Should Pearl Jam Play in Israel?

btw - in that original thread, YieldtoNothing was in my face about Perry Farrell and lolla Israel....and how it would not be cancelled because Perry is a 'big time zionist'.....well, guess what? It got cancelled, reportedly due to a lack of bands willing to play there. I think if more bands were willing to take a PUBLIC stand on this issue, you would see a MUCH larger number of bands actively boycotting playing in Israel. But, as this board proves time and again, Israel's apologists and the Israeli lobby are so quick to condemn anyone who speaks against the STATE of israel, as anti-semetic. Most bands would probably prefer to avoid the issue altogether in public.

Also in that thread, I stated that I had a huge amount of respect for Perry Farrell....I noticed the Electronic Intifada article Byrnzie posted on the porch not long after making that statement....and I will recant that as well. Of all the worthy causes in the world, PF chose to play a private benefit concert for an army who just finished a massive bombing campaign over the most densely populated area in the world, killing over 300 innocent kids in a matter of days....and to top it off, made snide remarks about having 'proved our point'?? Fuck that. Not another cent from me.

Drowned Out wrote:

btw - in that original thread, YieldtoNothing was in my face about Perry Farrell and lolla Israel....and how it would not be cancelled because Perry is a 'big time zionist'.....well, guess what? It got cancelled, reportedly due to a lack of bands willing to play there. I think if more bands were willing to take a PUBLIC stand on this issue, you would see a MUCH larger number of bands actively boycotting playing in Israel. But, as this board proves time and again, Israel's apologists and the Israeli lobby are so quick to condemn anyone who speaks against the STATE of israel, as anti-semetic. Most bands would probably prefer to avoid the issue altogether in public.

it's no different than all the chest thumping americans getting all hot and bothered when you rag on their government and then they turn around and accuse you of hating americans or america as a whole.

some people can't seem to separate personal insults with criticizing their government's policies.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

show previous quotes

Drowned Out wrote:

Would be good if....A hypothetical statement....Where did he say that this was the band's stated position? And you're asking for proof? Your selective emphasis changes the meaning of that sentence. The next few posters fell in line with your deceit.

actually, changing the emphasis on the sentence doesn't change it at ALL. he said that it would be good if certain people understood why the band REFUSES to play in their country. the "would be good" portion is referring to the understanding of the fans, not the band. it changes nothing about his statement. he is stating fairly emphatically that pearl jam will not play there because of the politics involved, and no one has ever heard the band say that, nor is he willing to provide proof.

Well, thats not how I read it. I don't see how that sentence implies a statement made by the band. "Would be good if that generation grew up understanding why their favourite band refuses to play in their country" Yes, "would be good" refers to the fans understanding, and is followed by the position he wishes the band would take, and why. I don't know, I shouldn't speak for him, I suppose...Byrnzie can clarify, but he obviously didnt feel the need to reply to the personal attack....

Drowned Out wrote:

Yes, "would be good" refers to the fans understanding, and is followed by the position he wishes the band would take, and why. I don't know, I shouldn't speak for him, I suppose...Byrnzie can clarify, but he obviously didnt feel the need to reply to the personal attack....

his statement "why the band refuses to play there" to me wasn't the stance he wished the band would take, but that it was the stance the band has taken. But you're right, only he can clear that up.

Byrnzie wrote:

Guess where I stand on this one?

Personally, If they did, then I'd cancel my membership and you'd never hear from me again (And, yeah, I know how happy that would make some of you). I don't think this band has any business playing in a racist, Apartheid state.

Discuss...

1) yes they should play there

2) why would where they play have anything to do with anybody's fandom. Would their music suddenly sound different? If people like bands for reasons other than their music, why?

3) You state that you think the band has no business playing somewhere. The truth is rather that it is US the fans who have no business in whether the band plays or does not play somewhere.

4) Music is magic and universal, it penetrates political bullshit and rises way above it. Who is anybody to try and stop this?

I understand this debate delves into taking a stance against the country and the reasons for it, but if there's a safe haven where the band can play, where Yosi said in the 3rd or 4th post in the thread, then the music needs to happen there. Maybe it would be the music itself that could bring the change, rather than the lack of.

For the record, Pearl Jam can play anywhere they please, but I've followed this thread and I've put a bit of thought into it. For the sake of discussion... I'll play devil's advocate for the consensus:

Are all the people from Israel responsible for the acts that have people outraged on this forum? Much like the surge of support Muslims have received for the actions of the extreme and minor faction of their religion... why should the peaceful Israelis face consequences for the actions of their government and military? It's not as if PJ would be performing a private show for Israeli leaders- they would be performing a show for fans that get the same sensation listening to Present Tense on their headphones as I do.

I mean, to my way of thinking... if Pearl Jam was going to place a music embargo on a country based on their aggressive behaviour... wouldn't the US qualify for such treatment? They definitely went on record to state their dislike for the country's war efforts in the middle east, yet they still toured the US while speaking against the actions of the military.

Byrnzie wrote:

show previous quotes

rollings wrote:

1) yes they should play there

2) why would where they play have anything to do with anybody's fandom. Would their music suddenly sound different? If people like bands for reasons other than their music, why?

3) You state that you think the band has no business playing somewhere. The truth is rather that it is US the fans who have no business in whether the band plays or does not play somewhere.

4) Music is magic and universal, it penetrates political bullshit and rises way above it. Who is anybody to try and stop this?

I understand this debate delves into taking a stance against the country and the reasons for it, but if there's a safe haven where the band can play, where Yosi said in the 3rd or 4th post in the thread, then the music needs to happen there. Maybe it would be the music itself that could bring the change, rather than the lack of.

Or maybe if the majority of bands refuse to play there, and in fact state publicy their reasons for doing so, then it may cause the Israeli public to realize that they aren't being treated the same as any other country, and will make them realize the reasons why that is. Otherwise they may just grow up believing that the oppression of the Palestinians, the ongoing land-grab and ethnic cleansing, is a normal and acceptable state of affairs - and it isn't.
The Apartheid regime in South Africa wasn't toppled due to artists continuing to play there as if everything was just fine and dandy. It was toppled due, in part, to an international boycott of their country - despite the U.S and Israel continuing to support that racist regime, and supply it with weapons, up until the very end.

But just as frustrated as many of the US 10C members are regarding their military affairs in Iraq, are you sure that the Israeli public is completely in the dark and unopposed to the actions we bear witness to and have you so upset? I'm pretty sure there are Israelis just as choked as you for what is occurring in their backyard.

Byrnzie wrote:

show previous quotes

rollings wrote:

1) yes they should play there

2) why would where they play have anything to do with anybody's fandom. Would their music suddenly sound different? If people like bands for reasons other than their music, why?

3) You state that you think the band has no business playing somewhere. The truth is rather that it is US the fans who have no business in whether the band plays or does not play somewhere.

4) Music is magic and universal, it penetrates political bullshit and rises way above it. Who is anybody to try and stop this?

I understand this debate delves into taking a stance against the country and the reasons for it, but if there's a safe haven where the band can play, where Yosi said in the 3rd or 4th post in the thread, then the music needs to happen there. Maybe it would be the music itself that could bring the change, rather than the lack of.

Or maybe if the majority of bands refuse to play there, and in fact state publicy their reasons for doing so, then it may cause the Israeli public to realize that they aren't being treated the same as any other country, and will make them realize the reasons why that is. Otherwise they may just grow up believing that the oppression of the Palestinians, the ongoing land-grab and ethnic cleansing, is a normal and acceptable state of affairs - and it isn't.
The Apartheid regime in South Africa wasn't toppled due to artists continuing to play there as if everything was just fine and dandy. It was toppled due, in part, to an international boycott of their country - despite the U.S and Israel continuing to support that racist regime, and supply it with weapons, up until the very end.

I understand what you're saying, and the reasons. I'm just curious, is the Israeli public really that unaware of their own state of affairs? And with regard to the public voting in the current government, did the people have a better choice of leaders to vote for--did they actually have a choice for, but voted against leaders that would have ended the oppression, etc.?

I understand in theory what you're saying.....but I'm just thinking of all the deprived fans. It doesn't seem fair to them. Especially if the purpose of a boycott is to merely raise awareness of what they already know.

Byrnzie wrote:

show previous quotes

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

But just as frustrated as many of the US 10C members are regarding their military affairs in Iraq, are you sure that the Israeli public is completely in the dark and unopposed to the actions we bear witness to and have you so upset? I'm pretty sure there are Israelis just as choked as you for what is occurring in their backyard.

I know not all Israeli's support the occupation, but as far as I'm aware, a fair percentage do:


Norman Finkelstein - Beyond Chutzpah - On The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and The Abuse of History

P.175-177

'...When Israel attacked Lebanon in in June 1982 in order to "safeguard the occupation of the West bank" (Yehoshafat Harkabi's phrase), the popularity ratings of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Begin soared, while more than 80 percent of Israeli's held the invasion to be justified. When Israel's battering of Beirut in August 1982 reached new heights of savagery, more than half of Israeli's still supported the begin-Sharon government, while more than 80 percent still supported the invasion - which in the end, left up to twenty thousand Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all civilians, dead, and which the U.N General Assembly condemned by a vote of 143 to 2 (United States and Israel) for inflicting "severe damage on civilian Palestinians, including heavy losses of human lives, intolerable sufferings and massive material destruction." Only when the costs of the Lebanon aggression proved too onerous - initially, from the worldwide outcry against the Sabra and Shatila massacres and, later, from the escalating military casualties - did Israeli's turn against it.
When Israel's violent repression of the first Intifada reached new heights of brutality in 1989, more than half of all Israeli's supported the deployment of yet "stronger measures" to quell the largely nonviolent civil revolt (only one in four supported any lessening of the repression), while "an overwhelming 72 percent...saw no contradiction between the army's handling of the uprising and 'the nation's democratic values.'"
Operation Defensive shield (March - April 2002), although wreaking devastation on Palestinian society and culminating in the commission by Israeli forces of "serious violations" of humanitarian law and "war crimes" in Jenin and Nablus, was supported by fully 90 percent of Israeli's.

Beyond the emotional support that Israeli's have lent to crimes of state, it bears emphasis that Israel relies on a citizen army to implement policy: the collective responsibility of the Israeli people accordingly runs much deeper than "moral complicity."

Damning.

Remember, I'm only playing devil's advocate here. I'm not defending Israel at all. Whether right or wrong, I'm pointing out the fact that a mentality does exist to show consideration for other ethnic groups 'guilty by association', yet there doesn't seem like much of a will to offer the same level of understanding towards the Israeli people. A line seems to have been drawn placing all Israelis on one side of it regardless of their personal beliefs or values which may contrast with the majority of their countrymen.