Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Do talk back
User avatar
Belle Lettre
Éminence grise
Posts: 15004
Joined: 09 Oct 2008, 07:16
Location: Antiterra

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Belle Lettre » 21 Nov 2017, 14:30

Nick wrote:
Deebank wrote:
Nick wrote:I've been really heartened to see Cave and Radiohead stand by their principles on this, good for them.


Their principles?

I don't know about Cave but I seem to remember Thom Yorke leading the charge against China's occupation of Tibet, or did I imagine that?

Israel's occupation of Palestine is different how exactly?


First, what do you mean by Palestine?

*logs off*
Nikki Gradual wrote:
Get a fucking grip you narcissistic cretins.

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 22544
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: In a beautiful place out in the country

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Deebank » 21 Nov 2017, 15:25

Nick wrote:
Deebank wrote:
Nick wrote:I've been really heartened to see Cave and Radiohead stand by their principles on this, good for them.


Their principles?

I don't know about Cave but I seem to remember Thom Yorke leading the charge against China's occupation of Tibet, or did I imagine that?

Israel's occupation of Palestine is different how exactly?


First, what do you mean by Palestine?


For the sake of argument we could start with all the bits the UN (that’s the UN, not Hamas or the PLO) says Israel is occupying and settling illegally.
Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24292
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Nick » 21 Nov 2017, 20:13

Deebank wrote:For the sake of argument we could start with all the bits the UN (that’s the UN, not Hamas or the PLO) says Israel is occupying and settling illegally.


OK, I wasn't sure what you meant. People have different views on what constitutes Palestine, and which bits of it Israel is occupying. Some people think the existence of Israel within its original 1948 borders is an occupation, so I wanted to be clear.

I think it's possible to disagree with one thing and see the wrong in it, and yet to simultaneously be able to see that it's not the same as another thing. The situation with Israel and the occupied territories of Palestine is, I think, much more complex than the ones with which the BDS movement often try to draw parallels, such as pre-1991 South Africa, and Tibet.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 11929
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Geezee » 21 Nov 2017, 20:29

Nick wrote:
Moleskin wrote:
*fun and open field* wrote:Why is it immoral to play Israel in 2017?


Same reason it was immoral to play Sun City in the 80s.


It isn't. There's no reasonable parallel to be drawn between the two, much as the proponents of BDS would like there to be.


Of course it can. What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
Fonz
Posts: 3276
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:10
Location: Nevermore

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Fonz » 21 Nov 2017, 21:10

At the very least, the indigenous people of that part of the world have been essentially squeezed out of the land they have occupied for millennia. The indigenous people have far fewer rights and privileges than the people who have 'returned'.

I think that is where people see the parallel with South Africa, though white South Africans they were clearly a colonial hangover.


This is a simplistic way of looking at the situation, but I think it states a succinct truth.
Heyyyy!

"Fonz clearly has no fucks to give. I like the cut of his Cupicidal gib."

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24292
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Nick » 22 Nov 2017, 14:37

Fonz wrote:At the very least, the indigenous people of that part of the world have been essentially squeezed out of the land they have occupied for millennia. The indigenous people have far fewer rights and privileges than the people who have 'returned'.


The Jewish people are indigenous to the region, and significant populations of Jews have lived there continuously for millennia.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Fonz
Posts: 3276
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:10
Location: Nevermore

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Fonz » 22 Nov 2017, 14:44

Nick wrote:
Fonz wrote:At the very least, the indigenous people of that part of the world have been essentially squeezed out of the land they have occupied for millennia. The indigenous people have far fewer rights and privileges than the people who have 'returned'.


The Jewish people are indigenous to the region, and significant populations of Jews have lived there continuously for millennia.


To say ‘the Jewish People’ are indigenous to the region isn’t really accurate though. The Jewish People are a mixed bag from all over the place.

But, I agree that some Jewish people have lived there for millennia. Does that entitle the mixed bag that shares their religion to come along, displace other people who have lived there in greater numbers, and treat them like shit?
Heyyyy!

"Fonz clearly has no fucks to give. I like the cut of his Cupicidal gib."

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24292
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Nick » 22 Nov 2017, 14:45

Geezee wrote:Of course it can. What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.


I disagree, but if you want to discuss it, I'm game.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 24292
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: Up late at night again

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Nick » 22 Nov 2017, 15:05

Fonz wrote:To say ‘the Jewish People’ are indigenous to the region isn’t really accurate though. The Jewish People are a mixed bag from all over the place.

But, I agree that some Jewish people have lived there for millennia. Does that entitle the mixed bag that shares their religion to come along, displace other people who have lived there in greater numbers, and treat them like shit?


Jews are an ethno-religious people, with their roots in the southern Levant. The Jewish disapora all over the world has always cleaved to the ancient land of Israel as its homeland, and in large part, longed to return there, for various reasons - not least that they've almost always been persecuted everywhere they've lived. Hence the Zionist movement which arose in late nineteenth century central and eastern Europe. A reasonable comparison is the Back to Africa movement which arose in the contemporaneous USA, also known as Black Zionism, displaced people wanting to return to their homeland.

Israel was created by UN agreement as a homeland for the Jewish people, in the wake of the Holocaust. It is a very small country in the Middle East region, greatly dwarfed by the Arab and Islamic countries that surround it, which repeatedly attacked it from the moment it began to exist.

One of the tragedies of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is, to paraphrase the Israeli writer Amos Oz, that you have two peoples who are both right, and who have more or less equal claims to the same area of land. It's what the UN partition plan of 1947 for two states tried, and failed, to resolve.

It's a situation which defies simple explanations, and black and white condemnations. Which is why I get irked when people try to portray the Israelis as the sole aggressors, or to graft on to the situation inaccurate and unhelpful analogies of colonialism and apartheid.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 30446
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Goat Boy » 22 Nov 2017, 15:27

You have to take sides, don’t you? As with everything these days seemingly. And because the whole thing has become the cause celebre of the left any dissent is seen as, I dunno, a betrayal or summat amongst some. You see it in Ken Loach’s simplistic comments. It’s tedious.
German Dave wrote:Have a long hard look in the mirror will you

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 22544
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: In a beautiful place out in the country

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Deebank » 22 Nov 2017, 15:55

Nick wrote:
Fonz wrote:At the very least, the indigenous people of that part of the world have been essentially squeezed out of the land they have occupied for millennia. The indigenous people have far fewer rights and privileges than the people who have 'returned'.


The Jewish people are indigenous to the region, and significant populations of Jews have lived there continuously for millennia.


In the same way that England, the Southern region of Scotland and Brittany are the true Welsh homelands!
I'm sure at a push we could rustle up a celtic god or two to give the rights of the Welsh to take back all of 'mainland' Britain and Amorica some heft. There are written sources as old as some parts of the bible that outline the claim - in Y Gododdin, and possibly bits of the Mabinogion...
Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 11929
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Geezee » 22 Nov 2017, 16:02

Nick wrote:
Fonz wrote:To say ‘the Jewish People’ are indigenous to the region isn’t really accurate though. The Jewish People are a mixed bag from all over the place.

But, I agree that some Jewish people have lived there for millennia. Does that entitle the mixed bag that shares their religion to come along, displace other people who have lived there in greater numbers, and treat them like shit?


Jews are an ethno-religious people, with their roots in the southern Levant. The Jewish disapora all over the world has always cleaved to the ancient land of Israel as its homeland, and in large part, longed to return there, for various reasons - not least that they've almost always been persecuted everywhere they've lived. Hence the Zionist movement which arose in late nineteenth century central and eastern Europe. A reasonable comparison is the Back to Africa movement which arose in the contemporaneous USA, also known as Black Zionism, displaced people wanting to return to their homeland.

Israel was created by UN agreement as a homeland for the Jewish people, in the wake of the Holocaust. It is a very small country in the Middle East region, greatly dwarfed by the Arab and Islamic countries that surround it, which repeatedly attacked it from the moment it began to exist.

One of the tragedies of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is, to paraphrase the Israeli writer Amos Oz, that you have two peoples who are both right, and who have more or less equal claims to the same area of land. It's what the UN partition plan of 1947 for two states tried, and failed, to resolve.

It's a situation which defies simple explanations, and black and white condemnations. Which is why I get irked when people try to portray the Israelis as the sole aggressors, or to graft on to the situation inaccurate and unhelpful analogies of colonialism and apartheid.


There is only one side in power though, and only one side actively exerting that power in repression of other people. Every day, utter disenfranchisement from being able to live normal, economically viable lives. There is, perhaps understandably, a general reluctance to call it Apartheid, which is very clearly meant to signify the South African context, in the same way that the Holocaust signifies the specific context of 1933-1945 - but it does not meant that systematic racial segregation cannot happen outside of South Africa (obviously), or that genocide cannot happen outside of the Holocaust. And very obviously, the situation in Israel bears all the hallmarks of systematic racial segregation. The peoples on both sides might be "right" - but the Israeli government is very obviously, very "wrong". Cave is completely on the wrong side of this argument in some spurious cause of freedom of speech. I can much more relate to the spirit with which Paul Simon went to South Africa, which seems to me to have been cloaked in much more naive optimism (but I may be wrong). If Nick Cave truly wanted to make a point about all this and wants to be reaching out to all peoples in a spirit of musical freedom, why isn't he playing Ramallah or Bethlehem as well where you have the actual, actively oppressed people in this context?
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
Fonz
Posts: 3276
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:10
Location: Nevermore

Re: Roger Waters-Nick Mason: Why Stones shouldn’t play Israel

Postby Fonz » 22 Nov 2017, 16:12

Nick wrote:
Fonz wrote:To say ‘the Jewish People’ are indigenous to the region isn’t really accurate though. The Jewish People are a mixed bag from all over the place.

But, I agree that some Jewish people have lived there for millennia. Does that entitle the mixed bag that shares their religion to come along, displace other people who have lived there in greater numbers, and treat them like shit?


Jews are an ethno-religious people, with their roots in the southern Levant. The Jewish disapora all over the world has always cleaved to the ancient land of Israel as its homeland, and in large part, longed to return there, for various reasons - not least that they've almost always been persecuted everywhere they've lived. Hence the Zionist movement which arose in late nineteenth century central and eastern Europe. A reasonable comparison is the Back to Africa movement which arose in the contemporaneous USA, also known as Black Zionism, displaced people wanting to return to their homeland.

Israel was created by UN agreement as a homeland for the Jewish people, in the wake of the Holocaust. It is a very small country in the Middle East region, greatly dwarfed by the Arab and Islamic countries that surround it, which repeatedly attacked it from the moment it began to exist.

One of the tragedies of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is, to paraphrase the Israeli writer Amos Oz, that you have two peoples who are both right, and who have more or less equal claims to the same area of land. It's what the UN partition plan of 1947 for two states tried, and failed, to resolve.

It's a situation which defies simple explanations, and black and white condemnations. Which is why I get irked when people try to portray the Israelis as the sole aggressors, or to graft on to the situation inaccurate and unhelpful analogies of colonialism and apartheid.


Why do you think the analogy with apartheid is so bad? It’s an analogy that is readily understandable: the premise that one group of inhabitants, identified by racial/ ethnic-religious characteristics, of often perhaps dubious entitlement , should get to have everything good, but the other folks get to live in shanty towns and have third-rate education and healthcare.
I’d say the parallel is quite strong.
Heyyyy!

"Fonz clearly has no fucks to give. I like the cut of his Cupicidal gib."