Donate Us

Help us keep this free site alive with a small contribution from you. Select an amount below.

Friday, October 7, 2016

From Pink Floyd's Facebook page:

Roger Waters, realizing that his anti-Israel statements hardly register in the world media any more, guessed that announcing a Pink Floyd "reunion" to bash Israel would get some serious publicity.

This happened 24 hours ago, and it was barely noticed. (The Guardian just picked up on it, though - after the non-event.) Roger Waters' attempt to gain headlines was an utter failure, and the band has now been tarnished by being associated with his own hate.

The hundreds of comments to the post are generally quite negative.

Daniel Prosko why won't you reunite and stand with people of Syria or Yazidi people, who massacred by IS?
Michael Kornau I knew Waters was an idiot, but i´m disappointed to hear that about Gilmour and Mason.
Mari Marti I love u until you begin to act like you're a political movement. Yeah, you're not that. Please, do not begin to write down like that or i'll stop following this page...
Jian Rong Ooi You must be new to PF. Pigs from 1977 and The Final Cut album in 1981 were political and anti-Thatcher, yet you choose their pro-Gaza stance in 2016 to say "I dont wanna know about their political opinions". Youre 40 years too late.
Hannah Ver What do you think would happen, if they demonstrate in Gaza for the rights of muslim women? Hamas would hang them on a crane! Free Gaza from Hamas!!
Cal Bradley What????
Israel was established 3500 years's the Muslim horde that is the occupiers..
Get your flippen history straight!
LikeReply26714 hrsEdited
Richard Evans Pink Floyd stick to your music. You seem to have little idea of the issues relating to the Israel-Palestine problems.Self publicity I think ! I thought David Gilmour and Nick Mason were above this.It doesn't suprise me that the idiot Roger Waters wants to be controversial just for the sake of it.Perhaps you would all be better off channelling your 'efforts' to addressiing the situation in Syria !
LikeReply22623 hrs
Matan Emmanuel Asher this is a disgrace. basically it means that Pink Floyd supports Hamas.
Shame on you David Gilmour who joins antisemitic acts by Roger Waters
LikeReply17919 hrs

What about the band's point that Israel illegally arrested the women?

The answer is that the band knows as little about international law as one would expect an irrelevant group of  aging rockers to know.

And the UN agrees, as described in the Palmer Report:

73. The Panel now turns to consider whether the other components of a lawful blockade under international law are met. Traditionally, naval blockades have most commonly been imposed in situations where there is an international armed conflict. While it is uncontested that there has been protracted violence taking the form of armed conflict between Israel and armed groups in Hamas-controlled Gaza, the characterization of this conflict as international is disputed. The conclusion of the Panel in this regard rests upon the facts as they exist on the ground. The specific circumstances of Gaza are unique and are not replicated anywhere in the world. Nor are they likely to be. Gaza and Israel are both distinct territorial and political areas. Hamas is the de facto political and administrative authority in Gaza and to a large extent has control over events on the ground there. It is Hamas that is firing the projectiles in Israel or is permitting others to do so. The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade. This takes foremost into account Israel’s right to self-defence against armed attacks from outside territory. In this context, the debate on Gaza’s status, in particular its relationship to Israel, should not obscure the realities. The law does not operate in a political vacuum and it is implausible to deny that the nature of the armed violence between Israel and Hamas goes beyond purely domestic matters. In fact, it has all the trappings of an international armed conflict. ...
74. Israel was entitled to take reasonable steps to prevent the influx of weapons into Gaza. With that objective, Israel established a series of restrictions on vessels entering the waters of Gaza. These measures culminated in the declaration of the naval blockade on 3 January 2009. There were a number of reasons why the previous restrictions were inadequate, primary among them being the need for the measures to be legally watertight.
75. As required, the naval blockade was declared and notified. The Israeli authorities issued a “Notice to Mariners” through the appropriate channels, setting out the imposition of the blockade and the coordinates of the blockaded area. In addition, the notice was broadcast twice a day on an emergency radio channel for maritime communications. There is no contest about this. The suggestion that because the blockade was stated to be imposed “until further notice” means that the notification’s content is insufficient and the blockade thus invalid does not seem to us to be persuasive. The notice does specify a duration. Given the uncertainties of a continuing conflict, nothing more was required. Likewise, a limitation to certain groups of prohibited items in the blockade’s notification was not necessary. It lies in the nature of a blockade that it affects all maritime traffic, given that its aim is to prevent any access to and from a blockaded area. 
76. There is nothing before the Panel that would suggest that Israel did not maintain an effective and impartial blockade. Ever since its imposition on 3 January 2009, Israeli authorities have stopped any vessel attempting to enter the blockaded area. At the same time, there is no suggestion that Israel has hindered free access to the coasts and ports of other countries neutral to the conflict.  
Israel has no choice under international law but to intercept every boat en route to Gaza or else the naval blockade loses its effectiveness from a legal perspective.

This gimmick didn't add any positive publicity to the pro-Hamas groups that are trying to destroy Israel, and it hurt Pink Floyd's reputation immeasurably.

Great move, Roger!

(h/t Slava)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.


Post a Comment

EoZTV Podcast

Powered by Blogger.

follow me

search eoz

Recent posts from other blogs

subscribe via email





source materials

reference sites


source materials for Jewish learning

great places to give money

media watch



Source materials

Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts Ever

follow me



Random Posts

Pages - Menu

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون




Monthly subscription:
Subscription options

One time donation:

Interesting Blogs

Best posts of 2016

Blog Archive


Algemeiner: "Fiercely intelligent and erudite"

Omri: "Elder is one of the best established and most respected members of the jblogosphere..."
Atheist Jew:"Elder of Ziyon probably had the greatest impression on me..."
Soccer Dad: "He undertakes the important task of making sure that his readers learn from history."
AbbaGav: "A truly exceptional blog..."
Judeopundit: "[A] venerable blog-pioneer and beloved patriarchal figure...his blog is indispensable."
Oleh Musings: "The most comprehensive Zionist blog I have seen."
Carl in Jerusalem: "...probably the most under-recognized blog in the JBlogsphere as far as I am concerned."
Aussie Dave: "King of the auto-translation."
The Israel Situation:The Elder manages to write so many great, investigative posts that I am often looking to him for important news on the PalArab (his term for Palestinian Arab) side of things."
Tikun Olam: "Either you are carelessly ignorant or a willful liar and distorter of the truth. Either way, it makes you one mean SOB."
Mondoweiss commenter: "For virulent pro-Zionism (and plain straightforward lies of course) there is nothing much to beat it."
Didi Remez: "Leading wingnut"