Roger Waters (ex Pink Floyd) definitely has some strong views on stuff, no problem with that and clearly a lot of the issues around Israel/Gazza and also Russia/Ukraine have many facets and can be argued many ways depending on your perspective. But, I really have a problem with his denial of rape and murder on the 7th October by Hamas and also the history denial i.e. that the relevant history of the region only began in 1948 (which it clearly didn't) It's almost like he never bothered to watch the Hamas go-pro video streams from that day, something I would have thought anyone who intended on going public with his views on the subject would do first?
I'm inclined to suspect that supporters of (legitimate or otherwise) Palestinian violence against Israel like him have a problem at the core of their position, they seem to want to avoid the key question of culpability of Palestinians in acts of violence and genocide against Jews. They only see things from the perspective of "oppressors and oppressed" (clearly he believes that Israel is the oppressor) this is a very binary way of looking at things, I believe it's more complicated than that. In my experience people with such views want (understandably) to blur the line between terrorist and "Palestinian freedom fighter", often by cherry picking the facts, and the history, is this the trap he's falling into?
I think many people avoid this culpability question because they're worried about the conclusion it might yield. What they'd be forced to confront is the eternal dilemma of history, i.e. "are we the good guys?", the risk that they may not reach the conclusion they desire is avoided by simply ignoring it. It seems obvious to me that viewed from the arc of the entirety of the history of Human civilisation that this is yet another war over yet another set of finite resources by peoples of different faith positions (which never helps), it's not unique, it's not even unusual, it's mind crushingly predictable and ultimately very sad for everyone.
Waters has said that he favours a one-state solution, he seems to suggest that the Jews should "go back to where they came from" (i.e. USA, Eastern Europe etc.) I hope that this is an emotional response, I can't believe that someone with such an obviously keen intellect as him can't see the many problems that this would cause, if we started to re-shuffle the millions of movements of humans over history where would it end? Make Spain Islamic again, move everyone of European descent in the USA back to Europe, perhaps bring the Romans back to London? (then again, what did they ever do for us)
No comments:
Post a Comment