Which one came first, Arabic or English?

            Born in Jerusalem, but brought up in Egypt and attending an English school, Said wrote later that “I hadn’t then any idea where my mother’s English came from or who, in the national sense of the phrase, she was: this strange state of ignorance continued until relatively late in my life, when I was in graduate school” in the United States. According to Said, his mother spoke Egyptian Arabic, but her accent remained marked by the use of words that betrayed her Shami origins — Shami or Damascene, as Said explains, being “the collective adjective and noun used by Egyptians to describe an Arabic speaker who is not Egyptian and someone who is from Greater Syria, i.e., Syria itself, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan; but Shami is also used to designate the Arabic dialect spoken by a Shami. ”

            Was Edward Shami, then, like many of his schoolmates in Cairo? If so, he was less directly Shami than they were, because most of the Syro-Lebanese Christians he mixed with were Greek Catholic, Greek Orthodox or Maronite, the Said family worshipping instead at the Anglican cathedral in Maspero Street.

            One more typical member of the Shami community who was a close friend of Edward Said while he was growing up in Cairo is pianist Selim Sednaoui, an Egyptian by birth. Meeting him for the first time at the Gezira Sporting Club, Selim remembers that Edward “was three years younger than I was, and I was, let’s say, 22. I remember we went to the Salzburg Festival [in Austria] together in 1957, and we had known each other for a while. So it must have been in 1954, something like that. He was a tennis player, and so was I, and we started talking together, and I found out that he played the piano and had a great passion for music, again something we both shared. We had very similar tastes in life in general, which brought us close, and I took him to the Tiegerman Conservatory in Cairo.”

            The piano, and classical music in general, later meant a great deal to Edward Said, and Tiegerman had a role to play in that. Ignace Tiegerman (1893-1968) was a Polish pianist who in 1931 settled in Cairo, where he remained until his death in 1968. At the early age of 10, Tiegerman auditioned for Leschestizky in Vienna and was accepted, thus beginning his studying with the legendary man and his equally legendary assistant Ignaz Friedman. Friedman’s daughter Lydia told the music critic Allan Evans in 1980 “Do you know Tiegerman? He was a pupil of Papa’s — a Polish Jew who lived in Cairo. Papa said he was the greatest talent he ever worked with.”

            Sednaoui remembers that “Tiegerman could have had a great career, but because of his health, he couldn’t travel much and the climate of Egypt suited him. He had a conservatory on 5 Champollion Street, and I took Edward to study there, and Tiegerman took him in as a pupil. Edward had a gift for the piano, and I remember him coming to my place with Tiegerman to listen to records of pianists. I also remember Edward playing publicly, because there was an audition for Tiegerman’s pupils every year in Ewart Hall at the American University in Cairo. Each one of us played a piece, and I recall that he played the Prokofiev Sonata No. 3, very well, by the way.”

            Sednaoui also remembers traveling with Edward Said in search of musical experience, and he mixes his remembrances of the period with more personal memories.

            “On other occasions Edward and I would play for each other. We went to the Salzburg Festival in 1957 to hear Karajan conduct the Mozart Requiem. But each of us was coming from a different place in Europe, and I missed the concert because I was traveling from Italy by car through a pass called the “Gross Glockner,” which is a very difficult corridor up in the mountains. There was a storm and lots of rain that day, and when I finally arrived in Salzburg, the concert was over. I was exhausted and went to the hotel, but Edward got there in time to attend. The next day, and for days afterwards, we went together to other concerts. And we went out together with girls, because we had the same taste in that, too. He was always very successful with women. He was a good-looking guy, and he had a lot of charm and intelligence and money. He had everything, you could say.”

            However, anyone listening to Sednaoui’s account of Edward Said’s formative years will find it difficult to fit it with the portrait Said draws of his youthful self in his memoir Out Of Place, where he emerges as being shy and lacking in self-esteem. Sednaoui himself says that he was surprised by the book, finding “another side to Edward” in it.

            “I didn’t realise at all that that had been a part of his youthful experience, since I thought that he was a very self-confident young man, very successful in many ways. I was very surprised when I read about his childhood and the doubts he said he had about himself and his lack of confidence. Either he overcame that later, or he was putting on an act when young, I don’t know. But I never felt any insecurity in him at all. So this side of the book was a real discovery for me: as far as I could see when he wanted to do something he just went ahead and did it.”

            Said graduated from his undergraduate studies at Princeton in 1958, and returned for a while to Cairo to assist his father in business, while Sednaoui was already helping his father run the Sednaoui family business, the famous department stores that had branches across Egypt at the time. “Initially, he was supposed to take over his father’s business, which was the Standard Stationary Company in Cairo, located in Abdel-Khaliq Sarwat Street,” Sednaoui remembers. “The store is still there, but it doesn’t belong to the Said family anymore. However, I remember Edward at a certain time in his father’s office running the business. He didn’t like it at all. He said, ‘I’m not cut out for that.’”

            The Sednaoui department stores were nationalised in 1961, and Selim’s parents left the country for Switzerland, where he joined them a few months later. “I had to leave Egypt because of the Nasser regime, and Edward and I lost contact for a while,” Sednaoui says. “I was in Switzerland working and studying music, while Edward was pursuing graduate studies in the US. After 1967, I decided to move to Lebanon, and in the late 1960s Edward came to Lebanon as well to improve his Arabic. He spent a year in the country and even considered settling there. But finally he was disappointed with it, and even complained about the attitudes of the local academic authorities. He would say, ‘Here I am, and the American University in Beirut has never asked me to give a lecture. They should take advantage of my presence here.’ Clearly, he was quite conscious of his value even at that time,” Sednaoui remembers.

            “Finally, he decided not to stay. “He was 35 and already well- established in academia in the US. He had also been married once, and then had got divorced.”

            “I can still remember Edward’s courtship of his second wife, Mariam Cortas, who is Lebanese,” Sednaoui continues. “I can still see them together, dancing cheek-to-cheek. Edward was always a good sportsman, and of their two children, Wadie and Najla, Wadie is a good tennis player, too, like his father, and he was number 25 in the Junior American league for the East Coast, I believe. I played him once here in Cairo, and beat him in one match. I was very proud of that game, so I told Edward that I had won a game against his son. He said, ‘his mind must have been on something else.’ It wasn’t a very nice thing to say,” Sednaoui laughs, but “he always had a sharp tongue.”

            By the 1970s, Sednaoui and Edward Said had drifted apart, Sednaoui saying that “after 1975 we lost track of each other again because of the Lebanese Civil War. Edward was in the States, and he loved New York. He didn’t feel American, but he loved New York. He used to say, ‘It’s falling apart, but where else can you live?’” However, later the two men’s paths crossed again, once more because of a shared interest in music.

            “New York is the best city in the world for music, and Edward’s career was really taking off there,” Sednaoui remembers. “I went to see him in New York two or three times, which I had the opportunity to do because I sometimes gave concerts in the States. On my way back from a concert, I would pass by New York to see Edward. He had a very nice apartment, not far from Columbia University where he taught, and I went to his office a few times at Columbia. However, I never attended any of his courses. I’m sorry that I didn’t spend a term in New York, to do some studying and be with him. I didn’t take full advantage of our friendship, I must say, and this I regret.”

            At the end of the 1970s, Sednaoui’s relationship with Edward Said developed once more, when the two men met again in Egypt. “I came back to Egypt in 1977, because we had the opportunity to get our property back. Edward also came to Cairo at that time for a meeting of the Palestine National Council, of which he was a member, and we met at the Meridien Hotel. It was a very friendly meeting, very warm, very everything. He liked Cairo very much, and he especially enjoyed Egyptian humour: he always liked to hear and to tell Egyptian jokes.”

            “Edward’s father was a tough businessman. But I remember his mother better. She was tough, too. I asked him once about how he thought his cancer had started, because it’s supposed to have a psychosomatic side. He gave me this answer: ‘the death of my mother, and the fact that Yasser Arafat sided with Saddam Hussein over Kuwait [in 1990 / 1991].’ He thought this was the worst thing Arafat could have done for the Palestinian cause, and it affected him a lot. Did it have a link with his cancer? I don’t know. But that is what he said.”

            Sednaoui also remembers Said’s continuing interest in music and musicians, an interest which he shared. “When Edward and I met in later life, we listened to music and discussed pianists,” Sednaoui says. “He was a great admirer of Glenn Gould, and also of Daniel Barenboim, whom he had met. When I was in New York in 1995, Edward asked me if I wanted to meet Barenboim. I said, ‘Yes, of course.’ Edward was too tired to go to Barenboim’s hotel, so he called and said, ‘a friend of mine from Egypt is coming to meet you.’ I went to the hotel, the Four Seasons, and went proudly to the concierge and announced, ‘I have an appointment with Mr. Barenboim.’ ‘Mr. Who?’ asked the concierge ‘Barenboim.’ ‘How do you spell that?’

            “I said to myself, ‘he’s not a music lover. B-A-R-…’ I started spelling… Finally, Barenboim asked me to come up, and he was very gracious, offering me a gin and tonic. We talked about music and about Israel, and about how he was opposed to Israeli policies and open to the Palestinians. I found him much more modest and pleasant than I imagined he would be.”

            Later, Sednaoui’s relationship with Barenboim itself developed when Edward Said called him in Paris regarding a new project that the two men were planning together.

            Etc… see the link, with photos.

            .

    • Michael Schaffer says:

      To be honest, you don’t really come across as an intellectual giant in this post yourself, no matter if you play music or drink booze or not.

    • And have you met a politician or a religious leader that is more intelligent than musicians? I haven’t, and therefore encourage political statements by public figures from all walks of life at any time.

      • Don’t get me started on religious leaders! As a general rule, the biggest crowd of grifters who’ve ever walked the earth. Many politicians are smarter, though, than musicians, though I will admit that quite a few seem to share musicians’ and actors’ problems with booze and partying. Most of the later did not choose their field of employment because medical science was not intellectually challenging enough for them. Better they should stick with what they actually know.

    • ‘In the case of rock/rock and roll, “musicians” such as Roger Waters, most of whom have a history of being over-familiar with illicit substances and booze, it would probably behoove them to keep their mouths firmly shut at all times. ‘

      That’s curtains for Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Thomas de Quincey and Sigmund Freud, then! As for alcohol and artists of all types….

  7. Both Stanley Cohen and José Bergher have hit the nail on the head. I have no wish to delve into whether or not Mr Waters and Mr Kennedy are good musicians but I know what I like. And I like Robert Thouless’ book “Straight and Crooked Thinking”. Messrs Waters and Kennedy would do well to read it. Like the cobblers they are, they should stick to their lasts.

    • José Bergher says:
      • Michael Schaffer says:

        José Bergher says:
        August 22, 2013 at 12:57 am

        “Thanks, Harv.
        Here, in pdf, is the book you mentioned:
        http://www.divinetruth.com/PDF/People/Other/Robert%20Thouless%20-%20Straight%20And%20Crooked%20Thinking.pdf

        That’s a pretty hilarious website! Some here have suggested that Mr Waters shouldn’t be taken seriously because of his use of drugs. These people seem to be on some really strong stuff, too:

        “Welcome to the Divine Truth website! My name is Alan John Miller, and many of my friends call me AJ. The beautiful woman you see with me is Mary Suzanne Luck. Just a little over 2000 years ago, we arrived on the earth for the first time. My name then was Yeshua ben Yosef, or the Jesus of the Bible, the son of Joseph and Mary. Mary’s name then was Mary of Magdala, the woman identified in the Bible as Mary Magdalene. Mary was my wife then, and the first person I appeared to after I was crucified.
        Because of my personal desire and passion for God, as I grew, I recognized not only that I was the Messiah that was foretold by ancient prophets, but also that I was in a process designed by God that all humans could follow, if they so desired.”

        • Neil van der Linden says:

          #Michael: yes that reads like trippin. And in the case of Pink Floyd and most vocal music one knows it is about lyrics, and in the case of the wall most is in the third person, as it is about characters in a story.
          This seems to be in the first person, from the author to the reader, if it is not a parody.

    • stanley cohen says:

      My thanks too, Harv. Some posters are so driven by their prejudices that they will nail their colours to the mast of any idiot who appears to agree with them.

      • Michael Schaffer says:

        Like, for instance, the prejudices you have against Rock musicians?

        • stanley cohen says:

          All Rock musicians?
          I presume you deduced that for yourself without any assistance [from me]?

          • Michael Schaffer says:

            It’s what you said yourself (see below). BTW, have you figured out the Higgs Boson stuff and the cure for uterine cancer in the meantime?

            stanley cohen says:
            August 21, 2013 at 5:47 pm

            “It’s good to know that such illustrious purveyors of Rock Music, drug culture and limitless promiscuity for the majority of their active careers can take time off to enlighten us with their mature reflections concerning the only democratic regime in the Middle East.
            We look forward with eager anticipation for their personal input on the Higgs Boson and the cure for uterine cancer.
            Stanley cohen
            London & Jerusalem”

  8. Waters captures the fascist mentality acutely in ‘In the Flesh (part 2)’ from The Wall:

    Remember the quasi-fascist take-over in ‘The Wall’?

    ‘So ya, thought ya
    Might like to go to the show.
    To feel that warm thrill of confusion,
    That space cadet glow.
    I’ve got some bad news for you sunshine,
    Pink isn’t well, he stayed back at the hotel
    And they sent us along as a surrogate band
    We’re gonna find out where you folks really stand.
    Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
    Get them up against the wall!
    There’s one in the spotlight, he don’t look right to me,
    Get him up against the wall!
    That one looks Jewish!
    And that one’s a coon!
    Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
    There’s one smoking a joint,
    And another with spots!
    If I had my way,
    I’d have all of you shot!’

  9. Michael Schaffer says:

    So just a little while it was demanded of some prominent Russian musicians that they speak out publically against gay discrimination in Russia and the great majority seemed to enthusiastically agree with that.

    Now another prominent musician speaks about human rights issues in Israel that he feels need to be addressed and then it’s suddenly all “musicians should just shut up” and a lot of character assassination. He is a druggie, a boozer, even a rock musician – funny that that seems to be a bad thing in the eyes of some people. Some also call for his works to be sunk into the ocean. I can’t help being reminded more than just a little of Hitler who didn’t drink, didn’t smoke, hated the equivalent of rock music in his time and thought it amoral and who had the works of those who criticized him destroyed. I find that more than just a little troubling.

    • The reason Nebtrenko was asked to speak out was that she had previously PUBLICLY come out in favor of Putin. Have you forgotten that? Or just conveniently chosen to overlook it?
      Do you really think that someone who is a “druggie, a boozer” is a person to be emulated? I guess so, IF he is anti-semitic/anti-Israel. If so, YOUR own intellect is seriously questionable. I’ll pit my intelligence against yours any day, especially since you appear to find drug-addled brains praiseworthy.

    • Gonout Backson says:

      August 22, 2013, at 4:34 am, Mr Michael Schaffer : one Godwin point, one.

  10. I applaud Roger Waters and Nigel Kennedy for their courageous stand. The idea that politics is the business of politicians alone is ludicrous and undemocratic. Musicians, who have earned a great deal of money and have high public profiles, also have a right and a duty to put their political views as much as anyone else, perhaps more so.

    The venomous one-sided rant attacks they have suffered on this forum are par for the course in this area of debate. I propose to put one set of facts and figures on the table for those who may be interested. There is much more that could be said, but I am not going to enter into any further debate. I would urge others to study carefully the full facts from all sources, and make up their own minds.

    Israel is a state with no strict legally-defined borders, and is a parliamentary democracy. The Government of Israel has effective total control of the State of Israel, and of the occupied territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

    Israel has controlled the occupied territories since the Six-Day War of 1967, which was initiated by Israel as a pre-emptive strike against Arab States. To put this in perspective, can you imagine Berlin still being occupied by the US, UK and USSR armed forces in 1967, or Japan by the US armed forces, 22 years after the end of WWII?

    Yet 46 years after 1967, Israel still maintains ultimate control of the occupied territories. This is itself illegal under International Law. Israel had two legal options after 1967. It could have incorporated the Occupied Territories into the State of Israel, or it could have returned the Occupied Territories to viable self-government within a reasonable time.

    Instead, during the intervening time, Israel unilaterally annexed the Golan Heights from Syria in 1981; exercised unlawful control over East Jerusalem, displacing the Arab population in favour of Israeli Jews; and to this day has pursued a policy of planting and extending Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

    The estimated population of Israel in 2013 is 8.1 million, including all permanent residents of Israel, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, and also Israeli citizens living in the West Bank. Of these, 6.1 million are Jewish, and 2.0 million are non-Jewish, the vast majority of the latter being Arabs.

    The population of the Gaza Strip is 1.8 million, essentially all of which is Arab. It is not commonly realized that the Gaza Strip is only 25 miles long, and an average of 5.6 miles wide. The population of the West Bank is 2.6 million, but since 0.5 million of these are Israeli settlers who are already included in the official population estimates for Israel, the only significant population figure for the West Bank is the 2.1 million Arabs who live there.

    Thus, while it is true that Israel is a democracy, it is also true that, for nigh on half a century, the present-day 3.9 million Arabs who live in areas captured by Israel in the Six-Day War have had no right of representation in the Knesset that controls their fate. Not seeing this as apartheid requires a great deal of self-serving rationalization.

    Then there is the issue of right of return (see ethnic cleansing). 85% of the Palestinian Arab population was displaced during the hostilities of 1948, both before and after the State of Israel was proclaimed. A UN resolution recognized the right of return for both displaced Palestinian Jews and Arabs at the time, but the only relevant numbers today are registered Palestinian Arab refugees living outside Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. There are something like 3 million Palestinian Arabs whom the UN recognizes as having right of return to their homeland.

    • ” and of the occupied territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.”

      The Israeli occupation of Gaza ended in 2005. Since then, over 10,000 rockets and mortars have been launched from Gaza at towns in southern Israel. Not at the West Bank, and not at military targets. At Israeli civilians.

      If people in Berlin had continued to attack American, British, and French civilians,you had better believe they would have continued to be occupied.

      By the way, the “fact” that Gaza is occupied is one of those things that “everybody knows”.

      • Jeffrey, you know very well, that Gaza is in fact a huge outdoor prison, with blocked access from sea- and landside, heavy trade restrictions, full control by Israel of in- and outgoing traffic, both human and goods. It’s legitimate to call that an occupation, even if the occupying soldiers are not regularly inside that troublesome territory anymore.

        • Yes. The Israelis — the targets of the aforementioned 10,000+ rockets and mortar shells — ware preventing Hamas from bringing in *more* armaments. Imagine that.

          No other country on earth would be criticized for doing that. Contrary to what “everybody knows”, by the way, shipments of non-proscribed goods are allowed in, after inspection.

          • It is what it is. We could go on endlessly and just waste our time. There remains the fact, that Israel in your proclaimed “self defense” has killed ten times the number of humans, than your “Palestinian terrorist” have done in their “attacks on Israel”. Israel has occupied territories, Palestinians live under occupation. Israel has one of the most modern armies in the world, the Palestinians have “stones and arrows” metaphorically speaking. It’s called an asymmetric conflict for a reason. Small self made artillery rockets without targeting precision are the poor man’s weapon against an enemy with a high tech army. It’s wrong to go to war, that’s true for Palestinian extremists as for Israeli extremists. Every victim is one victim to much. But does the Israeli leadership want peace? I doubt it. Israel’s leadership wants eternal war, because that’s the best justification for it’s belligerent policies in the region.

          • Yes. The terrorists base themselves amongst their own population so as to maximize civilian deaths, just so people like you can say things like that.

            The Israelis try to minimize their civilian casualties.

            The best, most lasting way that the terrorists could stop, permanently, Palestinian civilian casualties? Stop attacking Israelis.

            It really is just that simple.

          • For everything, you have an “argument” in place why it’s the other’s fault. You never think that this conflict is one of two parties in the “tango”?

          • Not at all. For (almost) everything, I know what the situation really is. It’s the result of actually following the news for several decades, rather than just parroting that which “everybody knows”.

            Everything I say is easily-verifiable fact. If it contradicts what people are certain *must* be true, those folks should re-examine the reasons for their certainty.

          • OK, so in essence your “several decades of following the news” has brought you to the conclusion, that the people down there in the hole should just shut the f*** up and be happy and thankful with the bones that are thrown down to them. Did I read that correctly?

          • “Did I read that correctly?”

            No, because, as usual, you refuse to accept verifiable fact that contradicts that which you’ve arbitrarily decided to believe.

            The people in the hole should accept responsibility for the fact that they dug it themselves, should stop blaming their neighbor for it, and should not, after their neighbor hauls them up with a rope, wrap that rope around their neighbor’s neck.

          • The Palestinians didn’t dig the hole. They were ethnically cleansed from Palestine for the State of Israel to exist. Israelis should accept responsibility for what they have done over the decades because they were the ones the dug the original hole.

          • “They were ethnically cleansed from Palestine for the State of Israel to exist.”

            Ah That explains the over 1 million Arab citizens of Israel, who have full voting rights.

            Either that, or perhaps you ought not blindly to believe that which “everybody knows”.

          • You could maybe blame the British for digging that hole, but certainly not the Palestinians themselves.

          • The British forced the Arabs to invade Israel on the day it became independent? The British forced the terrorists to mount tens of thousands of attacks on Israeli civilians over the course of 7 decades?

          • No, decades earlier, in 1917 Mr. Balfour, the UK’s Foreign Secretary, wrote a letter to Baron Rothschild…
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

        • And, of course, you neglect to mention that Egypt has a border with Gaza. Their fellow-Arabs are not allowing free, unlimited access by Gazans to Egypt. Why on earth could this be???
          If Gaza is indeed “a huge outdoor prison,” then apparently the Egyptians are also its jailers. Why do you only single out the Israelis? My news sources are perhaps not as complete as yours, but I’ve never read of large scaler suicide or rocket attacks by the Gazans on Egypt, so what possible reason could the Egyptians have for jailing the Gazans? After all, the Egyptians know Gaza well, having been in total control of it from 1948 until 1967.
          Could you possibly be suffering from a little of that anti-semitism bug that seems to be going around?

          • Egyptians and Palestinians are Semites. Netanyahu is of European descent. Netanyahu’s actions are anti-semitic in fact.
            Why nobody blocks Israel’s borders to prevent weapons shipments to Israel, when Israel in fact kills ten times as many people than the Palestinians do?
            Could you possibly be suffering from a little of that dogmatic Zionism supremacy bug that seems to be going around?

      • Michael Schaffer says:

        Jeffrey E. Salzberg says:
        August 22, 2013 at 9:54 am

        “If people in Berlin had continued to attack American, British, and French civilians,you had better believe they would have continued to be occupied.

        Well, technically, West Berlin *was* under allied occupation until 1990, and East Berlin was in fact occupied by the Soviets. But you are right, of course, there were no post-war tensions between the people in West Berlin and the allied forces because the latter did a lot to help the people of West Berlin (and of West Germany) to rebuild so that within less than 10 years, they enjoyed a very good life again. So, to stay with that comparison, what has Israel done to significantly improve the quality of life of Palestinians along the lines of a “hey, Israel is good for you, no matter what your extremist leaders tell you” policy of winning them over by deeds and measurable improvements of their lives?

        • “what has Israel done to significantly improve the quality of life of Palestinians”

          What has Israel done to improve the lives of people who have sworn — and attempted — to destroy it?

          Fair question.

          Built roads. Built hospitals. Built schools. Provided employment. Provided advanced medical care.

          That last started even before the occupation, by the way. Even during times of war, hundreds of Palestinian patients have been treated in Israeli hospitals.

    • If it was your country, Rio, would you have waited for your population to have been bombed from all sides? For exactly what purpose do you think all of those Arab soldiers and artillery were lined up on Israel’s borders? For a giant picnic?
      The Arabs hated the Jews from way back, well before the state of Israel was founded (e.g. Hebron massacre in August, 1929 and the enthusiastic complicity of the grand mufti of Jerusalem with Hitler). The Arab states have attacked Israel repeatedly since its founding. If the surrounding states had accepted the existence of Israel as a Jewish homeland in 1948 or anytime since, Israel would not be “occupying” their land. The Palestinians were quite content to be “occupied” by Jordan and Egypt until 1967. Never a peep or protest out of them until that time. But plenty of attacks and ethnic cleaning of jews and destruction of Jewish synagogues, cemeteries, and cultural site in surrounding areas post-1948. I guess that’s okie-dokie with you.

      • In 1967, Nasser staged a massive buildup of offensive forces on the border. He kicked out the UN peacekeeping forces, and he blockaded the straits. He was obviously going to attack. That was apparent even to someone who was reading the newspapers here in the states — which I know because I was one of the people reading the newspapers here in the states.

        By attacking first the people who were clearly going to attack Israel, many Israeli lives were saved.

        Yet another instance of Israel’s being criticized for doing that which any other countyry would be criticized for *not* doing.

        • No doubt the Arab alliance’s intentions against Israel in 1967 were sinister. But what’s the solution to this never ending conflict? It seems the Hawks in Jerusalem are at the helm and see “eternal war” as their best survival strategy.

          • “But what’s the solution to this never ending conflict? ”

            To blame the “hawks” in Jerusalem without also mentioning 60+ years of terrorist attacks on Israel is, at its very best, disingenuous.

            There won’t be a solution until the next generation of leadership, on both sides, takes power. Even then, there won’t be peace until the Palestinians accept — in actions as well as in words — Israel’s right to exist.

          • I’m not hopeful that you will grasp the huge cynicism, in asking someone in a deep hole, looking into an overwhelming military power on the top rim, to accept the right of the guys looking down on them to exist. Well, obviously they exist, in overwhelming power, and the hatred of those on the bottom of the hole will just increase.
            The psychological drama in the Jewish traumatized soul, that again and again recreates the projection of living under threat into reality, after reality has given cause in the past too often, that drama is heartbreaking to watch for outsiders.
            There were chances for peace at times. But clearly hardliners in Israel didn’t want that. Then extremists on the other side gained power. The reliable dialectic of Freudian compulsive repetition is scary.

          • “someone in a deep hole”

            You left out, “…which they dug themselves”. Once again, you are holding Israel responsible for the consequences of Arab actions.

            “There were chances for peace at times. But clearly hardliners in Israel didn’t want that.”

            Ah. that must be why they offered Arafat almost everything he demanded and absolutely *forced* him to walk away. Got it.

          • An unbiased person that “followed the news in the region fro decades” can only come to one solution: That both sides bear equal responsibility for the situation.

          • Gonout Backson says:

            No.

          • Hawks or not, Israelis prefer not to be slaughtered. When Israel ceded the Gaza strip just a few short years ago, Hamas took advantage to launch many thousands of rockets on Israel and it, as well as its brother factions, have continued to do so until this day. While the situation in Judea and Samaria is certainly calmer than it was, it’s hardly a garden of Eden yet. The PA has repeatedly declared that if a peace treaty with Israel can ever be reached, then this new Palestinian state must be Judenrein. But they demand that ever more Palestinians be allowed to live in Israel. How exactly then do “both sides bear equal opportunity for the situation”?
            David, the definition of anti-semitism is hatred of Jews, not hatred of all people who might have sprung from that middle eastern region. I realize that this may be too fine a point for you to grasp, but that is how the term developed and that is its meaning. Try using a dictionary.
            By the way, if one adds up all the people Palestinians have killed (e.g. Israelis, Israeli athletes in Munich, fellow Palestinians who are in opposition to the ruling P. factions) the Palestinians have slaughtered more than the israelis have. Israeli attacks have been directed at terrorists; Palestinian attacks have continually been directed mostly at innocent civilians on the Israeli side.

            Not every person critical of Israelis or of Israel is anti-semtic , but you certainly fill that bill.

          • Mark, the word anti-semitism was invented by the German Jew hater Wilhelm Marr around 1880, to find a new word that sounded more “noble” and scientific than “Judenhass” (Jew hatred). If you and many others insist in using that problematic and factually false word, please go ahead, but don’t become condescending on those who know better than you, ok?

            No matter how desperate you calculate, the number of Palestininans killed is about ten times the number of Israelis killed in the conflict, so you can never say that more Israelis died, no matter how much you distort the statistics. Israeli attacks have of course also been directed at civilian targets. And it’s an asymmetric conflict, so all that comparison of civilian targeting and alleged terrorism does amount to pretty much nothing. Asymmetric warfare by definition let’s the weak party resort to “guerrilla” warfare, anywhere.

            You calling me antisemitic is a grave insult (and nonsense) but I can see how limited your point of view actually is.

          • Israel’s tactics are designed to minimize Israeli casualties. The fact, as I’ve pointed out before, that they’re effective is a pretty illogical reason for arguing against them.

          • The origin of the word is irrelevant; what matters is what it means in common usage.

            For what it’s worth, I haven’t noticed anything in your posts that is overtly antisemitic. Wrong, certainly, with an over-reliance on what “everybody knows” and an outright refusal to verify facts, but that’s not antisemitic.

          • Gonout Backson says:

            “Israeli attacks have of course also been directed at civilian targets…” Noted and answered more than once: because the Palestinians terrorists hide behind civilians on purpose.

            You can go on like that forever. As they say in French: the worst case of deafness is when you refuse to hear.

          • “because the Palestinians terrorists hide behind civilians on purpose.”

            You mean if the Palestinians as an independent nation formed a proper Army and Air force (not withstanding the fact that Israel holds them down to not letting that happen) that would fight against Israel, you would find that a better way? You would want the Palestinian forces to operate from proper barracks and airfields and bunkers instead?

          • “You would want the Palestinian forces to operate from proper barracks and airfields and bunkers instead?”

            Interesting that the idea of Palestinians not attacking Israel at all doesn’t seem to cross your mind.

          • Gonout Backson says:

            Maybe David H. shares president Rohani’s view that “The Zionist regime has been a wound on the body of the Islamic world for years and the wound should be removed”.

          • Neil van der Linden says:

            Check your sources, including the reliable Israeli ones. As Iranian-Israeli analyst Meir Javedanfar noted, before correcting their quote, the Iranian news agency Mehr News originally quoted Rouhani as saying, “Israel is a wound on the body of the world of Islam that must be destroyed.” Several other news agencies, such as the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) also carried the quote. In response, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that “The real face of Rouhani has been exposed earlier than expected.”
            Immediately after the foreign media picked up the story, a video surfaced, apparently the original interview from which Mehr quoted. Rather than a prepared speech, a reporter appears to have stopped Rouhani at the rally to ask him a question. Rouhani does not mention the words “Israel,” “Zionism” or “destroyed.”
            (http://iranpulse.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/08/2524/rouhanis-comments-on-israel-distorted-by-iran-media/)

            Meanwhile we might also on the other hand quote Israel’s Shas’ spiritual leader Ovadia Yousef: Abbas and Palestinians should perish. Yousef is a mainstream figure, not somebody representing a tiny minority.
            Army Radio reports Rabbi Ovadia Yosef denounces Palestinians as bitter enemies of Israel ahead of upcoming direct peace talks.
            This comes from Haaretz | Aug. 29, 2010 | 2:37 AM | 1

            http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/shas-spiritual-leader-abbas-and-palestinians-should-perish-1.310800

            I could also quote Golda Meir from long ago, who stated both that Palestinians are cockroaches and that they do not exist. (How did she think these two views were consistent with each other).

            But Mr Backson, hasbara, hun? LIke indeed somebody quoted Goebbels here, with the statement attributed to him: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” Looking for this quote through Google I found the hypothesis that he perhaps never said this, or he might have said it about the British propaganda.

          • I’m sure he does. What’s your point?

          • Neil van der Linden says:

            Like I said i David H is better informed than you he would not use that quote or at least not as Rouhani’s…. as it was not what Rouhani said…

          • Gonout Backson says:

            It would make things simple and clear: the question would then appear for what it really is, not humanitarian (the suffering of the Palestinian people), but geostrategic (the insufferable existence of Israel). That would disclose the strictly instrumental, and therefore artificial nature of the recurring threnodies and, consequently, of the “Palestinian problem” itself…. There can be no constructive discussion where one of the parties hides its real preoccupations and objectives. as you cannot cure a patient who lies about his symptoms.

          • “you cannot cure a patient who lies about his symptoms.”

            It may be that he’s unable to admit his real preoccupations and objectives, even to himself.

          • Gonout Backson says:

            Possible, even probable. Wouldn’t be the first one. But he’s not the subject here, even if he tries to “make it personal” as a diversion.

          • Neil van der Linden says:

            The so-called liberal Israeli narrative is like ‘Look at our liberal society around Tel Aviv, including some of the leftover Palestinians/Arabs whom we have given voting rights. Especially as long as they forget about their Naqba of 1948 and instead celebratie out 1948 independence. Druze and Bedouin Arabs are even allowed/obliged into our arm (which means we send them often into warzones first, but that is only because they know the terrain better.

            And oh yes sorry we also have some fanatics whom we dont understand either who are adament on living in settlements in the Palestinian territories. But well, that is democracy, and after all aren’t we the most democratic state in the Middle-East, so what can we do?

          • Neil van der Linden says:

            By the way somebody used the names Judea and Samaria for the West Bank, as if to extend Israeli claims into the Westbank, based on names that went out of use about 2000 years ago.
            Well, here is one historical map with the two provinces on it
            http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bible-history.com/maps/Map-Samaria-Central-Palestine.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.bible-history.com/maps/samaria_central_palestine.html&h=386&w=562&sz=27&tbnid=wf9LUp97uK-seM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=131&zoom=1&usg=__CxW2NxoR12a2C1P4_qLgNFQ8Vsw=&docid=c3JTkcRQCzHugM&sa=X&ei=3z0ZUtveEuWw0AXq54HwCg&ved=0CF0Q9QEwBg&dur=690#imgdii=wf9LUp97uK-seM%3A%3BZWo6qeWoHjmlUM%3Bwf9LUp97uK-seM%3A
            And here is another one with a map of the West Bank and of Judea and Samaria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_and_Samaria_Area
            As one can see, as I wrote before, it is nonsense so speak of the West Bank in terms of Judea and Samaria. The current West Bank is only half of the Judea and Samaria of 2000 years ago. But perhaps the Palestinians should then indeed get the whole of Judea and Samaria? Is that the suggestion? No. The terms are used in a way to deliberately distort history.
            If Biblical claims are so important, in fact Israel and Palestine should swap areas, as what is now the West Bank contains more biblical sites then the pre 1967 borders of Israel do. Then the Palestinians will have the fertile coastal areas, which are comparatively devoid of Biblical sites, and the Israelis could have the area with more Biblical sites. Why didn’t they think of this before?
            All this again has little to do with Nigel Kennedy or Roger Waters, but somebody here suddenly started to write about Judea and Samaria.

          • Gentlemen, unable to argue the argument so attack the person? You lost.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

          • Gonout Backson says:

            Dear David H., it would seem to me that Mr. Salzberg answers your arguments point by point, whereas you tend to ignore his answers which, to my untrained eye, contain mostly facts and figures. I tried to find an explanation of this distressing fact. Now it would be your turn to answer. Your – certainly most sincere – cry of outrage doesn’t provide such an answer. It would be more practical and to the point if you told us clearly whether you share President’s Rohani’s point of view, or not. Then we would simply know what the discussion is about on your side.

          • Neil van der Linden says:

            you two guys, Jeffrey and Gonout, dont seem to be interested in anything here you didnt write yourself…
            as I mentioned before, the supposed quote from Rouhani is not what he said, as Israeli sources have pointed out as as well (notably the Israeli-Iranian Iran-expert Meir Javedanfar)
            some stupid news agency in Iran misquoted him, but of course since then the Israeli spin machine including you two has ignored that fact completely, hoping the world will not be aware either of what was actually said
            http://iranpulse.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/08/2551/source-of-rouhanis-distorted-israel-comments-revealed/
            http://iran-israel-observer.com/2013/08/02/it-seems-that-rouhani-was-misquoted/

            so there is no point asking Mr David H whether he agrees with Rouhani (by the way that is how his name is written now, Rouhani, not Rohani)

          • Gonout Backson says:

            Great. The first source you quote (http://iranpulse.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/08/2551/source-of-rouhanis-distorted-israel-comments-revealed/) never gives the right quotation. The second (http://iran-israel-observer.com/2013/08/02/it-seems-that-rouhani-was-misquoted/) gives it like this: “in our region, it is an old wound that has been sitting on the body of the Islamic world, in the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the dear Quds. And this day, in fact, is a remembrance that Muslim people will not forget this historical right and will always stand against oppression and aggression.” Something else completely, isn’t it?

            A very careful choice of words from a very careful politician, but the meaning couldn’t be clearer.

          • It should be noted that when Arab politicians decry the “occupation of Palestine”, they are not referring only to the West Bank. Their audience understands that they mean all of Israel, as well.

    • Well said, rio98765

      • Neil van der Linden says:

        About Waters or Kennedy being courageous or not, it is true, of course, that both do not risk much physical harm let alone their lives, like people on several sides in some spots in the Middle-East. And their position is also different from Netrebko and Gergiev who would risk losing the favour of Putin if they would speak out about matters in Russia (which just as well can make them opportunists if they dont speak out).
        But whether their statements are based on the most profound insights or not, they risked what in Dutch is called ‘karaktermoord’, literally character assassination (blackwash?, psychological warfare?), when speaking out about something that has to do with Israel, which is demonstrated again in this blog, as they have been attacked with an overkill of vehement arguments that in many cases go far beyond what they have actually said.

      • Gonout Backson says:

        Unfortunately, it ain’t so simple. Musicians have never been democratically elected, and their democratic legitimacy isn’t any better than yours, or mine, or any other average Citizen Joe. But they’re rich and famous (legitimately so, of course), and therefore their political “voice” is much louder than yours or mine. Some of them blatantly abuse this privilege, and this is anything but democratic. The fundamental democratic principle is “one man, one voice”. No one has ever mentioned a (metaphorical) huge amplifier and two (no less metaphorical) gigantic loudspeakers, whereas all we have, you and me, is a small box in the Hyde Park.

        • Michael Schaffer says:

          That is certainly true, but then again, one could say that someone like Waters has, in a way, been democratically elected to the level of popularity he has by those who elect to listen to his music, if they want to, and those who listen what he has to say about this or that, if they want to. He has been “elected” to popularity, not to any office.
          And should the democratic principle “one man, one voice” mean “one man, no voice”, if someone happens to be a famous person? Was it wrong for Toscanini to conduct the Palestine Symphony (as the IPO was called back then) in 1936 to draw attention to the “orchestra of exiles”?

          BTW, there is a new documentary about that. I haven’t seen it yet, but the previews here look very interesting:

          http://www.pbs.org/wnet/orchestra-of-exiles/

          • Gonout Backson says:

            Please… Mr Waters has been “democratically elected” to sing and play, not to make politics. In these matters, he’s just as legitimate as you and me. If he wants to go into politics, he should run. It would be interesting to see, how much he would get.

            I didn’t say “no voice”, and most certainly wouldn’t, but it would be honest to admit there is a very un-democratic problem here.

            As for Toscanini, your comparison is shaky, to say the least. His popularity at that time was nothing compared to the media “amplifier” Waters has at his disposition today. But first and foremost, Toscanini went there to make music. I have no knowledge of a impassioned and strongly ideologically coloured manifesto of a 1000 words, published by him at this occasion.

          • Michael Schaffer says:

            Toscanini was still a very well known public figure in his time, and the point of everything was not “just to make music”, but to draw attention to the plight of persecuted Jews.

            http://www.pbs.org/wnet/orchestra-of-exiles/arturo-toscanini-world-famous-conductor-and-orchestra-supporter/

            http://www.jta.org/1936/02/27/archive/toscanini-to-lead-palestine-symphony-orchestra

            And it appears that his presence helped their cause a lot and gained them a lot of media attention. I think that was a very laudable thing for Toscanini to do, wouldn’t you agree? I didn’t know that he also signed a cable to Hitler protesting the persecution of Jews in Germany. And of course, he did boycott Germany as an artist to show where he was standing. Again, very laudable, wouldn’t you agree? Or do you think he was wrong to do all these things because he hadn’t been elected into political office by anyone? Do you think he should just have shut up and just make music?

          • Neil van der Linden says:

            #Michael Schaeffer – …..Or do you think he was wrong to do all these things because he hadn’t been elected into political office by anyone? Do you think he should just have shut up and just make music?”

            Of which, each in their own way, Mengelberg, Richard Strauss, Furtwängler and many Bayreuth singers were examples, who all helped business as usual going on.
            .

          • Gonout Backson says:

            I have already answered everything you say – maybe you should have read it more carefully.

            Toscanini was famous and he got some “media attention”, but the media of that time were nothing compared to the viral media of today Mr Waters is using for his noble purposes.

            Toscanini certainly signed the 1933 cable, among many others. But he didn’t sent to the media, let alone to Hitler, a long and strongly worded political manifesto.

            These were violent times, and the people he opposed were extremely violent people. He was taking real risks, personal risks, and he paid a price. Happily, only professional price.

            Mr Waters takes none. Comparing Israel and Nazi Germany is a running gag in some circles (the ever imaginative Soviet propaganda invented it in the 60s), but – beside the fact that it’s absurd (fortunately for Mr Waters) – you’ll allow me to say that it’s not particularly elegant.

            And, of course, I have never said Toscanini should have “shut up”.

          • Another difference is that the Jews were *not* a threat to Germany and had not been allowing terrorists to murder Germans in their name. …And, of course, having no government, they had not elected terrorists as their political leaders.

            People who compare Israel to the Nazis are displaying, for all the world to see, their ignorance both of Israel and of Naziism.

          • Michael Schaffer says:

            I agree – comparing Israel and the 3rd Reich is nonsensical on many levels. But that’s not what we are doing here. We are simply discussing whether or not a prominent artist should use his “disproportionately loud” voice to draw attention to issues they want people to hear about. It doesn’t matter if Toscanini was relatively less well known and popular in his time than Waters is today. He was still a very prominent public personality at the time. “High culture” was also a really big deal for the Nazis, they wanted to appropriate art and artists for their propaganda purposes, to lend them legitimacy and glamor, and they were very interested in getting Toscanini. So his snubbing of them did not go by unnoticed by the public in many countries.

            On the other hand, as you correctly point out, there were far less media in general, so it is entirely possible that the headlines Toscanini made stood out far more at the time than Waters’ activity does today, in the sea of internet media. Hard to “measure”. But that is basically irrelevant since it is clear that in his day, Toscanini also had a “disproportionally loud voice”, and he made use of it.

            As you no doubt know, the big tragedy of the time was that very few people did that. Very few tried to draw attention to the plight of the Jews. Many simply didn’t care. When Chaplin announced “The Great Dictator”, a lot of pressure was put on him not to make the movie – including by Jewish studio executives because they didn’t want the export of their products to Germany, the biggest market in Europe, jeopardized. The Brits announced that of the movie came out, it would be banned because they didn’t want to tick off Hitler*.
            Chaplin at the time was probably far more prominent than even Waters is today. He was one of the most popular artists on the planet. His voice was very loud. So do you think it was wrong of him to use it?

            *It seems that Hitler watched and enjoyed the movie though. There is conflicting testimony about that, but the logs for his screening room suggest that he ordered a print of the movie twice.

          • Yes. Artists have the right to speak out…even, the case could be made, the obligation to do so.

            …But they also have the obligation to do so factually. In this, Waters has failed abysmally.

          • Gonout Backson says:

            I’m sorry, but I don’t find it useful, let alone interesting, to repeat the same things all over again. So I’d rather stop, until you bring something really new into the discussion.

        • Michael Schaffer says:

          Thanks. It seems we agree on this. But it also appears that far more time has been spent in this thread to attack him, or those who agree with him, personally or simply deny his right to speak out in the first place, rather than simply refuting his “abysmally” wrong points. You have contributed more factual information and arguments to this thread than most, but even you lapsed into that kind of completely unnecessary (and unhelpful) ad hominem attack, like “It may be that he’s unable to admit his real preoccupations and objectives, even to himself.”

          Let’s stick with the facts. Is the UN paper he cites factually untrue? What about his claim that “in East Jerusalem non Jewish families are routinely physically evicted from their homes to make way for Jewish occupants”? Is that made up? What is the context here?

          And what about the “right to exist”? What defines a state’s right to exist, in general, or in this particular case, and what does that mean? What role does that play in this conflict? What do you think about these comments by Noah Chomsky? And please don’t just say that he is a self-hating Jew since he obviously can’t be brushed aside as an anti-semite. Please comment on what he actually says.

          “The US and Israel have demanded further that Palestinians not only recognize Israel’s rights as a state in the international system, but that they also recognize Israel’s abstract “right to exist,” a concept that has no place in international law or diplomacy, and a right claimed by no one. In effect, the US and Israel are demanding that Palestinians not only recognize Israel in the normal fashion of interstate relations, but also formally accept the legitimacy of their expulsion from their own land. They cannot be expected to accept that, just as Mexico does not grant the US the “right to exist” on half of Mexico’s territory, gained by conquest. We do not have sufficient archival evidence to be confident, but I suspect that this demand was contrived to bar the possibility of a political settlement in accord with the international consensus that the US and Israel have rejected for thirty years.”

          Source: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200309–.htm

          • Michael Schaffer says:

            Just to clarify and avoid confusion, my last post was in response to Jeffrey’s post from August 25, 2013 at 10:44 pm, not Gonout’s which appeared directly above mine after I had submitted it.

          • Gonout Backson says:

            Since your answer is apparently addressed to Mr Salzberg, I will just repeat once more that I have never “denied” Mr Waters his “right to speak out in the first place”.

            As for Noam Chomsky, do you mean the author of these words?: “Dr Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon 2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive independent historical research into the “Holocaust” question. Since he began making his findings public Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.”

            To be precise, the “findings” Mr Chomsky mentions here (a fragment of his preface for Faurisson’s book “Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier l’histoire. La question des chambres à gaz”, La Vieille Taupe, 1980) are quite simple : the gas chambers have never existed.

          • “the US and Israel are demanding that Palestinians not only recognize Israel in the normal fashion of interstate relations, but also formally accept the legitimacy of their expulsion from their own land”

            No, they’re not. When the UN partitioned Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the areas which were majority Jewish were to become Israel and the areas which were majority Arab were to become Palestine. As many Jews lost their land in the Arab partition, and in the Arab countries that expelled them, as there were Arabs who fled or were expelled from Israel. (Even today: 1 million + Arab citizens of Israel. Jewish citizens of most Arab countries: statistically zero). Israel found room for the Jewish refugees; Jordan and Egypt chose to put the Palestinians in squalid camps.

            To address another of your frequent claims:

            Arab families of suicide bombers and other terrorists do lose their homes. I don’t approve of this, but it’s not “to make room for Jewish occupatns.”

          • Michael Schaffer says:

            Jeffrey E. Salzberg says:
            August 26, 2013 at 10:17 am

            ““the US and Israel are demanding that Palestinians not only recognize Israel in the normal fashion of interstate relations, but also formally accept the legitimacy of their expulsion from their own land”

            No, they’re not. When the UN partitioned Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the areas which were majority Jewish were to become Israel and the areas which were majority Arab were to become Palestine. As many Jews lost their land in the Arab partition, and in the Arab countries that expelled them, as there were Arabs who fled or were expelled from Israel. (Even today: 1 million + Arab citizens of Israel. Jewish citizens of most Arab countries: statistically zero). Israel found room for the Jewish refugees; Jordan and Egypt chose to put the Palestinians in squalid camps.

            To address another of your frequent claims:

            Arab families of suicide bombers and other terrorists do lose their homes. I don’t approve of this, but it’s not “to make room for Jewish occupatns.””

            That’s not a “claim” I made, much less a “frequent” one. I was a *question*. I *asked* you to comment you on this. It really doesn’t help your argument if you reflexively have to insinuate that anyone who asks a question that you don’t like has some “agenda” or keeps making sinister “claims”, no matter if it is true or not. It makes it look like you want to sidestep these issues. You make some good points but that pattern undermines your overall credibility.

            So, you are saying it is true that Israel has the equivalent of what the Nazis called “Sippenhaft” (“kin liability”), did I understand that correctly? What’s the “reasoning” behind that? How would you say is that perceived in the Israeli public in general?

            As for the other part, basically what you are saying is that when Israel was created, it was created largely along lines of settlement in which there already were majorities of either Arab or Jewish occupants, and that the Jews in predominantly Arab territories basically gave us as much land as they gained in areas where Arabs were the minority, and they had to give up some territory in their turn, so the settlement was a fair division of the land in your eyes, except that the Arabs weren’t willing to give up any land to reach such a fair settlement, did I understand that correctly?

          • Michael Schaffer says:

            Gonout Backson says:
            August 26, 2013 at 8:29 am

            “Since your answer is apparently addressed to Mr Salzberg, I will just repeat once more that I have never “denied” Mr Waters his “right to speak out in the first place”.

            As for Noam Chomsky, do you mean the author of these words?: “Dr Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon 2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive independent historical research into the “Holocaust” question. Since he began making his findings public Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.”

            To be precise, the “findings” Mr Chomsky mentions here (a fragment of his preface for Faurisson’s book “Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m’accusent de falsifier l’histoire. La question des chambres à gaz”, La Vieille Taupe, 1980) are quite simple : the gas chambers have never existed.”

            Yes, the same Noah Chomsky. I agree that he may have gone way too far with his radical defense of freedom of speech in this case, and he got himself into a pretty ugly mess with that. But that brings us back to the question of freedom of speech in general that we have already been over several times. So, please, no diversions. No personal attacks. Please just comment on what he said in this context, if you want to, or if you have anything of interest to say about that.

          • Gonout Backson says:

            @Michael Schaffer
            “Yes, the same Noah Chomsky. I agree that he may have gone way too far with his radical defense of freedom of speech in this case, and he got himself into a pretty ugly mess with that. But that brings us back to the question of freedom of speech in general that we have already been over several times. So, please, no diversions. No personal attacks. Please just comment on what he said in this context, if you want to, or if you have anything of interest to say about that.”

            “Radical defense of freedom of speech”? I know, this has always been his line of… defense. But to make it at least marginally credible, he should have produced an example of a similar “radical defense” of people much more “radically” deprived of it, and not only of “freedom of speech”, but of freedom, period. Like, for instance, in the USSR or other communist countries at the same time. Unfortunately, I’m still looking for one. Apparently, Mr Chomsky had his priorities and his sympathies : Faurisson? YES. Sakharov? Naaaah. No preface for him.

            I know Mr Chomsky passes for a moral authority in some circles. For me, he’s not, to say the least. If Chomsky says 2+2=4, I run to check. That’s the only thing I have to say – if it’s of any interest to you.

  11. stanley cohen says:

    Yawn!
    Rio should like to take this heaven-sent opportunity to repeat all of the propaganda and lies about Israel in the hope that our Father Himmler’s thesis that if you repeat a lie sufficiently often some of it will be believed…

    • Would you mind instead of attacking him personally, to point out in above text, what exactly are lies according to your POV? AFAIK most of what he wrote is (unfortunately) true.

      • If claims of ethnic cleansing and “apartheid” were true, there would not be over one million Arab citizens of Israel. these citizens have full voting rights. There have been Arabs in high ranking positions in the government, the police, and even the military.

        You write, “AFAIK most of what he wrote is (unfortunately) true.” this is why I keep pointing out the dangers of believing what “everybody knows”. “As far as you know”, those things are true. That merely proves that you need to know more.

        • Great post, Jeffrey! These no-nothings keep repeating their anti-semitic lies because being anti-Israel is totally acceptable and hip these days, while openly praising Hitler and the nazis is a little less so. (In the Arab world, though, even the latter is totally respectable.)

          • They’re not necessarily anti-semitic. Dismissing all criticism of Israel as “antisemitic” is too easy — just as it’s easy for the Israel-haters to automatically assume that Israel is at fault for all ills.

            What’s clear, though, is that they’ve arbitrarily decided, without benefit of fact and logic, that Israel is completely — and solely — in the wrong. their reasons for so deciding are beyond our capacity to know. My suspicion is that, in most cases, it’s merely because all their friends say so, combined with a natural and admirable tendency to side with those whom they consider to be the underdog — as if a small country surrounded by millions of people who have sworn — and attempted — to destroy it were not the *real* underdog.

        • I do need to know more, we all do, always, but you don’t come across as someone who necessarily knows more than I do. You come across as someone who is driven by a strong belief, not necessarily by knowledge.

          • English translation: I come across as someone who says things that run counter to that which you’re sure *must* be true.

            I’ve read the history (although, to be frank, much of it we did not, at the time, call, “history”; we called it “the news”).

          • I’m not the one who is in attack mode or mood her, you are.

  12. I’m sorry, mister Waters, but I can’t take this letter seriously:

    You posted it on the 18th of August 2013, the day on which the situation of two neighbours from Israel is very explosive, with hundreds, thousands of brutally killed victims. You posted it without even a word about this victims, you posted it without even a word about the crimes on Palestinian site. I want to take serious what has led you to write this letter, but I really can’t take serious the content of it.

    • stanley cohen says:

      he probably doesn’t read the papers or watch TV news, Frans.

      • There’s no reason automatically to assume that a musician is intelligent and/or well-informed…but there’s also no reason automatically to assume that s/he is not.

        I’ve known some really stupid artists and I’ve known some really intelligent ones.

  13. José Bergher says:

    To those persons interested in learning about Israel’s history and Israel’s rights of self-defense under international law, I suggest reading “Battleground – Facts and Fantasy in Palestine”, by Samuel Katz.

  14. So it is true, the fascist Palestinian activists are spreading political lies in order to bring down Israel “like we did to South Africa”. One day the truth will be told of how the world Marxist and liberal/leftist joined together with the World Council of Churches, the British government and countries of the British Commonwealth who turned a blind eye while Soviet Russia armed the ANC for the purpose of carrying out armed insurrection against a legal, prosperous and ordered society. Hundreds of black and white people were killed by these ANC thugs who are now running a corrupt racist state. But I suppose it’s ok if apartheid continues in South Africa today as long as its whites, mixed race and Asians that are being discriminated against and white farmers being slaughtered. You fascist pigs have a lot to answer for.

    • It’s good to know where you are coming from, Tommo, if you describe apartheid-era South Africa as a ‘legal, prosperous and ordered society’.

      • I think it’s a factually correct description. it was also a suppressive, undemocratic, apartheid, racist, inhumane society, but also “legal, prosperous and ordered”.

  15. So boring this blog, with a bunch of men insulting each other over Pink Floyd and the Middle East. Surely you must have something else to do in life!!

an ArtsJournal blog