Roger Waters Lies About Golda Meir Before Calling Her a “Lying Piece of Sh*t”
From the now infamous online discussion to support Israel-hating students at Canada’s McGill University, comes this further example of Roger Waters making stuff up in order to bash Israel and the Jewish people.
In the Spring 2008 edition of Middle East Quarterly, Diana Muir examined the use of the phrase “A land without a people for a people without a land.”
“A land without a people for a people without a land” is one of the most oft-cited phrases in the literature of Zionism—and perhaps also the most problematic. Anti-Zionists cite the phrase as a perfect encapsulation of the fundamental injustice of Zionism: that early Zionists believed Palestine was uninhabited, that they denied—and continue to reject—the existence of a distinct Palestinian culture, and even as evidence that Zionists always planned on an ethnic cleansing of the Arab population. Such assertions are without basis in fact: They both deny awareness on the part of early Zionists of the presence of Arabs in Palestine and exaggerate the coalescence of a Palestinian national identity, which in reality only developed in reaction to Zionist immigration. Nor is it true, as many anti-Zionists still assert, that early Zionists widely employed the phrase.
Many commentators, such as the late Arab literary theorist Edward Said, erroneously attribute the first use of the phrase to Israel Zangwill, a British author, playwright, and poet. In fact, the phrase was coined and propagated by nineteenth-century Christian writers.
Despite the claims of Husseini, Said, and Khalidi, it is not evident that this was ever the slogan of any Zionist organization or that it was employed by any of the movement’s leading figures. A mere handful of the outpouring of pre-state Zionist articles and books use it. For a phrase that is so widely ascribed to Zionist leaders, it is remarkably hard to find in the historical record.
So why is Waters attributing the phrase to Golda Meir? The simple answer is he is a shameless liar, but I think in this case, it is also sheer ignorance. He is probably getting confused with this:
Frank Giles: Do you think the emergence of the Palestinian fighting forces, the Fedayeen, is an important new factor in the Middle East?
Golda Meir: Important, no. A new factor, yes. There was no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country from them. They did not exist.
I covered this late last year:
In my previous post, the Daily Mail repeated something about former Israeli PM Golda Meir, which we hear a lot from Israel-haters and the media: that she once said “There were no such thing as Palestinians.”
But did she?
The best way to answer this is to draw attention to Golda’s own response to this, which she penned in an op-ed in the New York Times on January 14, 1976.
Israel and the Palestinians
By GOLDA MEIR
To be misquoted is an occupational hazard of political leadership ; for this reason I should like to clarify my position in regard to the Palestinian issue. I have been charged with being rigidly insensitive to the question of the Palestinian Arabs. In evidence of this I am supposed to have said, “There are no Palestinians.” My actual words were: “There is no Palestine people. There are Palestinian refugees.” The distinction is not semantic. My statement was based on a lifetime of debates with Arab nationalists who vehemently excluded a separatist Palestinian Arab nationalism from their formulations.
When in 1921 I came to Palestine — until the end of World War I a barren , sparsely inhabited Turkish province — we , the Jewish pioneers, were the avowed Palestinians. So we were named in the world. Arab nationalists , on the other hand , stridently rejected the designation. Arab spokesmen continued to insist that the land we had cherished for centuries was , like Lebanon , merely a fragment of Syria. On the grounds that it dismembered an ideal unitary Arab state, they fought before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry and at the United Nations.
When the Arab historian Philip K . Hitti informed the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that there is no such thing as Palestine in history, it was left to David Ben-Gurion to stress the central role of Palestine in Jewish, if not Arab, history.
As late as May 1956, Ahmed Shukairy, subsequently head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, declared to the United Nations Security Council, “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.” In view of this, I believe I may be forgiven if I took Arab spokesmen at their word.
Until the 1960 s attention was focused on the Arab refugees for whose plight the Arab states would allow no solution, though many constructive and far-reaching proposals were made by Israel and the world community.
I repeatedly expressed my sympathy for the needless sufferings of refugees whose abnormal situation was created and exploited by the Arab states as a tactic in their campaign against Israel. However, refugee status could not indefinitely be maintained for the original 550,000 Arabs who in 1948 joined the exodus from the battle areas during the Arab attack on the new state of Israel.
When the refugee card began to wear thin, the Palestinian terrorist appeared on the scene, flourishing not the arguable claims of displaced refugees but a ghoulish nationalism that could only be stated on the corpse of Israel.
I repeat again. We dispossessed no Arabs. Our toil in the deserts and marshes of Palestine created more habitable living space for both Arab and Jew. Until 1948 the Arabs of Palestine multiplied and flourished as the direct result of Zionist settlement. Whatever subsequent ills befell the Arabs were the inevitable result of the Arab design to drive us into the sea. Had Israel not repelled her would-be destroyers there would have been no Jewish refugees alive in the Middle East to concern the world.
Now, two years after the surprise attack of the Yom Kippur War, I am well aware of the potency of Arab petro billions and I have no illusions about the moral fiber of a United Nations, most of whose members hailed gun-toting Yasir Arafat and shamefully passed the anti-Semitic resolution that described Zionism , the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, as racist.
But though Israel is small and beset, I am not prepared to accede to the easy formula that in the Arab-Israeli conflict we witness two equal contending rights that demand further flexibility from Israel. Justice was not violated when, in the huge territories liberated by the Allies from the Sultan, I percent was set aside for the Jewish homeland on its ancestral site, while in a parallel settlement 99 percent of the area was allotted for the establishment of independent Arab states.
We successively accepted the truncation of Transjordan, three-fourths of the area of historic Palestine , and finally the painful compromise of the 1947 Partition Resolution in the hope for peace. Yet, though Israel arose in only one-fifth of the territory originally assigned for the Jewish homeland, the Arabs invaded the young state.
I ask again, as I have often asked, why did the Arabs not set up a Palestine state in their portion instead of cannibalizing the country by Jordan’s seizure of the West Bank and Egypt’s capture of the Gaza Strip? And, since the question of the 1967 borders looms heavily in the present discussions, why did the Arabs converge upon us in June 1967, when the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Sinai, the Gaza Strip and old Jerusalem were in their hands?
These are not idle questions. They go to the heart of the matter – the Arab denial of Israel’s right to exist. This right is not subject to debate. That is why Israel cannot by its presence sanction the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization at the Security Council, a participation in direct violation of Resolutions 242 and 338.
We have no common language with exultant murderers of the innocent and with a terrorist movement ideologically committed to the liquidation of Jewish national independence.
At no point has the PLO renounced its program for the elimination of the Zionist entity. With startling effrontery , PLO spokesmen admit that their proposed state on the West Bank would be merely a convenient point of departure, a tactical first stage and finally, a combatant arsenal strategically situated for the easier penetration of Israel.
I am often asked a hypothetical question : How would we react if the PLO agreed to abandon its weapon, terror , and its goal, the destruction of Israel? The answer is simple. Any movement that foreswore both its means and its end would by that fact become a different organization with a different leadership. There is no room for such speculation in the case of the PLO.
This does not mean that at this stage I disregard whatever national aspirations Palestinian Arabs have developed in recent years. However, these can be satisfied within the boundaries of historic Palestine .
The majority of the refugees never left Palestine; they are settled on the West Bank and in Jordan, the majority of whose population is Palestinian. Whatever nomenclature is used, both the people involved and the territory on which they live are Palestinian.
A mini-Palestine state, planted as a time bomb against Israel on the West Bank, would only serve as a focal point for the further exploitation of regional tensions by the Soviet Union.
But in a genuine peace settlement a viable Palestine-Jordan could flourish side by side with Israel within the original area of Mandatory Palestine.
On July 21, 1974, the Israeli Government passed the following resolution: The peace will be founded on the existence of two independent states only — Israel , with united Jerusalem as its capital , and a Jordanian-Palestinian Arab state, east of Israel, within borders to be determined in negotiations between Israel and Jordan.
All allied problems can be equitably solved. For this to happen the adversaries of Israel will have to stop devising overt schemes for her immediate or piecemeal extinction.
There are 21 Arab states, rich in oil, land and sovereignty. There is only one small state in which Jewish national independence has been dearly achieved. Surely it is not extravagant to demand that in the current power play the right of a small democracy to freedom and life not be betrayed.
In other words, it is Roger Waters who is the lying piece of sh*t. But we knew that already.