Over a week ago, I spoke out against those who were using Roger Water’s donning a uniform resembling SS garb as proof of his very real Jew hatred. As I wrote at the time:
Clearly, when Waters wears the Nazi-like costume, he is not approving, glorifying or justifying the violent and arbitrary rule of the Nazi regime. He is very outspoken against it.
Waters has already latched on to the intention to prosecute him over this, characterizing it as part of “bad faith attacks from those who want to smear and silence” him over his politics.
—
It is no secret that I believe Roger Waters to be a Jew-hater, as I have explained on here countless times. In fact, a few days ago, I was one of those to show the antisemitism in his Berlin concerts, which included comparing our supposed treatment of palestinian Arabs with the Nazi treatment of Jews (as manifest by his comparison of Shireen Abu Akleh with Anne Frank), and employment of antisemitic “dog whistles.” I did not mention the Nazi uniform because it is clearly meant as parody.
When Waters refers to “bad faith attacks”, he is no doubt lumping in these valid criticisms. So when German police announced their intention to prosecute him over a clear parody, it plays in to his hands in suggesting he is being silenced just because of his politics, and not over his real antisemitism.
Thus I fully support German police investigating him over the actual incitement against Jews, namely the Holocaust comparisons and antisemitic “dog whistles,” and not over something ridiculous like his costume, which is clearly not meant to incite but rather mock fascism.
—
In pointing out Jew hatred, whether from Waters or anyone else, we need to be more precise. While our emotions can understandably run high, it is important we take some deep breaths and zero in on relevant, accurate things. We cannot let these haters off the hook because we got sloppy.
Sure enough, we saw an example of this being used by an Israel-hater during yesterday’s State Department Press Briefing:
QUESTION: Blinken in his speech today before AIPAC, among other things, positively cited Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, ambassador on anti-Semitism. She recently tweeted, “I wholeheartedly concur with [European group] condemnation of Roger Waters and his despicable Holocaust distortion.” The European group had tweeted, “Roger Waters gig in Berlin. Is there anything more antisemitic than using Anne Frank as a prop on a German stage while prancing around in a Nazi uniform attacking Jews?”
This is an incredible distortion of what happened. I don’t know if you’re familiar with The Wall, which is possibly the most classic rock opera in rock and roll history. So unrelenting denunciation of fascism and racism, one of the songs in it features him as mocking a demagogue like Charlie Chaplin did, and talking to the crowd and saying, “Are there any queers, are there any Jews, are there any blacks in the audience tonight? Get them up against the wall.” And then he gets a machine gun and mows them down.
It’s an obvious attack on fascism, and yet your ambassador is denouncing it and pretending that Roger Waters, presumably because he defends Palestinian rights as well as other people’s rights, is an example of anti-Semitism. Are you going to distance yourself from this, or are you going to back down on this?
MR PATEL: I’ve not seen – I’ve not seen that tweet, nor am I familiar with this piece of expression, so I am just going to refrain —
QUESTION: You’re not on Twitter at all?
MR PATEL: I’m going to refrain from offering anything else.
QUESTION: Wait, wait. Seriously, you’re not familiar with The Wall?
MR PATEL: I – surprise, Matt.
QUESTION: You’re not familiar with Pink Floyd?
MR PATEL: I know who Pink Floyd is, thank you. I know who Roger Waters is also. I am just not familiar with – with this.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, he caused a little bit – it caused a bit of a stir a week and a half ago, two weeks ago. So it would be interesting to see, in particular since the – an administration official saw fit to comment on it, what you guys – what you guys think from here.
MR PATEL: I’m happy to check for you, Matt, but I have —
QUESTION: Okay.
MR PATEL: — not seem the ambassador’s tweet, so will refrain from weighing in further.
QUESTION: This is her portfolio. It’s not like one ambassador is talking about a subject that’s not in their portfolio. She is beyond parity distorting anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. He used Anne Frank’s name as a list of people, of martyrs, who he reveres. It’s an incredible distortion. I think it’s imperative if the State Department isn’t going to wholeheartedly dispense with any pretense about anti-Semitism being an actual problem and only use it as a way of denouncing people who stand up for Palestinian rights, you’ve got to do something.
MR PATEL: That is absolutely – that is absolutely not —
QUESTION: Well, the proof is in the pudding. I want a response to this, please.
MR PATEL: That is absolutely not our approach to that.
QUESTION: Well, prove it.
QUESTION: I mean look, it is a situation where we’re talking about a British musician giving a concert in Germany. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the U.S., but the fact of the matter is, is that she did weigh in on it. So it’s a legitimate question.
Note how after the Israel-hating journalist makes the point about the costume, he goes on to claim Deborah Lipstadt is “distorting anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel.” Of course, she isn’t – and the problem with displaying Anne Frank’s name is because it was juxtaposed with that of Shireen Abu Akleh, who Waters claims was killed (by Israel) for “being Palestinian” like Anne Frank was killed for “being Jewish” in a gross case of Holocaust distortion, which is antisemitic.
This is a “bait-and-switch”* by the journalist who starts with the valid point about the costume, before misrepresenting the objection to the Anne Frank reference. To those not paying close attention, he might even sound reasonable.
This underlines the importance of us being accurate when accusing the likes of Waters with antisemitism. We simply cannot afford to let people like him off the hook by being sloppy.
Hat tip: Yisrael
*I refer to it as a “bait-and-switch” because he can hook you in with the first valid point before sneakily injecting a disingenuous one by the time you are already convinced he is making sense
