Waters gives a very impassioned talk to Double Down News.
Personally, while I can’t agree with Waters’ views regarding Putin, I think the attempts to cancel his shows on the grounds of anti-semitism are nonsense. (Quite harmful nonsense, as it happens. Harmful to genuine opposition to anti-semitism.)
Here he addresses those accusations, calls MP Christian Wakeford “scum”, talks about the leather coat, Anne Frank, the “evils of the apartheid state of Israel”, repeats yet again his mother’s advice (word for word as already recounted in his speech to the UN Security Council) and even manages to inform us that his father was killed in the second world war (who knew?).
The most interesting bit for me personally is what he says about the Star of David on his inflatable pig. I recently described it here as “seriously ugly provocation”. Basically because I believed what I’d read in the newspapers. (He claims he actually, after reflection, removed the symbol 23 years ago.)
Roger Waters (Again!)
by 81 Comments
He has some decent arguments but does come across as a bit defensive on his anti-semitism tropes.
Separate the state of Israel from the religion and we can have a decent discussion.
This doesn’t move that debate forward.
I’ve never heard him comment on the religion. And I don’t think his aim here is to move the debate forward, but to respond to the worldwide avalanche of accusations that have been directed against him. Quite understandable, I think, if the accusations were lies. Which it seems the accusations regarding the Star of David/inflatable pig certainly were. Five gigs 23 years ago, yet I’ve seen it widely reported in the press as a feature of this current tour.
*cough*
By my calculations, 2013 was ten years ago.
Oops. Maths was never my strong point. Now Wordiply on the other hand…
(Though in my own defence, I deafly rely on subtitles and got distracted by a squirrel before he’d finished his sentence.)
He is currently claiming that Corbyn’s removal from the Labour leadership was an Israeli plot. As was Keir Starmer’s election as leader. Playing to tried and tested anti-semitic tropes.
I’ve been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but the man’s an arse, at very best.
Though I’m a big fan of Waters’ music, I agree he’s an arse. But I think Benjamin Netanyahu is much worse than simply “an arse”. Moreover, I think that criticism of Netanyahu’s government, however accurate or inaccurate, should never be considered as inherently anti-semitic. I think that’s a very perilous attitude as it not only allows Netanyahu free rein, but it also undermines the criticism of genuine anti-semitism, emboldening those who would perpetuate it,
Benjamin Netanyahu is an odious little thug and his government is a disgrace. It worries me that we cosy up to wankers like him.
Any kind of nationalist exceptionalism that tries to hide its own odious nature behind a smokescreen of claiming some form of prejudicial religious persecution needs to be called out as bogus.
How is “Israel interfered against Corbyn / for Starmer” anything approaching “criticism of Netanyahu’s government” or fair comment on Israel’s “nationalist exceptionalism”, though? (Let me help out: it’s not. It’s the most classic of all antisemitic tropes, that Israel (uniquely among nations FOR SOME REASON, I wonder what?) is puppetmastering any politician the crank left or right happens not to like.)
How is “Israel interfered against Corbyn / for Starmer” anything approaching “criticism of Netanyahu’s government”
How is it not a criticism of Netanyahu’s government?
Let me help out: it is.
In which case, it is a criticism based on anti-semitism.
What rot. When I am appalled at the continuing series of executions the Iranian thuggery are engaged in, is it Islamaphobia driving my outrage?
The issue isn’t the criticism of/contempt for the government of Israel. It’s the fact that it’s being expressed using an unproven conspiracy theory which leans on an anti-semitic trope.
If I were to say that the Iranian government was controlling Sadiq Khan, that would be a criticism of the Iranian government. It would also be Islamophobic.
I have no problem with criticism of Israel – in fact, I think it’s fully justified. But given how much awful shit that government does, I don’t really understand this need to make up additional stuff, or to lean into these stereotypes/unproven conspiracy theories.
The claim here is that “Israel” organised the removal of Corbyn and then the election of Keir Starmer. Conspiracy theory nonsense that plays to the anti-semitic trope that the Jews are manipulating the world behind the scenes.
I’m sorry you can’t see it but there it is.
As mentioned above, I think that criticism of Netanyahu’s government, however accurate or inaccurate, should never be considered as inherently anti-semitic.
Do I think it’s an accurate claim? I can’t say with any certainty, but my initial reaction is that it sounds like complete nonsense. But it doesn’t sound like anti-semitic nonsense. It sounds like anti-Netanyahu nonsense. Conflating the two strikes me as very dodgy ground.
It’s anti-semitic nonsense, for the reason I explained.
Still, no doubt there’s a video on YouTube that says otherwise.
Next week: are the Democrats satan-worshipping paedophiles? “I can’t say with any certainty, but …”
I find the conflation of criticism of the Israeli government (whether true or false) with criticism of Jewish people pretty racist, tbh.
(As is the rather patronising belief that all Jewish people will share the same view on what constitutes anti-semitism.)
@hedgepig
Have you watched The Labour Files? Or viewed Simon Maginn’s videos? Or read Asa Winstanley’s book ‘The Weaponisation of Anti-Semitism’? I’d be very interested to know what you think of them.
I see there are plenty of replies to that tweet from both sides of the debate. Skimming through them, some of them seem reasonable and intelligent, some not so much.
The ones closing down any discussion by shouting “Anti-semite! Fuck you!”, without any reasoned discourse are the ones that interest me least. (In a completely different, unrelated discussion, I frequently see a very similar thing on Twitter with people shouting “Transphobe! Fuck you!” in order to shut down that particular debate. In my opinion, name-calling doesn’t help anyone, on either side, in these debates.)
Any one who refers to a “Jewish Lobby” (December 2013 interview, CounterPunch.org) is either anti semitic, or best buddies with it.
Anti Zionism I get. I think there’s a debate about Israel, Palestine, and it isn’t an easy debate.
But he made it about Jews, not Zionists. So, yeah; for me, anti semitic prick.
In that interview he describes the “Jewish lobby” as “extraordinarily powerful” in America, in order to explain the reluctance of other American musicians to speak out against the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians.
Looking up the term “Jewish Lobby” wikipedia tells me that: “In his Dictionary of Politics (1992), Walter John Raymond describes the term “Jewish Lobby” as “A conglomeration of approximately thirty-four Jewish political organizations in the United States which make joint and separate efforts to lobby for their interests in the United States, as well as for the interests of the State of Israel.”
Furthermore:
“When used to allege disproportionately favorable Jewish influence, it can be perceived as pejorative or as constituting antisemitism.”
So the questions I would ask are: “Does a Jewish lobby, as Raymond defines it, really exist in America?” and “If so, is it or is it not extremely powerful? Powerful enough to discourage musicians from expressing pro-Palestine opinions?”
(I don’t know the answer to these questions, though the answer to the first would seem to be “yes”.)
But on a more personal level, I ask myself: “Would Roger Waters have anything against Jewish people if the Israel-Palestine conflict didn’t exist? And my answer to that question is “I very much doubt he would, I’ve not read anything he’s said that would lead me to think so”.
There is a lot I disagree with Waters about, and I don’t much care for the man, but I’m very wary of shouting “anti-semite” (or “racist/homophobe/transphobe etc”) as an alternative to discussion.
Look, why are we even having this conversation? You’ve held forth on this any number of times before, it’s clear you’re on a specific side when it comes to Roger Waters, Jeremy Corbyn, and what the majority of British Jews see as racism directed against them (ie they’re wrong and motivated against people and causes you like, for presumably nefarious (?) reasons). Or perhaps just because you see yourself as more perceptive, less hoodwinked, more independent, than those who take that view? Anyway, people disagree, sometimes quite strongly. We all know this, it’s all the same people, all the same points.
You’ve never changed your mind; nobody on this thread is likely to; anyone who disagrees with you isn’t going to be persuaded by you, specifically, because of what they perceive as your motivated reasoning (ie your instinctive sympathy for what many would see as cookie cutter leftish conspiracism), and vice versa. You presumably feel the same way.
If you’re not going to take the word of British Jews that conflating their community with the actions of a country halfway around the world, using “power/influence” tropes which date back past the medieval period, nothing will persuade you. Saying “the Jewish lobby nobbled Corbyn / Waters” is no different from saying “the Israeli lobby” because we’re not in Israel and not governed by their government. I don’t know how much clearer to be.
why are we even having this conversation?
I was having the conversation because it’s such a big part of the news at the moment, centred on a rock star whose music many of us here like. I’m not trying to persuade anybody of anything, but I’m very interested in what is currently, in effect, a global discussion, and I’m interested in the truth.
I don’t know why you feel the need to attack me personally. Completely unnecessary.
You’re right. I apologise for the parts of that post which were personal. It’s just a topic that causes me a lot of frustration, being so intensely circular and so intensely resistant to argument.
Thank you for the apology. Genuinely much appreciated.
“But on a more personal level, I ask myself: “Would Roger Waters have anything against Jewish people if the Israel-Palestine conflict didn’t exist? And my answer to that question is “I very much doubt he would, I’ve not read anything he’s said that would lead me to think so”.”
If Waters has something against Jewish people because of the Israel-Palestine conflict then he can get right in the bin.
I don’t think he has anything at all against Jewish people in general. That was my point. His antagonism is towards a specific group of Jewish people, what he calls “the Jewish lobby in America”. Does such a lobby exist? Are they as powerful as he makes out? I don’t know. Would he have anything against them if it weren’t for the Israel-Palestine conflict? I don’t think so.
If the Israel-Palestine conflict is his excuse for antagonism towards any group of Jewish people other than those responsible for that conflict then I can only repeat: he can get in the bin. Also, the distinction between “Jewish people” and a specific subset of Jewish people is probably worth calling out clearly given the nature of this subject.
On the “Jewish lobby” stuff, as hedgepig and Si rightly observe above, and as the Jewish community have pointed out frequently in the past, accusations that Jews control the media and are trying to silence dissent are a fairly common anti-semitic trope.
I have to say, personally I don’t actually care whether Waters is anti-semitic or not. Between these threads, the Ukraine stuff, the George Floyd stuff and the UN speech I’ve seen enough to conclude that he’s probably just deeply thick and in way over his head.
If the Israel-Palestine conflict is his excuse for antagonism towards any group of Jewish people other than those responsible for that conflict then I can only repeat: he can get in the bin.
I think it’s safe to assume he does think what he calls “the Jewish lobby in America” is, at the very least, supportive of Netanyahu’s policies.
On the “Jewish lobby” stuff, as hedgepig and Si rightly observe above, and as the Jewish community have pointed out frequently in the past, accusations that Jews control the media and are trying to silence dissent are a fairly common anti-semitic trope.
And I maintain that shouting “anti-semitic” is no substitute for discussion. Also, I’m not convinced by the notion that there is a unanimity of opinion on what constitutes “anti-semitism” among the Jewish community.
I have to say, personally I don’t actually care whether Waters is anti-semitic or not.
Completely fair enough, but then why enter the discussion?
At moments like these I ask myself the same question.
Well that sounds promising. Do you have an answer?
(I ask as someone who has never felt the compulsion to join a discussion if “I don’t actually care” about the issue being discussed.)
I have a view on Waters (the subject at hand, yet again), and on some of the content of the thread, so I expressed my thoughts. I really don’t see the big issue.
No big issue, I simply wondered what compelled you to join a discussion about whether or not Roger Waters is anti-semitic if you “don’t actually care whether Waters is anti-semitic or not”, that’s all. A curiosity.
(That this exact discussion was earlier today broached in the US State Department would indicate how interesting it is to some, myself included.)
Here’s the quote:
“The Jewish lobby is extraordinary powerful here and particularly in the industry that I work in, the music industry and in rock’n roll as they say. I promise you, naming no names, I’ve spoken to people who are terrified that if they stand shoulder to shoulder with me they are going to get fucked.”
He’s anti semitic on a straightforward reading of that.
@sitheref2409
I ask again, is “Does a Jewish lobby, as Walter John Raymond defines it, really exist in America?” and “If so, is it or is it not extremely powerful? Powerful enough to discourage musicians from expressing pro-Palestine opinions?”
This is classic anti-semitism.
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/AboutUs/CivilSociety/ReportHC/75_The_Louis_D._Brandeis_Center__Fact_Sheet_Anti-Semitism.pdf
See point 9.
It’s also demonstrably nonsense. Here’s 600 extremely famous musicians recently signing an open letter urging the boycott of Israel. These musicians do not appear to have been discouraged from expressing pro-Palestine opinions.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/rage-against-the-machine-serj-tankian-roger-waters-sign-open-letter-artists-boycott-israel-1175281/
I know it upsets you being challenged over this stuff, but I’m afraid that it’s impossible to sit and read someone ask for serious discussion of whether an “extremely powerful Jewish lobby” is suppressing dissent and not call it out for what it is. In much the same way it would be if discussion was requested of negative stereotypes/tropes associated with any other ethnic or racial group.
I would urge you to educate yourself properly on this topic with a half decent book on the history of anti-semitism, rather than YouTube channels and hooky websites.
You can get pissed off with me now, you can retreat to the boilerplate “I find these accusations of antisemitism unhelpful to the discussion” or “there are some people on Twitter who don’t agree” or “I was just asking a question”. I honestly don’t care. What you’re saying above is out of order. The fact that you don’t appear to understand that doesn’t make it any less the case.
Being challenged doesn’t upset me. Rudeness does.
“Educate yourself”. The typical Twitter phrase du jour. I enjoy reading both sides of a discussion, to the point where I actually reviewed David Baddiel’s book Jews Don’t Count on here. You, on the other hand, have told me you have no interest in watching The Labour Files. Fair enough. But I do think Twitter would be a more suitable platform for ill-mannered personal attacks than this place. This discussion is not about me.
Are there powerful religiously affiliated lobby groups in the USA? Of course there are.
However, that doesn’t therefore mean that there is free licence to yell about the “Jewish lobby” without being challenged. Waters – and I’m afraid you – use the concept as carte blanche to be able to say whatever you like, and then just go “but there are lobbying groups” as if that excuses everything.
The Christian lobby is far more powerful – it’s funny how they never get mentioned in these types of conversations. It’s funny how when evidence like Bingo’s gets posted it’s conveniently overlooked – and I note you didn’t actually rebut the point he made.
@sitheref2409
you use the concept as carte blanche to be able to say whatever you like
Please tell me, with a quote, where exactly you think I have done so.
it’s funny how [the Christian lobby] never get mentioned in these types of conversations
Seriously? I would say they get discussed and criticised far more than any other “religious lobby”, I had literally never heard of a “Jewish lobby” before the mention of Waters’ remark. I have certainly heard of the Christian lobby, especially with regard to abortion and gay rights.
and I note you didn’t actually rebut the point he made
Purely because of his rudeness and his personal attack. Had he stuck to the issue -Roger Waters- without being rude or attacking me personally, I would have explained that I was indeed “just asking a question”. But, as he frequently does and as you seem to want to do to, he made it about me, with the insinuation that I’m racist for asking.
If you’ve honestly never heard the racist, conspiracist trope of a powerful “Jewish lobby” controlling politicians and the media, that is… surprising, but it really is – as the kids say – a you problem, Gary. It’s solvable by reading some history – real history.
Doing the old “just asking questions” routine about tropes like this is exactly what racists do, so if you’re surprised and hurt by the conflation, and genuinely unaware of why people might be appalled by someone mainstreaming classically racist talking points in the name of “curiosity”, that is why.
As someone has said above, I don’t think you’d react at all the same way if someone accused Sadiq Khan of “answering to his paymasters in Islamabad”. You’d see that for what it is, I hope: naked racism. You wouldn’t say that it’s valid criticism of the Pakistani government, or at least I’d hope not. What Waters is doing is that. He’s doing that.
Whether or not he is *also* offering valid critique of Netanyahu’s regime is beside the point. The two things aren’t the same.
Similarly, the problem with the old “I don’t trust the MSM” routine is that it seems to lead people down a path reminiscent of the old saw which Chesterton didn’t say: “when a man stops believing in God, the danger isn’t that he then believes in nothing – it’s that he believes in anything.” DoubleDown News, Electronic Intifada, Simon Maginn (!) – these are the “anything”. But I suspect you honestly can’t see the difference between them and the BBC (except inasmuch as you’d say they’re better), so I think we’re on a hiding to nothing.
@hedgepig
If it’s my “problem” that I’d never heard of a Jewish lobby in America I can accept. That you think I should read up about it rather than ask here is also fair enough. Though if someone here were to ask about Italian politics and lobby groups I would be happy to answer.
The Waters comment referred to was not his talking about paymasters in Tel Aviv. That was another comment. We were talking about his assertion that in Americs musicians felt intimidated by the Jewish lobby.
Where have I ever said, or even implied, that “I don’t trust the MSM”?
Once again, will you please stop trying to make this discussion about me. We are not on Twitter.
From The Afterword’s “posting guidelines”:
Please keep things clean, friendly, and polite. Arguments do happen and the debate can get lively but please – Address the point, not the person.
Ah. “Just asking a question”. That phrase is reminiscent of disingenuity around any number of topics.
1. Make barely defensible statement.
2. Defend it by saying “I was just asking questions”.
The Christian lobby is used for propagating batshit crazy rightwing ideas, not as part of conspiracy theories as Waters does.
“Moreover, I think that criticism of Netanyahu’s government, however accurate or inaccurate, should never be considered as inherently anti-semitic”
Even when it’s clear that Waters is using Netanyahu as a a proxy for “Jewish” or “Israeli”?
For someone who claims to have never heard of a Jewish lobby – which I honestly find difficult to believe – you seem to be very adept at defending those with accusations against it. You duck straightforward questions on the grounds of choosing what kinds of statements or questions have been asked. Why not just answer Bingo’s points? Is it because you can’t?
@sitheref2409
Why are you so determined to make this about me? I truly can’t understand.
But to respond to your comment:
1. What exactly was my “barely defensible statement”? Please quote it.
2. I was just asking a question about Roger Waters’ comment that musicians in America feel intimidated by the Jewish lobby there. That’s an undeniable, indisputable fact.
I have absolutely no experience or knowledge of the Jewish lobby in America. I’d bet you could ask most Italians and they wouldn’t either. It’s not something that has ever crossed my path or entered my life in any way. I’m sorry if that makes me ignorant in your eyes, but there you go. We clearly live in different worlds. The term “Jewish lobby in America” clearly has a significance in your world. It simply doesn’t in mine. At all. I don’t even understand why that is so hard for you to accept (and, quite frankly, when a question about another person’s comments can elicit accusations of anti-semitism, I get the distinct impression I’m well and truly in wackoland!).
I’ve looked again at Bingo’s comment above and can’t see a single question or question mark. What exactly do you want me to answer? (I hope it’s something about Roger Waters, or at least my thoughts on Roger Waters, and not just about me.)
Oh and I forgot to answer your question:
Even when it’s clear that Waters is using Netanyahu as a proxy for “Jewish” or “Israeli”?
If it’s clear Waters is using Netanyahu as a proxy for “Jewish”, certainly not. If I think Waters is using Netanyahu as a proxy for the country of Israel as a whole rather than its government, also no.
“2. I was just asking a question about Roger Waters’ comment that musicians in America feel intimidated by the Jewish lobby there. That’s an undeniable, indisputable fact.”
There is a Jewish lobby that attempts to control the music industry. is your assertion. This, despite the link that Bingo posted. Again, not a Zionist lobby, but a Jewish one.
Fuck me
@sitheref2409
I most certainly did not make that assertion. At all. In any way whatsoever. How could I? I repeat, I have never even heard of a Jewish lobby in America. I invite you to review the thread and you will see that. You can call me ignorant for not knowing, that’s up to you. You can demand “Educate yourself! Do some research!” like the children on Twitter do all the time. But you can’t claim I asserted something I know nothing about when I clearly and undeniably didn’t.
To recap: You quoted Waters regarding a Jewish lobby in America and I asked the question “Is there a Jewish lobby in America?” Can you really not see the difference between a question and an assertion? I asked the question, then Bingo posted (with his rude accusations). I think at this point you’re just being wilfully obtuse. And rude.
And as I said, if asking a question can elicit accusations of anti-semitism then I suspect I’m dealing with true wackos.
And while I’m getting personal and off-topic myself here, I think we have very different attitudes and expectations when it comes to discussions.
You seem to be wilfully ignoring what I write and looking for ways to score points and insult me. Friendly discussion among adults shouldn’t be about looking desperately for that “gotcha” moment whereby you can establish your “opponent’s” intellectual and/or moral inadequacy. I believe mature discussion should be about exploring others’ opinions and seeing if they have anything to offer in search for the truth.
Question and challenge each other’s opinions, sure. Express disagreement where you feel strongly, sure. But do so in good faith that the person you’re discussing with is also simply trying to find his/her way to the truth rather than in the hope of belittling their point of view. Otherwise we are in Twitter territory, or back in the school playground.
I’d like to point you in the direction of Martin Horsfield and Diddley Farquar’s comments below. They state their opinions, highly critical of Roger Waters, without feeling the need to make any personal accusations about me. They exemplify, for me, how adults discuss things.
Think we need a special Roger Waters section ….
Not just us. First the UN Security Council and now the US State Department. (But the Daily Mail is still more interested in Philip Schofield.)
https://twitter.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/1666354818045161475?s=20
One of the replies to that video:
“What gets me is that Waters has said some legit dodgy stuff, but they choose to lie anyway. No conversation can be had from that point. And it shows they don’t actually care about anti-Semitism just stopping dissent.”
That’s certainly the impression I get.
If we could find something to link the warring factions, it’d be a bridge over troubled Waters.
You win this thread. (Applause!)
Thank God somebody has.
While I’m here, can we have a moratorium on the word ‘trope’? An antisemitic trope is antisemitism.
@Dai
Sectioning Roger Waters seems a little drastic
His assertion that Corbyn was nobbled by Labour’s Israeli paymasters is not just offensive, it’s a juvenile conspiracy theory. How does he explain Corbyn coming to power in the first place? Did the new world order take their eye off the ball for six months?
Whatever else we might say on this topic, can we take a moment to appreciate that it’s very, very funny that Waters has chosen to deliver this exclusive interview to something called “Double Down News”? None more meta.
“Dumbing Down News” probably didn’t look as authoritative on their masthead.
@Jaygee
I realise you’re joshing, but I do think it’s actually a very interesting channel, whatever your views.
I’ve always considered it interesting to check out opinion and evidence that’s likely to contradict one’s views. I’ll often scan The Daily Mail and its readers’ comments on current issues – and they don’t come much dumber than that! (Except perhaps The Sun and The Express.) Confining myself solely to a Twitter echo chamber of like-minded opinion, I’d find the epitome of intellectually stultifying.
https://www.youtube.com/@DoubleDownNews/videos
I see even Starmer has joined the discussion:
Mind you, Waters was considerably less polite when giving his opinion of Starmer last year:
What I also find disturbing is that Waters seems to have made the dissemination of unpalatable opinions part of his brand – and become bigger than ever.
As was mentioned on another Roger Waters thread, it’s hard to understand why there is all this controversy now when he’s been peddling this same imagery and opinions for the last 40 years. (I suspect it’s influenced by the publicity surrounding Polly Samson’s tweet and his controversial support for Putin.)
He’s not exactly, though. You could listen to a two-hour bootleg of The Pros & Cons of Hotchhiking tour without running the risk of.a 10-minute rant about the state of Israel.
AW logic:
X hates Israeli fascism
The majority of jews worldwide may support Israel
Therefore X must hate Jews in general
I resent the implication that this logic is shared by The Afterword in general. I (and many others) have not commented on this thread and, by extension, have not expressed a view.
This answer posted further up by Bingo Little also fits here:
The issue isn’t the criticism of/contempt for the government of Israel. It’s the fact that it’s being expressed using an unproven conspiracy theory which leans on an anti-semitic trope.
If I were to say that the Iranian government was controlling Sadiq Khan, that would be a criticism of the Iranian government. It would also be Islamophobic.
I have no problem with criticism of Israel – in fact, I think it’s fully justified. But given how much awful shit that government does, I don’t really understand this need to make up additional stuff, or to lean into these stereotypes/unproven conspiracy theories.
Exactly this. Waters can’t leave his criticism of Israel to events in Israel. Instead he chooses to propagate the racist fantasy that they somehow control world institutions. Whatever your thoughts about democracy in the Labour Party, the idea that Israel has installed its own man as leader is just offensive.
I notice that there is another pernicious fiction that Roger Waters is repeating in his interview.
The one where he says he wrote all of Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here.
And Israel is spreading the lie that it was David Gilmour.
I KNEW it!
David was a key figure in the Old Testament.
Roger, on the other hand, was an entirely made-up
(and by all accounts not very nice*) character in
Life of Brian
He was allegedly a “wobber and a wapist”)
Splitter!
The Prague film now on YouTube. Spectacular stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufdPa1nN21k
Given the above discussion, it would probably be remiss not to post the following updates in the interests of completeness.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/roger-waters-false-flag-claim-hamas-attack-1234871588/
Here’s Roger Waters this week explaining that there is “something fishy” about the 7 October attacks on Israel, suggesting that it might be a “false flag” operation and that “we don’t know if we will ever get much of the story”. He adds for good measure “What actually happened on the American 9/11? Nobody knows. Clearly the official narrative has huge holes in it”.
Asked whether the 7 October attacks can be justified, he says: “Well, we don’t know what they did do. Was it justified to resist the occupation? Yeah, it’s the Geneva Conventions. They are absolutely legally and morally bound to resist the occupation since 1967.” He is kind enough to add “If war crimes were committed, I condemn them”.
Asked if war crimes were committed on 7 October he replies: “Probably the first 400 killed were Israeli military personnel. That is not a war crime” and adds “It’s always hard to tell what happened”.
Waters is a reprehensible crank and a conspiracy theorist. I’m not going to post the video of him saying all of the above because enough of this sort of bilge is already circulating online, but it’s freely available in case there is any doubt he said these things.
None of this is much of a surprise, you could see from the various conspiracy theories Waters was peddling in the thread above that he was well on the way down the rabbit hole well before 7 October.
It’s also worth taking a moment to catch up on the historic accusations made against Waters by former colleagues just a few weeks ago. A documentary published in September by the Campaign Against Antisemitism featured the following:
* Norbert Stachel, Waters’ former saxophonist, detailing several occasions on which he heard Waters made anti-semitic remarks, including stating at a restaurant “take away all the Jew food” and mocking Stachel’s grandmother, who had died in the holocaust.
* Former producer Bob Ezrin detailing a song Waters made up about his then manager, Bryan Morrison: “I can’t remember the exact circumstance, but something like you know … the last line of the couplet was ‘cos Morry is a fucking Jew”.
* Emails from Waters dated to 2010 in which he suggested scrawling the word “Kike” across his giant inflatable pig and “bombing” audiences with confetti in the shape of swastikas, stars of David, dollar signs and other symbols.
Waters’ response to the documentary can be found here: https://rogerwaters.com/roger-waters-answers-the-campaign-against-antisemitism/
It includes the usual “all my life I’ve opposed racism” statements, references to his father fighting fascism, suggestions that he’s being slurred for opposing Israel and so on. Of the actual substance of the above accusations, he says the following:
“Truth is, I’m frequently mouthy and prone to irreverence, I can’t recall what I said 13 or more years ago. I’ve worked closely for many years with many Jewish people, musicians and others. If I have upset the two individuals who appear in the film I’m sorry for that. But I can say with certainty that I am not, and have never been, an antisemite – as anyone who really knows me will testify.”
I have no idea who the Campaign Against Antisemitism are, or whether they’re impartial. But these are clear accusations of antisemitism from people who knew and worked with Waters and his response is neither a denial or an apology.
The man is abject – he should get in the bin and stay there.
I’ll refrain from asking any questions for fear of provoking moral outrage, but I will add: when David Gilmour’s wife, the very talented and beautiful Polly Samson, accused him of being “antisemitic to your rotten core, a Putin apologist and a lying, thieving, hypocritical, tax-avoiding, lip-synching, misogynistic, sick-with-envy, megalomaniac” he responded by telling an entire stadium in the UK “imagine waking up with that”. An unbelievably childish and sickeningly misogynistic response in stark contrast to all his “my brothers and sisters” bullshit. He’s a thoroughly odious man.
Still one of the best lyricists ever though.
As ever with these things it’s important to recognize that we can condemn the artist and still enjoy the art.
Any other approach leads us to places we really should not go, and there are musicians I (and I’m sure others) listen to who have done far worse than peddle idiot conspiracy theories to their fanbases.
Those individuals can get in the bin too. Their art can remain.