RFK Jr. got in Hot Water by deleting a Series of Tweets about Roger Waters
On Twitter, Robert F. Kennedy Jr praised Roger Waters for having the courage to take dissenting stands on Covid and the War in Ukraine, That was followed by a tweet which said that he has some differences of opinion with Waters, and a third tweet asserted that Israel has the right to exist within secure borders and that he also supports the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians. Then RFK Jr. deleted all three tweets. Below is a link to Screen shots of the last two deleted tweets
https://twitter.com/SabbySabs2/status/1663166634628993026
Why delete the tweets? Is it forbidden to associate with Roger Waters on any issue because of his support for the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement and characterization of Israel as an Apartheid-like state?
RFK Jr. has yet to offer comment about Waters' objections to crimes against humanity committed by the Isreali regime: to a 57 year occupation, illegal colonization & defacto annexation of 90% of the occupied territories, disenfranchisement & marginalization of Palestinians under an apartheid like regime.
Apparently, Kennedy was unaware of Water’s views about Israel and Palestine when he tweeted out his praise for Water’s views about Covid and the Ukraine War. When someone pointed out to him that some of Water’s views were unacceptable, especially relating to Israel, Kennedy managed to put his foot in his mouth with a “position” on Israel that will get a mixed reception from his supporters, potential supporters and opponents of his presidential campaign.
Is Kennedy willing to engage in a private or public conversation with Roger Waters or other proponents / supporters of BDS and a democratic secular state in Palestine?
I am a descendant of German Gypsies and related to some who were murdered by the German NAZI regime for being Gypsies. I knew nothing about the Zionist movement and the establishment of Israel until 1974, when I had a long discussion with a socialist and ethnic Jew who supported the original mission statement of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which was to establish a secular democratic state encompassing all of Palestine and Israel, in which everyone has equal rights under the law. That one-state solution seemed reasonable to me. I then read many books about the history of Zionism and Israel over the next few years.
Israel has granted 2nd class citizenship to a limited number of non-Jews (Arabs) in Israel. All others not recognized as ethnic Jews in Israel and the occupied territories who were born and raised in Palestine are stateless people or citizens of the Palestinian Authority or Gaza.
A major part of Gaza was formally annexed by Israel. The Palestinian Authority controls only 9% of the occupied territories, which are honeycombed with illegal settlements.
The parts of Palestine outside of the internationally recognized boundaries of Israel since 1967 have largely been settled by Israeli Jews. This is a violation of the Geneva Convention. The occupying power is not supposed to be engaged in ethnic cleansing and otherwise changing the demographics of the occupied territory. If the occupying power wants to annex a territory, it may do so with the consent of the population via referendum. Those who reside in the occupied territory become citizens of the occupying power if the territory is legally annexed.
What's left of Gaza & the Palestinian Authority are essentially open air prisons. Elsewhere in the occupied territories outside of Jewish settlements, the Arab population lives under Israeli marshal law as stateless persons since 1967.
On Twitter I have asked Robert F. Kennedy to respond to the following questions
Is "the 2 state solution" viable or is it a diplomatic fig leaf for an apartheid-like state?
There is a one state solution: Israel becomes a democratic secular state encompassing all of Palestine where Jews and non-Jews have equal rights under the law. Please explain how this would this be a just solution or an unjust solution?