Should Pearl Jam Play in Israel?
Options
Comments
-
appreciate the response...It's my understanding that Waters would be subject to fines, if what the legislator assumes is accurate.BS44325 said:
It might be hypocritical...I am not sure yet and find it interesting as a point of law. Again I am not for shutting down Roger's right to perform or speak...his concert should go on. That being said I am not aware of what level of public dollars Nassau Coliseum receives. If Nassau receives public funds then certainly by law it cannot host a BDS event. A Roger Waters concert however is not a "BDS event" even if he personally supports it. The owner's of Nassaue Coliseum (I assume it's privately owned but don't know) might have to consider though whether it's reasonable to assume that a Roger Waters concert could become a platform for BDS which thereby affect there future ability to receive public funds and/or subsidies. Again this law doesn't prevent Rogers ability to speak anywhere in the state but it does prevent public dollars from flowing to him and/or associated businesses. I personally think his show should go on either way but don't find it objectionable that taxpayers do not want there money going to him or to associated businesses if he choose to make this show a platform for BDS.JC29856 said:
we agree that this cannot be anymore hypocritical?BS44325 said:
Anti-bds legislation is speech. It doesn't prevent BDS from mobilizing it is only a position to not financially endorse the movement with public dollars. I understand that this confuses many but it is actually quite simple. Even with anti-BDS legislation in place BDS can still organize, protest, and speak out against Israel wherever it chooses...it just has to do it without public dollars. Anti-BDS legislation requires BDS groups to decide which is more important...it's political stance or it's public money. In the end though they still get to make the choice. They still get to speak. Nobody is stopping them.JC29856 said:
what are your thoughts on anti bds and combating bds legislation? do they shut down free speech?BS44325 said:
BDS aims to shut down speech. It aims to shut down art. It is fascist. It's discourse is not civil. Sorry for exposing you to that which makes you uncomfortable.Halifax2TheMax said:
No less rational than your insistence that anyone who uses the term "occupy" or "resistance" to describe anything other than the Jewish struggle against the Nazis is insinuating that they're making a comparison of the object, Trump for example, as or comparable to Nazis and the Nazi party and by so doing, are adding to the toxic discourse. Yet you come right out and call BDS fascists and claim your discourse is civil. Typical apologist.BS44325 said:
Yes. Silence equals approval. A very rational statement by a very rational man.Halifax2TheMax said:
Ummmm, sure, vicious. You know what's vicious? An Israeli man killing his own daughter for loving a Muslim man. But no outrage from you. Your silence equals approval.BS44325 said:
Vicious yes. Blood dripping no.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nice addition to the toxic discourse by using the term "fascist" to describe BDS in your defense of Israel but cry your faux outrage when those you disagree with use similar terms to describe Israel and their apartheid like treatment of the Palestinians. Yea, Roger Waters is vicious and he's got blood dripping from his hands, right professor?BS44325 said:This is an important voice...
http://www.newsweek.com/why-radiohead-should-perform-israel-638086
It's a shame that so many want to shut it down.
While I disagree with Michael Stipe's use of the term "occupation" he is entitled to his belief and his/Radiohead's approach is the correct one:
http://pitchfork.com/news/michael-stipe-i-stand-with-radiohead-in-israel-concert-controversy/
Radiohead is showing true courage and it would be nice to see Pearl Jam provide support in the same manner that Michael Stipe did. Art and freedom of expression are under assault by Roger Waters and the rest of BDS...they have no power to change Israel's behaviour so they focus on attacking artists who dare to bring their message to the people. Whether PJ weighs in or not it is quite clear now that Radiohead will not back down in the face of BDS facism and Waters and his brethren will take a massive hit tomorrow. A band who for decades could not be bought or sold, who maintained integrity in their art and their political positions, will not be silenced. Bravo to Radiohead for they have laid bare the viciousness of Waters and BDS and have showed other artists that they need not be afraid.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.jta.org/2017/07/17/news-opinion/united-states/roger-waters-concert-on-long-island-violates-anti-bds-law-lawmaker-says/
http://www.spin.com/2017/07/roger-waters-bds-long-island-israel/
*Just to add...I am surprised that Roger Waters is willing to perform in states with anti-BDS laws on the books. If he was a true believer like he says he is then he should probably boycott these states as well. You would assume that in his eyes this anti-BDS legislation would be worse then a North Carolina bathroom law.
It is my opinion that supporting bds or not giving a shit about it at all is speech and should not be infringed upon.
Radiohead is a close second to PJ for me, I don't have a problem with them playing Israel nor do I have a problem with history lessons and reminding them of illegal settlements, violations of and disregard of international law, war crimes, nuke treaties and the like.0 -
FASCISM!! 20 years in prison!!!
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720?q={"search":["Israel+Anti-Boycott+act"]}&r=1
0 -
let's stay on fascism and confusion...because I'm easily confused
Anti-bds legislation is speech. It doesn't prevent BDS from mobilizing it is only a position to not financially endorse the movement with public dollars. I understand that this confuses many but it is actually quite simple. Even with anti-BDS legislation in place BDS can still organize, protest, and speak out against Israel wherever it chooses...it just has to do it without public dollars. Anti-BDS legislation requires BDS groups to decide which is more important...it's political stance or it's public money. In the end though they still get to make the choice. They still get to speak. Nobody is stopping them.
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/THE CRIMINALIZATION OF political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the west. In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing t-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. The U.K. has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism. In the U.S., governors compete with one anotherover who can implement the most extreme regulations to bar businesses from participating in any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements, which the world regards as illegal. On U.S. campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplacethat the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as “the Palestine Exception” to free speech.
But now, a group of 43 Senators – 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats – want to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country’s decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: anyone guilty of violating its prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.
0 -
The fact that there are laws like that on the books, and proposed in various places shows us two things:
the reach of the Israel lobby in our governments - that they are more beholden to these interests than their constituents.... And that BDS is relevant, working, and something feared by Israel.
fuck Radiohead. The last chance they have keeping me as a fan is if they have the balls to speak from the stage about the atrocities of the Israeli government...and not in some vague way that makes the OCCUPATION sound like a two way street. If they don't, they're dead to me. If they d...well, we will see how that goes...0 -
As has been said all along about both Radiohead's show and any potential PJshow there....you can say you don't support the goverent of Israel till you're blue in the face...but that won't stop them from using your brand/band to normalize their apartheid state. Radiohead should be ashamed. They won't live this down. Is it really worth it?
Radiohead gig promoted by Israeli diplomatic missions around the world
Radiohead are a band that many had associated with progressive politics. But now it turns out they have an extraordinary following among Israeli diplomats and right-wing conservatives. From US radio host Glenn Beck and Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler, a range of around twenty Israel lobby groups, and thirteen Israeli diplomatic missions around the world from Ireland to Colombia, these groups are united in their explicit contempt for the indigenous Palestinian people’s lives.
The Jerusalem Post described Radiohead’s Israel gig and Thom Yorke’s rejection of the Palestinian call for BDS as “the best hasbara [advocacy] Israel has received lately”. Thom Yorke has defended their decision saying that “playing in a country isn’t the same as endorsing its government”, but the Israeli government and its supporters certainly do endorse Radiohead.
Palestinian, Israeli and UK artists and activistshave repeatedly pointed to the inevitable instrumentalisation of the band’s appearance in Tel Aviv by Israel and its supporters.Here are samples of messaging from June and July.
(See link)
0 -
BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!!Drowned Out said:The fact that there are laws like that on the books, and proposed in various places shows us two things:
the reach of the Israel lobby in our governments - that they are more beholden to these interests than their constituents.... And that BDS is relevant, working, and something feared by Israel.
fuck Radiohead. The last chance they have keeping me as a fan is if they have the balls to speak from the stage about the atrocities of the Israeli government...and not in some vague way that makes the OCCUPATION sound like a two way street. If they don't, they're dead to me. If they d...well, we will see how that goes...
I wouldn't go that far with Radiohead, life experiences changes things, no better example than Vedder. Is he dead to you?
I know it's difficult to interpret the emotion filled passion filled music/lyrics of the past and say to yourself wtf happened, what changed (knowing nothing changed in reality except avg bank balances and all the niceties that come along with it).
maybe their master plan is to get up there and talk about the atrocities, although I doubt it.
thoughts?Post edited by JC29856 on0 -
You could be right...the law is murky on this point as after all the legislation is pretty new. Personally I hope and imagine that Roger will be able to perform without issue. Speaking on behalf of BDS and practicing BDS are two very different things and what anti-BDS legislation was created to target was public universities and the like that choose to practice it.JC29856 said:
appreciate the response...It's my understanding that Waters would be subject to fines, if what the legislator assumes is accurate.BS44325 said:
It might be hypocritical...I am not sure yet and find it interesting as a point of law. Again I am not for shutting down Roger's right to perform or speak...his concert should go on. That being said I am not aware of what level of public dollars Nassau Coliseum receives. If Nassau receives public funds then certainly by law it cannot host a BDS event. A Roger Waters concert however is not a "BDS event" even if he personally supports it. The owner's of Nassaue Coliseum (I assume it's privately owned but don't know) might have to consider though whether it's reasonable to assume that a Roger Waters concert could become a platform for BDS which thereby affect there future ability to receive public funds and/or subsidies. Again this law doesn't prevent Rogers ability to speak anywhere in the state but it does prevent public dollars from flowing to him and/or associated businesses. I personally think his show should go on either way but don't find it objectionable that taxpayers do not want there money going to him or to associated businesses if he choose to make this show a platform for BDS.JC29856 said:
we agree that this cannot be anymore hypocritical?BS44325 said:
Anti-bds legislation is speech. It doesn't prevent BDS from mobilizing it is only a position to not financially endorse the movement with public dollars. I understand that this confuses many but it is actually quite simple. Even with anti-BDS legislation in place BDS can still organize, protest, and speak out against Israel wherever it chooses...it just has to do it without public dollars. Anti-BDS legislation requires BDS groups to decide which is more important...it's political stance or it's public money. In the end though they still get to make the choice. They still get to speak. Nobody is stopping them.JC29856 said:
what are your thoughts on anti bds and combating bds legislation? do they shut down free speech?BS44325 said:
BDS aims to shut down speech. It aims to shut down art. It is fascist. It's discourse is not civil. Sorry for exposing you to that which makes you uncomfortable.Halifax2TheMax said:
No less rational than your insistence that anyone who uses the term "occupy" or "resistance" to describe anything other than the Jewish struggle against the Nazis is insinuating that they're making a comparison of the object, Trump for example, as or comparable to Nazis and the Nazi party and by so doing, are adding to the toxic discourse. Yet you come right out and call BDS fascists and claim your discourse is civil. Typical apologist.BS44325 said:
Yes. Silence equals approval. A very rational statement by a very rational man.Halifax2TheMax said:
Ummmm, sure, vicious. You know what's vicious? An Israeli man killing his own daughter for loving a Muslim man. But no outrage from you. Your silence equals approval.BS44325 said:
Vicious yes. Blood dripping no.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nice addition to the toxic discourse by using the term "fascist" to describe BDS in your defense of Israel but cry your faux outrage when those you disagree with use similar terms to describe Israel and their apartheid like treatment of the Palestinians. Yea, Roger Waters is vicious and he's got blood dripping from his hands, right professor?BS44325 said:This is an important voice...
http://www.newsweek.com/why-radiohead-should-perform-israel-638086
It's a shame that so many want to shut it down.
While I disagree with Michael Stipe's use of the term "occupation" he is entitled to his belief and his/Radiohead's approach is the correct one:
http://pitchfork.com/news/michael-stipe-i-stand-with-radiohead-in-israel-concert-controversy/
Radiohead is showing true courage and it would be nice to see Pearl Jam provide support in the same manner that Michael Stipe did. Art and freedom of expression are under assault by Roger Waters and the rest of BDS...they have no power to change Israel's behaviour so they focus on attacking artists who dare to bring their message to the people. Whether PJ weighs in or not it is quite clear now that Radiohead will not back down in the face of BDS facism and Waters and his brethren will take a massive hit tomorrow. A band who for decades could not be bought or sold, who maintained integrity in their art and their political positions, will not be silenced. Bravo to Radiohead for they have laid bare the viciousness of Waters and BDS and have showed other artists that they need not be afraid.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.jta.org/2017/07/17/news-opinion/united-states/roger-waters-concert-on-long-island-violates-anti-bds-law-lawmaker-says/
http://www.spin.com/2017/07/roger-waters-bds-long-island-israel/
*Just to add...I am surprised that Roger Waters is willing to perform in states with anti-BDS laws on the books. If he was a true believer like he says he is then he should probably boycott these states as well. You would assume that in his eyes this anti-BDS legislation would be worse then a North Carolina bathroom law.
It is my opinion that supporting bds or not giving a shit about it at all is speech and should not be infringed upon.
Radiohead is a close second to PJ for me, I don't have a problem with them playing Israel nor do I have a problem with history lessons and reminding them of illegal settlements, violations of and disregard of international law, war crimes, nuke treaties and the like.
0 -
never accuse of of being correct, even "alluding" to it opens up conspiracy theories that you're a double agent.BS44325 said:
You could be right...the law is murky on this point as after all the legislation is pretty new. Personally I hope and imagine that Roger will be able to perform without issue. Speaking on behalf of BDS and practicing BDS are two very different things and what anti-BDS legislation was created to target was public universities and the like that choose to practice it.JC29856 said:
appreciate the response...It's my understanding that Waters would be subject to fines, if what the legislator assumes is accurate.BS44325 said:
It might be hypocritical...I am not sure yet and find it interesting as a point of law. Again I am not for shutting down Roger's right to perform or speak...his concert should go on. That being said I am not aware of what level of public dollars Nassau Coliseum receives. If Nassau receives public funds then certainly by law it cannot host a BDS event. A Roger Waters concert however is not a "BDS event" even if he personally supports it. The owner's of Nassaue Coliseum (I assume it's privately owned but don't know) might have to consider though whether it's reasonable to assume that a Roger Waters concert could become a platform for BDS which thereby affect there future ability to receive public funds and/or subsidies. Again this law doesn't prevent Rogers ability to speak anywhere in the state but it does prevent public dollars from flowing to him and/or associated businesses. I personally think his show should go on either way but don't find it objectionable that taxpayers do not want there money going to him or to associated businesses if he choose to make this show a platform for BDS.JC29856 said:
we agree that this cannot be anymore hypocritical?BS44325 said:
Anti-bds legislation is speech. It doesn't prevent BDS from mobilizing it is only a position to not financially endorse the movement with public dollars. I understand that this confuses many but it is actually quite simple. Even with anti-BDS legislation in place BDS can still organize, protest, and speak out against Israel wherever it chooses...it just has to do it without public dollars. Anti-BDS legislation requires BDS groups to decide which is more important...it's political stance or it's public money. In the end though they still get to make the choice. They still get to speak. Nobody is stopping them.JC29856 said:
what are your thoughts on anti bds and combating bds legislation? do they shut down free speech?BS44325 said:
BDS aims to shut down speech. It aims to shut down art. It is fascist. It's discourse is not civil. Sorry for exposing you to that which makes you uncomfortable.Halifax2TheMax said:
No less rational than your insistence that anyone who uses the term "occupy" or "resistance" to describe anything other than the Jewish struggle against the Nazis is insinuating that they're making a comparison of the object, Trump for example, as or comparable to Nazis and the Nazi party and by so doing, are adding to the toxic discourse. Yet you come right out and call BDS fascists and claim your discourse is civil. Typical apologist.BS44325 said:
Yes. Silence equals approval. A very rational statement by a very rational man.Halifax2TheMax said:
Ummmm, sure, vicious. You know what's vicious? An Israeli man killing his own daughter for loving a Muslim man. But no outrage from you. Your silence equals approval.BS44325 said:
Vicious yes. Blood dripping no.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nice addition to the toxic discourse by using the term "fascist" to describe BDS in your defense of Israel but cry your faux outrage when those you disagree with use similar terms to describe Israel and their apartheid like treatment of the Palestinians. Yea, Roger Waters is vicious and he's got blood dripping from his hands, right professor?BS44325 said:This is an important voice...
http://www.newsweek.com/why-radiohead-should-perform-israel-638086
It's a shame that so many want to shut it down.
While I disagree with Michael Stipe's use of the term "occupation" he is entitled to his belief and his/Radiohead's approach is the correct one:
http://pitchfork.com/news/michael-stipe-i-stand-with-radiohead-in-israel-concert-controversy/
Radiohead is showing true courage and it would be nice to see Pearl Jam provide support in the same manner that Michael Stipe did. Art and freedom of expression are under assault by Roger Waters and the rest of BDS...they have no power to change Israel's behaviour so they focus on attacking artists who dare to bring their message to the people. Whether PJ weighs in or not it is quite clear now that Radiohead will not back down in the face of BDS facism and Waters and his brethren will take a massive hit tomorrow. A band who for decades could not be bought or sold, who maintained integrity in their art and their political positions, will not be silenced. Bravo to Radiohead for they have laid bare the viciousness of Waters and BDS and have showed other artists that they need not be afraid.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.jta.org/2017/07/17/news-opinion/united-states/roger-waters-concert-on-long-island-violates-anti-bds-law-lawmaker-says/
http://www.spin.com/2017/07/roger-waters-bds-long-island-israel/
*Just to add...I am surprised that Roger Waters is willing to perform in states with anti-BDS laws on the books. If he was a true believer like he says he is then he should probably boycott these states as well. You would assume that in his eyes this anti-BDS legislation would be worse then a North Carolina bathroom law.
It is my opinion that supporting bds or not giving a shit about it at all is speech and should not be infringed upon.
Radiohead is a close second to PJ for me, I don't have a problem with them playing Israel nor do I have a problem with history lessons and reminding them of illegal settlements, violations of and disregard of international law, war crimes, nuke treaties and the like.
anyway, nice chatting. I finished some wings and downed too many vitamin Ys.
I hope I'm not seated next to Ann Coulter!0 -
I sincerely doubt that's their plan....even if it is, they are turning their back on the Palestinian request. They say they want to engage in dialogue and share their art and perform with other local artists...as Waters said, I hope Thom lets us all know about the benefits of chatting with Israeli musicians, about the changes he affects by doing so. It will change nothing. And dialogue? Decades of dialogue have done nothing. It is time for action. No more effective action than a boycott.
Not sure what you're asking about Vedder... He definitely doesn't seem as pricipled as he once did (the oracle and other private corp shows come to mind).....but that is very different from crossing a human rights picket line. If they did play Israel, I would be saying the same about him/them.
0 -
just as I hit post comment, the first cords of evenflow sounded in this establishment, sweet...oddly enough upon the first lyrics suddenly my bladder feels full!!JC29856 said:
never accuse of of being correct, even "alluding" to it opens up conspiracy theories that you're a double agent.BS44325 said:
You could be right...the law is murky on this point as after all the legislation is pretty new. Personally I hope and imagine that Roger will be able to perform without issue. Speaking on behalf of BDS and practicing BDS are two very different things and what anti-BDS legislation was created to target was public universities and the like that choose to practice it.JC29856 said:
appreciate the response...It's my understanding that Waters would be subject to fines, if what the legislator assumes is accurate.BS44325 said:
It might be hypocritical...I am not sure yet and find it interesting as a point of law. Again I am not for shutting down Roger's right to perform or speak...his concert should go on. That being said I am not aware of what level of public dollars Nassau Coliseum receives. If Nassau receives public funds then certainly by law it cannot host a BDS event. A Roger Waters concert however is not a "BDS event" even if he personally supports it. The owner's of Nassaue Coliseum (I assume it's privately owned but don't know) might have to consider though whether it's reasonable to assume that a Roger Waters concert could become a platform for BDS which thereby affect there future ability to receive public funds and/or subsidies. Again this law doesn't prevent Rogers ability to speak anywhere in the state but it does prevent public dollars from flowing to him and/or associated businesses. I personally think his show should go on either way but don't find it objectionable that taxpayers do not want there money going to him or to associated businesses if he choose to make this show a platform for BDS.JC29856 said:
we agree that this cannot be anymore hypocritical?BS44325 said:
Anti-bds legislation is speech. It doesn't prevent BDS from mobilizing it is only a position to not financially endorse the movement with public dollars. I understand that this confuses many but it is actually quite simple. Even with anti-BDS legislation in place BDS can still organize, protest, and speak out against Israel wherever it chooses...it just has to do it without public dollars. Anti-BDS legislation requires BDS groups to decide which is more important...it's political stance or it's public money. In the end though they still get to make the choice. They still get to speak. Nobody is stopping them.JC29856 said:
what are your thoughts on anti bds and combating bds legislation? do they shut down free speech?BS44325 said:
BDS aims to shut down speech. It aims to shut down art. It is fascist. It's discourse is not civil. Sorry for exposing you to that which makes you uncomfortable.Halifax2TheMax said:
No less rational than your insistence that anyone who uses the term "occupy" or "resistance" to describe anything other than the Jewish struggle against the Nazis is insinuating that they're making a comparison of the object, Trump for example, as or comparable to Nazis and the Nazi party and by so doing, are adding to the toxic discourse. Yet you come right out and call BDS fascists and claim your discourse is civil. Typical apologist.BS44325 said:
Yes. Silence equals approval. A very rational statement by a very rational man.Halifax2TheMax said:
Ummmm, sure, vicious. You know what's vicious? An Israeli man killing his own daughter for loving a Muslim man. But no outrage from you. Your silence equals approval.BS44325 said:
Vicious yes. Blood dripping no.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nice addition to the toxic discourse by using the term "fascist" to describe BDS in your defense of Israel but cry your faux outrage when those you disagree with use similar terms to describe Israel and their apartheid like treatment of the Palestinians. Yea, Roger Waters is vicious and he's got blood dripping from his hands, right professor?BS44325 said:This is an important voice...
http://www.newsweek.com/why-radiohead-should-perform-israel-638086
It's a shame that so many want to shut it down.
While I disagree with Michael Stipe's use of the term "occupation" he is entitled to his belief and his/Radiohead's approach is the correct one:
http://pitchfork.com/news/michael-stipe-i-stand-with-radiohead-in-israel-concert-controversy/
Radiohead is showing true courage and it would be nice to see Pearl Jam provide support in the same manner that Michael Stipe did. Art and freedom of expression are under assault by Roger Waters and the rest of BDS...they have no power to change Israel's behaviour so they focus on attacking artists who dare to bring their message to the people. Whether PJ weighs in or not it is quite clear now that Radiohead will not back down in the face of BDS facism and Waters and his brethren will take a massive hit tomorrow. A band who for decades could not be bought or sold, who maintained integrity in their art and their political positions, will not be silenced. Bravo to Radiohead for they have laid bare the viciousness of Waters and BDS and have showed other artists that they need not be afraid.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.jta.org/2017/07/17/news-opinion/united-states/roger-waters-concert-on-long-island-violates-anti-bds-law-lawmaker-says/
http://www.spin.com/2017/07/roger-waters-bds-long-island-israel/
*Just to add...I am surprised that Roger Waters is willing to perform in states with anti-BDS laws on the books. If he was a true believer like he says he is then he should probably boycott these states as well. You would assume that in his eyes this anti-BDS legislation would be worse then a North Carolina bathroom law.
It is my opinion that supporting bds or not giving a shit about it at all is speech and should not be infringed upon.
Radiohead is a close second to PJ for me, I don't have a problem with them playing Israel nor do I have a problem with history lessons and reminding them of illegal settlements, violations of and disregard of international law, war crimes, nuke treaties and the like.
anyway, nice chatting. I finished some wings and downed too many vitamin Ys.
I hope I'm not seated next to Ann Coulter!0 -
But who chose to make this an issue Drowned? Radiohead made no statement for or against Israel...they just simply announced a concert date. It was Roger Waters and BDS who insisted on making this a bigger issue...who insisted on pressuring Radiohead not to play. To quote Thom Yorke "playing Israel is not an endorsement Of Netanyahu anymore then playing the US is an endorsement of Trump". If BDS just left this alone then "friends of Israel" would not be using this as a political endorsement. Nobody said a word about GNR playing there last week and hence it wasn't turned into an issue. The reason the Radiohead show has become a big deal is that Waters and BDS recognize them as a band with integrity and it hurts the BDS movement to see a band of that calibre perform. Waters should have let this go but no....he had to make this into a bigger deal then it should be. He took to the media to shut this down and he lost. BDS lost.Drowned Out said:As has been said all along about both Radiohead's show and any potential PJshow there....you can say you don't support the goverent of Israel till you're blue in the face...but that won't stop them from using your brand/band to normalize their apartheid state. Radiohead should be ashamed. They won't live this down. Is it really worth it?
Radiohead gig promoted by Israeli diplomatic missions around the world
Radiohead are a band that many had associated with progressive politics. But now it turns out they have an extraordinary following among Israeli diplomats and right-wing conservatives. From US radio host Glenn Beck and Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler, a range of around twenty Israel lobby groups, and thirteen Israeli diplomatic missions around the world from Ireland to Colombia, these groups are united in their explicit contempt for the indigenous Palestinian people’s lives.
The Jerusalem Post described Radiohead’s Israel gig and Thom Yorke’s rejection of the Palestinian call for BDS as “the best hasbara [advocacy] Israel has received lately”. Thom Yorke has defended their decision saying that “playing in a country isn’t the same as endorsing its government”, but the Israeli government and its supporters certainly do endorse Radiohead.
Palestinian, Israeli and UK artists and activistshave repeatedly pointed to the inevitable instrumentalisation of the band’s appearance in Tel Aviv by Israel and its supporters.Here are samples of messaging from June and July.
(See link)
0 -
It really is an infantile stance. Nobody on these boards can differ more politically with Pearl Jam then me yet I support them to take the stances they do every step of the way. It is their right to believe what they want and I personally want an artist who is passionate about things...it is what makes music and art authentic. The only thing I won't stand for is an artist who will pressure other artists to behave in a certain way. At that point the artist is no longer a defender of speech but in fact a silencer of speech.JC29856 said:
BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!!Drowned Out said:The fact that there are laws like that on the books, and proposed in various places shows us two things:
the reach of the Israel lobby in our governments - that they are more beholden to these interests than their constituents.... And that BDS is relevant, working, and something feared by Israel.
fuck Radiohead. The last chance they have keeping me as a fan is if they have the balls to speak from the stage about the atrocities of the Israeli government...and not in some vague way that makes the OCCUPATION sound like a two way street. If they don't, they're dead to me. If they d...well, we will see how that goes...
I wouldn't go that far with Radiohead, life experiences changes things, no better example than Vedder. Is he dead to you?
I know it's difficult to interpret the emotion filled passion filled music/lyrics of the past and say to yourself wtf happened, what changed (knowing nothing changed in reality except avg bank balances and all the niceties that come along with it).
maybe their master plan is to get up there and talk about the atrocities, although I doubt it.
thoughts?0 -
agree, I'm a tough critic.Drowned Out said:I sincerely doubt that's their plan....even if it is, they are turning their back on the Palestinian request. They say they want to engage in dialogue and share their art and perform with other local artists...as Waters said, I hope Thom lets us all know about the benefits of chatting with Israeli musicians, about the changes he affects by doing so. It will change nothing. And dialogue? Decades of dialogue have done nothing. It is time for action. No more effective action than a boycott.
Not sure what you're asking about Vedder... He definitely doesn't seem as pricipled as he once did (the oracle and other private corp shows come to mind).....but that is very different from crossing a human rights picket line. If they did play Israel, I would be saying the same about him/them.
anyway, my in flight music usually consists of anything Cornell, solo Vedder, Maynard Ferguson, Enya, anything George Michael, or Public Enemy, but today I'm going with Radiohead. Should I start back (pablo) forward or forward (moon pool) back? your call
(hot towel niceties!)0 -
You must listen to the b-sides that just came out with the OK Computer re-release. They are unreal.JC29856 said:
agree, I'm a tough critic.Drowned Out said:I sincerely doubt that's their plan....even if it is, they are turning their back on the Palestinian request. They say they want to engage in dialogue and share their art and perform with other local artists...as Waters said, I hope Thom lets us all know about the benefits of chatting with Israeli musicians, about the changes he affects by doing so. It will change nothing. And dialogue? Decades of dialogue have done nothing. It is time for action. No more effective action than a boycott.
Not sure what you're asking about Vedder... He definitely doesn't seem as pricipled as he once did (the oracle and other private corp shows come to mind).....but that is very different from crossing a human rights picket line. If they did play Israel, I would be saying the same about him/them.
anyway, my in flight music usually consists of anything Cornell, solo Vedder, Maynard Ferguson, Enya, anything George Michael, or Public Enemy, but today I'm going with Radiohead. Should I start back (pablo) forward or forward (moon pool) back? your call
(hot towel niceties!)0 -
ok...I'm on it...I'm adding Sheena Easton to the playlist also. Thanks!BS44325 said:
You must listen to the b-sides that just came out with the OK Computer re-release. They are unreal.JC29856 said:
agree, I'm a tough critic.Drowned Out said:I sincerely doubt that's their plan....even if it is, they are turning their back on the Palestinian request. They say they want to engage in dialogue and share their art and perform with other local artists...as Waters said, I hope Thom lets us all know about the benefits of chatting with Israeli musicians, about the changes he affects by doing so. It will change nothing. And dialogue? Decades of dialogue have done nothing. It is time for action. No more effective action than a boycott.
Not sure what you're asking about Vedder... He definitely doesn't seem as pricipled as he once did (the oracle and other private corp shows come to mind).....but that is very different from crossing a human rights picket line. If they did play Israel, I would be saying the same about him/them.
anyway, my in flight music usually consists of anything Cornell, solo Vedder, Maynard Ferguson, Enya, anything George Michael, or Public Enemy, but today I'm going with Radiohead. Should I start back (pablo) forward or forward (moon pool) back? your call
(hot towel niceties!)0 -
Helping Palestinian fans see the show...
http://www.nme.com/news/music/palestinian-radiohead-fan-attend-tonights-radiohead-concert-israel-production-team-intervenes-2113195
0 -
One. Palestinian fan. Singular.BS44325 said:Helping Palestinian fans see the show...
http://www.nme.com/news/music/palestinian-radiohead-fan-attend-tonights-radiohead-concert-israel-production-team-intervenes-2113195
and putting out a self righteous bit of PR to accompany it...calling the West Bank ''Judea and Samaria' in the presser. Perfect example of how israel's propaganda machine is using this concert to normalize the occupation.
'See? The show is about peace! We love our Palestinian friends from Judea and Samaria!'Post edited by Drowned Out on0 -
According to reports from the ground, Yorke spoke sparsely throughout the night, saying at the end of the show, “A lot of stuff has been said about this, but in the end, we played some music.”
Pussy.
0 -
BDS is not some monolithic machine. It is a representation of the Palestinian people. Palestinians lost.BS44325 said:
But who chose to make this an issue Drowned? Radiohead made no statement for or against Israel...they just simply announced a concert date. It was Roger Waters and BDS who insisted on making this a bigger issue...who insisted on pressuring Radiohead not to play. To quote Thom Yorke "playing Israel is not an endorsement Of Netanyahu anymore then playing the US is an endorsement of Trump". If BDS just left this alone then "friends of Israel" would not be using this as a political endorsement. Nobody said a word about GNR playing there last week and hence it wasn't turned into an issue. The reason the Radiohead show has become a big deal is that Waters and BDS recognize them as a band with integrity and it hurts the BDS movement to see a band of that calibre perform. Waters should have let this go but no....he had to make this into a bigger deal then it should be. He took to the media to shut this down and he lost. BDS lost.Drowned Out said:As has been said all along about both Radiohead's show and any potential PJshow there....you can say you don't support the goverent of Israel till you're blue in the face...but that won't stop them from using your brand/band to normalize their apartheid state. Radiohead should be ashamed. They won't live this down. Is it really worth it?
Radiohead gig promoted by Israeli diplomatic missions around the world
Radiohead are a band that many had associated with progressive politics. But now it turns out they have an extraordinary following among Israeli diplomats and right-wing conservatives. From US radio host Glenn Beck and Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler, a range of around twenty Israel lobby groups, and thirteen Israeli diplomatic missions around the world from Ireland to Colombia, these groups are united in their explicit contempt for the indigenous Palestinian people’s lives.
The Jerusalem Post described Radiohead’s Israel gig and Thom Yorke’s rejection of the Palestinian call for BDS as “the best hasbara [advocacy] Israel has received lately”. Thom Yorke has defended their decision saying that “playing in a country isn’t the same as endorsing its government”, but the Israeli government and its supporters certainly do endorse Radiohead.
Palestinian, Israeli and UK artists and activistshave repeatedly pointed to the inevitable instrumentalisation of the band’s appearance in Tel Aviv by Israel and its supporters.Here are samples of messaging from June and July.
(See link)
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 273 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.6K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help