Jerusalem Post/Ben Red Completely Off Base In Criticism of Eddie and Pearl Jam

Spags

Boom conflict? Don't drag him into this too...

Markiemark70

I haven't read all 6 pages of comments, but is it possible he was talking about the Ukraine/Russia conflict? Or Both? Conflict over land in general?

I think people are reading a lot into a few words from a rock star.

CROJAM95

Spags said:

Boom conflict? Don't drag him into this too...

haha I had a feeling i'd get that response

Boom would give the region some of his secret stash and calm everyone the fuck down

Spags

Time to break out Boom's stash.

JimmyV

Pro HAMAS now? #-o

JimmyV

bootlegger10 said:

Five pages and the debates are all respectful. Nice job everyone!

Ah, the good old days...

Drowned Out

JimmyV said:

Drowned Out said:

I disagree….as I mentioned, the Palestinian solidarity camp also thinks this was about Israel. So unless he wants to clarify his words by saying he did NOT mean to single out Israel, this is how it will be viewed by everyone who is personally invested in the ‘conflict’ (read: occupation). On the contrary, the only people I’ve seen who DO view this as simply an anti-war rant, are the people who don’t want him to pick a side because they don’t want to either, and a few Israelis who are in denial about the whole thing.
I personally hope he is willing to speak further on it, but I think he will keep his mouth shut and hope this dies out. We can see the shit storm it caused to say anything that could even possibly be interpreted as criticizing Israel ….if he decides to clarify and make it clear that that is what he meant, his life will be turned inside out. He may even be in danger, after reading the jpost facebook comments. I hope reading these comments was an eye opener who those who view the conflict as being peace loving Israeli’s vs extremist arabs – plenty of hate to go around on both sides. When it comes to celebs, it takes a special kind of person to speak out against Israeli aggression.

I don't really care what "side" he picks, and I do view it as an anti-war rant. Picking sides is an overly simplistic way of looking at a complex issue. I'm against the occupation and Israel's current tactics, but I am also against the kidnap and murder of children. I'm against Israeli airstrikes, but I am also against Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks. So what "side" does that put me on?

I agree that it is a simplistic approach, I just wasn’t sure how to otherwise word my statement. Still, look at what you’re saying here:

You’re equating Israeli airstrikes and ‘current tactics’ to Palestinian rocket attacks. They are so far from equal. There have been 29 deaths from rockets from Gaza in TEN YEARS. Zero in this one. In contrast – in the same time period, on average, Israel has killed one CHILD every THREE DAYS – 6000 CHILDREN since the second intifada. This doesn’t include adults and/or militants.

You’re equating a military occupation to the kidnapping of three teens. I want to expand on that a bit. Hamas has denied any involvement in that incident. Terrorist groups usually confess to their atrocities, no? Israel has provided no proof that Hamas was involved. The Times of Israel is reporting that a new jihadist group, with ties to ISIL (a group fighting in Syria, who has been aided at times by Israel), HAS confessed to the killings. So it is hardly clear that it was Hamas that perpetrated this crime. Even if it was, it is no excuse to collectively punish the entire population of Gaza by bombing civilian areas. Next, the propaganda tells us that Hamas is using their people as human shields – another claim with zero proof that was echoed during Cast Lead, investigated by human rights orgs, and found to be the opposite in truth (Israel was using Palestinians as shields). To pile on – the kidnapping of the teens happened after two Palestinian teens were shot dead, ON CAMERA, by IDF snipers (no lack of proof here), just a week or two before the kidnappings. The soldier responsible was given a suspension for firing without permission.
So….with the lack of proof in the kidnapping case, and overwhelming proof in the shootings, how can we call the kidnappings the starting point of this conflict, or in any way comparable to the occupation?
So now. Airstrikes killing thousands, from the fourth most powerful military in the world, vs largely symbolic rocket attacks. Military occupation vs three untried murders. If you honestly think that by being equally against all of these things, you are not taking sides…. think again. Thinking these things are equally wrong is what is allowing the status quo to continue. The status quo overwhelmingly favours Israel. So like it or not, you’ve found yourself a side. One side is the oppressor, the other oppressed. It is plain as day.

JimmyV said:

If he wanted to single Israel out, he would have. He didn't, and there is nothing in what he did say to indicate he was speaking solely or even specifically about Israel.

Don't be so sure. Like I said, look at this shit storm, without even calling anyone by name. If he had, it would be international headlines.

CM189191

benjs said:

bootlegger10 said:

Five pages and the debates are all respectful. Nice job everyone!

Agreed There seems to be a critical shift from anti- this or that, to a pro-peace mentality.

Let's hope the conversation on both sides moves from finger-pointing and blame-game to actually finding a resolution.

The status quo isn't working, and it hasn't for a long time. Let's stop treating the symptoms, and focus on the curing the disease.

Spags

JimmyV said:

Pro HAMAS now? #-o

Hamas? Ed thought they said 'hummus' and signed up!

dimitrispearljam

Spags said:

JimmyV said:

Pro HAMAS now? #-o

Hamas? Ed thought they said 'hummus' and signed up!

Spags,seriously dude,your posts are epic!!!!!!

nicknyr15

This is sad. Eds been making comments like this fir over 2 decades. Get over it. Enjoy the music. Isn't that what's most important? The music? Whether I agree with him or not is irelevant and would never affect my opinion of him.

JimmyV

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

Drowned Out said:

I disagree….as I mentioned, the Palestinian solidarity camp also thinks this was about Israel. So unless he wants to clarify his words by saying he did NOT mean to single out Israel, this is how it will be viewed by everyone who is personally invested in the ‘conflict’ (read: occupation). On the contrary, the only people I’ve seen who DO view this as simply an anti-war rant, are the people who don’t want him to pick a side because they don’t want to either, and a few Israelis who are in denial about the whole thing.
I personally hope he is willing to speak further on it, but I think he will keep his mouth shut and hope this dies out. We can see the shit storm it caused to say anything that could even possibly be interpreted as criticizing Israel ….if he decides to clarify and make it clear that that is what he meant, his life will be turned inside out. He may even be in danger, after reading the jpost facebook comments. I hope reading these comments was an eye opener who those who view the conflict as being peace loving Israeli’s vs extremist arabs – plenty of hate to go around on both sides. When it comes to celebs, it takes a special kind of person to speak out against Israeli aggression.

I don't really care what "side" he picks, and I do view it as an anti-war rant. Picking sides is an overly simplistic way of looking at a complex issue. I'm against the occupation and Israel's current tactics, but I am also against the kidnap and murder of children. I'm against Israeli airstrikes, but I am also against Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks. So what "side" does that put me on?

I agree that it is a simplistic approach, I just wasn’t sure how to otherwise word my statement. Still, look at what you’re saying here:

You’re equating Israeli airstrikes and ‘current tactics’ to Palestinian rocket attacks. They are so far from equal. There have been 29 deaths from rockets from Gaza in TEN YEARS. Zero in this one. In contrast – in the same time period, on average, Israel has killed one CHILD every THREE DAYS – 6000 CHILDREN since the second intifada. This doesn’t include adults and/or militants.

You’re equating a military occupation to the kidnapping of three teens. I want to expand on that a bit. Hamas has denied any involvement in that incident. Terrorist groups usually confess to their atrocities, no? Israel has provided no proof that Hamas was involved. The Times of Israel is reporting that a new jihadist group, with ties to ISIL (a group fighting in Syria, who has been aided at times by Israel), HAS confessed to the killings. So it is hardly clear that it was Hamas that perpetrated this crime. Even if it was, it is no excuse to collectively punish the entire population of Gaza by bombing civilian areas. Next, the propaganda tells us that Hamas is using their people as human shields – another claim with zero proof that was echoed during Cast Lead, investigated by human rights orgs, and found to be the opposite in truth (Israel was using Palestinians as shields). To pile on – the kidnapping of the teens happened after two Palestinian teens were shot dead, ON CAMERA, by IDF snipers (no lack of proof here), just a week or two before the kidnappings. The soldier responsible was given a suspension for firing without permission.
So….with the lack of proof in the kidnapping case, and overwhelming proof in the shootings, how can we call the kidnappings the starting point of this conflict, or in any way comparable to the occupation?
So now. Airstrikes killing thousands, from the fourth most powerful military in the world, vs largely symbolic rocket attacks. Military occupation vs three untried murders. If you honestly think that by being equally against all of these things, you are not taking sides…. think again. Thinking these things are equally wrong is what is allowing the status quo to continue. The status quo overwhelmingly favours Israel. So like it or not, you’ve found yourself a side. One side is the oppressor, the other oppressed. It is plain as day.

JimmyV said:

If he wanted to single Israel out, he would have. He didn't, and there is nothing in what he did say to indicate he was speaking solely or even specifically about Israel.

Don't be so sure. Like I said, look at this shit storm, without even calling anyone by name. If he had, it would be international headlines.

I wasn't equating anything, I was illustrating how overly simplistic the "picking sides" comment was. You acknowledge that it was but then return to it at the end of your post. So, again, my views are deeper than just a question of which "side" am I on. If you need to think in those terms, have at it, but understand that others may disagree.

I was at the Hartford show last year. That was the last time Eddie went on a rant that stirred up controversy and press attention. He could not have been more clear who and what he was talking about that night. This time, despite being incredibly passionate about the issue, he named no one, not a single nation, organization or group. I would argue that he had less control this time around than last, because in Hartford he was soft spoken and collected. This time he was anything but...and he STILL did not name Israel. All the anger, all the vitriol, all the "fucks"...and not a single country named. You can read those words and hear Israel if you wish, but the evidence does not back that conclusion up. Not solely or specifically.

Hope the thread didn't get locked while I was typing this...

Faithful_1

I think Eddie has been making comments like this for two decades I believe he was broadly speaking generally, but there's an obvious subtext to what he's saying. Good for him. It had to be said and I'm glad he said it.

FYI, for those getting on their high horse: being critical of aggressive zionism does not make you anti-Semitic.

Get over it, support peace and love the music.

Drowned Out

JimmyV said:

I wasn't equating anything,

If you say so. They were concurrent examples of attrocities, from both sides, and used as examples of why both sides are wrong, and to frame a question (which side am I on), to which the response you were likely hoping to elicit was "you're not on either side". I happen to think your examples are just more proof of who needs our help and who needs our criticism.

JimmyV said:

I was at the Hartford show last year. That was the last time Eddie went on a rant that stirred up controversy and press attention. He could not have been more clear who and what he was talking about that night. This time, despite being incredibly passionate about the issue, he named no one, not a single nation, organization or group. I would argue that he had less control this time around than last, because in Hartford he was soft spoken and collected. This time he was anything but...and he STILL did not name Israel. All the anger, all the vitriol, all the "fucks"...and not a single country named. You can read those words and hear Israel if you wish, but the evidence does not back that conclusion up. Not solely or specifically.

Hope the thread didn't get locked while I was typing this...

I have a feeling Ed doesn't associate with, or play for, many NRA types, so pissing them off didn't matter to him in the least. I'd speculate that he has a lot of zionist, jewish friends and fans for whom he tried to maintain some diplomacy while getting his point across.

JimmyV

I can't speak to his associates, but have you ever read through a gun thread on AMT? He plays for more NRA types than you would think.

Faithful_1

I have a feeling Ed doesn't associate with, or play for, many NRA types, so pissing them off didn't matter to him in the least. I'd speculate that he has a lot of zionist, jewish friends and fans for whom he tried to maintain some diplomacy while getting his point across.

This is how I read it....that's why I think it was a subtext rather than being overtly critical.

Drowned Out

Ya, I don't know...at this point I can only put words in his mouth and I don't want to do that.
And no...I steer clear of the gun control threads lol...it's mainly a domestic issue for a country in which I don't reside.

lolobugg

BinFrog said:

The only people calling out Eddie's speech as being anti-Israel are...Jews and people from Israel who are just so freaking uptight about anyone having anything to say about the situation that doesn't paint them in a favorable light.

(My last name is Horwitz, so take that for what it is worth).

Here is what he said, let's break it down, shall we?

"“What the fuck? We have this many people having a peaceful time, we can have modern technology, we can reach our friends, they know what we’re thinking it. The advertisers know what we’re thinking before we’re thinking it. We have technology, all of this in our hand. But at the same time as something this positive is happening, at the same fucking time, not even that far away, dropping bombs on each other. What the fucking fuck? And I get if war is the last resort, you don’t want to be in that situation. But I swear to fucking God, there are some people out there looking for a reason to kill. They’re looking for a reason to go across borders and take over land that doesn't belong to them. They should get the fuck out, and mind their own fucking business!

He added, “Eat, procreate, draw a painting, make some art, listen to music, fuck some more, have another baby, eat, work, eat, work, love, love, love. Everyone’s the fucking same, so why are people at war? Stop the fucking shit now! Now! Now! We don’t want to give them our money! They don’t get our taxes to drop bombs on children! No! No more!”"

Ok. We live in a time where so much is possible and there is so much to be amazed with. Then we have to deal with: Israel and the Palestinians, Russia invading the Ukraine, North Korea waving their missile dicks, the US butting in where they are not wanted/needed. And on and on. He is as much talking about Israel as he is talking about his OWN FUCKING COUNTRY. So all you blowhards who love ripping those "liberal" artists who speak up "against" Israel, get over yourselves. Israel is about as far from perfect as the US is, and we're in bed with each other. Ed is anti war, anti needless killing, anti living in fear.

Live and let live, and yet people can't figure this out. "They don't get our taxes to drop bombs on children". Ed can be saying that to numerous militaries and governments. Oh but god forbid it can be said about Israel (which is killing children the same way Palestinians are, lets not overlook that fact). Hey, pro-Israeli folks (I can be in that camp sometimes) - GET OVER YOURSELVES. You are not special and neither is your country. Israel is as much a victim as it is a perpetrator. Neither side is "right". So stop with the whole "I'm going to boycott every artist who says anything at all that paints Israel in a less-than-flattering light". Guess what? The world is sick of the shit going down in the middle east...not just "liberal artists". Grow up and join the real world.

=D> Bravo, man.
I can't believe that people still don't know Ed's politics... why are people so shocked that he is anti-war. If people are that asleep then it's no wonder that their governments have them under control.

and one thing I can almost guarantee... after reading some of those posts on the newspaper site,
Pearl Jam will NEVER play Israel. sorry, the extremists fucked it up for everyone again.

Just ask Long Island and Denver and hell.... most of us in the Red South.

RiotZact

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

I wasn't equating anything,

If you say so. They were concurrent examples of attrocities, from both sides, and used as examples of why both sides are wrong, and to frame a question (which side am I on), to which the response you were likely hoping to elicit was "you're not on either side". I happen to think your examples are just more proof of who needs our help and who needs our criticism.

JimmyV said:

I was at the Hartford show last year. That was the last time Eddie went on a rant that stirred up controversy and press attention. He could not have been more clear who and what he was talking about that night. This time, despite being incredibly passionate about the issue, he named no one, not a single nation, organization or group. I would argue that he had less control this time around than last, because in Hartford he was soft spoken and collected. This time he was anything but...and he STILL did not name Israel. All the anger, all the vitriol, all the "fucks"...and not a single country named. You can read those words and hear Israel if you wish, but the evidence does not back that conclusion up. Not solely or specifically.

Hope the thread didn't get locked while I was typing this...

I have a feeling Ed doesn't associate with, or play for, many NRA types, so pissing them off didn't matter to him in the least. I'd speculate that he has a lot of zionist, jewish friends and fans for whom he tried to maintain some diplomacy while getting his point across.

I've only been to pearl jam concerts with 3 people. My dad, my uncle and my cousin. All 3 of them are HUGE gun advocates that would defend their right to own a gun to the death. And with that being said they all are set to see pearl jam again and can't wait to do so.

And for the record I'm mostly anti-gun.

JimmyV

Go watch the VH1 Storytellers episode that they were featured on back in 2006. I couldn't find the particular clip (it starts around the 36 minute mark below) but Eddie was asked point-blank how he responds to fans who do not share his political views. His response?

"Fuck 'em". (Followed by some "do your own thinking type lip service.)

http://youtu.be/GDj3bmnO-g0

This isn't a guy who is going to edit what he said in hopes of not offending people. I continue to believe he said exactly what he intended to. If Israel fits that bill, that is Israel's problem. As others have said, there are instances where the US fits that bill, too. It needs to be said and no one should be offended by it.