[W:26] Roger Waters Address To The UN 2012

[Serenity]

Moderator's Warning:

This is the ME Forum and you are all well aware that there is a stricter ruleset in force. If you don't want to participate in the thread and focus on the actual topic, it would be a really good idea to stop posting right now. Posts prior to this mod warning are still subject to moderation.

 

[Chagos]

I've always been a fan of Floyd and have remained one after Waters left. For one thing they did great stuff after he left (often better).

And Gilmour plays the guitar that Waters still wishes he could and never will.

As to any of them deeming themselves qualified to making political statements, Waters does that and Gilmour not.

Go figure.

 

[oneworld2]

I've always been a fan of Floyd and have remained one after Waters left. For one thing they did great stuff after he left (often better).

And Gilmour plays the guitar that Waters still wishes he could and never will.

As to any of them deeming themselves qualified to making political statements, Waters does that and Gilmour not.

Go figure.

We , all of us here , are making political statements so why would we demand Waters only be " qualified " to do so ?

Recall too that his speech before the UN was based on the findings of the Russell Tribunal for Palestine of which he participated along with experts on international law such as John Duggard . So it's not just a catalogue of his opinions being presented. Had people watched the link instead of wishing only to shoot the messenger they would have known this. My thought is that you too have fallen into this trap with the above which surprises me I must say. Each to their own I suppose

The tribunal has done what both the international community and the UN have failed to do by actually assessing whether or not Israeli policies and actions prosecuted against the Palestinians constitute crimes . Obviously there are no representatives from the Israeli side there to present their case but that doesn't , imo , render the many witness statements false either nor meaningless in their relationship to the law



https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/watch-testimonies-atrocities-gaza-russell-tribunal ( warning Mads Gilberts testimony , 4th one , contains graphic photographs )

 

[Chagos]

We , all of us here , are making political statements so why would we demand Waters only be " qualified " to do so ?........~

Who said he was qualified because I sure as heck didn't?

I went to one concert of his down here (since I'd missed Floyd in Spain) and had no pre-information of the concert itinerary. When they started flying that inflated giant pig halfway thru it, I left. Had I known this was gonna happen, I wouldn't even have gone.

If Richard Gere had been in any cinema in person to promote (seemingly) a film of his, I'd have gone, given the chance. Had he commenced the introduction by (in his prime) going on about the Tibet question, NOT!!!

Where I value(d) both, the one as a musician, the other as an actor, I don't need them to bend my ears with their political convictions, because that's not the reason for my affording them attention. What that conviction may be (IOW whether I share it or not) is irrelevant to me.

However qualified they (or anyone else having gained fame by unrelated profession) may or may not be, is also irrelevant to me. If I want to be bothered with a political rally of any kind, I'll go to one.

All of us spouting forth here on all sorts of political issues is integral to the venue that is DP. Nobody is pretending otherwise. It's basically an internationalisation (in the virtual sense) of our individual local pubs, both rife with political opinions being uttered. And, when one thinks of it, just as irrelevant. That's fine in the sense that nobody joining the crowd can complain about what goes on.

With musicians I expect them to stick to music, with actors or actresses to stick to acting. And otherwise shut the hell up.

 

[Chagos]

As to this

~........................... My thought is that you too have fallen into this trap with the above which surprises me I must say. Each to their own I suppose.............~

It seems to me that the one having fallen into a trap is YOU.

By believing that a message carried by a celebrity (with that status gained in a completely unrelated field) automatically carries more weight.

That leads one to suspect that any such message is pretty poor on its own and to countermand that suspicion, you'd have been better advised to furnish the actual message. Like, say, the findings of the Russell Tribune just as they are. Improved by actually titling the thread with precision and honesty, so as to give indication over what it's truly about.

Instead of using the name of a celebrity as click bait.

 

[Howard the Duck]

Who said he was qualified because I sure as heck didn't?

I went to one concert of his down here (since I'd missed Floyd in Spain) and had no pre-information of the concert itinerary. When they started flying that inflated giant pig halfway thru it, I left. Had I known this was gonna happen, I wouldn't even have gone.

If Richard Gere had been in any cinema in person to promote (seemingly) a film of his, I'd have gone, given the chance. Had he commenced the introduction by (in his prime) going on about the Tibet question, NOT!!!

Where I value(d) both, the one as a musician, the other as an actor, I don't need them to bend my ears with their political convictions, because that's not the reason for my affording them attention. What that conviction may be (IOW whether I share it or not) is irrelevant to me.

However qualified they (or anyone else having gained fame by unrelated profession) may or may not be, is also irrelevant to me. If I want to be bothered with a political rally of any kind, I'll go to one.

All of us spouting forth here on all sorts of political issues is integral to the venue that is DP. Nobody is pretending otherwise. It's basically an internationalisation (in the virtual sense) of our individual local pubs, both rife with political opinions being uttered. And, when one thinks of it, just as irrelevant. That's fine in the sense that nobody joining the crowd can complain about what goes on.

With musicians I expect them to stick to music, with actors or actresses to stick to acting. And otherwise shut the hell up.

The pig is classic Floyd going all the way back to 1971.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI4-r8Vx8qM

It wouldn't be an authentic Floyd show without Rover.

No one would pay to see the limited Waters play bass, and he is a horrible out of tune singer. His value lies in his ability to write lyrics, and the very political Waters is worth every penny.

"The paper holds their folded faces to the floor, and everyday the paperboy brings more."

 

[Chagos]

The pig is classic Floyd going all the way back to 1971.

but not with a star of David on it.

It wouldn't be an authentic Floyd show without Rover.

Floyd didn't do that (the above), Waters does.

No one would pay to see the limited Waters play bass, and he is a horrible out of tune singer.

My sentiments exactly

His value lies in his ability to write lyrics,

agreed

and the very political Waters is worth every penny.

Here I differ, but that's okay. We can both do that.

"The paper holds their folded faces to the floor, and everyday the paperboy brings more."

"brain damage" is most apt in the context.

And on the turning away, see you (on the dark side of the moon).

Comfortably numb, let's hope.

 

[Serenity]

With musicians I expect them to stick to music, with actors or actresses to stick to acting. And otherwise shut the hell up.

I don't believe they should be expected to remain silent Chagos. We don't have to listen to them, but they are certainly entitled to hold and share their political views. I can be a fan of someones musical talents but I'm not a disciple, I don't have to agree with everything they say.

 

[Chagos]

I don't believe they should be expected to remain silent Chagos. We don't have to listen to them, but they are certainly entitled to hold and share their political views. I can be a fan of someones musical talents but I'm not a disciple, I don't have to agree with everything they say.

Tastes can't be argued, really.

Well, I suppose they can but it's pretty pointless. With me it's not so much a matter of whether I agree or disagree with whatever is presented politically, what bugs me is when those having acquired prominence thru the talent they showed, start bugging their followers with aspirations of wanting to be political activists.

It cheapens whatever cause IMO and, what's more, it cheapens those that are truly active in said cause, often dealing with related hardships entailed in the process.

I'd concede exceptions but Waters is not one. Let him live among both Israelis and Palestinians for say a year and maybe we can talk. But with AFAIK just one brief trip to Israel, his "activism" is somewhat reminiscent of a de luxe poodle pissing on the expensive Persian carpet in the manor.

I'd advise him to stick to self-therapizing his childhood neuroses thru his lyrics. He was good at that and much of it I liked.

And to get back OT, the actual message has to date still not been presented. My rants (previous and this one) occurred mainly to exemplify why the intended message was soured to the point of not even being read.

David Gilmour actually combined message with music in the following (if you're not too young for it ) far more effectively. A cry from the heart that could hardly be written, composed and played any better.

I've chosen a "non video" version so there be no distraction by light effects, let those who don't already know it close their eyes and listen, especially to the guitar that begins its howling lament at around 4:30 mins.




Lyrics

 

[oneworld2]

Who said he was qualified because I sure as heck didn't?

I detect something of a shift here because I don't recall anyone but you chipping in on whether people are qualified to make political comments

You stated that Waters , to paraphrase ," deems himself to be qualified to make political statements " , correct ? I asked you why you haven't afaik , challenged whether anyone else is or should be "qualified" to make political statements. Nor have you commented on the actual content of his speech at the UN which would go some way to understanding/assessing his level of knowledge and accuracy on the subject of Israeli violations of Palestinian rights.

It's pretty obvious that your wish to question his position to make such statements is not based on any wish to find out what they are actually based on and/or the level of accuracy that underpins them

I went to one concert of his down here (since I'd missed Floyd in Spain) and had no pre-information of the concert itinerary. When they started flying that inflated giant pig halfway thru it, I left. Had I known this was gonna happen, I wouldn't even have gone.

Anyone who claims not to know what to expect at a Roger Waters concert deserves to lose their ticket money imo. You had the choice to walk out like he had/has the choice as to what content should be included in HIS show.

As Waters himself stated , if you don't like the political content in his show you can go and watch Lilly Allen instead.

You are a fan of his music not his master

If Richard Gere had been in any cinema in person to promote (seemingly) a film of his, I'd have gone, given the chance. Had he commenced the introduction by (in his prime) going on about the Tibet question, NOT!!!

You are not Richard Geres manager/master either. Don't go

Where I value(d) both, the one as a musician, the other as an actor, I don't need them to bend my ears with their political convictions, because that's not the reason for my affording them attention. What that conviction may be (IOW whether I share it or not) is irrelevant to me.

Then go to the Lilly Allen concert instead. Everyone has choices , including people you hold in esteem for various reasons.

However qualified they (or anyone else having gained fame by unrelated profession) may or may not be, is also irrelevant to me. If I want to be bothered with a political rally of any kind, I'll go to one.

If you haven't understood that going to a Roger Waters concert will expose you to his political opinions along with his music then the mistake is your own . You don't seem to be able to understand this simple concept opting to instead to define what and what should not be part of THEIR show

With musicians I expect them to stick to music, with actors or actresses to stick to acting. And otherwise shut the hell up.

Fortunately Waters doesn't see his fans as being the arbiters of the limits of his right to self expression and I fully agree with him on that , finding those who wish to impose their will on it a tad odd to say the least

 

[oneworld2]

I don't believe they should be expected to remain silent Chagos. We don't have to listen to them, but they are certainly entitled to hold and share their political views. I can be a fan of someones musical talents but I'm not a disciple, I don't have to agree with everything they say.

Fans thinking they have the right to demand what acts of self expression or opinions should or should not be expressed as part of their show is pretty arrogant imo Nobody has their arm up their back to buy tickets either

I clash strongly with Waters on his view on fox hunting in the UK but agree with some of his other stances. If I went to a concert where he expressed pro hunt spectacles I would probably walk out too but I would respect his right to express HIS views in HIS show

 

[oneworld2]

As to thisIt seems to me that the one having fallen into a trap is YOU.

Cutting out the context of a poster comment is poor practice imo

You have indeed fallen into the trap of shooting the messenger without actually commenting or even knowing what the message was due to having neglected to watch it. Editing out of that material doesn't change the fact that you were guilty of it

By believing that a message carried by a celebrity (with that status gained in a completely unrelated field) automatically carries more weight.

You don't know the reasoning as to what made me submit this thread though you have assumed you do. You are in fact wrong in that assessment to boot. The thread was inspired by comments made in another thread that saw Waters cast as a " rabid antisemite " for his support for BDS. I don't think that just because a celebrity makes a comment it " carries more weight " at all. Peoples comments carry more weight imo due their knowledge of the subject matter and I thought the submission of this thread would convey some degree of the knowledge held by Waters by his involvement in this tribunal and the opinions on such things as international law that would have been explained by other participants that are experts on such matters

That leads one to suspect that any such message is pretty poor on its own and to countermand that suspicion, you'd have been better advised to furnish the actual message. Like, say, the findings of the Russell Tribune just as they are. Improved by actually titling the thread with precision and honesty, so as to give indication over what it's truly about.

Instead of using the name of a celebrity as click bait.

Unfortunately your responses have been built around suspicions and assumptions that have now morphed to include underhanded accusations of dishonesty on my behalf. :roll:

Anything but watch the speech and discuss it's content eh

 

[Apocalypse]

You don't know the reasoning as to what made me submit this thread though you have assumed you do. You are in fact wrong in that assessment to boot. The thread was inspired by comments made in another thread that saw Waters cast as a " rabid antisemite " for his support for BDS. I don't think that just because a celebrity makes a comment it " carries more weight " at all.

Nonsense, you brought him up in that thread because you wished to have his position as an opposing example to a statement made by the President of France.
So indeed you think that being a celebrity and excelling as a musician made him relevant to this political subject, relevant enough to compare to the head of one of the major states on this planet apparently.

Anyway Chagos is on the spot - there's nothing that makes Roger an expert on the issue, it seems like you confuse an expertise on a subject with holding the same position as yours.

 

[oneworld2]

Nonsense, you brought him up in that thread because you wished to have his position as an opposing example to a statement made by the President of France.

Correct the context being some individuals hold the BDS to be an antisemitic group whereas some other individuals hold it to be a valid force to stop obviously racist policies by the state of Israel against the Palestinians. You , wholly predictably screamed antisemite , so what I stated here is true

That you wish to try to paint it as dishonest is actually dishonest itself

So indeed you think that being a celebrity and excelling as a musician made him relevant to this political subject, relevant enough to compare to the head of one of the major states on this planet apparently.

Ive already stated what I think and it ain't that. Why don't you be honest here and admit that this introduction of yours is based on your own wish to dishonestly portray my actions/intentions and portray your own assumptions as undeniable facts ?

The fact remains that Waters has taken part in numerous conferences that have specifically targeted the Israel/Palestine conflict whereas Marcron is the current leader of the French and might actually have little or no depth of knowledge on the subject itself and his view was based more on self serving national interests alone. Waters as a complete independent in this regards has no such shackles

Anyway Chagos is on the spot - there's nothing that makes Roger an expert on the issue, it seems like you confuse an expertise on a subject with holding the same position as yours.

There's even less to suggest Macron is either but , seeing as he agreed with you , you decided to refer to him. Kettles ? , pots ? , obvious hypocrital accusations ?

 

[Apocalypse]

Correct the context being some individuals hold the BDS to be an antisemitic group whereas some other individuals hold it to be a valid force to stop obviously racist policies by the state of Israel against the Palestinians. You , wholly predictably screamed antisemite , so what I stated here is true

Yes only that some "individuals" are elected heads of state that carry with their words the agenda of an entire nation, and other "individuals" are ignorant musicians pushing their hatred and racism. Comparing them is insane and absurdly stupid.

That you wish to try to paint it as dishonest is actually dishonest itself

Huh? I just successfully did. My description of the events was different than yours.

Ive already stated what I think and it ain't that.

Actions speak louder than words.

The fact remains that Waters has taken part in numerous conferences that have specifically targeted the Israel/Palestine conflict whereas Marcron is the current leader of the French and might actually have little or no depth of knowledge on the subject itself and his view was based more on self serving national interests alone. Waters as a complete independent in this regards has no such shackles

He has less knowledge than the average citizen of the region. He is a nobody when it comes to the political discussion. He speaks of things he has zero understanding about. A blind hateful fool.

There's even less to suggest Macron is either but , seeing as he agreed with you , you decided to refer to him. Kettles ? , pots ? , obvious hypocrital accusations ?

Macron is a head of state. Even if you dismiss his experience as a politician, he has advisors. The comparison is so hysterically stupid. Furthermore no one referred to Macron as the supporting fact of an argument which makes this entire discussion even more absurd, he was mentioned as France was given as an example of a state seeing the BDS as antisemitic because PoS was making the unsurprising and silly claim that saying BDS is antisemitic is "Israeli propaganda", meaning that only Israel will see it as antisemitic. The reason the BDS are antisemitic was however mentioned independently of that, as their goal is to change the Jewish character of the state of Israel. That seems to all be fairly simple.

 

[Chagos]

I detect something of a shift.........................

Cutting out.............

if you want to argue simply for argument´s sake, you´ll have to do it without me.

I´ve stated my stance and with that I´m done here.

 

[oneworld2]

I´ve stated my stance and with that I´m done here.

And failed miserably to defend it...................... hence the exit

Go to the Lilly Allen concert , as suggested by Waters himself , if you want some musical escapism

 

[oneworld2]

Yes only that some "individuals" are elected heads of state that carry with their words the agenda of an entire nation, and other "individuals" are ignorant musicians pushing their hatred and racism. Comparing them is insane and absurdly stupid.

The opposite is true and shows that you are guilty of exactly what you have falsely accused me of

One has attended multiple conventions on the Israel/Palestine conflict and has benefited from co panellists expert opinions on the international laws and conventions that apply to it and the other hasn't afaik ( maybe you might want to say where he has if you have such information to hand )

Also Waters doesn't have the added baggage of having to consider the ramifications wrt the national interests of his country for comments made , Macron does

Huh? I just successfully did. My description of the events was different than yours.

No you failed , like you have so far failed with Waters and Macron as has been outlined in the above

Actions speak louder than words.

Vague and baseless imo

He has less knowledge than the average citizen of the region. He is a nobody when it comes to the political discussion. He speaks of things he has zero understanding about. A blind hateful fool.

He has attended many conventions on Israel/Palestine with testimonies of the very people you claim ARE knowledgeable so can't be deemed " ignorant ". Macron afaik has not but his opinion is being lauded by you not on grounds of knowledge but on grounds of his job title and , more importantly , because it agrees with your own. The very thing you are trying to accuse me of. Shamelessly transparent projection

Macron is a head of state.

So is Trump , so is Kim Jong-un....................... your argument is rubbish and has been shown to be so in the above , accept it

 

[Apocalypse]

your argument is rubbish and has been shown to be so in the above , accept it

What I need to accept is that your comments have no connection at all with reality and that you merely argue for the sake of arguing as Chagos called it.
If you're going to make such arguments and actually stick with them no matter how embarrassing and humiliating they are to make and how obvious it is that you're being completely wrong and nonsensical then there's no point in continuing this. You're just going to pretend that what you're saying could ever possibly make sense to any logical human being and that's just not going to ever work. Such a comparison between a nobody as Waters who is equal to an average person in his political relevance and the President of France is just not going to ever be acceptable.

We're done here. At least I'm done, wasting my time with this utter shameless nonsense.

 

[oneworld2]

What I need to accept is that your comments have no connection at all with reality and that you merely argue for the sake of arguing as Chagos called it.

Reads............. I have no evidence to suggest that Macron has attended any conferences that have discussed the Arab/Israeli conflict in depth or that he has any real knowledge about it so I will claim that you have no sense of reality.:roll:

The only thing you have in common with Chagos in this instance is that you too have utterly failed to support your assertions , electing to retire with a finger in the air , hilarious. BTW the subtle goalpost shift from knowledge to relevance didn't escape my notice either, see below

If you're going to make such arguments and actually stick with them no matter how embarrassing and humiliating they are to make and how obvious it is that you're being completely wrong and nonsensical then there's no point in continuing this. You're just going to pretend that what you're saying could ever possibly make sense to any logical human being and that's just not going to ever work. Such a comparison between a nobody as Waters who is equal to an average person in his political relevance and the President of France is just not going to ever be acceptable.

We're done here. At least I'm done, wasting my time with this utter shameless nonsense.

The only time you have wasted is trying to make people believe you ever had a valid argument in the first place. Same with Chagos

Trump is a head of state , remember that , always lol

 

[CJ 2.0]

The opposite is true and shows that you are guilty of exactly what you have falsely accused me of

One has attended multiple conventions on the Israel/Palestine conflict and has benefited from co panellists expert opinions on the international laws and conventions that apply to it and the other hasn't afaik ( maybe you might want to say where he has if you have such information to hand )

Also Waters doesn't have the added baggage of having to consider the ramifications wrt the national interests of his country for comments made , Macron does






No you failed , like you have so far failed with Waters and Macron as has been outlined in the above




Vague and baseless imo




He has attended many conventions on Israel/Palestine with testimonies of the very people you claim ARE knowledgeable so can't be deemed " ignorant ". Macron afaik has not but his opinion is being lauded by you not on grounds of knowledge but on grounds of his job title and , more importantly , because it agrees with your own. The very thing you are trying to accuse me of. Shamelessly transparent projection




So is Trump , so is Kim Jong-un....................... your argument is rubbish and has been shown to be so in the above , accept it

Yes one has a partisan view and has been keen to butress it bu listening to sycophants and those who parrot his views and the other ... is a head of state who sees and hears from people with competing views and interests all the time and who’s job it is to sort those out and try to make decisions about right, wrong and policy.

And still comes to a conclusion which is very distant from what the default European position is which ignores the purpose and intent of Palestinian nationalism and opposition to Jewish independence.

Go figure. And go figure that the response to the views of a head of state as a supporting secondary point is “rebutted” merely by pointing to some dumb famous person with an anti jewish bias who sides with the palestinians. And that is supposed to mean more than jack and **** to the rest of us who are actually paying attention and see the blatant and obvious antisemitism of the BDS movement, AS EXPRESSED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY ITS FOUNDER FOR CRYING OUT LOUD (which you conveniently ignore and prefer to nust say that a songwriter shares your view so clearly it’s ok). It’s like arguing in a baziarro world where up is down and opinions celebrities have value.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oneworld2]

Yes one has a partisan view and has been keen to butress it bu listening to sycophants and those who parrot his views and the other ... is a head of state who sees and hears from people with competing views and interests all the time and who’s job it is to sort those out and try to make decisions about right, wrong and policy.

Macron has a "partisan"view based on his commitment to/responsibility for looking after the French national interest. His public utterances may be completely different from his private feelings based on that alone. Factor in too the personal concerns he has to consider regarding his own political career and how that will influence his stances and proclamations and it becomes very apparent that he is under considerably more pressure than a private millionaire with no such restrictions

That you people refuse to see or understand this just makes you all look silly especially when you are charging that others , which have no such national responsibilities and just so happen to hold a different view than yourself ( which is yet again another "partisan" view still ), can only be the results of people whose entire study of this subject has been in a sycophantic echo chamber.

It's evidently hogwash to ignore the fact that Waters has no such responsibility to the international interests of either the UK or US where he has resided ( or any other nation ) and , crucially , does not represent the interests of others having not been elected by anyone at all.

Nor has it been established that Macron has any in depth personal knowledge of this conflict at all. You might disagree with Waters views but you cannot ignore that he has attended many conferences on the subject and been party to the testimonies and opinions of people involved and legal minds casting judgements on any criminalities that have taken place or not. To call him " dumb " on the subject purely because he holds an opposing view reflects negatively on you yourself and your own obvious biases and partisan positions

And still comes to a conclusion which is very distant from what the default European position is which ignores the purpose and intent of Palestinian nationalism and opposition to Jewish independence.

Most Europeans support the two state solution so when you infer that they all want to see the end of the Israeli state , a position you constantly try to push through regardless of the reality and an obvious resort to hyperbole , people should be aware of this complete and utter inversion of the truth. Macron supports the two state solution himself though one wonders how much he knows about the facts on the ground to hold this position in the face of Israel's illegal and racist policies and actions in the OPTs. He must know something seeing as he refers to them in terms you will find as mainstrean discourse of BDS activists themselves.

The BDS co founder you refer to holds that , not unreasonably imo , there can be no true self determination for Palestinians whilst Israel is allowed to exist . That doesn't mean he is against Jewish independence it means he is against Jewish independence in Palestine/Israel. The problem for the Jewish state is that the people that created it picked a location that had not been previously cleared of its local residents and began the task at a time when such efforts had lost any support and any form of racist legitimacy. The colonial period had ended

 

[CJ 2.0]

Macron has a "partisan"view based on his commitment to/responsibility for looking after the French national interest. His public utterances may be completely different from his private feelings based on that alone. Factor in too the personal concerns he has to consider regarding his own political career and how that will influence his stances and proclamations and it becomes very apparent that he is under considerably more pressure than a private millionaire with no such restrictions

That you people refuse to see or understand this just makes you all look silly especially when you are charging that others , which have no such national responsibilities and just so happen to hold a different view than yourself ( which is yet again another "partisan" view still ), can only be the results of people whose entire study of this subject has been in a sycophantic echo chamber.

It's evidently hogwash to ignore the fact that Waters has no such responsibility to the international interests of either the UK or US where he has resided ( or any other nation ) and , crucially , does not represent the interests of others having not been elected by anyone at all.

Nor has it been established that Macron has any in depth personal knowledge of this conflict at all. You might disagree with Waters views but you cannot ignore that he has attended many conferences on the subject and been party to the testimonies and opinions of people involved and legal minds casting judgements on any criminalities that have taken place or not. To call him " dumb " on the subject purely because he holds an opposing view reflects negatively on you yourself and your own obvious biases and partisan positions




Most Europeans support the two state solution so when you infer that they all want to see the end of the Israeli state , a position you constantly try to push through regardless of the reality and an obvious resort to hyperbole , people should be aware of this complete and utter inversion of the truth. Macron supports the two state solution himself though one wonders how much he knows about the facts on the ground to hold this position in the face of Israel's illegal and racist policies and actions in the OPTs. He must know something seeing as he refers to them in terms you will find as mainstrean discourse of BDS activists themselves.

The BDS co founder you refer to holds that , not unreasonably imo , there can be no true self determination for Palestinians whilst Israel is allowed to exist . That doesn't mean he is against Jewish independence it means he is against Jewish independence in Palestine/Israel. The problem for the Jewish state is that the people that created it picked a location that had not been previously cleared of its local residents and began the task at a time when such efforts had lost any support and any form of racist legitimacy. The colonial period had ended

Lol. Yes it means he is against Jewish independence and against Jewish independence in their own homeland. It means that in spite of the nonsense we see above even you admit that the BDS movement is about destroying Israel, just you happen to think that isn’t antisemetic because there were some Arabs living there before who were Syrian and Egyptian and even though hundreds of millions have been displaced there is something about these people that somehow doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that the people they are opposing is Jews.

In other words, you are pushing a bill of goods, an obvious falsehood that you know is false but still feel like it is justified to pretend it’s true.

 

[oneworld2]

Lol. Yes it means he is against Jewish independence and against Jewish independence in their own homeland.

Nope, his view , not unreasonable imo , is that there can be no true self determination for Palestinians in a state of their own whilst the Israeli state is in existence. That doesn't necessarily mean he is against the right of Jewish self determination itself.

As mentioned in the post above , ignored by yourself for the most part with one exception ( soon to be shown below ) the Palestinian territory was not an empty land when the persecuted Jews of Eastern Europe decided they wanted it for their own future state and by the time it was created the colonial period and support for colonialism was ending.

It means that in spite of the nonsense we see above even you admit that the BDS movement is about destroying Israel, just you happen to think that isn’t antisemetic

I don't think that not supporting ethno/religious states is , by definition ,necessarily based on hateful feelings towards whatever group of people are actually involved. A wish to separate state and religion and/or state and ethnic exclusivity can be based on an adversity to the dangers , well founded , of the very ideas that underpin these concepts

because there were some Arabs living there before who were Syrian and Egyptian

Well at least you have actually admitted yourself , as if I hadn't sussed this already , the evidence that this poster believes there are no such people as the Palestinians and sees them as a mish mash of " Syrians" and " Egyptians " but will fight tooth and nail to explain why Americans and Russians have a more valid claim to the land , as well as the right to retain their other national identities , than those that were until recently forced out of it with connections to that land that will , despite your claims , go back in history

and even though hundreds of millions have been displaced there is something about these people that somehow doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that the people they are opposing is Jews.

But they aren't " opposing the Jews ". They are opposing ONLY those Jews that are and have sought to dispossess and displace them. As is their right , a universal right that you wish to ignore or invalidate on false grounds of racism

In other words, you are pushing a bill of goods, an obvious falsehood that you know is false but still feel like it is justified to pretend it’s true.

My support for BDS is due to it's non violent approach to bring an end to Israeli racist policies and the violations of the Palestinians and their every right over many decades that are the result. Due to the nature of the current state of affairs my support is based on it bringing enough pressure to bear on Israel so as to conclude a fair deal to end the conflict. Which is a different from the views of others that support it

 

[oneworld2]

Just before this thread disappears into the ether I just wanted to clarify something with regards to a link used in post 8 I think it was. The link actually stated the opposite of what the poster who supplied it actually wanted it to say. Funny they didn't seem to notice and were maybe just banking on few actually checking it out properly

The link was to a Times of Israel article that quoted Waters lyrics from a song entitled " In The Flesh " that created a certain impressionism of the songs actual meaning/aim

The lines quoted sound pretty damming if you don't understand that the context is showing just how ugly and vicious bigotry is

from the link

The former Pink Floyd member was singing “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” – the lyrics of the song “In the Flesh.”

The two following lines are

"There's one smoking a joint and that ones got spots and if I had my way I would have all of you shot"

The clip from the film shows the words being uttered by a Naziesque commandant character whilst people in the audience are being set upon by goons and dragged off to the delight of a frenzied and bigoted crowd attending an ugly bigoted rally

The message is clearly to show the ugliness of bigotry and the dangers it poses as you can see in the clip itself below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoPpw7DNzCY


So to try to smear Waters with it was a deliberate misrepresentation of the material.

Posterity deserves at least the truth here