Bob Vylan Chants

[xxialac]

2 minutes ago, The_Fish said:

 

He was calling for the death of it's defence forces which has a consequence of millions of dead Jews.

It has no more the consequence of millions of dead Jews as saying Death to the Moon on television might lead to the moon being destroyed.

Bob Vylan's words won't lead to a single additional death of members of an army in a distant land and you know it!

[steviewevie]

Need Bill Clinton back.

[The_Fish]

5 minutes ago, Superscally said:

You know that's not what he was actually calling for. Death to an organisation is not the death of individuals within. Complete and utter bollocks. He has himself said that.

 

 

What do you think happens if Israel has no defence force? What would Hamas do to Israel then? Calling for Israel's defence force to disband has consequences, what do you think those consequences are?

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

Israel has agreed to a series of two state solutions. Got them nowhere. 

I don't think Oslo accords actually gave the Palestinians a state, just gave them more autonomy...and the potential for a future Palestinian state. It was definitely a move in the right direction and is tragic it didn't succeed.

[The_Fish]

5 minutes ago, xxialac said:

It has no more the consequence of millions of dead Jews as saying Death to the Moon on television might lead to the moon being destroyed.

Bob Vylan's words won't lead to a single additional death of members of an army in a distant land and you know it!

 

I don't think it has any impact on the ongoing war or atrocities in Israel or Palestine. 

 

Lots of things don't have any impact on situations though, doesn't mean it's a poor decision to make them. 

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

23 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

That was not a million miles away from what the Oslo accord would have delivered. Arafat was up for it but was pressured by his hardliners (and Iran) to reject.

 

And Netanyahu was against it.

 

So much so he marched with a coffin and a hangman's noose calling for the death of Rabin.

 

He was assassinated shortly afterwards.

Edited July 2, 2025 by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs

[Superscally]

1 minute ago, The_Fish said:

 

What do you think happens if Israel has no defence force? What would Hamas do to Israel then? Calling for Israel's defence force to disband has consequences, what do you think those consequences are?

Last time I checked, Germany's army wasn't the SS.

[The_Fish]

Just now, Superscally said:

Last time I checked, Germany's army wasn't the SS.

 

Dodged the questions as expected with some nonsense instead. 

[Superscally]

Just now, HotChipWillBreakYourLegs said:

 

And Netanyahu was against it.

 

So much so he marched with a coffin and a hangman's noose calling for the death of Rabin.

 

He was assassinated short afterwards.

Hope Netanyahu got kicked off any festivals he was playing at then.

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Superscally said:

You know that's not what he was actually calling for. Death to an organisation is not the death of individuals within. Complete and utter bollocks. He has himself said that.

unfortunate terminology then. I expect he never would have imagined it would be taken out of context like this.

[Blisterpack]

4 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

When? Have you got evidence? 
 

My memory is of Israel disagreeing to any two state solutions 

The Peel commission partitioning which established the state of israel was accepted by Israel and rejected by the Arabs. Since then Rabin (see above) Barak and Olmert have all developed and proposed 2 state models (Barak said,”we will never have a happy

marriage, let’s have a civilized divorce”) but Hamas’ charter which simply refuses to accept the existence of Israel has never allowed any of these to progress. 

[DeanoL]

28 minutes ago, The_Fish said:

 

That's a lot more convulated than came be shouted in chants. Death to the IDF has a consequence of millions of dead Jews in israel. That's why it's a lot more offensive than chanting 'Free Palestine' or 'End the Genocide' etc. 

Sure, it's a lot more complex than is explainable in a chant. But that doesn't mean you just jump right to worst possible interpretation of the chant.

It's the same as me going "down with Farage" and getting a response of "oh, you like Islamic grooming gangs raping girls then do you?" Being against one thing (the IDF) doesn't mean I want Israel to have no ability to defend itself.

 

----

 

Taking a moment. I had a great point to make here. It's the whole "we never said that we'd have to keep the Nazi army so Germany could defend itself point".

 

I was trying to come up with something appalling an army like the IDF could be doing that would make it clear we couldn't support them. Something fictional but so appalling you'd be forced to go "well no, obviously, if they were doing *that* then they would have to be replaced". 

 

But I actually can't think of a fictional example that's worse that what they're doing at the moment. f**k. This *is* that sort of actual reducto ad absurdum situation and yet people are still going "yeah they might be killing kids en masse but we can't get rid of them because Israel would be trouble then."

 

I can't fight that mindset. If you can look at what the IDF are doing now and go "yeah, but necessary evil"... I can't. I just... nothing is off limits then is it?

[Superscally]

Just now, The_Fish said:

 

Dodged the questions as expected with some nonsense instead. 

It's not dodging the question. I've (and others have) already answered that BUT SEEING AS YOU SEEMINGLY CAN'T READ, I'll repeat it.

1) Israel stops the aggression (this is no longer defence) and agrees to a fair conclusion, decided by the UN.

2) The army is reformed, as Germany did. Israel still has the Iron Dome and no-one is going to invade them. 

3) The US needs to be the grown up with withdrawal of the support of aggression and big Arab states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi need to step up.

What part of that can't you understand?

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

2 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

The Peel commission partitioning which established the state of israel was accepted by Israel and rejected by the Arabs. Since then Rabin (see above) Barak and Olmert have all developed and proposed 2 state models (Barak said,”we will never have a happy

marriage, let’s have a civilized divorce”) but Hamas’ charter which simply refuses to accept the existence of Israel has never allowed any of these to progress. 

 

And Netanyahu?

[DeanoL]

7 minutes ago, The_Fish said:

 

What do you think happens if Israel has no defence force? What would Hamas do to Israel then? Calling for Israel's defence force to disband has consequences, what do you think those consequences are?

The creation of a new defence force consisting of people who are morally opposed to killing babies? 

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, Blisterpack said:

The Peel commission partitioning which established the state of israel was accepted by Israel and rejected by the Arabs. 

I’m not surprised, seeing as it led to Palestine losing most of its land 

[Superscally]

2 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

The Peel commission partitioning which established the state of israel was accepted by Israel and rejected by the Arabs. Since then Rabin (see above) Barak and Olmert have all developed and proposed 2 state models (Barak said,”we will never have a happy

marriage, let’s have a civilized divorce”) but Hamas’ charter which simply refuses to accept the existence of Israel has never allowed any of these to progress. 

You mean the Peel commissioning that gave all the good land to Israel and all the absolute shite to the Arabs? Yeah, I remember the Navajo being chuffed with the land that they got from the US authorities. Ah well, at least they get nice sunsets in Monument Valley.

[xxialac]

7 minutes ago, The_Fish said:

 

I don't think it has any impact on the ongoing war or atrocities in Israel or Palestine. 

So why did you write - and I quote  - "He was calling for the death of it's defence forces which has a consequence of millions of dead Jews".

 

 

[Tinofsild]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

Absolutely. To be clear, I don't blame Israelis for joining up with the IDF and supporting it, if they've grown up there, been given a diet of Israeli propaganda their entire life, that it's been a part of their lives, that they've come to see it as a positive thing. I might think they should object, and not join. But I also understand that culturally they wouldn't be able to see that.

 

But might point is that if you take such a person out of that environment and put in them in say, a Bob Vylan set at Glasto, and they're made to feel extremely uncomfortable, hated even (but crucially *not* the victim of any actual violence) then *that is a good thing*. 

 

It's not wrong to make people feel uncomfortable over their beliefs if those beliefs are wrong. 

 

If people who support the IDF feel uncomfortable: good! And yes, maybe it's not how they want to be feeling on what should be a nice holiday at a festival, but frankly, tough sh*t. 

Totally agree. We had a really nice time overall anyway and she went off for lunch while I watched Bob Vylan. Met up and had a frozen margarita afterwards. So good! 🙂

[Superscally]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

unfortunate terminology then. I expect he never would have imagined it would be taken out of context like this.

Sadly, I don't think there was much thought given to it beyond the fact that it rhymed...

[The_Fish]

Just now, xxialac said:

So why did you write - and I quote  - "He was calling for the death of it's defence forces which has a consequence of millions of dead Jews".

 

 

 

Probably poor grammar. The death of the IDF has a consequence of millions of dead Jews. Not him calling for it leading to millions of dead Jews. 

[steviewevie]

Maybe the British should have kept it all.

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

10 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Hope Netanyahu got kicked off any festivals he was playing at then.

 

It's ok, it was only "chutzpah".

[The_Fish]

4 minutes ago, Superscally said:

It's not dodging the question. I've (and others have) already answered that BUT SEEING AS YOU SEEMINGLY CAN'T READ, I'll repeat it.

1) Israel stops the aggression (this is no longer defence) and agrees to a fair conclusion, decided by the UN.

2) The army is reformed, as Germany did. Israel still has the Iron Dome and no-one is going to invade them. 

3) The US needs to be the grown up with withdrawal of the support of aggression and big Arab states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi need to step up.

What part of that can't you understand?

 

You did completely dodge the questions, going for Godwins Law and talking about Nazi Germany as if it has any f**king relevance with this situation today.

 

1) Hamas can release the hostages and Israel can end it's invasion. feels like an obvious aim for both at this point to me. 

2) The Iron Dome does nothing against a ground invasion. It needs Defence Forces for that.

3) I agree, long term a 2 state solution with backing and support from international partners is the only seemingly viable option for peace in the region. 

 

None of that is achieved with the death of the IDF. 

[Spindles]

10 minutes ago, The_Fish said:

 

What do you think happens if Israel has no defence force? What would Hamas do to Israel then? Calling for Israel's defence force to disband has consequences, what do you think those consequences are?

Do you see any kind of disconnect in the militarised power of the IDF that represents only 1 section of the population and harasses the other whilst the Palestinian people are not allowed ANY kind of defensive measure?  This conflict is asymmetric, one side has all the power.  Is that defensible when hundreds are being wounded and dozens dying almost every day?  How many murders is an acceptable number?