Israel to World: "Suck It."

Weren't there any grave and complex sensitivities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when he scheduled the concerts?

This is funny and I basically agree, but what I've heard -- and maybe Mordy knows more about this -- is that performances like this just became really politicized (especially given the many cancellations), to the point where performances are being held out (even by government) as evidence that So-and-So Supports Israel (or so-and-so who canceled is Against Israel), which kinda ups the ante and makes it more difficult to say "I'm just a musician, I only want to share my music."

But of course the reason I agree is that even if it's normally easier to say "I'm just playing music," it's still every bit as complex at the best of times.

I don't really know how these acts are contextualized within Israeli media, but it's hard to imagine that a band playing Israel is itself cause to say the band supports their policies. That seems really weird, especially considering how many Israeli bands exist and play in Israel that are outspokenly critical of Israel. Why is this American anti-establishment band pro Israel because they played there, but this Israeli anti-establishment band isn't necessarily so? But I do believe that someone canceling means something politically in the country.

I actually dig Chomsky's line about boycotting Israeli universities. He said that if we were going to boycott Israeli universities for their government's policies, we're going to have to boycott MIT too. It's a smart recognition that different institutions have different political positions and locations within the larger society. I feel the same way about putting on a rock show.

So you were/are totally okay with the artists who played in apartheid South Africa?

I don't really know how these acts are contextualized within Israeli media, but it's hard to imagine that a band playing Israel is itself cause to say the band supports their policies.

Mordy, I am basically just reporting what I'm told by an Israeli friend -- that right now, especially, it really is being contextualized as support, on a political level, even with acts not nearly significant enough that you'd think it'd matter. I understand what you're saying and I think it's what most artists would like to think -- that playing music for people is not a political act, and has nothing to do with supporting or not-supporting anything -- but from what I was told that's not super-possible right now.

And, yes, I'm sure that's something many artists might have wanted to believe about playing in Sun City, WHICH IS NOT AN ANALOGY ABOUT ISRAEL/PALESTINE, just a way of saying that no matter how much you want to transcend political realities -- "I'm just a musician, I'll share my music with anyone who wants to hear" -- there are certain limits to that, situations where there's no such thing.

Those are exactly the places you should be playing/reading if you have actual political inclinations.

^^ And BTW I wasn't even originally referring to big moral decisions by the artists -- I think there'd just be something pretty "complex" and "sensitive" about knowing that your actions are going to be used for political purposes whether you intend them that way or not. And I suspect a lot of artists might default to a hands-off don't-go position to avoid it. (Which is pretty wishful thinking, too; not-going is just as much of a significant act!)

bnw - I understand that POV, too, but then there's really a lot of burden (on someone like a musician) to speak or make political gestures to audiences that don't necessarily want that. That's a burden they should probably make an effort to lift, but still, like ... there are also good temptations and justifications for avoiding it!

"you played in Israel so you support Israeli policies" is not that far from "you live in Israel so you support Israeli policies". Best not to make decisions based on what the stupid and lazy and prejudiced may misinterpret.

It's just a shame that artists want to chicken out. How hard is it to say "peace and love, etc"?

What I'm suggesting here is that it might not just be the stupid/lazy, and that you and your actions might inevitably become a pawn or symbol in something much bigger than yourself, whether you think you're above that or not.

As for saying "peace and love," I dunno; I do think it gets more complicated than that. I'm guessing if we'd all been invited to play Sun City, surely none of us would have taken the decision lightly -- it would be hard to go entertain a space you knew most of the country was barred from entering and just say "peace and equality" between sets. Obviously that is an entirely different situation from this one, but then the question becomes: at what point did it become different, and how? Like when does it become not-an-issue?

chomsky's line on MIT is quite right. costello is happy to play in the US and UK despite their "illegal occupations". the british academics who want to boycott israel as are dodgy as fuck.

Gee, could it be that the US's occupation is significantly different from Israel's?

in the same way that israel is different from south africa, sure.

i dunno, evidently for costello it's ok for america to kill civilians in countries it's not even at war with (pakistan). israel is just different i guess.

yes, very different.

I think Elvis Costello would have been more than happy to play Sun City.

So you were/are totally okay with the artists who played in apartheid South Africa?

I was ten when apartheid officially ended so I didn't really have much of an opinion at the time. At the moment, I have no idea who did or didn't boycott playing the country (except for the obvious couple like Dylan + Van Zandt). I guess since I'm happy that apartheid ended, I'm happy at whatever contributed to it ending, tho off-the-cuff, without doing serious research, I'd imagine artists boycotting the country had very little to do with it ending. I'm guessing that internal resistance, plus external pushing, plus general cultural/social movements (and leadership) had to do with it ending. I'm sure every little bit helped, but I'm similarly skeptical when Republicans tell me that Reagan got rid of the Berlin Wall by telling them to tear it down. I sympathize with nabisco's position that as an artist you don't want to be used as a political tool, but I'm very cynical that these symbolic moments of artists resisting have any association with real political change. If you believe you're political enough to make a statement by not playing, why aren't you political enough to make a statement by playing? Is it that they somehow believe that their mundane business decisions, like what venues to play and not play, have more meaning and power in the world than the kinds of songs they play and the ways they play them? Cause that's a super depressing thought.

israel isn't south africa

Also, lol to the millionth power to any artist who refuses to play Tel Aviv, but still plays Beirut.

And yeah, also, obviously I don't believe that the solution that worked in South Africa would work in Israel. I think the solution to Israel-Gaza is a two-State solution, not folding everyone in Gaza into Israel. Partially, tho, that's because Zionism, despite a UN decree otherwise, isn't Racism. It's something, obviously, but considering that there are lots of Jews of lots of different races living there (not to mention Israeli Arabs and a large Druze population), it's clearly not racial apartheid. All buildings can be used by everyone, if you're a citizen of Israel you can vote and be represented in the knesset, etc. All things that were absent in South Africa. And because of that, boycotting places like Tel Aviv, which are very liberal non-religious, multiethnic cities, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Also, the article I posted above about the West Bank is really promising, and I'd love to see that as a road map for getting Gaza set up a state (ideally as apart of a larger West Bank - Gaza state).

http://www.billboard.com/news/israeli-raid-on-gaza-bound-flotilla-draws-1004097608.story#/news/israeli-raid-on-gaza-bound-flotilla-draws-1004097608.story

"The net result is raising awareness and exposing Israel for what it is: a colonial and apartheid state," Barghouti said in an e-mail interview from Jerusalem. "The 'brand' Israel has suffered as a consequence of ongoing campaigns of this sort, leading many artists to turn down lucrative offers to play Israel."

It turns out that Barghouti is the secret author of Hipster Runoff.

will be posting Cockburn's Nation column on Chomsky later to balance out Mordy's lovable "Ta da"

Also, lol to the millionth power to any artist who refuses to play Tel Aviv, but still plays Beirut.

This is another thing I understand, and yet here is an important difference: so far as I know, there is no group of people under the control of the Lebanese state who are categorically prevented from coming to see your show. I am not going to judge any artist for caring about this fact. (Or for caring about their presence being used as a symbol that they support this fact.) I think it might be different if any of these artists could say "I'm playing Tel Aviv today, and I'll be playing in Hebron tomorrow." (And it'd be easier to say "well, my Israeli fans have all kinds of different views on the occupation" if there weren't people among them who'd actually prefer you not to come.)

No, they just encouraged a population of 20,000 Jews to move to Israel and then fired rockets at them over the border. I definitely don't think we should be rewarding states for doing well at expelling their populations. That said, I actually don't agree with your distinction that "there is no group of people under the control of the Lebanese state who are categorically prevented from coming to see your show." Gaza is not anymore under the control of the Israeli state as it is under control of the Egyptian state. Its legal status is definitely in flux, but as far as I understand it they are an independent territory that Israel considers itself in a state of war against (the blockade, contrary to a lot of writing on the Internet, is justified as a measure imposed on a hostile government). There is definitely room for argument here, but I would have to agree that Gaza is occupied by Israel before I agreed that them not being allowed to attend an Elvis Costello concert has anything to do with what you wrote. Israeli citizens are categorically not allowed to attend a concert in Beirut (it's one of about ten countries where that's so), but you wouldn't consider that apartheid.

Just to clarify so it's not misread, I don't mean *I justify* the blockade under that argument. I think it's more-or-less a bad idea. But that is how it is justified in international law.

Also, I'm definitely interested in hearing a strong argument for why Gaza is occupied by Israel. I'm willing to be swayed, but it seems to me that these facts preclude it from being described that way: There are no Jews still living in Gaza. There was a Democratically elected government that controls domestic affairs. That outside Operation Cast-Lead, and limited excursions into the territory done under the rubric of protecting Southern Israel, there isn't a persistent Israeli military presence in the territory (I could wrong about this).

In 2005, Israel officially withdrew from the Gaza Strip. But the withdrawal did not end Israel's effective control of the Palestinian territory in all vital regards, thus inflaming Palestinian resentment rather than diffusing it.

What Israel Did Not Give Up in Gaza

In August 2005, the last Israeli settlers left Gaza, followed by the last Israeli soldiers in September, as Israel pulled out of the Palestinian territory it had occupied since 1967. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza gave the general impression, at least in the Western press, that Israel was effectively turning over Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. That was not, and still is not, the case. As B’Tselem, the Israeli information and human rights organization, documents:

* Israel continues to maintain complete control over the air and sea space of the Gaza Strip. No Palestinian may operate a seaport or an airport without Israeli approval, which limits Palestinians’ freedom of trade and travel.

* Israel continues to control the joint Gaza Strip-West Bank population registry, which means Israel gets to decide who is a “Palestinian resident” and who is a “foreigner.” Palestinians must seek Israeli approval for every individual who wants to move to the West Bank.

* The Rafah border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt was supposedly turned over to the Palestinian Authority. In fact, Israel continues to control the crossing to the extent that it may bar entry to “foreigners”—that is, Palestinians who are not residents of the Occupied Territories—or anyone it deems a security risk.

* Israel continues to maintain complete control of the movement of people and goods between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which Israel considers a “closed military area” off limits to anyone without a permit. West Bank residents are also forbidden from traveling aborad, including to the Gaza Striop, without a difficult-to-obtain Israeli permit.

* As far as trade is concerned, Israel controls the three crossing points in and out of Gaza (Karni, Sufa, and Kerem Shalom). Israel routinely closes the crossings to any exchange of goods, causing severe food and other shortages in Gaza.

* Israel still controls taxation and other levies in Gaza.

http://middleeast.about.com/od/israelandpalestine/a/me080618b.htm

I don't know anything about the population registry, but is there a real source for the Rafah border crossing? As far as I know that is entirely Egypt's domain, and that's how they were able to open it up after the flotilla incident. I've never heard that Israel still controls it. I'm not sure why Israel is allowed to control Kerem Shalom (it seems to me like Egypt should control it), but that falls under the laws of the blockade, not occupation. Also don't know about taxation, but this article --http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=278209 -- suggests it's bullshit. I'd have to see a source for that too.

Umm, that article doesn't really address the taxation issue. Anyway, Mordy, I know the West Bank is doing better lately but let's not just forget about it here. My main point isn't to argue with you about what's justified, it's to say that these are peculiar policies that have a really direct bearing on the show you're coming to play -- who can enjoy it, who can't, how the safety of it has been achieved -- and artists are inevitably going to have to make some personal and moral decisions about that fact. And yes, the same is true of playing lots of places.

I am, I have to admit, just totally lost and shrugging on the claim that these are just like ordinary national borders. I dunno. I guess we can revive this discussion when Elvis Costello can just as easily book a show in East Jerusalem or Gaza.

Not to sound glib, but presumably if he can account for his own safety he could book a show in Gaza and go through the Egyptian border which is currently open. I actually think that would be great and probably much better for promoting peace than canceling his trip to Tel Aviv.

I can't find any information that says that Israel collects taxes from Gaza + West Bank, and only one NY Times article from 94 (!) that says they handed over taxation to the Palestinian Authority. They could have taken it back since, I guess, or I might not understand what it means to "control taxation." I assumed it meant collecting it.

I was ten when apartheid officially ended so I didn't really have much of an opinion at the time. At the moment, I have no idea who did or didn't boycott playing the country (except for the obvious couple like Dylan + Van Zandt). I guess since I'm happy that apartheid ended, I'm happy at whatever contributed to it ending, tho off-the-cuff, without doing serious research, I'd imagine artists boycotting the country had very little to do with it ending. I'm guessing that internal resistance, plus external pushing, plus general cultural/social movements (and leadership) had to do with it ending. I'm sure every little bit helped, but I'm similarly skeptical when Republicans tell me that Reagan got rid of the Berlin Wall by telling them to tear it down. I sympathize with nabisco's position that as an artist you don't want to be used as a political tool, but I'm very cynical that these symbolic moments of artists resisting have any association with real political change. If you believe you're political enough to make a statement by not playing, why aren't you political enough to make a statement by playing? Is it that they somehow believe that their mundane business decisions, like what venues to play and not play, have more meaning and power in the world than the kinds of songs they play and the ways they play them? Cause that's a super depressing thought.

― Mordy, Friday, June 11, 2010 3:54 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Man, what a convoluted way of not answering my question.

Are you unable to parse sentences for explanations, or is this some kind of bullshit thing where all questions have a yes/no answer?

I don't have a negative biological reaction when I hear about an artist doing it. I can see reasons why it might not have mattered so I'd have no real reason to care, and reasons why it might make a difference so it might be appropriate to care. I don't have a serious phenomenological feeling about it tho. Is that what you were asking?

if you don't have a feeling about it, just say so, don't give me 300 words of tangents.

But I think the fact that you don't have an opinion about artists raking in money from Sun City gigs says plenty.

Like, I don't know how analogous this is, but I'm not 100% sure it was wrong not to boycott the 1936 Summer Olympics. Clearly the world should've gotten involved in Germany before 1939, but it's hard for me to say that a boycott would've made any difference, and it some ways I feel like positive things came out of it.

as far as I understand it they are an independent territory that Israel considers itself in a state of war against

Then, as signatories to Geneva, Israel should be treating Hamas prisoners as POWs. Which they are not.

Having traouble accessing AC's Nation column (even tho I'm a subscriber -- for about 3 more weeks), so this'll have to do:

Israel is plunging into deeper darkness. As the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy recently told one interviewer: "In the last year there have been real cracks in the democratic system of Israel. ... It's systematic -- it's not here and there. Things are becoming much harder." And Levy also wrote in Haaretz, "When Israel closes its gates to anyone who doesn't fall in line with our official positions, we are quickly becoming similar to North Korea. When right-wing parties increase their number of anti-democratic bills, and from all sides there are calls to make certain groups illegal, we must worry, of course. But when all this is engulfed in silence, and when even academia is increasingly falling in line with dangerous and dark views ... the situation is apparently far beyond desperate."

http://www.creators.com/liberal/alexander-cockburn/pariah-nation.html

quickly becoming similar to North Korea

dismissive blowjob gesture

cockpunch publishes some really disgusting individuals, has zero credibility

also: massive eyerolling over nabisco holding up fuckin' lebanon as the home of free speech and human rights. are you gd kidding man?

Israel run by some really disgusting individuals, has zero credibility

they're unpleasant, but they're not gilad atzmon-unpleasant

body count stats, plz

the people with the lowest count must always be in the right i guess

maybe this is why cockburn feels the need to publish the views of a holocaust denier?

i ask, i do not know

nabisco holding up fuckin' lebanon as the home of free speech and human rights.

Pictured: nabisco (artist's conception)

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/strawman.jpg

um no

so far as I know, there is no group of people under the control of the Lebanese state who are categorically prevented from coming to see your show.

probably worth checking. immigrant workers and the palestinian population are very much second-class not-exactly-citizens.

interesting qn if gaza would host an elvis costello concert. (obligatory haven't they suffered enough remark)

nrq, your "A published B but now is quoting C so C must be full of shit" brand of 21st-century forensics that J0hn and I have noticed before is really fucking stoopid

no it isn't. atzmon is notorious, and if you publish him you endorse him. i think counterpunch is garbage in general through.

peep this, for examp:

http://www.counterpunch.org/weir08282009.html

"if you publish him you endorse him"

ok no need to bother w/ you