the ethical implications of playing a concert in israel

moving this discussion away from the big thief thread, since it’s a question that pops up every so often

is the act of playing music in tel aviv inherently immoral? does it implicitly condone the atrocities committed by israel and in in israel’s name?

yes and yes

next

lol wait I didn't even notice the phrasing of your questions

fuck this

it depends on who is in your family and how large the paycheck is, just like everything else in this terrible planet

honestly wasn’t trying to be a dick with the question phrasing

I am somewhat surprised that Big Thief are getting the backlash that they seem to have gotten for this, considering one of their members is Israeli. I feel more dismayed about artists-playing-Israel who have no ancestral skin in the game (Radiohead, Nico Jaar, Nick Cave).

does it implicitly condone the atrocities committed by israel and in in israel’s name

BDS argues that it does, they call it "art-washing". It is argued that a "business as usual" approach to Israeli-sponsored cultural events both domestically and abroad is an effective misdirection technique away from apartheid. Playing music in Tel Aviv makes it clear that one does not agree with BDS's arguments, which BDS would argue explicitly condones Israeli apartheid. The question is, do you agree with BDS? I do. Big Thief do not. Nick Cave sees BDS as a form of artist censorship, which I would politely describe as a totally bullshit argument. Thom Yorke argues that playing Israel is as ethical as playing Trump-led America, which I would describe as "possibly a good point, which begs the question as to why Radiohead would choose to tour America, if they believe this?"

Nick Cave's announcement that he was going to play there was something I found problematic too.
I mean settler colonialism is always problematic and Israel seems to be very willing to perpetuate things quite consciously.

I was typing that before I read the message re Nick cave cos I did think it was a dodgy move when he was explaining his intentions whenver that was

big thief admitted that they believe they're doing the wrong thing, but they're doing it anyway. they're putting family over geopolitics, which is pretty conservative, yes.

That is false, they did not say that.

(Unless you’re referring to something other than the statement they posted)

their statement was wishy-washy both-sidesism, but by donating the proceeds to helping palestinian children it implies that they believe that their performance is not exactly helping palestinian children

you're right that they didn't say "we are doing the wrong thing"

Correct, and I disagree with your interpretation of the donation.

I don't think playing for people in Israel means that you are complicit or support government and their detestable policies, at least not more than if you're playing a concert and paying your taxes in the United States.
On the other end, you should feel rightfully disgusted just being in Israel. Or at the idea of giving people a good time when the situation nearby is what it is.

I don't think you deserve huge kudos if you're consciously skipping Israel on your concert tour, since it's not a big opportunity cost and relatively easy to do.
On the other end, it's symbolic, part of other boycotts, and it's important that such countries feel isolated. If consumers, tourists and public figures are not acting up and being vocal at an individual level, it makes it harder to build pressure on Western companies doing business there (beyond occupied territories). Russia can be the example now. So I think there is a kind of responsibility for entertainment and it's nice to see artists take it up, even if it's not morally reprehensible not to join those ranks.

I wondered about something similar this weekend when Burna Boy went to play in Harare in return for a USD 250'000 check, where the tickets were USD 40 and there were VIP packages running in thousands. I think that's irresponsible and directly taking money from an oppressive kleptocratic dictatorship. Someone brought up the Trump example. The lines are not necessarily easy to draw.

What other cultural boycotts are as well known?

At least one member of Radiohead is well on their way to TERFhood and Nick Cave has a good deal of recent history of opposing "wokeness" and "cancel culture" so Israel is maybe part of a larger picture.

@ gyac, the South African boycott during apartheid was the model for BDS's protest against Israel iirc.

Part of what I admire the most about BDS's form of non-violent protest (against violent oppression) is that it does create complicity if an artist elects to ignore it. The Israeli state will applaud an artist for coming, and frame it as an indicator that "not the entire world hates us for what we're doing". Once a boycott is in place, I argue that you are, in fact, complicit-- that's what a boycott is for. You don't have to have any thumbs-up-with-the-IDF photo ops to prove it. This is a testament to the efficacy of this form of non-violent protest

Yes, I was talking about current boycotts in response to the handwringing about playing in the US. Sorry for omitting that context.

fgti otm itt

Thom Yorke argues that playing Israel is as ethical as playing Trump-led America, which I would describe as "possibly a good point, which begs the question as to why Radiohead would choose to tour America, if they believe this?"

Yorke is echoing Linda Ronstadt’s cop-out response when she was called out on playing in apartheid South Africa. She said, "If I won't play a repressive government, a police state, then I couldn't play the black countries or Alabama or Boston.”

What Yorke (and Cave and McCartney) are willfully ignoring is the fact that by playing in Israel they are playing for segregated audiences — or, maybe more accurately, they’re playing for the only audience that is, by law, allowed to attend. As the author and scholar Steven Salaita put it (in response to Nick Cave), “Playing Israel isn't the everyday merriment of a normal performance. By doing it, you help absolve what South African activist Desmond Tutu, a longtime BDS supporter, calls ‘an apartheid state’. No amount of lucre is worth cosigning inhumanity. And let me intervene before you even think it: Your art, no matter how brilliant, won't inspire peace and reconciliation. Those things will happen after Palestinians acquire their freedom. How can your art bring people together when one of the parties can't even attend?"

yes, these US analogies are bad even by the debased standards of arguing via analogy

What I wonder is, what do you as a fan of an artist who chooses to play in Israel do about it? I mean beyond posting things on ILM or social media or whatever. Does it affect your own relationship to the artist? For me, to be honest, probably not. That Big Thief album is still my favorite of the year, and also I would love to see them live if I get the chance. For that matter, I still listen to Linda Ronstadt. I guess it's a subset of the whole moral dilemma of "artists I like doing things I don't like."

big thief suck ass and should go away, if this hastens it all the better

Thanks Tarfumes for sharing that Steven Salaita quote. It boggles my mind that Cave might've read such a generous and compassionate argument and not changed his mind.

@ gyac I kinda thought as much sorry for stating the obvious at you!

As for "what to do" I don't have an answer. This issue in particular, when it comes up irl, is where my cortex stops functioning and I feel a welling up of rage and helplessness and usually I elect to refill my water glass and come back when the topic has changed.

I've always boycotted Thom Yorke and Nick Cave, variable levels of white poshness in them both and they are both awful people and make garbage music. Two of the most overrated turds of the 90's.

I don't really buy that you "help absolve" anything by playing there, but it certainly means that you reject BDS. It's the existence of the BDS movement itself that creates most of the moral weight for not playing in Israel - that's all that differentiates it from playing in other objectionable countries. By playing there, you reject and even arguably undermine BDS. It's somewhat circular, but I think that's the fairest way to put it.

And to build on that point – being a BDS supporter means adopting a very specific pov and set of demands.

big thief suck ass and should go away, if this hastens it all the better

― akm, Sunday, June 5, 2022 6

so you don't like them

Well it'd be a weird pull quote

I was a stan for the first three albums, still kind of digging them as of #4, and then just lost interest at the last one, which doesn't seem like a trajectory a lot of people follow

I went to one of Nick Cave's Q&A shows in 2019 where someone asked him about his stance on this. He's obviously got a lot of problems with the left and said he resented activists, Brian Eno, and "the Pink Floyd guy" trying to tell him what to do, and that he's done more for Palestinians than any of those people (which, no?). Anyway, his stance is reactionary and full of shit.

I’m in the “putting in my headphones and turning up the brilliance that is Tender Prey to drown out this idiocy” camp

I don't really buy that you "help absolve" anything by playing there, but it certainly means that you reject BDS. It's the existence of the BDS movement itself that creates most of the moral weight for not playing in Israel - that's all that differentiates it from playing in other objectionable countries. By playing there, you reject and even arguably undermine BDS. It's somewhat circular, but I think that's the fairest way to put it.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Sunday, June 5, 2022 4:00 PM (six hours ago)

otm ... I wish there were movements with as prominent a profile as BDS for other countries with bad human rights records.

I've always boycotted Thom Yorke and Nick Cave, variable levels of white poshness in them both and they are both awful people and make garbage music. Two of the most overrated turds of the 90's.

― calzino

this is super insightful and relevant to the topic, please, tell us more about what musicians you think are "overrated"

lol yeah calz tbf it's not a boycott if you'd never buy their stuff anyway

I'm cool with being irrelevant and offtopic if there is an opening (by my bad interpretation of what a boycott is) to register my hatred of Nick Cave and Radiohead, fp away I'm not even listening!

"Shitty band sides with jailers in biggest open-air prison in the world"

Let's not sugarcoat this, just having an Israeli bassist should be considered a crime against humanity

(Just ahead of people owning a SodaStream)

Dissembling showing your real beliefs there, Nabozo.

I don't suppose you're younger than me, and I can't understand when the internet became a childish game of good VS evil. Is it what people do all day on Twitter ? I'm just saying I've seen more perceptive and finer analysis on ILM when it comes to music, so why is it that when it comes to politics, people reach for their hammer. I don't get it, is it fun ? My sincere impression was posted upthread - and I only partially agree with people claiming that entering / doing anything in Israel is a stance against BDS.

Fwiw it's a sign of the success of BDS that a band like Big Thief feels compelled to issue a statement (even a recycled one) and to make some gesture at helping Palestinian kids. Which doesn't mean people should be satisfied with that, but it's a much different situation than even 10 years ago. BDS is changing the moral calculus on Israel, however slowly.

i don't have a twitter account, fwiw.

i've been a part of BDS movements on and off for a long time, before it even had a more official acronym and was a much more ragtag crew of radical non-Zionist Jews, Palestinians, and others.

one of my closest friends holds dual citizenship between Israel and the US, was born on a kibbutz, etc. He's currently working on archiving the work of one of the great Yiddish modernist poets, in Israel-Palestine, while simultaneously working with his wife and their creative partner (a Palestinian) on creating a material-based archive of Israeli state violence against Palestinians. Trust me when I say we have had long and occasionally difficult conversations about many of the issues surrounding his citizenship! I know there are plenty of shades of grey here, because after all....

Like the US, there are plenty of people who come from Israel who are not religious ethno-fascists.

But voluntarily assisting in the art-washing of Israeli state violence is not a good look, ever.

But there's only one BDS movement now (afaik), with very specific goals. I think you're making the idea of supporting/not supporting BDS more abstract than it is.

Thom Yorke playing in Israel is it, why am I not surprised? Trash human being.

"At least one member of Radiohead is well on their way to TERFhood"

Is this Johnny?

Interesting that this spun off the Big Thief thread, but is pulling in all of the vocal Radiohead/Yorke haters.

Maybe there's just a lot of vocal Radiohead/Yorke haters

well I just read most of the wikipedia page on BDS and there's this weird bit in the Cultural Boycott section:

Many artists are not heeding BDS's call not to perform in Israel, arguing that:

Performing in a country is not the same as supporting that country's government;[197][198]
By performing in Israel, artists have a chance to tell the Israelis what they feel about their government and that can help bring peace;[199][200]
By not performing in Israel, artists sever contacts with Israel's strongly pro-Palestinian cultural community, which risks hardening opposition to the Palestinian struggle among Israelis;[201][202]
BDS supporters like Roger Waters and Brian Eno who urge fellow artists not to perform in Israel are engaging in a form of bullying.[203]

All of those footnote citations are to articles about/interviews with Nick Cave, Thom Yorke, or JK Rowling

ok lol at that final bullet

An old Australian man has cranky "you can't tell me what to do" conservative politics? You don't say.

I don’t hate either Big Thief or Thom Yorke but I do equate their decision to play in Israel as being explicit support of apartheid in that country

"calling out my politics = bullying" is a very standard right wing trope nowadays

still funny to see it in this context though

Like the US, there are plenty of people who come from Israel who are not religious ethno-fascists.

But voluntarily assisting in the art-washing of Israeli state violence is not a good look, ever.

― broccoli rabe thomas (the table is the table), Tuesday, June 7, 2022 12:48 PM (yesterday)

I just feel like from an economic and logistical perspective, it is fairly easy to boycott Israel, whereas, I would argue that the US government (and its acceptance of racist and fascist behavior by some of its states, cities, and municipalities) is no better than that of Israel, and I would like to see supporters of BDS also boycott the US ... maybe it would make our country less shitty?

Is there actually an active cultural boycott in the US that has been organised by American activists? It’s “easy” because this is exactly what BDS is, it isn’t hard. People always say “what about Russia/China/US” but like,,, BDS is explicitly an organised cultural boycott with defined aims, nothing similar exists in those countries afaict.

sarahell, you very well understand why your comment is whataboutism and why it’s disingenuous to say the least

"I just feel like from an economic and logistical perspective, it is fairly easy to boycott Israel"

And yet..

no music love itt, should be on ILE imo

I wish to add one observation - I'm unsure whether it has come up here:

The BDS movement may have prominence in certain circles, but it is not really powerful. It is reviled and traduced by many powerful actors (politicians, media, etc) worldwide, and it is well on the way to being illegal, in many ways, in many places. I don't think any major political party in my own country respects it or wants it to be permitted.

It would be misleading to think eg: "BDS is dominant and everyone follows it, why can't we talk about boycotting somewhere else?"

On the contrary, BDS is extremely embattled and marginal, a "weapon of the weak" (or at least a weapon in support of the weak) which many powerful agents are trying to drive out of existence.

no music love itt, should be on ILE imo

― corrs unplugged, Wednesday, 8 June 2022 bookmarkflaglink

No letting the Radiohead fans off the hook!

Xp otm!

Yes otm

Is there actually an active cultural boycott in the US that has been organised by American activists? It’s “easy” because this is exactly what BDS is, it isn’t hard. People always say “what about Russia/China/US” but like,,, BDS is explicitly an organised cultural boycott with defined aims, nothing similar exists in those countries afaict.

― gyac, Wednesday, 8 June 2022 11:56 (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

if you accept this argument - that even if other countries are as 'bad' as Israel, playing Israel is still different because there is a large, high-profile boycott movement for Israel and isn't for other countries - how do you reconcile that with arguments that Israel is singled out because of anti-semitism? (i.e. the argument that the very reason there is a BDS for Israel and isn't a BDS for Russia/China/US/etc is because of anti-semitism?)

xp
tbf sarahell sounds sincerely interested in a cultural boycott of the US to me, and I'd be curious to hear a vision for how that would work: What would be its goals? How would it judge success? Trying to find clear US equivalents to BDS is hard as the two situations are different. Even apartheid South Africa doesn't correspond exactly: there you had a minority population dominating the majority, whereas in Israel/Palestine the situation is reversed, and furthermore Palestinians live under a permanent military occupation.

So, I'd be interested in hearing about an anti-US boycott—on another thread*—but as gyac has said, there isn't one. And the idea that US or UK or w/e citizens need to maintain some kind of politico-moral purity or non-hypocrisy is p vain in the face of the ongoing immiseration, subjugation, and killing of Palestinians. In the absence of any years-in-the-making, extremely embattled (as the pinefox pointed out) anti-US campaign, maybe we should lend our support to the BDS campaign we have right now? Unless you disagree with BDS, in which case bringing up the US is purely a rhetorical gesture.

* In my own personal experience bubble, I recall a few major academic associations deciding to not host their conferences in the US at various points during the Bush years and again when Trump enacted the "Muslim ban." If US states continue to pass laws curtailing the basic rights of LGBTQ people I could see that happening again.

There isn't a boycott for Russia?

Maybe you could think of BDS as pro-Palestine rather than anti-Israel. But sure, to admit the obvious, boycotting the US would be immensely difficult because it is the world's single hyperpower empire and Israel is not.

And in all seriousness I think the pro/anti lens is important. What I'd like to know about these hypothetical other anti-country boycotts is: what would they be pro?

Like the Russian boycott is clearly intended to be pro-stop invading Ukraine.

_Is there actually an active cultural boycott in the US that has been organised by American activists? It’s “easy” because this is exactly what BDS is, it isn’t hard. People always say “what about Russia/China/US” but like,,, BDS is explicitly an organised cultural boycott with defined aims, nothing similar exists in those countries afaict.

― gyac, Wednesday, 8 June 2022 11:56 (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink_


if you accept this argument - that even if other countries are as 'bad' as Israel, playing Israel is still different because there is a large, high-profile boycott movement for Israel and isn't for other countries - how do you reconcile that with arguments that Israel is singled out because of anti-semitism? (i.e. the argument that the very reason there is a BDS for Israel and isn't a BDS for Russia/China/US/etc is because of anti-semitism?)

If Americans on this thread are so upset about their own country not being subject to a cultural boycott, there’s nothing stopping them from starting one. It’s that easy, after all.

And the idea that US or UK or w/e citizens need to maintain some kind of politico-moral purity or non-hypocrisy is p vain in the face of the ongoing immiseration, subjugation, and killing of Palestinians. In the absence of any years-in-the-making, extremely embattled (as the pinefox pointed out) anti-US campaign, maybe we should lend our support to the BDS campaign we have right now? Unless you disagree with BDS, in which case bringing up the US is purely a rhetorical gesture.

sorry to w/e you, gyac, no disrespect intended. Irish solidarity with Palestine is admirable, especially from my vantage point in Quebec, the only place to have ever been colonized shutupshutupshutup

I was joking, I just thought that was funny and was hoping it was a reference to this classic bit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZFM0CYYKwQ

With regards to cultural boycotts, I oftentimes think about the industry-wide boycott of tobacco usage in films/television. It worked great for a while. Then Netflix fucked it up.

I personally don't work on any media that contains a depiction of a gun being used for anything other than "an agent of harm" (I'll do it if it's a catalyst for suicide or a catalyst for, say, a school shooting. I wouldn't work on a James Bond movie, i.e.)

i think it’s the donation to palestinian kids thing that tips this into noxious territory for me. like, if their position was just that one of the members is from tel aviv and because of that they feel a pull to play there even tho they have issues with israel i would at least consider that a somewhat coherent and even human position, even if it’s one that would also be plenty disagreeable and objectionable depending on your POV. but they’re taking a pointedly non-political, unintellectual stance yet then turning around and saying they’re going to donate the show profits to kids in palestine, which is completely incoherent to me. it also reeks of the type of ppl, typically far more moneyed and powerful than indie rock bands, who use charitable donations as a method of deflecting away from moral sins. it’s a total cop out & instead of just standing on the uncomfortable but relatable, emotional truth that is one’s relationship to one’s homeland they’re trying to have it both ways on an issue in which, if you’re at the level of cultural importance where you have to issue a statement explaining why you’re playing concerts in israel, you simply can’t have it both ways. in trying to navigate some nonexistent middle ground they honestly just come off as cowards & i think that’s worse to me than if they simply had shitty political beliefs?

IMO, there is absolutely a "middle ground" btw supporting BDS and whatever you're framing as the opposite of that. They issued the statement to say that despite their "disagreement" with BDS, they acknowledge the reasons it exists and the donation is part of that. Of course, if you're coming from a place where nothing less than BDS and its outlook/goals is acceptable, then I can see why you would have your pov.

j0rdan otm

It felt like the donation was meant to counter accusations that they were playing Israel "for the money."

J0rdan resoundingly otm, it’s an odd circle to square.

- you are ignoring the crimes committed by Israel in order to profit.
- no we’re not, we’re donating money to Palestinian kids
- but you’re still playing in Israel? The crimes are bad but the state committing them is good?

Rereading their bad statement*, it is p wack that they chose to specify children as the beneficiaries of the show's "profits" rather than Palestinian people.

* With several years to workshop it, I would def have left out "It is important for us to go where we have family to share space and play for them" yeesh

IMO, there is absolutely a "middle ground" btw supporting BDS and whatever you're framing as the opposite of that. They issued the statement to say that despite their "disagreement" with BDS, they acknowledge the reasons it exists and the donation is part of that. Of course, if you're coming from a place where nothing less than BDS and its outlook/goals is acceptable, then I can see why you would have your pov.

― Creature Catcher (Live) (morrisp), Wednesday, June 8, 2022 11:26 AM (sixteen minutes ago)

"nothing less than BDS" is not my position at all. i'm from a jewish family and have many close family members who are pro-israel, visit israel, etc. i don't cut them out of my life or punish them for that or anything, i'm willing to extend jewish people who were raised to be uncritically pro-israel some leniency on the topic, personally. as public figures, i just find big thief's position to be wishy washy and unserious. i would respect them if they had just said "one of our members grew up there, he wants to play there, we support him, end of story" even if i also would disagree with them (i have turned down numerous opportunities to visit israel as an adult). but to say "we don't know where the moral high ground is" -- utterly false btw, they know exactly where it is -- and "we're still learning, we want to love, we're donating money to children" reads as vapid and disingenuous. i think there are grey areas or moderate positions in the larger philosophical debate, but the action of playing a concert in israel is picking a side, whether they like it or not, and i think they should just own that, bcuz that would at least be fundamentally human as opposed to fundamentally PR

J0rdan otm.

Saying that he'd heard from the band's PR person that the singer was "very uncomfortable" with my interview and did not want the profile piece to go ahead. They were uncomfortable?? Lmao. I was floored. The piece was killed, just like that, and I got a reduced fee to go away.

— Omar Sakr (@OmarjSakr) June 7, 2022

It seems Big Thief treated this writer (who isn't Palestinian) like shit and felt uncomfortable with him writing a non-political profile on them because of his Arabic appearance and got it pulled.

but to say "we don't know where the moral high ground is" -- utterly false btw, they know exactly where it is

you think they "know where it is" with respect to BDS? my reading of the statement they disagree with BDS (indeed they say that), but don't want to argue an anti-BDS position or take a moral high ground in opposition to it

(I appreciate you expanding on your pov, but I do disagree w/your reading of their statement / position)

So their position is they are anti-BDS, but they don't want to get into it and don't want to be called out for it either? I'm trying to follow what you are saying.

Well, they disagree w/BDS (obv, as they're playing there) - but they "remain open to other people's perspectives" and their "intention is not to diminish the values of those who support the boycott or to turn a blind eye to those suffering" (I'm not trying to be cheeky by quoting big chunks the statement, but I think it speaks for itself and isn't hard to interpret).

They don't say "don't call us out" or anything like that, and I'm sure they anticipated that many ppl will disagree with their decision and be vocal about it. Clearly the statement isn't "satisfying" to many, but I'm sure they would have been called out equally if they had played and issued no statement and/or not made the donation.

(obviously they "don't want to get into it" via Instagram, i.e. all a debate about BDS - who would? - but they're trying to acknowledge the reality behind it. this likely won't please anyone who thinks they're "trying to have it both ways," but it is what they wrote and so I assume it reflects what they feel.)

appreciate your posts j0rdan. my jewish education practically doubled as a pro-israel indoctrination, and it's hard to break out of that mindset at times.

i will likely never be able to see the entire population of tel aviv as violent settlers, so my previous attitude was "let them have a show," but a lot of the posts in this thread have changed my thinking on this issue. fgti's perspective helped a lot, as did pinefox's characterization of bds as a "weapon of the weak."

i'm still skeptical of efficacy of a cultural boycott. cultural boycotts are a tool for shaming, and from my experience the israeli government and many of its people do not feel shame about how they treat palestinians, and an artist loudly refusing to play in israel only adds more fuel to the persecution complex. still, there is only so much a musician can do on this issue, so cultural boycott it is.

Weapon of the weak especially in the context that the West in the post 9/11 era has pretty much withdrawn from any real attempts to broker a solution.

Is there actually an active cultural boycott in the US that has been organised by American activists? It’s “easy” because this is exactly what BDS is, it isn’t hard. People always say “what about Russia/China/US” but like,,,

This is a good point, thank you!
there have been sanctions/boycotts within the US in the past in terms of states / cities regarding political issues. The most recent "official" thing I remember involved the border wall (with Mexico) and that there was some prohibition related to Arizona (or parts thereof). ... obviously now w/r/t Russia, we have sanctions.

So I guess the thing is the "active" question, what are the criteria / what is the process by which it becomes "active" or "prominent" or gains enough cultural capital so that people comply with it?

we see things like this at the local level quite a bit ... "don't play this club," "don't go to shows at this spot," "don't go to this bar/restaurant/store" because racism / transphobia / hiring rapists... sometimes it gains cultural currency and "becomes a thing" and sometimes it just doesn't catch on.

there were widespread cancellations of concerts in north carolina after the anti-trans bathroom bill there in 2016... bruce springsteen and pearl jam i remember being two of the biggest acts. the bill eventually got overturned tho musicians continued to play concerts there in the multi year period in between the initial protests and the eventual overturning so it's hard to say how effective/galvanizing the protests were. there was prob some benefit in the initial period where artists helped catalyze public opinion nationally. the NCAA also pulled march madness games from north carolina around the same time. last year major league baseball moved its all star game out of atlanta over voting rights laws... that kinda stuff obv feels more like bending with the wind than any serious attempt to generate change. corporations (sports leagues) are feckless in this regard i think we all would agree

Cause halfway through the interview with the singer, she blurts out that they play in Israel, because one of their band members is from there, and how they don't agree with BDS. I just stared, said OK, moved on.

This is like a Louie bit

i'm still skeptical of efficacy of a cultural boycott. cultural boycotts are a tool for shaming

In part, yes. Part of the point of an organized cultural boycott is to bring attention to the situation for those who may not be familiar with it, often in coordination with other activist strategies. It's rarely used as the only approach, in isolation -- the movement in the '80s of artists refusing to play South Africa was part of a much larger series of actions -- but can often be the most visible one.

tarfumes otm

we see things like this at the local level quite a bit ... "don't play this club," "don't go to shows at this spot," "don't go to this bar/restaurant/store" because racism / transphobia / hiring rapists... sometimes it gains cultural currency and "becomes a thing" and sometimes it just doesn't catch on.

― sarahell, Wednesday, 8 June 2022 bookmarkflaglink

"Cultural capital" should never be the end point. Just don't be that person.

don't think that post implies it's "the point"

I think it would be nice if people discussing this topic could stick to a point rather than trying to obfuscate whatever point they do have and not bothering to clarify things, tbh.

Also very amused that boycotts are for shaming- no shit? “I don’t like feeling shamed over my overt or tacit support for the subject of the boycott” - who CARES. Shame is nothing compared to the reason for the boycott!

Btw if you want a laugh you should visit the page of the originator of the term boycott, Capt Charles Boycott, and read his whining 19th century letter to the Times, honestly with minimal changes it’s a modern day “I’ve been cancelled” letter.

Tl;dr boycotting and social ostracism against those committing terrible deeds should be more common, cry more about it.

the post itt about shaming isn't saying that there's any moral problem with shaming Israel, it's saying that the Israeli govt does not feel shame for its atrocities and will not feel shame no matter how much we push it

I don't think that's a good argument because it's not like the South African govt of the 80's felt any shame about its actions either

It keeps the issue in the news and the government is not directly shamed, it’s usually due to indirect pressure aiui. It’s also telling the people being oppressed that they are seen, that their pain means something.

the post itt about shaming isn't saying that there's any moral problem with shaming Israel, it's saying that the Israeli govt does not feel shame for its atrocities and will not feel shame no matter how much we push it

I don't think that's a good argument because it's not like the South African govt of the 80's felt any shame about its actions either

The entire point of a boycott is that the subject doesn't feel shame until potentially a tipping point is reached and then they do. The boycott is intended to bring about that tipping point.

i've never forgotten this interview with edouard louis from 2017:

“Silence has to be a part of our progress. We have to put silence at the centre of politics today. Stop responding to the questions, stop letting them control the language, the debate, the agenda. I hear some argue it’s better to be open about these things. 'If you are racist and hide your racism, then you’re a hypocrite.' I say no, it’s better you keep quiet.

“To me, democracy is not about saying everything. Some things, like racism, antisemitism, shouldn’t be issues, they shouldn’t be talked about. Some subjects should be considered obsolete, and yes, let’s shut down the debate because they are obsolete. I grew up as a queer child in a small village. Lots of gay children in this situation suffer the same things: being threatened, beaten up. When I published my book in Paris, some said, ‘Well, if you’d grown up in a bourgeois milieu, people would have thought the same thing, they just wouldn’t have hit you.’ Are they joking? I would rather that, than being constantly beaten up for being queer. Of course I’d rather people weren’t racist or homophobic, but if they are they can keep it to themselves. Just shut up.

“And if they don’t and won’t, we need to start redistributing shame, making people feel ashamed, so when they repeat what the FN is saying, we reply, ‘Quelle honte!’ [Shame on you]. That would be progress, that would be democracy, not letting people say what they want, not giving their racist, homophobic views the same value, the same credibility as other propositions. Not giving those stupid, unacceptable propositions weight and currency by responding to them. This has been the great tragedy of recent years in literature, the press, intellectual life, this ideology that in a debate all views have the same weight, that we can debate with the FN, with the extreme right. That’s wrong.

“We should say to the FN and far right: just shut up. Keep your stupid, nasty views to yourselves. This shame business is quite important."

BDS is not about shaming or raising awareness, BDS is about pressuring the establishment in Israel through financial means until there is a tip in Israeli politics. It's a strategy for change. That's why individual decisions are not equally important, because to get results you need to push major powerful actors, ie the SodaStream example (now ironically owned by Pepsi) and the US, by far the biggest empowerment factor for the occupation. Big Thief's concert is a drop in the ocean, no matter how symbolic, how much we want to polarize and accept no middle ground.

Clearly the statement isn't "satisfying" to many, but I'm sure they would have been called out equally if they had played and issued no statement and/or not made the donation.

yes but they could have at least owned having bad politics instead of the evasive bullshit they came up with

j0rdan completely otm

xp in those situations, the tipping point is reached by other means (boycott -> divestment -> sanctions is a plan, and a progression)

the cultural boycott in this particular instance is just not that strong. there’s no artists united against apartheid here, and the backlash against big thief is coming from their (primarily pretty online, leftist) fans, not from other artists. without that kind of organization, people like roger waters come across to the general public more as cranks than activists.

anyway, to answer my own questions from the op, i do now think that it is ethically wrong to perform a concert in tel aviv, or elsewhere in israel.

BDS is not about shaming or raising awareness, BDS is about pressuring the establishment in Israel through financial means until there is a tip in Israeli politics

well yeah, the boycott is the tool the movement is using to create the conditions under which the west would actually make some financial decisions that hurt the israeli government

"We have to put silence at the centre of politics today. Stop responding to the questions, stop letting them control the language, the debate, the agenda."

I like this, though I envisage it in a slightly different context from the one Tracer Hand's quotation refers to.

don't think that post implies it's "the point"

― Daniel_Rf, Thursday, 9 June 2022 bookmarkflaglink

I don't like the "it doesn't catch on" there. Even if everyone else is playing that awful venue don't join in.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CelZ64bOh81/

victory!

i'm impressed by their willingness to listen, learn and grow here instead of just doubling down

yes the immense online pressure had absolutely nothing to do with it

Ah, the old damned-if-you-do

i don't think anyone would deny that the public pressure would have had an impact?

but this is a pretty good statement, it's not a "oh we didn't realise people would get so mad at us whoops" statement

lol at the 'we thought it would be ok because music can heal' though

The venue is taking it well

about that venue: https://bdsmovement.net/news/bigthief-barby

Good for Big Thief. Tbh this whole arc will keep more bands from playing there than if they had just decided not to play and not said anything about it. (Not that that’s a good excuse for their original decision, but it’s still a useful outcome.)

"bdsmovement" is a definite "expertsexchange" sort of thing (yes, i was disappointed, in both cases)

I would very much like the “No point in doing anything with your small drop in the ocean gesture” crowd to address these two specific points I have.

1) is your argument that small groups shouldn’t bother? Again, in Ireland, we have the Dunnes stores strikers, who were a small group of workers following the union instruction not to handle goods from apartheid South Africa.

The workers were harassed and intimidated but ultimately Ireland did ban South African goods and Mandela thanked them for their support when he was released.

2) is your argument that the amount is too small, that it can’t solve the whole? Again, in Ireland we have a reference. The Choctaw tribe gave to Irish people during the famine to alleviate suffering; the amount given was small ($170), the Choctaw themselves were dispossessed and in a terrible way after the trail of tears.

But that wasn’t the point. The donation from a people who themselves were going through immense suffering meant a lot and their help was honoured by the government through a sculpture, through scholarships to Choctaw members and finally through ordinary people donating to the Navajo and Hopi tribes during early pandemic to help secure supplies.

History is bloody and full of evil, but the small gestures being made by people to help others do matter. That’s why we remember them! We should do good where we can. If not, we might as well give up, no?

If you disagree with the concept of solidarity in these terms, then tell me, bluntly, why it doesn’t matter.

Basically what I’d like to know is - what is the moral argument (in general, not specifically for bds) for doing nothing when the effort required is so little?

there’s no artists united against apartheid here, and the backlash against big thief is coming from their (primarily pretty online, leftist) fans, not from other artists. without that kind of organization, people like roger waters come across to the general public more as cranks than activists.

yeah, one of the problems is that it's only bands with a primarily online and leftist fanbase (like Big Thief's) who really feel pressure to do or say anything. I remember a couple of years ago when Bon Jovi played in Israel and JBJ brushed off Roger Waters' criticism with some "We play wherever our fans are, you old kook" kind of statement.

BDS is not a moral stance. Human rights are not a moral stance. It's been said upthread that people who commit systematic oppression are not feeling any shame. Why ? Because they have power, interests, US backing, impunity. Palestine is an issue for political science.
So yes, victory, Big Thief is enlightened, Tel Aviv won't have the pleasure of their music, maybe they will be sufficiently disgruntled, and it will make waves in the Knesset. So, while we applaud that loudly, the US hasn't changed its unilateral position that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. That's what I wouldn't call a drop in the ocean, if I must clarify.

is there anything to the accusations of Roger Waters being anti-Semitic, or is it pretty much just a kneejerk reaction to his anti-Zionist beliefs.

gyac otm

there’s no artists united against apartheid here

Little Steven was asked about Bruce/E Street joining the BDS picket line, but said, "You and the other boycotters are politically ignorant, obnoxious idiots. Israel is one of our two friends in the Middle East. In addition to the fact that a boycott in that case would accomplish nothing. Go get educated."

Obviously, Steve's completely full of shit, but Bruce hasn't played Israel.

who’s the other friend in the middle east? cat stevens?

BDS is not a moral stance. Human rights are not a moral stance.

"Palestine is an issue for political science."

What? xxxp

lol @ Steven. does he mean 2 friends incl Saudi Arabia? with friends like these maybe it’s time to call the whole thing off

This article interviewing people from a handful of perspectives on the DJs for Palestine from 2018:
https://ra.co/features/3345

The only perspective that made me o_O was the Antideutsche one

"bdsmovement" is a definite "expertsexchange" sort of thing (yes, i was disappointed, in both cases)

― Kate (rushomancy), Thursday, June 9, 2022 9:46 AM (one hour ago)

oh I don't understand that reference--is the site I linked to shoddy or unrepresentative or otherwise bad not good? (a genuine question if that isn't clear!) Basically, morrisp kept alluding to the specificity of BDS's goals and I was trying to figure out what that might mean

I think rusho is referring to the delightful mondegreens of web addresses

oh....looool

Some might call that post “super insightful and relevant to the topic”.

(does remind me of the endless radio ads for "sex for vets" that i heard last year, which turned out to be about segways for military veterans)

sorry, xp

Can we get back to the thread topic please? Thread topic: kill Thom Yorke

i know their PR machine is v good but the band genuinely seem like tragically/painfully naive folks overall, easy to see how they screwed up here

is there anything to the accusations of Roger Waters being anti-Semitic, or is it pretty much just a kneejerk reaction to his anti-Zionist beliefs.

Most of the accusations against Waters are the same as those against certain segments of the anti-imperialist left--i.e. he singles out Israel for criticism and ignores other countries' crimes against humanity, repeats Russia propaganda (Assad's chemical attacks are fake/false flag) etc.

The only perspective that made me o_O was the Antideutsche one

Antideutsch "movement" is a trip, ironically quintessentially German kind of brainworms going on there. They also seem to have enthusiastically embraced terfdom.

well with my confusion cleared up, I'd recommend Nabozo read that site instead of making declarations about what BDS is and is not

The only perspective that made me o_O was the Antideutsche one

oh they're a weird bunch. friend of mine told stories about touring with a punk band in Germany and playing squat gigs where there'd be a huge Israeli flag on the wall, which is v much not the usual.

Oi Polloi got a load of shit from them for being pro-Palestine and singing songs in Gaelic (which apparently made them ethno-nationalists in Antideutsch eyes)

Most of the accusations against Waters are the same as those against certain segments of the anti-imperialist left--i.e. he singles out Israel for criticism and ignores other countries' crimes against humanity, repeats Russia propaganda (Assad's chemical attacks are fake/false flag) etc.

fwiw, it's more about his putting the Jewish star on an inflatable pig; saying things like "The Jewish lobby is extraordinary powerful here (the US) and particularly in the industry that I work in, the music industry and in rock’n roll as they say"; the 2020 remarks discussed here (which he then "clarified" in this post); etc.

i'm not sure i really understand the thought process of going thru the trouble of scheduling the israel shows and putting out that statement if they were just going to cave and cancel when the exact predictable amount of public pressure came their way. what was the point of this all, exactly?

I had the same thought, tbh

cynically speaking, so that they can be seen to be the 'victims of cancel culture' to their fanbase for sympathy points?

yeah i don't think that's what is happening. they're just daft

xp Yeah, they're not saying that at all and it's unfair to preemptively accuse them of it

there's a reason I put a question mark on the end

because frankly it's impossible to think they didn't see what was coming, coming.

shit guys I heard big thief are after the cancel culture dollar

oh look, it's LJ again

anyway forgot we had a broader BDS discussion a while back here: BDS - classic or dud?

Around a year ago, BT had an IG post where they announced they were (voluntarily) withdrawing one of their t-shirts from sale, because one of the little drawings incorporated in the (ugly) artwork was a figure behind bars, or hands holding bars from the inside (they said it was meant to represent something like "your perceptions being imprisoned by your preconceptions," I honestly don't remember) - and because the hands were sort of dark purple or shaded, they decided or someone commented that it was inappropriate in light of racism/incarceration.

There were a lot of comments to that post that were like - "wtf, this isn't anything; why are you guys being so woke; you could have just withdrawn it without making a big statement about it, you're just being performative," etc.

Anyway, I think that episode illustrates (a) their earnestness, (b) their (arguable) clumsiness when it comes to addressing "issues", and (c) the fact that they're not the type to cry "cancel culture!," the opposite in fact.

Basically what I’d like to know is - what is the moral argument (in general, not specifically for bds) for doing nothing when the effort required is so little?

BDS is not a moral stance. Human rights are not a moral stance.

Human rights are a moral construct, yes, but supporting human rights against oppression is a moral stance, and one that I would hope
most of us here would be okay with.

xxp I also remember Adrianne doing the thing on that one day in Summer 2020 where she was enthusiastically posting black squares on IG; and then she followed up with - "Oops, someone informed me that this is actually bad to do, because it's crowding out actually useful information."

So maybe it all sort of fits together, in terms of not necessarily thinking things through or how their messaging will be received. It seems their initial statement was confusing to lots of ppl (even though I thought it was fairly clear)

in the apology post they said they booked the shows bcuz they believed "music can heal." i think they have a particular strand of hippie vapidness going on but it's also a good reminder that being a famous musician even on the indie level often requires a level of genuinely huffing your own bullshit

There was a vibe shift ca. 2004 where people who wrote about bands started somehow being dumber than the people who played in bands and congrats to Big Thief for finding a new bottom to that barrel

Maybe these dumb writers could take their level up by doing a take on the "cancel culture dollar".

Basically what I’d like to know is - what is the moral argument (in general, not specifically for bds) for doing nothing when the effort required is so little?

I would still like to hear the answers of anyone who would like to address this or the other questions in my post that ended with this.
― gyac, Thursday, June 9, 2022 11:13 AM (one hour ago)

honestly, I think it's about choosing one's battles and the imperfectability of humanity. Maybe you are a rare gem, gyac, but most people don't have the mental and/or emotional energy to evaluate the maximum morality of everything they can or can't do and then make the most moral choice in every situation. You could call it "laziness" even. It makes me think of Nestle products and how we are supposed to boycott them because of that corporation's human and environmental rights violations. And most of the time when I go to the store on a hot day, I look at the refrigerators and conscientiously not buy a beverage that has a Nestle corporate mark on it. ... Occasionally though, I slip up, and just grab the thing on sale that's right in front of my face that is cool and refreshing and it's made by Nestle. Oops. ... I feel like this goes back to the early history of Christianity and St. Augustine. idk. It's something I do think about, why do people who purportedly "care about x" not do all the things that would be most effective or supportive for "x"

No. I do what I can, I don’t pretend otherwise. I certainly don’t waste my time online obfuscating over issues that are actually important to some people.

lol @ a parched sara on a hot day stumbling into an OAKLAND 7-11 to quench her thirst with a discounted, lukewarm Banana Strawberry Nesquik

I didn't intend my post to be obfuscating ... it was stream of consciousness and my brain meanders a bit. I also felt like your question was important and should be addressed. It's just, a really challenging question!

xp - the 7-11 is across the street from my apartment and when it gets over 90 degrees (like it will this weekend) ... I will get a slurpee sometimes. But seriously, fuck Nestle.

sorry i mean OAKLAND apartment

There isn't any ethical consumption under capitalism. Not sure why that's being equated with BDS, which is a movement with clear aims and recommendations.

as much I would love to discuss whether there is any ethical consumption under capitalism, I think it would be disrespectful to derail this thread in that way.

Not to get too off-track, but I keep thinking about what Naomi Klein wrote:

When I was 26, I went to Indonesia and the Philippines to do research for my first book, No Logo. I had a simple goal: to meet the workers making the clothes and electronics that my friends and I purchased. And I did. I spent evenings on concrete floors in squalid dorm rooms where teenage girls—sweet and giggly—spent their scarce nonworking hours. Eight or even 10 to a room. They told me stories about not being able to leave their machines to pee. About bosses who hit. About not having enough money to buy dried fish to go with their rice.

They knew they were being badly exploited—that the garments they were making were being sold for more than they would make in a month. One 17-year-old said to me: “We make computers, but we don’t know how to use them.”

So one thing I found slightly jarring was that some of these same workers wore clothing festooned with knockoff trademarks of the very multinationals that were responsible for these conditions: Disney characters or Nike check marks. At one point, I asked a local labor organizer about this. Wasn’t it strange—a contradiction?

It took a very long time for him to understand the question. When he finally did, he looked at me like I was nuts. You see, for him and his colleagues, individual consumption wasn’t considered to be in the realm of politics at all. Power rested not in what you did as one person, but what you did as many people, as one part of a large, organized, and focused movement. For him, this meant organizing workers to go on strike for better conditions, and eventually it meant winning the right to unionize. What you ate for lunch or happened to be wearing was of absolutely no concern whatsoever.

This was striking to me, because it was the mirror opposite of my culture back home in Canada. Where I came from, you expressed your political beliefs—firstly and very often lastly—through personal lifestyle choices. By loudly proclaiming your vegetarianism. By shopping fair trade and local and boycotting big, evil brands.

These very different understandings of social change came up again and again a couple of years later, once my book came out. I would give talks about the need for international protections for the right to unionize. About the need to change our global trading system so it didn’t encourage a race to the bottom. And yet at the end of those talks, the first question from the audience was: “What kind of sneakers are OK to buy?” “What brands are ethical?” “Where do you buy your clothes?” “What can I do, as an individual, to change the world?”

Fifteen years after I published No Logo, I still find myself facing very similar questions. These days, I give talks about how the same economic model that superpowered multinationals to seek out cheap labor in Indonesia and China also supercharged global greenhouse-gas emissions. And, invariably, the hand goes up: “Tell me what I can do as an individual.” Or maybe “as a business owner.”

The hard truth is that the answer to the question “What can I, as an individual, do to stop climate change?” is: nothing. You can’t do anything. In fact, the very idea that we—as atomized individuals, even lots of atomized individuals—could play a significant part in stabilizing the planet’s climate system, or changing the global economy, is objectively nuts. We can only meet this tremendous challenge together. As part of a massive and organized global movement.

The irony is that people with relatively little power tend to understand this far better than those with a great deal more power. The workers I met in Indonesia and the Philippines knew all too well that governments and corporations did not value their voice or even their lives as individuals. And because of this, they were driven to act not only together, but to act on a rather large political canvas. To try to change the policies in factories that employ thousands of workers, or in export zones that employ tens of thousands. Or the labor laws in an entire country of millions. Their sense of individual powerlessness pushed them to be politically ambitious, to demand structural changes.

In contrast, here in wealthy countries, we are told how powerful we are as individuals all the time. As consumers. Even individual activists. And the result is that, despite our power and privilege, we often end up acting on canvases that are unnecessarily small—the canvas of our own lifestyle, or maybe our neighborhood or town. Meanwhile, we abandon the structural changes—the policy and legal work— to others.

The hard truth is that the answer to the question “What can I, as an individual, do to stop climate change?” is: nothing. You can’t do anything. In fact, the very idea that we—as atomized individuals, even lots of atomized individuals—could play a significant part in stabilizing the planet’s climate system, or changing the global economy, is objectively nuts.

In Kim Stanley Robinson's The Ministry for the Future, the catalyzing event that saves the environment (or gets the ball rolling, at any rate) is a group that starts assassinating the CEOs of heavily polluting corporations, and at one point stages a coordinated attack that sends dozens of airplanes plunging from the sky on the same day. So, I mean, individual gestures are possible if people are willing to make them.

Because it worked in this fictional narrative, you're citing it as relevant to the real-world question(?)

also a coordinated attack is a group effort, not an individual one.

also iirc they'd have to stop the american military too

wait what thread is this

Unabomber revival

and that's okay / here's why

a popular band cancelled their shows in israel after massive public outcry. whatever shit-talking ppl want to do abt the band, fine, but it's much more important to see this is a sign of huge shifts in global consensus on israeli apartheid in recent years...which is the point.

— Derek B (@d_____b_) June 9, 2022

Tarfumes otm, again

It’s a huge shift on absolutely nothing other than occidental progressives patting themselves on the back because one indie changed route. Arabic nations are increasing their normalisation with Israel, US is still sending massive coupons for Israel for them buy US military equipment, BDS continues to be legally outlawed in Western countries. If it is a symbolic victory, sure rejoice if you want to, but BDS remains extremely marginal and the needle has barely moved on Palestinian peace, freedom, prosperity and statehood.

The commercials, directed by Harmony Korine, are to reflect the "evolution" of the chain's store format, drawing attention to, in part, the fact that "this isn't just gas station food, there's real restaurant quality food at 7-Eleven", according to CMO Marissa Jarrantt.

sorry

no that was perfect

No question that freedom for Palestine did not instantaneously happen after one band cancelled their shows in Israel. Movements sometimes move slowly; to diminish or dismiss small victories is impressionistic, and ultimately suggests giving up before other (and larger) battles start.

Sometimes activists are inspired by these small victories, and carry that inspiration with them in order to continue organizing to expand and broaden the fight.

xp to Van Horn Street

Ban Horn Street

Ngl, VHS, but you’re right in many ways.

That said, I think that there need to be many prongs to the way occupation and apartheid are counteracted, and if the global public opinion of the occupation has been souring as a result of BDS efforts, then that’s good! It isn’t everything, obviously, but it’s something.

sorry would never have created this thread if i thought van horn street would post in it

shut the fuck up van horn street

I feel more dismayed about artists-playing-Israel who have no ancestral skin in the game (Radiohead, Nico Jaar, Nick Cave).

Jaar has Palestinian descent and played in a Palestinian-owned establishment. I do not believe it's fair to lump him with Cave and Radiohead.

as far as i can tell bds was fine with jaar doing that, presumably with the reasoning that a palestinian-owned venue is not considered complicit in the occupation

https://www.facebook.com/PACBI/posts/1468414693234083

Jaar signed the letter opposing Israel performances and when he did go in the past I think it was to Ramallah

https://consequence.net/2021/05/musicians-for-palestine-israel-boycott/

Apparently, Big Thief received many threats.

Good.

jaar performed in both ramallah in the west bank and haifa in israel, at palestinian-owned venues in each

Movements sometimes move slowly; to diminish or dismiss small victories is impressionistic, and ultimately suggests giving up before other (and larger) battles start.

otm

If it is a symbolic victory, sure rejoice if you want to, but BDS remains extremely marginal and the needle has barely moved on Palestinian peace, freedom, prosperity and statehood.

― Van Horn Street, Thursday, 9 June 2022 bookmarkflaglink

Sounds like you are happy.

Thank you for correcting me re Nicolas Jaar, and I apologize