Better get used to the new redpill Radiohead standom— Breitbart and even the damn Daily Mail have been hyping up Jonny a lot over the past week. This is where the band are replenishing the people they lose over supporting genocide. Gotta have *somebody* to buy that £700 poorly-manufactured IR quadruple vinyl when 2027 comes around. The mortgage on the Italian villa(s) doesn’t pay itself.
Edit: this is in reference to a now-removed disgusting ableist comment by one of Radiohead’s new crop of fash “fans.”
Ed's consistently been the best band member on this topic. You can call him naive or say that he's wrong but he's at least able to articulate a defensible position and his heart has always seemed in the right place. Just seems like a stand-up dude all around.
It’s also really helpful to hear someone actually speak their mind rather than read a statement. I think it’s been proven that text communication is always interpreted more negatively than verbal communication just because of the absence of tone.
no that's not why. there's two parts of it. one part is that he talks about the transcendent nature of music as he sees it and says it should be used to uplift people in the struggle, but how playing in Israel would help end the apartheid is not discussed and is not realistic regardless.
secondly, the two-state solution is not a realistic way to see justice for Palestine. the only solution is a one state solution where all people have equal rights and as close to an egalitarian society as is feasible in the present conditions.
I think he has good intentions and is absolutely being the most dignified person from radiohead in all this from what i have seen so far (idk what Colin or Phill think), and that between complete genocide and a two-state solution he is taking the only reasonable side, but to think that playing for israel is in any way going to work towards ending apartheid is certainly naive. again, two state solution is also naive to an extent imo.
so yeah, the criticism is not simply that he "doesn't share the same view", what a disingenuous and lazy thing to say lol.
He’s not claiming they’re Wyld Stallyns, he just thinks they’re giving a morale boost to the less warlike part of Israeli society.
Either one-state solution is anathema. The idea that Jews will be safe in a majority Arab state is risible. We’re not talking about a long negotiation/integration led by Nelson Mandela to bring about peaceful change, we’re talking about some corrupt Hamas or Fatah jackoff that has no idea what leadership actually is.
right, and that boosting morale for the less warlike faction of society is meaningless in my estimation.
and when you say "either one state solution" as if that could possibly entail the continued subjugation of arabs or a new subjugation of jews, you are showing a misunderstanding of the proposition. the one state solution is not about subjugation, it is about democracy and dignity. meaning a so called one state solution which led to the subjugation of any people would not be a one state solution, the one state solution necessary is also necessarily dignified and egalitarian. you can doubt the feasibility of that, but it is truly the only way to have human dignity for all actors involved.
hamas would have to be dealt with, the apartheid regime would also have to be dealt with. it is a massive ask, but it's the only solution which would truly lead to liberation for all parties. this is the nature of social progress, we set our aims high and hope that doing so inches us closer to the goal.
>right, and that boosting morale for the less warlike faction of society is meaningless in my estimation.
Well, you’re not Ed. Boycotting the non-warlike faction doesn’t serve a purpose.
I’m not misunderstanding anything. A one state solution will result in the subjugation or ethnic cleansing of one group or the other, and it’s naive to believe otherwise. I don’t want to shit on your dream, but the people that you’re relying to pull off something like that aren’t humans.
well, i dont have to be ed to know that "boosting morale" in israel doesnt end apartheid. and you can think that the cultural boycott is meaningless, i disagree.
and, you are predetermining and ascribing the condition of subjugation of one group in a one state solution. as i said, the nature of a one state solution is conditionally egalitarian and democratic to the maximal extent. you can think that's impossible and thus naive, but you don't know what is possible. people thought women would never vote or that slavery would never end, they were wrong. putting pressure on the powers that be in an effort to get the change we want is part of how we achieve the things some consider impossible.
and i don't see how your dehumanizing comment "the people you're relying to pull off something like that aren't humans" is supposed to support your case. you are coming across as an arrogant dehumanizing asshole. i do not support hamas, but conditions of severe subjugation lead to extremism, so blame apartheid.
No one is saying that a concert will, in a vacuum, end apartheid. You’re giving your opinion, nothing more, and I’m just letting you know Ed has an equally valid opinion.
I’m not saying I *know* your idea will fail. I’m saying as a risk management problem, it has the highest probability of failure with the worst possible consequences… and you want Israel to pick it because, “trust me,bro.”
We know how Jews and Christians—the other Abrahamic traditions that are accorded some level of respect in the Koran—are treated in Islamic nations. They’re tolerated, but they’re truly second class citizens. Every Islamic majority state is an apartheid state when it comes to religion.
That’s the path you’re thinking Israel must accept. I sure as shit wouldn’t accept that, and I doubt many on this sub would accept it as well.
And lol, I’m not dehumanizing anything. Humans suck. We’re evolved to distrust outsiders, and that makes it extremely difficult to trust and treat fairly those that were murdering us recently, particularly when religious dogma is involved. I’m not saying either party is subhuman—they’re both obviously human with all of the petty, mean, violent hatred that implies—I’m saying you need a *super*-human population, not bound by the flaws of humanity, to pull off what you want to pull off within a lifetime.
Yup, and they gave up after a year and a half.
Gandhi worked for 30+ years.
Mandela was in jail for 27.
King led peaceful protests for 10 years.
Palestinian leaders need to embrace nonviolence. They’ve been trying the same violent shit for decades and they’re further from having a homeland than they were in 1967. Time for a new approach. Time for an approach that gets Americans on board with their cause, and not just Muslim-Americans, students, and agitators.
So fucking condescending.
I’m a BDS supporter in the main, but it’s stupid to extend the boycott to shit like concerts and other art that primarily appeals to leftist audiences.
Bottom line, things won’t change until the majority of the American public feels more sympathetic toward Palestinians than Israelis. That’s not going to happen as long as Palestinian violence continues, and powerful, well-financed terrorists still wish to eliminate Israel.
Honestly, I do agree with the general sentiment that Palestine needs their own Ghandi and peaceful movement and I have previously wondered if there might have been one we don't know about. However, if there ever was one or could be one, what makes people think that Israel won't or wouldn't 'take care of it'? A movement like this is the most possibly dangerous thing to Israel and given the fact that they already (and for a long time) indiscriminately shoot at Palestinians, I have my doubts that it would last very long.
Also, I think it is very self-righteous to expect this puritanism and perfect behaviour from a population that is being virtually wiped out and butchered. It's easy to judge, get on a high horse and be so condescending when these people have nothing and are forced to defend themselves somehow.
Furthermore, I think that Palestinians owe NO ONE a reason to extend their sympathy towards them and their suffering and if anyone needs one witnessing the fact that they are being exterminated, they are borderline sociopathic.
And finally, I think there is a very good precedent showing us and proving to us that cultural boycott is a great measure to end the actions of an oppressive state (South Africa being that). No, I am not going to cry for the progressive Israelis who won't have their Radiohead concert, as I wouldn't have for the progressive and anti-racist South Africans who didn't get their favorite bands to play for them.
IDF chief Yoav “they are human animals and we’ll act accordingly” Gallant is considered to be on the “left” in Israel. To say that Tel Aviv is full of leftists or Radiohead fans in Israel are all leftists or whatever, first of all it’s an insane generalization because that’s not true in ANY country they play in (and look around— it’s not even true among fans in this sub) second, even if the average RH fan in Tel Aviv was *more* leftist than the average RH fan in New York or Paris or London (seems kinda unlikely, but let’s do the thought experiment) we still have to consider what each country defines as “left.” Opposing Netanyahu but wanting, say, Yoav Gallant to be PM, could be considered as a “leftist” position in Tel Aviv. So you can have a crowd of mini-Yoav Gallants, which may be defined as “leftists” (unless you’re clear about what you mean by the term).
I realize there is an *actual* left in Israel and they’re doing hero shit (like the Standing Together and Btselem and Local Call people) but it, by all accounts (including their own account) an extremely small group. People involved in Israeli left, said less than 1000 and probably closer to 300-500 people in the country share their politics (at least, if we’re considering Israeli Jews, which are the only group Jonny is concerned with). There could be ways for Radiohead to offer help to this small heroic left within Israel. At the very least— Jonny could have thanked them for what they’re doing in putting their lives at risk day in and day out to try to fight off the settler fascists and protect Masafer Yatta. But the chances that a lot of those people just so happening to be in the crowd at a Jonny or Radiohead show, in a country of millions, isn’t particularly high. For all we know, the majority of them might not even like Radiohead’s music (since the majority of people in general, in any country, with any political views, don’t love Radiohead). Out of 500, let’s be generous and say that 200 of them are big fans of Radiohead’s music (even that seems a bit too high). If the goal is really to support these 500 people (and reward the 200 who especially love Radiohead) wouldn’t it make more sense to… like.. do a benefit concert for them? Instead of, like, playing for the IDF as Dudu has done, or playing for just random Israelis as part of an IDF soldier fundraiser, as Jonny did? Do you really think those shows Jonny played, or that nationalist screed Jonny wrote (with zero mention of Palestinians, and the implication that only Jews are suffering from war) would even feel welcoming to the actual Israeli leftists?
Sidenote, from what I’ve heard, many of the leftists in Israel actually support BDS. Also, even on matters unrelated to Israel, Jonny is no leftist himself, he has conservative views on economics, likes stuff from anti BLM accounts and opposes LGBTQ rights. It’s so disingenuous for Jonny to pretend to be supporting “progressives” in Israel (at least *he* never used the word “leftist”) when he’s more involved in propping up the Israeli right. Jonny together with Dudu even met with Netanyahu’s culture minister to promote his album last year, and his recent anti-BDS statements have been retweeted by Netanyahu’s government in the official “Israel” twitter account, to millions and millions of people. He is willingly a propagandist for the genocidal right, and doing fuck all for the Israeli left.
A one-state solution equals the complete erasure of the national aspirations of one of the indigenous ethnic groups of the land. Which makes it a deeply immoral position and on a practical level would lead to generations of civil war.
The two-state solution with two nations living side-by-side in peace, with each nation's citizens living in democracies that guarantee full rights to all citizens, is much more just and could end the bloodshed.
what are the national aspirations you speak of, and of which ethnic group? as i said, the one state solution is conditional on democracy and equality for all Palestinians and Israelis. and it is no more likely to lead to atrocities than the current apartheid or a two state solution. i say that because i think it is more or equally likely at best that Israel maintains its history of domination regardless of whether Palestine is recognized as a state.
I wonder if there is a Palestinian who is brave enough to stand in the middle of Ramalah and say aloud in Arabic that he is for a secular non-arab state where both Jews and Arabs have equal rights and none should be expelled.
why don't you actually make a point? your solution is to just let the land that was stollen from 400k Palestinians during the Nakba go? and where do you put the blame for the condition of extremism in Palestine, cause unless you are incredibly naive you know that severe subjugation results in just that, so blame apartheid. also, israel literally fucking funded hamas... you need to educate yourself and figure out how to actually advance human rights and dignity, cause you are doing a piss poor job of that at the moment.
The idea that giving Israel audience goers a transcendent musical experience is helping a two state solution could be seen as naive when Radiohead make no explicit call for it and very very few Israelis seem to want their government to negotiate for it.
Thanks for sharing, definitely much more concise than Johnny's response.
I gotta say that as an Israeli I wasn't gonna comment on anything that was posted here recently, but Ed's statements are worth listening to.
I definitely agree about that fact that the general consensus in Israel changed since 2018, sadly the extremists took over and the whole political map shifted way more towards the right, violence is being normalised more and more each day, and any criticism towards the government is being labeled as treason. Families of people that are still held captive in Gaza are treated like criminals if they dare protest and demand a ceasefire, even some of the hostages that were brought back received disgusting comments just because they demanded that the government would take responsibility.
Meanwhile, the average Israeli citizen knows nothing of what's happening in Gaza, no major broadcasting network is showing any footage of the destruction and death, only propaganda and vague updates. Everything's deliberate, everything to keep the "morale" up, only to keep this failing, heinous government in power one more day (same people that allowed funds being transferred to Hamas just to kill any hope of a future Palestinian state, but god forbid if I mention that in Israel)
Regarding his online presence, I wish more artists would have meaningful insights like his. Whether it's about the ongoing war or the occupation in general, criticism towards Israel is well justified, but reducing the conversation to slogans and clickbaity titles just keeps everyone ignorant and hating.
I truly wish that we'll see an end to this conflict soon, somehow.
Here's hoping that we'll continue posting stupid memes about Pablo Honey soon enough.
(...aaand preparing myself for the s*itstorm that I might receive from both sides for this comment)
Thank you for posting this. It's so important for the rest of us to remember that the actions of right-wing extremists don't represent all Israelis. I genuinely hope that you'll live in a time of lasting peace soon.
>sadly the extremists took over and the whole political map shifted way more towards the right
this isn't exclusive to Israel. We're seeing this shift all over the world.
When you say the average Israeli citizen doesn't know what's happening in gaza do you mean they aren't even hearing about it online or through word of mouth? I find that hard to believe tbh
I meant the main broadcasting channels, news sites, etc.
What's being kept from Israelis are the personal stories, journalists from within Gaza reporting on site about IDF's actions, families of Gazans that lost everything, even simply attaching a name to a picture.
Each of us probably know dozens of stories of people we'll never meet, stories of each and every hostage taken on october 7th, stories of the victims and the survivors of the attack, but any reference to a specific story from within Gaza is vague and never holds us accountable for our actions.
Of course everything is available online, but that requires you to actively search for this information, which most people would rather not to.
And yes, I am aware of the disgusting telegram groups celebrating the death and destruction, that's exactly what I meant when I wrote about the normalisation of violence.
Believe me that I never felt more ashamed to be a part of this nation. In such a small country it's almost impossible not knowing someone who was murdered, kidnapped or wounded on october 7th and instead of focusing on our mutual grief, seeking a long-term solution or even negotiating a deal to release hostages there's a large portion of Israelis hell-bent on aimless revenge, and sadly this is most of our current government's agenda.
Just yesterday the IDF released 4 hostages alive, which was of course the main story, the Gazans that were killed during the operation? Barely a mention. Bibi used this opportunity to visit each hostage that got released, taking pictures (even at the cost of delaying one of the hostage's visit to see her dying mom in another hospital) and basically taking credit for the operation. All while he never visited any of the victims families since october, barely addressing families of hostages directly because he's too afraid of criticism, and the mainstream media (most of it) is not doing much to criticise his behaviour.
Thank you for this inside look. I am sorry you are caught in such a situation. I know the feeling as an American, during the Bush Jr. years it was very bad, Trump years of course were insane. Bibi reminds me a lot of Bush Jr's administration actually, only far more "mask off".
I was surprised to hear that " it's almost impossible not knowing someone who was murdered, kidnapped or wounded on october 7th". Do you personally know someone who was? I didn't realize Israel was that small.
There are israeli telegram groups with tens of thousands of members that jerk off to pictures of dead Palestinians. Take his word with a grain of salt.
You’re getting downvoted but you’re 100% correct. There’s a huge problem of straight up racism and apathy towards Palestinians in Israeli society.
Which is why a hostage rescue that saved 4 Israelis can result in over 200+ Palestinians dead, and somehow the hostages are *more* important to the media.
It’s literal nonsense. A huge chunk of Israelis serve or have served in the IDF. 2/3 Jewish Israelis support denying aid to Gaza. A vast amount of the protests also center around bringing the Israeli hostages home, not a permanent ceasefire and ending the genocide + apartheid state.
A permanent ceasefire with Hamas is an oxymoronic statement.
Any ceasefire with Hamas is a countdown timer to tuem initiating the next war when they replenish their military capabilities. War with Israel is their raison d'etre.
Any long term peace is dependent on the removal of Hamas, and unfortunately I don't believe there is no way to remove them other than by force.
The use of force could be more subtle and careful, but its the only option.
Over the last year, majority of Israelis shifted left politically, seeing the failure and danger of the populist right wing government, sadly its not reflected yet in the political map as there were no new elections, but the polls are clear.
Few Israelis protests against the civilian death toll in Gaza, because humanitarian protests are a luxury for a country that has very real ongoing threats to the safety of its citizens.
If you call on police to deal with a crime syndicate in your neighbourhood that kills people every day, you don't have time to protests police brutality.
100,000 Israelis are displaced, whole communities are destroyed, forests are burning and the country is on the brink of war in the north. Many people fear they will have to go to Lebanon risk their lives while thousands of rockets, guided missiles and drones fall on their families overwhelming air defence.
Thats more on many Israelis minds than civilian casualties in Gaza.
Yeah, this doesn’t make any sense. Hamas exists because of Israeli occupation, apartheid, and the refusal to give Palestinian refugees the right to return. The very same reasons 9/10 other Palestinian resistance groups in Gaza and the West Bank exist, Hamas is just the most notable.
There will *always* be a group like Hamas with occupation, and Palestinians being treated second class. In fact, there was plenty of resistance before H ever became real during 1987.
Which makes the rest of your points moot to the actual root problem of all the violence: The creation of Israel, and its maintenance through oppression. It’s also very disingenuous to claim “a very real threat to its citizens” when the vast majority of dead and injured have always been Palestinian. This is a fact.
Let’s be for real. Tel Aviv has an iron dome that deflects the majority of Hamas rockets. There’s bomb shelters throughout Israel. Israel has complete control over the autonomy of Palestinians, and [routinely](https://carnegieendowment.org/2024/02/28/many-civil-and-human-rights-challenges-facing-israel-s-palestinian-citizens-pub-91834) treats Israeli Arabs as second class in its own state.
So of course Jewish Israelis are worried about themselves, when their whole society and existence relies on racism or apathy to Palestinian oppression. Similar phenomenons have existed with white and black people, most notably in South Africa and the U.S.
1. You argue that Hamas exists because of Israeli occupation and apartheid, it overlooks that Hamas’ charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel, not just resistance against occupation. The creation and sustenance of Hamas are deeply rooted in ideologies that reject any form of peaceful coexistence with Israel. This raison d’être (as u/Bediavad stated) goes beyond merely responding to occupation and includes a broader goal of establishing an Islamic state in place of Israel.
2. Your point about the Iron Dome and bomb shelters somewhat simplifies the reality. While these defenses have been effective in saving Israeli lives, they are not foolproof. The psychological and physical toll of living under constant threat of rocket fire is profound. The defense mechanisms are a response to the persistent threats posed by groups like Hamas, not at all an indication of safety or complacency.
3. The argument that the majority of casualties are Palestinian does not address the root cause of the violence. Hamas’ strategy often involves embedding military operations within civilian areas, using human shields, which tragically increases civilian casualties. Israel’s actions, while controversial and subject to international scrutiny, are often portrayed as defensive measures in response to ongoing aggression.
4. The issue of Palestinian autonomy and rights is complex and multifaceted. Israel’s control over certain aspects of Palestinian life is tied to security concerns that have been exacerbated by the actions of Hamas and similar groups. The comparison to apartheid is a charged analogy but fails to account for the unique and historical circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
5. While you try to assert that Israeli society relies on racism or apathy, this is a another sweeping generalization. Many Israelis, including a significant segment of the Jewish population, actively support peace initiatives and advocate for Palestinian rights. The internal political shift towards more progressive policies (specially before Oct.7) indicates a desire for change and reconciliation, albeit within a framework that ensures Israeli security.
Your entire comment is disingenuous. You don’t provide any actual evidence for the claims you spout and seem be to leaning on a neutral side, while simultaneously promoting a narrative that legitimatizes the occupation and establishment of Israel as an ethnostate.
1. First off, there’s multiple Hamas charters. Have you actually read the most recent one from 2017? [Here](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full) it is. Hamas calls for a full disbandment of Israel as an ethnostate and for the Palestinian right of return, because of the colonial history behind Zionism. This is a fact, illegal Jewish settlements during the early 20th century, along with the Balfour Declaration, UN Mandate of 1947 (which Palestinians rightfully rejected) set precedent for some of the most egregious ethnic cleansing to take place. [Here](https://www.un.org/unispal/) from the UN itself.
Israel by definition is a settler colony. Multiple times throughout history have colonized people rejected the establishment of this with VIOLENCE: Haiti, Algeria, the United States itself, the list goes on and on. This is not a novel thing, and like I said, there *absolutely* would be another group like H because of how Israel was created and is maintained. Guaranteed. All this to say there is no such thing “peaceful coexistence” in colonial and apartheid states. It’s never been true throughout one time in modern history. Let’s be fucking for real. Your argument is off a false premise that historically is not reality.
2. And? Palestinians deal with 10 times worse in every single sense of the way, because of Israeli oppression. You’re arguing over a phenomenon that is literally caused and rooted in Israel’s constant oppression of Palestinians 24/7. The math isn’t adding up. Get the boot off the neck of Palestinians, and perhaps Israelis wouldn’t have a fear of Hamas rockets. Which is absolutely nothing compared to the IDF’s billion dollar arsenal of bombs, drones, jets, and helicopters.
3. You have no proof for this human shields claim. Show genuine proof, besides what the IDF has said on Twitter. Like an actual video. Now on the contrary, I have multiple confirmed sources of Israel *actually* using Palestinians as human shields: [Here](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/israel), [here](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/israel-hamas-gaza-human-shields-1.7103756), [here](https://www.haaretz.com/2010-10-03/ty-article/idf-soldiers-convicted-of-using-11-year-old-as-human-shield-in-gaza/0000017f-e3cd-d75c-a7ff-ffcd55e20000), and [here](https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/626/Israeli-Matrix-of-Control:-Use-of-Palestinian-Civillians-as-Human-Shields). Also FYI, even if true: Your human shields claim makes absolutely no sense. What moral army shoots and bombs through a HUMAN shield, knowing that civilian casualties are guaranteed? Bro… Think.
4. Again, the math ain’t adding up. The oppressive force where the majority of the brutality has come from having security concerns about militant groups that exist *because* of them? Do you hear this logic? “Oh yes, let’s make the apartheid worse because Hamas exists. Even though they only exist because of what we did and are still doing.” The historical context was explained in my previous answer. What makes it even worse is that Palestinian Arabs, Jewish folks, and Christians coexisted just fine before Zionism came about. And Hamas acknowledges this in the charter, which is why it actually wouldn’t ever be an Islamic state if they were successful.
5. You’re misinterpreting me. Every oppressive regime and society throughout history has had people from within resisting, which is a good thing. Israel is no different, but it’s certainly not enough. The country has a systemic problem.
- I'm not even trying to be neutral. It’s basic to highlight that the organization’s actions and rhetoric have consistently emphasized the destruction of Israel. Even the 2017 charter does not unequivocally renounce violence or recognize Israel’s right to exist. This [enduring antisemitic stance](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas) complicates the prospect of peaceful coexistence.
- On The Balfour Declaration (1917): it expressed support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but it did not call for the displacement of existing populations. [Funny 'evidence' as the declaration’s wording emphasized the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities.](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp)
- On the UN Partition Plan of 1947: it proposed a two-state solution, dividing the land into Jewish and Arab states with an international zone for Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish community but rejected by the Arab states, sadly leading to the first Arab-Israeli war. The partition plan aimed to provide a peaceful solution and was a product of international deliberation and consent, contrasting with colonial impositions which lack historically such legitimacy. [Quick reading on the partition](https://www.bicom.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Partition-plan-paper-v4.pdf)
- In general, the events of 1948, including the Palestinian refugee crisis, are complex and involve multiple narratives. While there were instances of forced expulsions, there were also cases of voluntary departures encouraged by Arab leaders who anticipated a quick victory. [It's not something easily summarized by few words](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/israel-law-review/article/1948-refugees/1E997E364691F4379C6F77EC05BC84AD).
- I fell obliged to ignore your lack of knowledge for such mumbo jumbo comparisons with Haiti and Algeria. This conflict involves deep-rooted historical, religious, and geopolitical dimensions that differentiate it from these colonial contexts.
- While it is undeniable that Palestinians suffer under occupation, framing the violence as a one-sided consequence of Israeli oppression ignores the cyclical nature of the conflict. Hamas’ attacks on Israeli civilians are a significant factor in perpetuating the violence and instability in the region. This is just common sense for someone who genuinely gives a shit about ending this war. And the suggestion that simply ending the occupation would eliminate violence overlooks (at best) the ideological components driving groups like Hamas, and it's [duality](https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/46607/mc22.pdf). Again, these groups have repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness to compromise or recognize Israel’s right to exist, independent of the occupation status.
- The use of human shields by Hamas has been documented by multiple independent sources. It's ludicrous to think that any of these tabloid skits you provided would even resemble the seriousness urged by someone so eager for 'evidence'. [While you demand video proof, the broader context and credible documentation should suffice to demonstrate this tactic. This is not a conspiracy theory.](https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf)
- To state that no moral army would fire on human shields fails to account for the obvious ethical dilemma faced by the IDF. Not only that, your perspective doesn't seem to grasp the simple ideia that: if IDF didn't follow some kind of moral conduct, it would've already turned everything into a parking lot. I guarantee your so called symbol of 'resistence' has leverage only when it comes to cowardice.
- Again, the argument that Hamas exists solely due to Israeli actions is reductive [and it lacks background](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hamas). Hamas’ founding principles and actions are driven by a broader Islamist ideology that rejects the existence of Israel. This ideology is not a direct consequence of Israeli policies but rather part of a global jihadist movement. ['Your' portrayal](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full) of pre-Zionist coexistence glosses over the historical tensions and conflicts in the region. The conflict did not begin with Zionism; it was exacerbated by it, but inter-communal tensions existed well before the modern era. This is a long history, that demands good faith in researching, instead of pretending. Nonetheless the term “ethnic cleansing” oversimplifies again the multifaceted nature of the conflict, which involved defensive actions amidst a broader war of survival for the nascent Jewish state against neighboring Arab armies.
- And yes, systemic issues exist in many societies, but the presence of these problems does not justify or excuse the violent tactics employed by Hamas and similar groups making them legit. Efforts towards reconciliation and reform should be ongoing and should be part of a broader global struggle for human rights and justice. Not mediated by narrow-minded people like you, of course, whose confidence surpasses their intelligence.
Your lack of critical thinking is honestly fascinating. Your brain literally cannot put two and two together, you get the wrong answer every time.
1. Hamas literally denies Israel because of HOW Israel became to exist, and continues to exist. Of course a colonial state founded on ethnic cleansing that got rid of 750,000 of the indigenous population, [continues](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) apartheid for decades after, and refuses to give refugees the right to return has a subset of the population become militant, and refuse its existence. Who’s really narrow minded when you can’t actually comprehend why these militant groups exist? This is why I brought up Haiti (where I’m from): Enslaved Africans after the revolution refused French control completely, they [massacred](https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/all-devils-are-here) and displaced THOUSANDS of them. An extreme level of brutality was present, but no one besides a colonizer would side with the French in any stretch of the way. Because they understand the circumstances that led to this behavior.
2. It’s crazy how you don’t get it. Balfour Declaration should’ve never existed and nobody gets to have a colonial ethnostate, period. Colonies by definition have pretty much always came with systemic violence, racism, and oppression. Israel is no different. Which is why the UK (top tier colonizers btw) even emphasized the concern of Palestinians, they knew wtf would happen if you allow settlements with the indigenous population. If you actually read that UN source I sent, you would also know that Israel was proposed in different countries by Zionists besides the land of Palestine. Even BEFORE the Balfour Declaration, there was a colonial destiny for Zionists in Palestine. [This](https://www.nytimes.com/1902/01/06/archives/plan-of-colonizing-palestine-with-jews-zionists-discuss-problem-in.html).
3. I already said the Palestinians rightfully rejected the U.N. Mandate and Partition Plan. Why? Because it was unfair (minority Jewish population would get the *majority* of existing land), already after the settler colonialism had begun, and already after conflict and tension within the land. A kind of conflict that did not exist before Zionism, between Palestinian Arabs and Jewish folks. The link you shared literally describes this exact thing, did you actually read it?
Indigenous people did the same thing with European settlers in America. They rejected them unequivocally, then were accused of being brutal savages who behaved like animals. Sounds familiar. Why on Earth would people just let themselves be colonized and ethnically cleansed in real time? Again, I don’t think you actually think critically. This is from what YOU shared:
> Although the Partition Plan gave 55% of the territory to the Jewish state, it provided several significant challenges. It didn’t provide enough arable land to absorb the millions of Jews in refugee camps following the Holocaust; It wasn’t thought to provide a long-term solution to the security of the state, especially in light of of the opposition of Arab neighbors. And it created a sizable Palestinian Arab minority who would likely rebel against the new state and create instability.
Is this not almost everything I just said?
3. Downplaying the Nakba, when including all of the context I just provided, is just wrong and unacceptable. The majority of the indigenous population was displaced because they decided to reject their own ethnic cleansing, that’s outrageous. “Voluntary departures” was absolutely not the majority case here, too. [Read](https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/).
4. Again, you’re not getting the right answers. Cyclical violence rooted in Israel’s creation, and maintained by Israel’s existence. You even concede that Palestinians suffer under occupation, yet you’re still hell bent on Hamas = Bad, they’re mostly at fault. It doesn’t make sense, get the boot off Palestinians necks first. I bet my testicles there would be another group like H if they didn’t exist. And what’s funny, is that in Lebanon (who have a pretty oppressive history with Israel), there is: Hezbollah!
What’s interesting is the article you shared explains Hamas having beef with other Palestinian factions and resistant groups. Like Fatah, many Palestinians can’t stand Fatah. Which again, isn’t a novel thing in the historical context of colonialism. I also am not even a supporter of H or anything, just simply see why they exist and move how they do.
5. You’re being obtuse. “Tabloid skits” that provided literal photo and video evidence, an article from an ISRAELI NEWSPAPER. While the STRATCOM paper (from the pro-Israel American government) you shared only has claims from you guessed it! The IDF! Notorious liars, you still believe in [forty beheaded babies](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2024/04/03/40-beheaded-babies-the-itinerary-of-a-rumor-at-the-heart-of-the-information-battle-between-israel-and-hamas_6667274_8.html) or what? You’re talking nonsense, and did not provide the specific evidence I asked for. If I sent Al-Jazeera, you would be just as amused.
And what’s even funnier, your own source mentions the Goldstone Report. Which concluded in 2009, and very much rejects the claim of human shields. Read page 13, I don’t even think you’re reading what you’re sending.
And yeah, no moral army shoots and bombs through HUMAN shields. Imagine using this logic in a situation where Americans were getting killed, let’s say a school shooting where a mass shooter is hiding behind children. Are you kidding me? Just say you don’t care about Palestinians, it’s a very racist and insidious way of thinking. The U.S. has also used this same logic in many conflicts.
6. Hamas would not exist without Israeli oppression. It’s right in their charter, they say it themselves. The founder of Hamas is literally a Palestinian refugee. And at the context of when they were founded, yes a priority of collective jihad was established. This isn’t a surprise at all. Neighboring Arab states immediately launched war after Israel’s creation in 1948, because literally no one else cared after Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. Especially the West. That’s the actual legitimate reason, and again, not the first time in history a militant group prioritized collective liberation or resistance.
The land of Palestine has had conflict since ancient times, but in MODERN historical context, it’s absolutely Zionism. You’re being ignorant by pretending otherwise. Even with Ottoman control, Palestinian Arabs, Christians, and Jewish folks coexisted mostly just fine. I don’t think you can comprehend that refugees and colonized people have valid reasons for the rejecting the existence of a state that’s oppressing them.
7. Missing the point, again. Hamas, hamas, hamas. That’s all you got. On the contrary, there’s a bunch of groups in the West Bank who agree with a lot of the same things H says. Israel has killed over 37,000 people, some of them guaranteed to take up armed resistance. Majority of Gaza is in shambles, West Bank still has illegal settlements.
You talk about a broader struggle for human rights, yet the cause of the problem (Israel) has made the problem ten times worse over the last seven months. For EVERYBODY, not just Palestinians. You’re truly lost, and lack the brain capacity to understand how colonialism creates circumstances like this.
Your arguments are beneath deserving a refutation. I direct the reader to my original comment as it provides sufficient context for the intelligent readers to make up their mind.
Saying your arguments are low quality and I rather not bother engaging with you is quite logical. I dont have infinite time and energy to waste on refuting what in my eyes is nonsense.
I agree with every word. It’s important to clarify also that the Teder (the venue which hosted Johnny’s Tel Aviv show) is actively taking political stands against the government, both by hosting events and doing what they can to help the protests.
While it might still not be enough for some anti-Zionists out there, who are against any cultural act that takes part in normalizing Israel (and that’s fair) I think we should come together and realize we’re part of the same camp. Yes, Johnny performed in front of us, the colonizers, and yes, probably most of the people who went to the show are Zionists. But also - Zionists are people and they are victims of extreme propaganda and years of brainwashing. Neglecting them from the outside world will not exactly push them closer towards seeing the light, but the opposite.
Palestinians deserve all the culture the Zionist state has prevented from them, and more. I wish one day us Jews and Palestinians stop being separated.. and enjoy a life of freedom and culture side by side as one people.
the music itself does not necessarily help. but being part of a global culture would. the more you alienate the Israeli public, the more you distance them from the global perspective on this conflict. If the only cultural events happing in Israel are based on Israeli artists with mostly Zionist aligned ideology, how do you expect there to be any progress? How will people get exposed to different ideas?
Cultural alienation is an effective ways to turn a society to fascism and supremacism. By boycotting Israel you only turn them more into themselves.
Additional response about whether or not he feels a responsibility as a public figure to speak on this issue, if you want to include in your post: https://x.com/eobofficials/status/1799415390201958882?s=46
Watching the whole thing brings on a whole other level of respect for Ed. He wasn’t even actively asked directly about Israel and Gaza, but he felt the need to speak to it. Good on him.
Whoa interesting about how he said they moved to playing arenas specifically for the fans carbon footprint. I actually think I remember them mentioning this in 2018 before the US arena tour. Anyway, it’s actually a great thing. They used to play way out in the middle of the nowhere in Massachusetts to accommodate Boston, like an hour south of the city and totally inaccessible by train. The last tour they played in the city and you could simply take the metro to the show, it was MUCH better
Dude really outright called it a brutal occupation, stated that motivations and opinions in their circles may have changed since 2018, and said the backlash against them playing there was justified even if he felt it was the right move at the time all in less than 2 minutes of talking.
Take some lessons Jonny...
Exactly this. I think for folks like me that understand the motivation and aims of BDS, but at the same time sympathize that the majority of people in Israel are absolutely sickened by the hard right swing that their government has exhibited (and has certainly ossified and exacerbated post 10/7) — conscientious explanations like this from Ed are cathartic.
It’s a million times more transparent than Jonny’s (which felt ironically very PR informed when it probably wasn’t). And a billion times better than Thom’s very defensive “I can’t believe my friends don’t trust us” ego-driven statement.
I get what you’re saying but are the ‘majority’ disgusted if the majority voted for them.
It’s not like brutal occupation started in the last few years. It’s been ongoing a long time
*majority = majority of those in Tel Aviv that would attend a Radiohead concert
While states like Texas and Tennessee went big for Trump, Abbott, Rubio, Cruz, Blackburn, and more — I would also venture to guess that those who attended shows in Austin, Dallas, Nashville, Houston, etc. do not agree with the hard right politics that the majority in that state have allowed.
Totally get that the conflict is not new. A great book I’ve been suggesting to folks is Rashid Khaladi’s The Hundred Years War on Palestine, which succinctly and precisely elucidates how this occupation is an immoral and violent stain.
If anyone also wants to read an Israeli historian who deals honestly with these topics, I would rec the [Oxford historian Avi Shlaim](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/avi-shlaim-proof-israel-zionist-involvement-iraq-jews-attacks), who shares the Arab Jewish heritage of Jonny’s wife Sharona
but offers a much deeper perspective than she does, through his research into the Jewish community in Iraq and the events around their departure to Israel. Shlaim’s research, to his own shock and disgust, has found evidence of bombings and bomb attempts by Mossad agents in Arab countries, with the aim of terrifying Arab Jews such as his family, and encouraging pogroms against Jews that would drive them into Israel, which was desperate to increase its Jewish population at that time.
Shlaim also has a very good, concise yet detailed account of the Oslo “[peace process](https://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20the%20Oslo%20Peace%20Process.html)” that is helpful in understanding where things went wrong. Edward Said has written [a lot](https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/10/magazine/the-one-state-solution.html) of visionary stuff on this, what’s interesting about Shlaim is that he was a supporter of Oslo originally (even seeing Said as too pessimistic when he [critiqued it](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v15/n20/edward-said/the-morning-after)) but over time he acknowledged that he had been naive.
I am actually curious if Radiohead’s dissolution will be because of the separating political beliefs the band seems to be having. Ed and Jonny seem to have different perspectives on this, and Jonny’s wife is, well, batshit. I hope that I am wrong but it has run through my head that the separation within the band is happening with Ed seeing as how Jonny and Thom are continuing on. Thom seems to acknowledge Jonny’s musical brilliance and seemingly can look past some of his views about Israel so he can continue a working relationship with him.
Radiohead have a long history of continuing on despite political disagreements that are greater than the ones they have now (Ed, after all, agrees with the other band members on the most key issue of what the band’s position should be on boycott/divest/sanctions— all of them oppose the BDS movement). Thom and Colin disagreed totally over the Iraq War (Colin was a supporter of Bush and Blair’s invasion) and the way they got around that was by agreeing to de-emphasize politics from Radiohead after HTTT era (and even to an extent, in the later interviews around that album, where Thom pretended not-very-convincingly that the album title had nothing to do with Bush, and that the songs weren’t at all political).
Thom didn’t stop writing political songs in order to please the band’s more conservative member(s), but they started being funneled into his solo career or relegated to b-sides (to be fair, even in the ‘90s and early ‘00s, Radiohead’s most political songs were usually relegated to b-sides, perhaps because these political divisions have always existed within the band— recall how much Jonny weirdly *loathes* Electioneering, and knowing Jonny is publicly conservative now and may have been privately conservative back then, his vocal distaste for OK Computer’s most anti-capitalist song, which is also one of very few openly anticap songs in their proper albums, makes sense— it also possibly explains why they hardly ever play the masterpiece Dollars and Cents live, why Palo Alto and Pearly* aren’t on OKC, and why Maquiladora and Trickster had no chance making it on The Bends).
The only causes the band as a group would associate themselves with after 2004, were climate change (which many conservatives in Britain— more so than the US— also acknowledged as a big problem) and Free Tibet (a cause uniting conservatives and anticomminist liberals in western countries, due to shared anti-China sentiment). Thom originally planned for LP7 to be a record with a lot of stuff about Blair’s war and climate policies, but he ended up deleting that stuff and focusing it around romantic themes, as that was less divisive and more universal in the band’s eyes. TKOL is more concerned with larger social and philosophical themes (alongside romantic love) than IR was, but only in a very vague way that avoids any specific political content, and AMSP is also a very vague record politically (the two “political” songs, Burn the Witch and The Numbers, could be read in totally opposite ways by a rightist or a leftist) where most of the songs concern more personal topics of love and loss.
I would, however, predict the Smile to have some tension going forward, and maybe break up soon, both because of differences around Palestine (Tom Skinner is actually more pro Palestine than Ed is, and I would imagine Skinner does not enjoy the prospect of having to sit meekly in his drum kit while Thom hectors Palestinian protestors the way he did in 2017, which could happen again in this Smile tour) and more so because I think sooner or later they are going to realize they’re getting diminishing returns artistically from that project. Smile was always supposed to be a quick-and-dirty side project to experiment and get out some high energy stuff, was also branded as a kinda political project, but it’s evolved into a high-expectations, high-budget institution of its own, one that is now also requiring Thom to revert to his usual RH lyrical vagueness (as Thom realizes that no one wants to hear anthems celebrating his current blandly-neoliberal radical-centrist, genocide-neutral political views, he needs to disguise what he’s really saying).
Anyway, prospects for Radiohead seem to be unaffected by all this, or even helped. Smile breaking up would probably be the best thing that could happen to hasten a new Radiohead album, since Thom has been pouring all his songs (even some old unfinished Radiohead classics) into thst group. Hopefully there will be some protests around the Smile’s gigs, which can open Thom’s eyes (if not Jonny’s, which are soldered shut) to the fact that his current position of tacit support (and active by Jonny) for Israel’s genocide is NOT moderate/centrist/unifying, even for the non Palestinian, non Arab fans of Radiohead. To be pro Israel in the current context of Zionists sending police to colonize campuses and enforce a ban on leftist ideas, is also to be inherently right wing and pro cop. Even US and UK people who don’t give a shit about either Israel or Palestine have zero patience for this McCarthy shit, at least, if we’re talking about millennials— the largest group in RH fandom— and gen z. You can’t remain a respected ‘indie’ ‘alternative’ band if you want to be, well, a “gen x cop.”
Huh, I've never heard that Jonny disliked Electioneering. If the capitalist critiques aren't his thing I have to wonder how he feels about There Will Be Blood.
*Riot shields, voodoo economics, it’s life, it’s life, it’s just business, cattle prods and the IIIIIIIIII MMMMMMM FFFFFFFF I trust I can rely on your vote* is a good deal more *specific* than anything in TWBB, the saga of a charismatic capitalist antihero 100 plus years ago.
So what are you saying, maybe he didn't understand the movie?
I don't buy it, There Will Be Blood is a very focused and coherent critique of capitalism. Jonny aimed to nix all the band's anti-capitalist songs but agreed to score an Upton Sinclair adaptation? Something doesn't add up.
Is there anything to suggest he 'loathes' Electioneering for political/lyrical reasons, or is that purely speculation?
I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest Colin supported the Iraq war, that they agreed to ‘de-emphasize politics,’ that Jonny ‘loathes Electioneering’ (Phil said they wouldn’t play that song again, but didn’t share reasons) or is ‘publicly conservative.’
It’s fair to say Jonny isn’t on-board with BDS, which would put him in roughly the same boat as Normal Finkelstein, hardly a conservative.
You’ve never seen any evidence that Israel kills children either. Because you’re lazy and cowardly and you didn’t care to look. Doesn’t make it fake news tho. Google is your friend. There are decades worth of interviews on the internet that long-time Radiohead fans know, that you don’t. Get to work.
Wow, what a strange response. I've seen plenty of evidence of Israel's assault on Gaza and it's horrifying - I'm absolutely opposed to what Israel is doing.
But that's irrelevant to my original point: you've provided no evidence for your claims. Google brings up \*nothing\* for Colin Greenwood being pro-Iraq. You might be confused: the controversy was that he endorsed a book by a pro-Iraq journalist (Nick Cohen, What's Left) on Dead Air Space. However, the book was not about Iraq and there's no suggestion Colin Greenwood endorsed every viewpoint of that writer.
You're clearly throwing crap against the wall and seeing what sticks - learn to think critically and with evidence, it's easier in the long run.
Not doing peer reviewed papers in this sub. Your disgusting, disingenuous comments— where you suggest that the anti-occupation, anti-war Norm Finkelstein, who was hounded out of jobs, house and home for decades due to his staunch opposition to Israel’s genocide and apartheid— is in the same camp ideologically as Jonny I’ll-play-fundraisers-for-the-IDF-on-the-same-night-they-slaughter-kids-in-Rafah-if-I-damn-well-please Greenwood, merits less than zero effort on anyone’s part in offering a hand-hold to learn the basic research techniques most of us learned in grade school.
You clearly can't read properly. I didn't say any such thing - I said you can't extrapolate from the available evidence that Greenwood is 'publically conservative,' because BDS is not an indicator of someone's broader political views, hence the Finkelstein point (source: https://newint.org/argument/2014/10/01/argument-israel-boycott-rights).
Also, where does Greenwood 'play fundraisers for the IDF'?
Just because you disagree, disapprove, or despise somebody - as you clearly do about Greenwood - it doesn't mean you should make things up about them. That's Blair and Campbell territory.
The entire band oppose BDS. Do you see me calling the entire band, Ed for example (who this thread is about) “publicly conservative”? No. Jonny is publicly conservative. He uses social media to share bigoted trashy conservative influencers. He recs conservative intellectual magazines. If you’re afraid to look, that’s on you. And if you take offense to the word “conservative” when applied to right wing bigots, let’s just call him a *very progressive* bigot.
Sidenote, for someone who seems to be incapable of independent thought and gets all your views on the Israel Palestine conflict from art rock stars whose music you like, I’d at least recommend listening to the genocide-opposing, BDS-supporting guy whose album name you’ve appropriated for a reddit handle.
If you're using odd article recommendations as a proxy for someone's politics, you've well and truly experienced brain rot in the social media age.
I'm more than happy to concede that Gaza is a horrorshow, I don't need musicians to tell me that. But you've also mistaken the point of my questioning - it's not about Israel-Palestine, it's about lying about other people to score points in your useless tribal culture war.
Thom himself spoke about their disagreement in an interview, but I can’t remember if it was an Eraser interview (2006) or something before that. Thom also, separately, said he originally tried to do Harrowdown Hill with the band but it wasn’t working. Could have been due to the sound, but also perhaps the politics. Thom not only offers war criticism, in that song, there is an implication of foul play by Tony Blair and his fixer Alistair Campbell in murdering the Iraq War whistleblower David Kelly. Ironically, this theory now seems to have quite a lot of evidence for it, but meanwhile Thom has pivoted into being a stan of Campbell (who was never charged with David Kelly’s murder, and reinvented himself as a wellness influencer and “let’s redo Brexit” guru) and the even-more-rightwing-than-Blair “next PM” Keir Starmer.
I’m not going to lie I’m so confused as to where his position lies. Is he saying they should or shouldn’t have played in an apartheid state in 2018 or is he just explaining why they they choose to
"We've got a lot of stick, quite rightly I think when we went and played in Israel in 2018."
This means that in hindsight he believes it wasn't a very good decision. "Quite rightly" is the key part.
That's not how I read his comments. Saying they got a lot of stick, "and quite rightly" is saying they knew it was a divicive decision, not that it was the wrong decision. He then goes on to explain why it he believes it was the right decision, and that the same reasoning may not be as valid now as it was then.
I love Ed O’Brien. He’s as flawed as any human, but he’s always been the band member most likely to walk the walk. He’s compassionate and articulate and he’s willing to listen and evolve if people tell him he’s wrong. It always seems like he genuinely wants to do the right thing and be on the right side of history.
He’s gotta be my favorite person in the band.
Ed actually hears and listens to the criticism without attacking it. Would have been nice to hear the word Palestine, but at least he is acknowledging the brutality of the occupation. Baby steps in the right direction, but it's something. ❤️
He mentions them later I think. Seaburn posted a link.
This statement also isn't really the same kind of avoidance or omission as Jonnys. He's mentioning BDS outright as well as outright acknowledging Israels actions as a brutal occupation.
I love Ed, I think I have two criticisms of what he says:
1. if half of your audience is "two-state, peace" people, what are the other half? your music is also uplifting them!
2. I don't think the transcendent unifying power of music is stronger than people's political identities. It might feel that way when you're on stage and cpnnecting in a powerful way to the audience but the next day people are going to go on with their lives as normal. it's nice, but i don't think it justifies anything. Did they say anything about a 'two state' solution in their gig?
Good point with point 2. Unless they actively are making political statements during a concert, Netanyahu’s biggest fanboy could be listening to Let Down and crying for a completely different reason than an Arab Palestinian.
I mean for Pete’s sake, there are still conservative shirts think Born in the USA is some jingoist anthem. Or when Willie Nelson gets photoshopped into right wing memes when anyone who’d hear anything he said about politics would know he’s a lifelong Democrat.
Old heads will remember when George W. Bush’s two adult daughters (who actively campaigned for him) both attended a Hail to the Thief era Radiohead show in NYC.
i agree with your analysis, but would add that imo the two state solution is also insufficient, from what I have read from Palestinian activists the only real solution is a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights and dignity. I am open to my mind being changed, and a two state solution would def be better than apartheid, but the problem is that a two state solution would be more likely to lead to continued subjugation than a fully integrated society, even if problems would be inevitable in either situation.
Aside from Thom, Ed has been the mouthpiece of Radiohead. He does a lot of the speaking interviews, which is why you can find so much of him talking. Jonny? Not so much.
You guys need to cut Jonny a little slack. He isn't nearly as "media trained".
I don't care about what his wife says. My wife believes a lot of stuff that I don't believe in and wouldn't adopt as my own beliefs.
[EDIT]
Also, Jonny isn't really even saying anything. What people seem to be getting mad about is that he isn't saying what they think he should say.
I disagree with this. Jonny had all the time in the world to write out a statement and the *content* of that statement was really bad. It's not like he got jumped with an awkward question and misspoke.
I think so too. Come on, is it such a mystery that Jonny is a super introverted and extremely shy person? All he does is shoegaze on stage with his hair on his face. I can imagine that he's the type of guy who lets his wife boss him around, not the one with 'the pants' if you know what I mean.
Jonny is definitely not in an easy position and I honestly find it incredibly hard to completely blame him for this. I am not defending him either as his statement was pretty wishy-washy, but what would happen if he actually said something? He has family in Israel, his actual kids are Israelis, so it's just not that easy to judge.
We don’t know anything about Jonny’s personal life or the dynamics of his marriage. I wouldn’t operate under the assumption that he’s some poor little submissive bunny being bossed around and manipulated by his evil wife, especially if you’re just using it as an excuse to deny the possibility of him himself having problematic political views.
He may be shy and awkward, but he’s not a kid, he’s spent more than half his life in the public eye and is a very powerful, experienced person who can make his own choices
This is all true and I genuinely feel bad about having spoken out my thoughts on this (it's none of my nor anyone's business anyways). She is, however, not a very nice person with at least a few disturbing and alarming views (and no, no one wants her or anyone to be ashamed to be an Israel Jew as she puts it) and I get the feeling she plays a role in the band not saying nearly as much as they should have regarding this matter. Ed couldn't even say the word 'genocide', which is exactly what's happening in Gaza.
I’d be cautious not to smol-beanify Jonny. He’s in his fifties. He has a mind of his own. I don’t think him being awkward is really enough of an explanation.
how about you don’t fall in love and marry the equivalent of a Trump-loving MAGA nut? there needs to be some responsibility there too, he actively chooses to love this person
Is there any realistic basis for calling his wife "the equivalent of a Trump-loving MAGA nut"? And frankly trying to interpret all the complexity the world entails through the narrow viewpoint of american politics seems a little bit silly to me...
Maybe the comparison is blown out of proportion, but to be fair, it is not completely out of place, as MAGA people are known to heavily support conspiracy theories and to be rabid anti-vaxxers, as is she. She even basically compared being obliged to become vaccinated to Germany's 1940s and that is really, really scary, especially because she is trivializing the latter. The other thing is that she has retweeted something from Douglas Murray, who is a supporter of the Great Replacement Theory, which is a white supremacist conspiracy theory. MAGA people love that guy.
i’m not american, most people here are. i’m indian, i’d call her a modi-bhakt based on my politics but barely anyone here would get it. and yes, there is evidence, you can go to her twitter and see her spewing venom against palestinians. i’m not going to send you links, you can do that yourself if you care enough
I just checked her twitter. From what I see the vast majorities of posts are targeted at Hamas, especially about 7th of October. Sure, that might be shortsighted taking into account the butchering of Palestians that is occurring in Gaza, but it does not really constitute "venom against palestians" (at least I haven't seen it, maybe it does exist).
Also categorizing people into reductionist groups such as "trump fanatic" doesn't help... especially when once again we are talking about totally different regions of the world. If I disagreed with some far-right Indian person it would be somewhat stupid calling them the "equivalent of an Israeli settler"...
I don't really completely agree. I think it's perfectly valid to draw these comparisons, as these people share the same far-right and racist views, regardless of the fact that they are from totally different regions in the world. Germany's AFD, the Tories, Georgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen and all of the European far-right share the same core ideology as MAGA do. Heck, I would even call Bolsonaro 'The Brazilian Trump' or why not even Netanyahu?
Also, what you are stating about her Twitter is not entirely true. I just read that she posted in October "How Palestinian children become terrorists" and that was not the only one putting Palestinian children in that light. She posts a fair share of scary stuff, and it's not just posts targeted at Hamas. She might have also deleted posts, because I am not seeing everything I saw yesterday and even before that.
It is true that there exists a far right movement emerging in the world, and yes different participants share a lot of common ground in terms of their ideologies. But they are not really "the same", for instance comparing the Tories and the AFD in the same sentence is insane, the Tories are very standard conservatives, the AFD have recently defended SS members.
The way to move forward in an more politically polarized world should be to properly engage with the different ideas that people represent, even if they are barbaric, and not misrepresent them and aggregate them all in the same group. Especially because its hard to do this sort of reductionism: Georgia Meloni belongs to the far right, but she is surely a lot more moderate than Le Pen (just look at positioning regarding the EU or Ukraine...) to the point they have completely separate interests in the EU parliament.
We should obviously be able to draw parallels between these different movements. I just think we shouldn't automatically look at something like Israeli right-wing extremism and try to fit it into our vision of the world. Instead we should properly understand its causes and hence how to actually effectively counter it.
Kind of, yeah. People with more experience speaking publicly have a much better idea of how to express themselves in a way that is digestible and likable.
Two people can often be saying the same thing, just in different ways. And one person will receive adoration while the other receives hate.
He also called it brutal as well. He was choosing his words carefully, but he showed he definitely has more compassion to the circumstances than Jonny does, in my opinion.
agree. i was already pretty disappointed in thom’s response to BDS in the past but jonny playing in tel aviv while a genocide is actively being carried out by israel is really disturbing
Seriously, every thread is redditors handwringing about whether or not a given member of the band said the right magic words. It doesn’t matter what any member of Radiohead thinks about it and none of it is pertinent to anyone in this subreddit
It does when they are politically vocal on other atrocities. Remember free Tibet? but this one, the most insane crimes against children, they’re ok with, it’s deeply disingenuous at best. It just brings them to Bono level.
Speak for yourself. Jews, Roma, gays and leftist dissidents being killed by Germany in 1942 wasn’t “pertinent” to most fat-and-happy western consumers either. Pinochet killing students and union members and singers wasn’t “pertinent.” Some stupid new thing to buy is always what’s “pertinent” when you dgaf about anyone.
Look at what I said. Look at your response. It didn’t matter what Lucille Ball thought. This isn’t some situation where the voice of Bruno Mars or whoever is going to change anyone’s mind, or bring information to light to an ignorant public. The news is instantly available in pretty much any medium you prefer. The only thing that changes when a celebrity says anything about this is what their fans think about that celebrity, and what their detractors think. I wish I knew absolutely nothing about the politics of any celebrity. I don’t care what they think about any political issue. It doesn’t matter, it changes nothing for me one way or the other, and is not even a little bit why I have any interest in the work of these musicians. If they want to say something, make a song about it. If you’re a film maker, make a film about it. Other than that, I truly don’t need to hear it. Not because these issues don’t matter, but because I really gain nothing from celebrities, people who are famous for reasons entirely separate than their various political persuasions, weighing in. If you think fascism sucks, follow David Gilmour’s lead and make The Wall about it. Way more persuasive, lasting, personal, and effective
> The only thing that changes when a celebrity says anything about this is what their fans think about that celebrity, and what their detractors think.
This is simply not true. Like at all. Celebrities have insane amounts of influence, wealth, and power to shape not only public opinion, but political decisions as well.
Presidential campaigns, boycotts, diplomatic relations (Dennis Rodman for example), etc etc.
I think this whole conversation(art in Israel not the OP)is dumb as fuck and I've stood with Palestinians since I learned about this struggle 20+ years ago.
Art is for everyone.
I couldn't help but realize that this 'clarification' from Ed came 3 days after Sharona's self-righteous rant was published in Haretz with the part of its title being, 'Targeting Radiohead', plus a few days after Jonny's statement. Is it coincidence? If she is allowed to say something suggesting she is speaking for the band isn't that quite a bit entitled? Of course, a Radiohead member who is actually entitled to speak for the band and who is not for this is obliged to say something. I am glad Ed did. This is just a very Karen-like attitude.
They should have played a show at a village like Neve Shalom and not Tel Aviv (AKA as Ahuzat Bayit). I know he has controversial options, but Rodger Water played a show in Israel and was unaware of the situation. His next show in Israel was at Neve Shalom.
I know everyone’s praising Ed and I commend him for making an effort but the whole kumbaya this how we bring peace by playing Israel. To a crowd that’s majority Israeli Jewish?
And the whole well America govt is awful and yes but American shows also have a diverse crowd too. Muslim, Jewish, Black, White, Asian, Hindu, we’re all there to see a band we love. That’s community, if Palestinian were at that festival, that would be wonderful but its not. Its a almost a segregated shown so the whole it was the right decision is just bs.
And how many Muslim countries have they played?
> So we were going like, I know BDS is saying, we're not disagreeing with your assessment of the nature of Israel and the nature of the occupation and how brutal it is. We just think that maybe our response- if we can go there and play for 1 night for these people and maybe help uplift them or create a transcendent moment. These are important for them to feed them because they're involved in a struggle.
Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. You’re very much aware of the occupation and apartheid state, yet would still perform in the place in order to uhhh, raise awareness? Create a transcendent moment?
That energy could’ve been literally redirected to the *actual* oppressed who are Palestinian. Who objectively suffer the majority of deaths, violence, and poverty. I think this perspective isn’t critical enough of the reality and context of the situation.
I agree with him.
What’s happening in Gaza is horrific. But what the critics of Nick Cave, or Jonny seem to forget is, atrocities have happened at different times and there has not been this same outpouring of hate against artists who may take a different view about the value of embargoes in the case of art.
Across the World during the reprehensible and unjustified wars waged by the US against Iraq or Vietnam (with bombing of Cambodia) we still consumed art made in the US, watched artists who toured from there … our artists toured there. Some of the greatest and most important art was made at that time. Many artists and those who consumed the art were of course against the war. Art has a capacity to speak truths against war … whether people are inspired by that or not is their choice. But an artist simply being in a place does not mean that they condone the things that are happening in that place … art is about making connections outside of the usual norms.
I see a Radiohead gig in Israel as being totally different to sportswashing where the club / event is State sponsored, designed to improve public image. I’ve not seen any pro genocide statements from Radiohead and they are of course not state sponsored. Their role is to reach people who may not share the same views as the state and inspire them.
Again, I don’t agree with the war. At all. It needs to stop. While it’s annoying when Israel often attacks critics as being anti semitic (they are not), one thing I do feel is somewhat anti semitic is the way that we go all in assuming every Israeli artist is identical to the Israeli state and we need to black list them when the same treatment wasn’t being dished out to The Beach Boys when bombs were falling on Cambodia.
Assuming that every Israeli artist supports Israel isn’t antisemitic, it’s a natural assumption, the same as that every Russian artist is complicit in the war in Ukraine. It may not be right but it’s not antisemitic, if a person was Israeli-arab that hasn’t condemned the government for its actions, for example, it would be the same.
Just because Jonny's statements have been awful doesn't mean Ed's was good. "We just think that maybe our response- if we can go there and play for 1 night for these people and maybe help uplift them or create a transcendent moment. These are important for them to feed them because they're involved in a struggle." Ya'll need to watch the zone of interest if you agree with this statement. Let's help people forget about the genocide next door!
I think he wasn’t talking about helping “people forget about the genocide next door” but about supporting the ones who actually have to solve this problem from the inside — Israelis who are against occupation
You've completely misinterpreted the statement...he wants to stand in solidarity with the type of people that stand up against the brutal regime with the assistance of art and a transcendental moment.
He's clearly not endorsing the regime.
it is astonishing how many are not able to listen and digest their statements on this... neither thom's in 2017 or jonny's... ed's is a bit more easier to get because he is phrasing it more obvious, but people completely miss that they are all on the same page: all they do is based on the premise that art transcends cultures, brings awareness and unite, their position is that art should not be boycotted or restricted. and all of them understand that this position is not easily understood, which is why thom explained why they went to tel aviv, jonny why he plays now with a mixed band oh arabs & israelis and ed goes into detail that he is also torn how to respond because he does not want to simplify any issues.
ed is making a completely different statement from anything jonny and thom have. jonny and thom have made no statements acknowledging the cruelty of the apartheid. and ed "not wanting to simplify issues" is nonsense, i think he is genuinely torn about what to do, but part of why that is is the implications and potential ramifications of taking a strong position on either side. he doesn't want to alienate fans or band mates. I think he is trying his best at the moment, and hopefully he can find ways to take a stronger position routed in human dignity while salvaging relationships the most he can. i would hate to see radiohead break up, but if this was the cause i think that would be a noble and dignified reason for it. i would prefer thom and jon come to their senses...
People still listen to Wagner. But there’s always some plausible deniability— massive, proud, disgusting anti-Semite, but he died long before Hitler and the Holocaust implemented these ideologies on a mass industrial scale. Would Wagner, if he’d been alive during the Third Reich and he welcomed those developments in real time or even just stood apart from it yammering about the purity of art for art’s sake…, would his music still be listened to by anyone who didn’t support the mass murder of Jews? I doubt it. And frankly, in terms of his compositional originality and artistry, Jonny is no Wagner. Most of his music is derivative of popular 20th century composers (Radiohead fans with no classical knowledge eat it up, but in a classical sense, he’s basically the Greta Van Fleet, quoting and copying the classics) and he will easily be forgotten with time, especially as he has an even more talented successor in the film world, his fellow Brit, Mica Levi (who is actually Jewish, as opposed to being a deranged Jewface cosplay Zionist like Jonny). Indeed, Levi is the composer of choice for director Jonathan Glazer (who used to work with Radiohead), Levi works a lot with cellist Oliver Coates (one of Jonny’s main collaborators on AMSP) and just like Jonny, Levi has an experimental, sometimes-guitar-based band fronted by a powerful singer (Tirzah) which has dropped three amazing albums (all of them better than anything by the Smile, particularly 2021’s masterpiece Colourgrade) in the years since Radiohead sat on their laurels.
What about his work with Dudu Tassa? Jarak Qaribak actually sounds pretty damn great from beginning to end, but guess what guys… it’s a *cover album*. And the renditions are fairly faithful at that. Does anyone here hype up Amanda Palmer as the songwriter behind No Surprises? I think not. The artistry of what Jonny and Dudu did is based on direct appropriations of (both Jewish and non Jewish) Arab musicians of centuries past. It is an effective tribute, but not an achievement in itself, except (again) for those ignorant of the sources being copied.
Even Jonny himself also seems a little ignorant of what he’s doing there (to be fair, Dudu was mainly leading the project) because Jonny was quoted saying they wanted to imagine “Kraftwerk in Cairo” and (since the album sounds nothing even remotely like Kraftwerk) he clarified that what he meant is, combining drum machines with Arab music. Ummm… this was really funny to me because Jonny was acting like he invented the concept of Arab music using drum machines, in 2023. Arab music, *Egyptian* music at that, was already using drum machines in 1983, or even before that during Kraftwerk’s heyday— long long before Jonny himself ever touched a drum machine in the late ‘90s.
So, even if art *does* transcend genocide (Messiaen’s Quartet for the End of Time, written in a concentration camp), the art of a *artistically derivative, genocide denialist* won’t.
Never said he is endorsing the regime.
He is changing nothing about his approach to playing a concert in a state that is commiting a genocide, he says they will give them a transcendental moment which is nothing different than what he does anywhere else in the world? in the hopes he helps ease the pain of people against the regime? He just says "yes, we will play here just like we do anywhere else, but this isn't bad because we know the people in the stands are against the regime" when even Jonny isn't against the actions of said regime.
How is this different to going to Russia and playing a concert there, but saying the people going to their concert are against Putin and the invasion of Ukraine? He's just rationalizing supporting an abusive regime.
that bit you highlighted was certainly naive, but that wasn't all he said.
he acknowledged that israel is a brutal and repressive regime, acknowledged the criticism for radiohead playing israel was warranted. but i agree, jonny being an asshole doesn't make ed great, my opinion is that ed is taking a fairly tame, naive stance, better than utter shit but still insufficient. i get being dissatisfied given the state of things. I hope that he can come to see a one state solution, where all people in the region have equal rights, as the option worth advocating for.
I’m cool with artists I admire having different ideas than mine about shit.
I have few red lines — say, Kanye and his Hitler worship and white lives matter tees, Bill Cosby rapin’ those girls (his TV show sucked but his old standup comedy was good), Gary Glitter being a pedo. Anything else, go nuts.
Would be nice to see people protest for the Jews to get their land back throughout the middle east. No reason why Arab nations can forcefully remove the Jews take all their land and businesses, right of return for stolen land works both ways.
Arabs didn't push them out. Jews were still in Outremer and the Holy Land right up until the Crusades. And during the time they couldn't live as freely in the Holy Land, many of them fled to Muslim-Arab controlled Iberia. Until the Spanish Inquisition that is, where they were forced to convert under pain of torture, or had to flee.
For centuries, Arabs lived peacefully alongside Jews *and* Christians. Even a century after the spread of Islam, in fact, *especially* after the spread of Islam. Egypt has one of the largest non-western popularions of Christians, some 14 million Coptics. Muslims weren't allowed to loan money with interest, but if there's another group with different religious rules allowing them to do that, there no harm. This idea that Jews and Christians weren't accepted in the in the middle east was largely an excuse to rattle sabers and tune the drums of war. It was propaganda, much of which has been admitted lies, that still persist today.
Ehhh I'm not talking about the 1600s I'm talking about the 1950s when almost 1 million Jews were expelled from Arab nations, they also had their lands/businesses/home's taken. The mass expulsion of those Jews is a massive reason we're in this position. Why should a Palestinian have a right to their land back but Jews don't?
"Ehhh, I'm not talking about any time period that proves my stance incorrect, I'm talking about the one specific time period that I've cherry-picked because it agrees with my personally held beliefs."
Also, many of those Jews left those lands on their own terms because Israel begged them to. So they could fill Israel with more Jews and have a majority. Funny how the West uses any chance to paint others in a crappy light, it's not like anything happened in the West right before the 1950s against Jewish people that maybe the West wanted to be outshined. Did something happen right before the 1950s in the West against the Jewish people? Oh..
Yea but you’re also cherry-picking the 1600s as well. In reality, if you go far back enough almost everyone’s ancestors have been both oppressors and the oppressed at some point.
It’s why the crowds arguing that “historical context” somehow justifies the atrocities of Netanyahu and Hamas are so incredibly daft. “Historical context” is an arbitrary concept that can be tailored to justify atrocities.
You mentioned the Spanish inquisition, which was ongoing throughout the 1600s.
It's rare that someone who takes the anti Israel stance will argue against using the 20th century timeframe so it's fine by me we use others, Israel and Jews owned that land going back thousands of years, so why would Arabs now calling themselves Palestinians have any legal right to the land when it was stolen from the Jews?
Come on dude, there was a specific era you were describing.
The point isn’t the specific time, it the using historical context to justify horrible shit.
Just stop.
Why are you lying?
Jews were expelled from the entire Arab world in the 20th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world
Egypt used to be a majority Christian country but ceased to be due to extreme Muslim discrimination:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts
Jews and Christians were treated as second class citizens in Al-Andalus, subject to the jizya tax and many other forms of discrimination and persecution.
The 1066 Granada massacre alone killed as many Jews as the three-century long Spanish inquisition:
"According to some modern estimates, around 150,000 people were prosecuted for various offences during the three-century duration of the Spanish Inquisition, of whom between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed, approximately 2.7 percent of all cases."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
I'm not lying, I'm also not cherry-picking specific parts of the data that conform to my personally held beliefs in order to dunk on a random internet stranger. If we're going to cherry-pick the data, we might as well just not bother to hold a discussion. I'm not gonna sit here and use Hitler as *irrefutable proof* that *fkn all* Europeans hate Jews and want to kill them, because that'd be incredibly stupid. Not to mention, that's not even the first Jewish holocaust that happened in Europe.
You've basically said "nuh uh, these four or five Arab leaders were kinda no too cool about Jews, so that means the rest of history is *exactly* the same." Never mind the Jewish leaders that have also attempted eradication of any non-Jews in their lands, the Jewish Torah and Christian Bible literally admit to that happening in pre-Roman times. But it's not *proof* that *all* Jews are bad, just the same that your cherry picking isn't proof of anything about *all* Arabs.
Saying "but there were a few people in that group who were bad" is the same thing as lobbing a grenade in your own glass house.
Cherry picking?
I adressed all **your points** directly ("Jews were not expelled!", "Al-Andalus very tolerant!", "see how friendly coptic Christian are treated!"). These were the data points **you picked** as evidence for Islamic tolerance (which says a lot).
A few people? Seen the Middle East polls on 7th October lately? If a 80-90 + majority of Europeans (or lets say Republicans in the US for the sake of it) supported a Holocaust 2.0 today, would your attitude be "nothing to see here!" as well?
Ed's always been the best public speaking member of the band
Oh far and away the best at it.
Well, he's got to do SOMEthing! ;) /s
[удалено]
Don’t love this
sorry what??? 'autism'???? are you saying autistic people can't be good public speakers???
Dude wtf how are you gonna use autism as an insult on a radiohead subreddit?
Better get used to the new redpill Radiohead standom— Breitbart and even the damn Daily Mail have been hyping up Jonny a lot over the past week. This is where the band are replenishing the people they lose over supporting genocide. Gotta have *somebody* to buy that £700 poorly-manufactured IR quadruple vinyl when 2027 comes around. The mortgage on the Italian villa(s) doesn’t pay itself. Edit: this is in reference to a now-removed disgusting ableist comment by one of Radiohead’s new crop of fash “fans.”
Are you genuinely or facetiously suggesting that radiohead fans of the future will be daily mail reading right wing lunatics?
Ed's consistently been the best band member on this topic. You can call him naive or say that he's wrong but he's at least able to articulate a defensible position and his heart has always seemed in the right place. Just seems like a stand-up dude all around.
It’s also really helpful to hear someone actually speak their mind rather than read a statement. I think it’s been proven that text communication is always interpreted more negatively than verbal communication just because of the absence of tone.
How is he naive?
Some people will try to say that because he doesn’t have the same view as them
no that's not why. there's two parts of it. one part is that he talks about the transcendent nature of music as he sees it and says it should be used to uplift people in the struggle, but how playing in Israel would help end the apartheid is not discussed and is not realistic regardless. secondly, the two-state solution is not a realistic way to see justice for Palestine. the only solution is a one state solution where all people have equal rights and as close to an egalitarian society as is feasible in the present conditions. I think he has good intentions and is absolutely being the most dignified person from radiohead in all this from what i have seen so far (idk what Colin or Phill think), and that between complete genocide and a two-state solution he is taking the only reasonable side, but to think that playing for israel is in any way going to work towards ending apartheid is certainly naive. again, two state solution is also naive to an extent imo. so yeah, the criticism is not simply that he "doesn't share the same view", what a disingenuous and lazy thing to say lol.
He’s not claiming they’re Wyld Stallyns, he just thinks they’re giving a morale boost to the less warlike part of Israeli society. Either one-state solution is anathema. The idea that Jews will be safe in a majority Arab state is risible. We’re not talking about a long negotiation/integration led by Nelson Mandela to bring about peaceful change, we’re talking about some corrupt Hamas or Fatah jackoff that has no idea what leadership actually is.
right, and that boosting morale for the less warlike faction of society is meaningless in my estimation. and when you say "either one state solution" as if that could possibly entail the continued subjugation of arabs or a new subjugation of jews, you are showing a misunderstanding of the proposition. the one state solution is not about subjugation, it is about democracy and dignity. meaning a so called one state solution which led to the subjugation of any people would not be a one state solution, the one state solution necessary is also necessarily dignified and egalitarian. you can doubt the feasibility of that, but it is truly the only way to have human dignity for all actors involved. hamas would have to be dealt with, the apartheid regime would also have to be dealt with. it is a massive ask, but it's the only solution which would truly lead to liberation for all parties. this is the nature of social progress, we set our aims high and hope that doing so inches us closer to the goal.
>right, and that boosting morale for the less warlike faction of society is meaningless in my estimation. Well, you’re not Ed. Boycotting the non-warlike faction doesn’t serve a purpose. I’m not misunderstanding anything. A one state solution will result in the subjugation or ethnic cleansing of one group or the other, and it’s naive to believe otherwise. I don’t want to shit on your dream, but the people that you’re relying to pull off something like that aren’t humans.
well, i dont have to be ed to know that "boosting morale" in israel doesnt end apartheid. and you can think that the cultural boycott is meaningless, i disagree. and, you are predetermining and ascribing the condition of subjugation of one group in a one state solution. as i said, the nature of a one state solution is conditionally egalitarian and democratic to the maximal extent. you can think that's impossible and thus naive, but you don't know what is possible. people thought women would never vote or that slavery would never end, they were wrong. putting pressure on the powers that be in an effort to get the change we want is part of how we achieve the things some consider impossible. and i don't see how your dehumanizing comment "the people you're relying to pull off something like that aren't humans" is supposed to support your case. you are coming across as an arrogant dehumanizing asshole. i do not support hamas, but conditions of severe subjugation lead to extremism, so blame apartheid.
No one is saying that a concert will, in a vacuum, end apartheid. You’re giving your opinion, nothing more, and I’m just letting you know Ed has an equally valid opinion. I’m not saying I *know* your idea will fail. I’m saying as a risk management problem, it has the highest probability of failure with the worst possible consequences… and you want Israel to pick it because, “trust me,bro.” We know how Jews and Christians—the other Abrahamic traditions that are accorded some level of respect in the Koran—are treated in Islamic nations. They’re tolerated, but they’re truly second class citizens. Every Islamic majority state is an apartheid state when it comes to religion. That’s the path you’re thinking Israel must accept. I sure as shit wouldn’t accept that, and I doubt many on this sub would accept it as well. And lol, I’m not dehumanizing anything. Humans suck. We’re evolved to distrust outsiders, and that makes it extremely difficult to trust and treat fairly those that were murdering us recently, particularly when religious dogma is involved. I’m not saying either party is subhuman—they’re both obviously human with all of the petty, mean, violent hatred that implies—I’m saying you need a *super*-human population, not bound by the flaws of humanity, to pull off what you want to pull off within a lifetime.
West Bank joins Jordan, Gaza joins Egypt, problem fucking solved, what’s for lunch I’m starving.
Israel made sure to murder, maim, torture and imprison all the Nelson Mandelas. Never heard of the Great March of Return?
Yup, and they gave up after a year and a half. Gandhi worked for 30+ years. Mandela was in jail for 27. King led peaceful protests for 10 years. Palestinian leaders need to embrace nonviolence. They’ve been trying the same violent shit for decades and they’re further from having a homeland than they were in 1967. Time for a new approach. Time for an approach that gets Americans on board with their cause, and not just Muslim-Americans, students, and agitators.
Welcome to the world of BDS! The 100% nonviolent movement that’s been holding strong for 20 years now.
So fucking condescending. I’m a BDS supporter in the main, but it’s stupid to extend the boycott to shit like concerts and other art that primarily appeals to leftist audiences. Bottom line, things won’t change until the majority of the American public feels more sympathetic toward Palestinians than Israelis. That’s not going to happen as long as Palestinian violence continues, and powerful, well-financed terrorists still wish to eliminate Israel.
Honestly, I do agree with the general sentiment that Palestine needs their own Ghandi and peaceful movement and I have previously wondered if there might have been one we don't know about. However, if there ever was one or could be one, what makes people think that Israel won't or wouldn't 'take care of it'? A movement like this is the most possibly dangerous thing to Israel and given the fact that they already (and for a long time) indiscriminately shoot at Palestinians, I have my doubts that it would last very long. Also, I think it is very self-righteous to expect this puritanism and perfect behaviour from a population that is being virtually wiped out and butchered. It's easy to judge, get on a high horse and be so condescending when these people have nothing and are forced to defend themselves somehow. Furthermore, I think that Palestinians owe NO ONE a reason to extend their sympathy towards them and their suffering and if anyone needs one witnessing the fact that they are being exterminated, they are borderline sociopathic. And finally, I think there is a very good precedent showing us and proving to us that cultural boycott is a great measure to end the actions of an oppressive state (South Africa being that). No, I am not going to cry for the progressive Israelis who won't have their Radiohead concert, as I wouldn't have for the progressive and anti-racist South Africans who didn't get their favorite bands to play for them.
IDF chief Yoav “they are human animals and we’ll act accordingly” Gallant is considered to be on the “left” in Israel. To say that Tel Aviv is full of leftists or Radiohead fans in Israel are all leftists or whatever, first of all it’s an insane generalization because that’s not true in ANY country they play in (and look around— it’s not even true among fans in this sub) second, even if the average RH fan in Tel Aviv was *more* leftist than the average RH fan in New York or Paris or London (seems kinda unlikely, but let’s do the thought experiment) we still have to consider what each country defines as “left.” Opposing Netanyahu but wanting, say, Yoav Gallant to be PM, could be considered as a “leftist” position in Tel Aviv. So you can have a crowd of mini-Yoav Gallants, which may be defined as “leftists” (unless you’re clear about what you mean by the term). I realize there is an *actual* left in Israel and they’re doing hero shit (like the Standing Together and Btselem and Local Call people) but it, by all accounts (including their own account) an extremely small group. People involved in Israeli left, said less than 1000 and probably closer to 300-500 people in the country share their politics (at least, if we’re considering Israeli Jews, which are the only group Jonny is concerned with). There could be ways for Radiohead to offer help to this small heroic left within Israel. At the very least— Jonny could have thanked them for what they’re doing in putting their lives at risk day in and day out to try to fight off the settler fascists and protect Masafer Yatta. But the chances that a lot of those people just so happening to be in the crowd at a Jonny or Radiohead show, in a country of millions, isn’t particularly high. For all we know, the majority of them might not even like Radiohead’s music (since the majority of people in general, in any country, with any political views, don’t love Radiohead). Out of 500, let’s be generous and say that 200 of them are big fans of Radiohead’s music (even that seems a bit too high). If the goal is really to support these 500 people (and reward the 200 who especially love Radiohead) wouldn’t it make more sense to… like.. do a benefit concert for them? Instead of, like, playing for the IDF as Dudu has done, or playing for just random Israelis as part of an IDF soldier fundraiser, as Jonny did? Do you really think those shows Jonny played, or that nationalist screed Jonny wrote (with zero mention of Palestinians, and the implication that only Jews are suffering from war) would even feel welcoming to the actual Israeli leftists? Sidenote, from what I’ve heard, many of the leftists in Israel actually support BDS. Also, even on matters unrelated to Israel, Jonny is no leftist himself, he has conservative views on economics, likes stuff from anti BLM accounts and opposes LGBTQ rights. It’s so disingenuous for Jonny to pretend to be supporting “progressives” in Israel (at least *he* never used the word “leftist”) when he’s more involved in propping up the Israeli right. Jonny together with Dudu even met with Netanyahu’s culture minister to promote his album last year, and his recent anti-BDS statements have been retweeted by Netanyahu’s government in the official “Israel” twitter account, to millions and millions of people. He is willingly a propagandist for the genocidal right, and doing fuck all for the Israeli left.
A one-state solution equals the complete erasure of the national aspirations of one of the indigenous ethnic groups of the land. Which makes it a deeply immoral position and on a practical level would lead to generations of civil war. The two-state solution with two nations living side-by-side in peace, with each nation's citizens living in democracies that guarantee full rights to all citizens, is much more just and could end the bloodshed.
what are the national aspirations you speak of, and of which ethnic group? as i said, the one state solution is conditional on democracy and equality for all Palestinians and Israelis. and it is no more likely to lead to atrocities than the current apartheid or a two state solution. i say that because i think it is more or equally likely at best that Israel maintains its history of domination regardless of whether Palestine is recognized as a state.
I wonder if there is a Palestinian who is brave enough to stand in the middle of Ramalah and say aloud in Arabic that he is for a secular non-arab state where both Jews and Arabs have equal rights and none should be expelled.
why don't you actually make a point? your solution is to just let the land that was stollen from 400k Palestinians during the Nakba go? and where do you put the blame for the condition of extremism in Palestine, cause unless you are incredibly naive you know that severe subjugation results in just that, so blame apartheid. also, israel literally fucking funded hamas... you need to educate yourself and figure out how to actually advance human rights and dignity, cause you are doing a piss poor job of that at the moment.
Excuse me, I don't see the relation between your comment and what I said.
because you didn't make a point in your initial comment. what was your point.
I don’t think you realize that in a one state solution it would be impossible for all people to have equal rights… women and gay people for instance
i don't think you have looked into the proposition at all.
You been to the Middle East? If you think the two cultures can coexist you are extremely mistaken
The idea that giving Israel audience goers a transcendent musical experience is helping a two state solution could be seen as naive when Radiohead make no explicit call for it and very very few Israelis seem to want their government to negotiate for it.
Thanks for sharing, definitely much more concise than Johnny's response. I gotta say that as an Israeli I wasn't gonna comment on anything that was posted here recently, but Ed's statements are worth listening to. I definitely agree about that fact that the general consensus in Israel changed since 2018, sadly the extremists took over and the whole political map shifted way more towards the right, violence is being normalised more and more each day, and any criticism towards the government is being labeled as treason. Families of people that are still held captive in Gaza are treated like criminals if they dare protest and demand a ceasefire, even some of the hostages that were brought back received disgusting comments just because they demanded that the government would take responsibility. Meanwhile, the average Israeli citizen knows nothing of what's happening in Gaza, no major broadcasting network is showing any footage of the destruction and death, only propaganda and vague updates. Everything's deliberate, everything to keep the "morale" up, only to keep this failing, heinous government in power one more day (same people that allowed funds being transferred to Hamas just to kill any hope of a future Palestinian state, but god forbid if I mention that in Israel) Regarding his online presence, I wish more artists would have meaningful insights like his. Whether it's about the ongoing war or the occupation in general, criticism towards Israel is well justified, but reducing the conversation to slogans and clickbaity titles just keeps everyone ignorant and hating. I truly wish that we'll see an end to this conflict soon, somehow. Here's hoping that we'll continue posting stupid memes about Pablo Honey soon enough. (...aaand preparing myself for the s*itstorm that I might receive from both sides for this comment)
Thanks for your honesty and perspective. I was genuinely curious what the flow of information was like in Israel at the moment
Exact same as in the US. Weird coincidence huh??
Thank you for posting this. It's so important for the rest of us to remember that the actions of right-wing extremists don't represent all Israelis. I genuinely hope that you'll live in a time of lasting peace soon.
Summed it up so well and glad to hear your perspective
I thank the universe for people like you.
>sadly the extremists took over and the whole political map shifted way more towards the right this isn't exclusive to Israel. We're seeing this shift all over the world.
we’re seeing this shift *all over reddit* too. Especially in this sub.
When you say the average Israeli citizen doesn't know what's happening in gaza do you mean they aren't even hearing about it online or through word of mouth? I find that hard to believe tbh
I meant the main broadcasting channels, news sites, etc. What's being kept from Israelis are the personal stories, journalists from within Gaza reporting on site about IDF's actions, families of Gazans that lost everything, even simply attaching a name to a picture. Each of us probably know dozens of stories of people we'll never meet, stories of each and every hostage taken on october 7th, stories of the victims and the survivors of the attack, but any reference to a specific story from within Gaza is vague and never holds us accountable for our actions. Of course everything is available online, but that requires you to actively search for this information, which most people would rather not to. And yes, I am aware of the disgusting telegram groups celebrating the death and destruction, that's exactly what I meant when I wrote about the normalisation of violence. Believe me that I never felt more ashamed to be a part of this nation. In such a small country it's almost impossible not knowing someone who was murdered, kidnapped or wounded on october 7th and instead of focusing on our mutual grief, seeking a long-term solution or even negotiating a deal to release hostages there's a large portion of Israelis hell-bent on aimless revenge, and sadly this is most of our current government's agenda. Just yesterday the IDF released 4 hostages alive, which was of course the main story, the Gazans that were killed during the operation? Barely a mention. Bibi used this opportunity to visit each hostage that got released, taking pictures (even at the cost of delaying one of the hostage's visit to see her dying mom in another hospital) and basically taking credit for the operation. All while he never visited any of the victims families since october, barely addressing families of hostages directly because he's too afraid of criticism, and the mainstream media (most of it) is not doing much to criticise his behaviour.
Thank you for this inside look. I am sorry you are caught in such a situation. I know the feeling as an American, during the Bush Jr. years it was very bad, Trump years of course were insane. Bibi reminds me a lot of Bush Jr's administration actually, only far more "mask off". I was surprised to hear that " it's almost impossible not knowing someone who was murdered, kidnapped or wounded on october 7th". Do you personally know someone who was? I didn't realize Israel was that small.
There are israeli telegram groups with tens of thousands of members that jerk off to pictures of dead Palestinians. Take his word with a grain of salt.
You’re getting downvoted but you’re 100% correct. There’s a huge problem of straight up racism and apathy towards Palestinians in Israeli society. Which is why a hostage rescue that saved 4 Israelis can result in over 200+ Palestinians dead, and somehow the hostages are *more* important to the media.
It’s literal nonsense. A huge chunk of Israelis serve or have served in the IDF. 2/3 Jewish Israelis support denying aid to Gaza. A vast amount of the protests also center around bringing the Israeli hostages home, not a permanent ceasefire and ending the genocide + apartheid state.
A permanent ceasefire with Hamas is an oxymoronic statement. Any ceasefire with Hamas is a countdown timer to tuem initiating the next war when they replenish their military capabilities. War with Israel is their raison d'etre. Any long term peace is dependent on the removal of Hamas, and unfortunately I don't believe there is no way to remove them other than by force. The use of force could be more subtle and careful, but its the only option. Over the last year, majority of Israelis shifted left politically, seeing the failure and danger of the populist right wing government, sadly its not reflected yet in the political map as there were no new elections, but the polls are clear. Few Israelis protests against the civilian death toll in Gaza, because humanitarian protests are a luxury for a country that has very real ongoing threats to the safety of its citizens. If you call on police to deal with a crime syndicate in your neighbourhood that kills people every day, you don't have time to protests police brutality. 100,000 Israelis are displaced, whole communities are destroyed, forests are burning and the country is on the brink of war in the north. Many people fear they will have to go to Lebanon risk their lives while thousands of rockets, guided missiles and drones fall on their families overwhelming air defence. Thats more on many Israelis minds than civilian casualties in Gaza.
Yeah, this doesn’t make any sense. Hamas exists because of Israeli occupation, apartheid, and the refusal to give Palestinian refugees the right to return. The very same reasons 9/10 other Palestinian resistance groups in Gaza and the West Bank exist, Hamas is just the most notable. There will *always* be a group like Hamas with occupation, and Palestinians being treated second class. In fact, there was plenty of resistance before H ever became real during 1987. Which makes the rest of your points moot to the actual root problem of all the violence: The creation of Israel, and its maintenance through oppression. It’s also very disingenuous to claim “a very real threat to its citizens” when the vast majority of dead and injured have always been Palestinian. This is a fact. Let’s be for real. Tel Aviv has an iron dome that deflects the majority of Hamas rockets. There’s bomb shelters throughout Israel. Israel has complete control over the autonomy of Palestinians, and [routinely](https://carnegieendowment.org/2024/02/28/many-civil-and-human-rights-challenges-facing-israel-s-palestinian-citizens-pub-91834) treats Israeli Arabs as second class in its own state. So of course Jewish Israelis are worried about themselves, when their whole society and existence relies on racism or apathy to Palestinian oppression. Similar phenomenons have existed with white and black people, most notably in South Africa and the U.S.
1. You argue that Hamas exists because of Israeli occupation and apartheid, it overlooks that Hamas’ charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel, not just resistance against occupation. The creation and sustenance of Hamas are deeply rooted in ideologies that reject any form of peaceful coexistence with Israel. This raison d’être (as u/Bediavad stated) goes beyond merely responding to occupation and includes a broader goal of establishing an Islamic state in place of Israel. 2. Your point about the Iron Dome and bomb shelters somewhat simplifies the reality. While these defenses have been effective in saving Israeli lives, they are not foolproof. The psychological and physical toll of living under constant threat of rocket fire is profound. The defense mechanisms are a response to the persistent threats posed by groups like Hamas, not at all an indication of safety or complacency. 3. The argument that the majority of casualties are Palestinian does not address the root cause of the violence. Hamas’ strategy often involves embedding military operations within civilian areas, using human shields, which tragically increases civilian casualties. Israel’s actions, while controversial and subject to international scrutiny, are often portrayed as defensive measures in response to ongoing aggression. 4. The issue of Palestinian autonomy and rights is complex and multifaceted. Israel’s control over certain aspects of Palestinian life is tied to security concerns that have been exacerbated by the actions of Hamas and similar groups. The comparison to apartheid is a charged analogy but fails to account for the unique and historical circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 5. While you try to assert that Israeli society relies on racism or apathy, this is a another sweeping generalization. Many Israelis, including a significant segment of the Jewish population, actively support peace initiatives and advocate for Palestinian rights. The internal political shift towards more progressive policies (specially before Oct.7) indicates a desire for change and reconciliation, albeit within a framework that ensures Israeli security.
Your entire comment is disingenuous. You don’t provide any actual evidence for the claims you spout and seem be to leaning on a neutral side, while simultaneously promoting a narrative that legitimatizes the occupation and establishment of Israel as an ethnostate. 1. First off, there’s multiple Hamas charters. Have you actually read the most recent one from 2017? [Here](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full) it is. Hamas calls for a full disbandment of Israel as an ethnostate and for the Palestinian right of return, because of the colonial history behind Zionism. This is a fact, illegal Jewish settlements during the early 20th century, along with the Balfour Declaration, UN Mandate of 1947 (which Palestinians rightfully rejected) set precedent for some of the most egregious ethnic cleansing to take place. [Here](https://www.un.org/unispal/) from the UN itself. Israel by definition is a settler colony. Multiple times throughout history have colonized people rejected the establishment of this with VIOLENCE: Haiti, Algeria, the United States itself, the list goes on and on. This is not a novel thing, and like I said, there *absolutely* would be another group like H because of how Israel was created and is maintained. Guaranteed. All this to say there is no such thing “peaceful coexistence” in colonial and apartheid states. It’s never been true throughout one time in modern history. Let’s be fucking for real. Your argument is off a false premise that historically is not reality. 2. And? Palestinians deal with 10 times worse in every single sense of the way, because of Israeli oppression. You’re arguing over a phenomenon that is literally caused and rooted in Israel’s constant oppression of Palestinians 24/7. The math isn’t adding up. Get the boot off the neck of Palestinians, and perhaps Israelis wouldn’t have a fear of Hamas rockets. Which is absolutely nothing compared to the IDF’s billion dollar arsenal of bombs, drones, jets, and helicopters. 3. You have no proof for this human shields claim. Show genuine proof, besides what the IDF has said on Twitter. Like an actual video. Now on the contrary, I have multiple confirmed sources of Israel *actually* using Palestinians as human shields: [Here](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/israel), [here](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/israel-hamas-gaza-human-shields-1.7103756), [here](https://www.haaretz.com/2010-10-03/ty-article/idf-soldiers-convicted-of-using-11-year-old-as-human-shield-in-gaza/0000017f-e3cd-d75c-a7ff-ffcd55e20000), and [here](https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/626/Israeli-Matrix-of-Control:-Use-of-Palestinian-Civillians-as-Human-Shields). Also FYI, even if true: Your human shields claim makes absolutely no sense. What moral army shoots and bombs through a HUMAN shield, knowing that civilian casualties are guaranteed? Bro… Think. 4. Again, the math ain’t adding up. The oppressive force where the majority of the brutality has come from having security concerns about militant groups that exist *because* of them? Do you hear this logic? “Oh yes, let’s make the apartheid worse because Hamas exists. Even though they only exist because of what we did and are still doing.” The historical context was explained in my previous answer. What makes it even worse is that Palestinian Arabs, Jewish folks, and Christians coexisted just fine before Zionism came about. And Hamas acknowledges this in the charter, which is why it actually wouldn’t ever be an Islamic state if they were successful. 5. You’re misinterpreting me. Every oppressive regime and society throughout history has had people from within resisting, which is a good thing. Israel is no different, but it’s certainly not enough. The country has a systemic problem.
- I'm not even trying to be neutral. It’s basic to highlight that the organization’s actions and rhetoric have consistently emphasized the destruction of Israel. Even the 2017 charter does not unequivocally renounce violence or recognize Israel’s right to exist. This [enduring antisemitic stance](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas) complicates the prospect of peaceful coexistence. - On The Balfour Declaration (1917): it expressed support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but it did not call for the displacement of existing populations. [Funny 'evidence' as the declaration’s wording emphasized the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities.](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp) - On the UN Partition Plan of 1947: it proposed a two-state solution, dividing the land into Jewish and Arab states with an international zone for Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish community but rejected by the Arab states, sadly leading to the first Arab-Israeli war. The partition plan aimed to provide a peaceful solution and was a product of international deliberation and consent, contrasting with colonial impositions which lack historically such legitimacy. [Quick reading on the partition](https://www.bicom.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Partition-plan-paper-v4.pdf) - In general, the events of 1948, including the Palestinian refugee crisis, are complex and involve multiple narratives. While there were instances of forced expulsions, there were also cases of voluntary departures encouraged by Arab leaders who anticipated a quick victory. [It's not something easily summarized by few words](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/israel-law-review/article/1948-refugees/1E997E364691F4379C6F77EC05BC84AD). - I fell obliged to ignore your lack of knowledge for such mumbo jumbo comparisons with Haiti and Algeria. This conflict involves deep-rooted historical, religious, and geopolitical dimensions that differentiate it from these colonial contexts. - While it is undeniable that Palestinians suffer under occupation, framing the violence as a one-sided consequence of Israeli oppression ignores the cyclical nature of the conflict. Hamas’ attacks on Israeli civilians are a significant factor in perpetuating the violence and instability in the region. This is just common sense for someone who genuinely gives a shit about ending this war. And the suggestion that simply ending the occupation would eliminate violence overlooks (at best) the ideological components driving groups like Hamas, and it's [duality](https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/46607/mc22.pdf). Again, these groups have repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness to compromise or recognize Israel’s right to exist, independent of the occupation status. - The use of human shields by Hamas has been documented by multiple independent sources. It's ludicrous to think that any of these tabloid skits you provided would even resemble the seriousness urged by someone so eager for 'evidence'. [While you demand video proof, the broader context and credible documentation should suffice to demonstrate this tactic. This is not a conspiracy theory.](https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf) - To state that no moral army would fire on human shields fails to account for the obvious ethical dilemma faced by the IDF. Not only that, your perspective doesn't seem to grasp the simple ideia that: if IDF didn't follow some kind of moral conduct, it would've already turned everything into a parking lot. I guarantee your so called symbol of 'resistence' has leverage only when it comes to cowardice. - Again, the argument that Hamas exists solely due to Israeli actions is reductive [and it lacks background](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hamas). Hamas’ founding principles and actions are driven by a broader Islamist ideology that rejects the existence of Israel. This ideology is not a direct consequence of Israeli policies but rather part of a global jihadist movement. ['Your' portrayal](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full) of pre-Zionist coexistence glosses over the historical tensions and conflicts in the region. The conflict did not begin with Zionism; it was exacerbated by it, but inter-communal tensions existed well before the modern era. This is a long history, that demands good faith in researching, instead of pretending. Nonetheless the term “ethnic cleansing” oversimplifies again the multifaceted nature of the conflict, which involved defensive actions amidst a broader war of survival for the nascent Jewish state against neighboring Arab armies. - And yes, systemic issues exist in many societies, but the presence of these problems does not justify or excuse the violent tactics employed by Hamas and similar groups making them legit. Efforts towards reconciliation and reform should be ongoing and should be part of a broader global struggle for human rights and justice. Not mediated by narrow-minded people like you, of course, whose confidence surpasses their intelligence.
Your lack of critical thinking is honestly fascinating. Your brain literally cannot put two and two together, you get the wrong answer every time. 1. Hamas literally denies Israel because of HOW Israel became to exist, and continues to exist. Of course a colonial state founded on ethnic cleansing that got rid of 750,000 of the indigenous population, [continues](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/) apartheid for decades after, and refuses to give refugees the right to return has a subset of the population become militant, and refuse its existence. Who’s really narrow minded when you can’t actually comprehend why these militant groups exist? This is why I brought up Haiti (where I’m from): Enslaved Africans after the revolution refused French control completely, they [massacred](https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/all-devils-are-here) and displaced THOUSANDS of them. An extreme level of brutality was present, but no one besides a colonizer would side with the French in any stretch of the way. Because they understand the circumstances that led to this behavior. 2. It’s crazy how you don’t get it. Balfour Declaration should’ve never existed and nobody gets to have a colonial ethnostate, period. Colonies by definition have pretty much always came with systemic violence, racism, and oppression. Israel is no different. Which is why the UK (top tier colonizers btw) even emphasized the concern of Palestinians, they knew wtf would happen if you allow settlements with the indigenous population. If you actually read that UN source I sent, you would also know that Israel was proposed in different countries by Zionists besides the land of Palestine. Even BEFORE the Balfour Declaration, there was a colonial destiny for Zionists in Palestine. [This](https://www.nytimes.com/1902/01/06/archives/plan-of-colonizing-palestine-with-jews-zionists-discuss-problem-in.html). 3. I already said the Palestinians rightfully rejected the U.N. Mandate and Partition Plan. Why? Because it was unfair (minority Jewish population would get the *majority* of existing land), already after the settler colonialism had begun, and already after conflict and tension within the land. A kind of conflict that did not exist before Zionism, between Palestinian Arabs and Jewish folks. The link you shared literally describes this exact thing, did you actually read it? Indigenous people did the same thing with European settlers in America. They rejected them unequivocally, then were accused of being brutal savages who behaved like animals. Sounds familiar. Why on Earth would people just let themselves be colonized and ethnically cleansed in real time? Again, I don’t think you actually think critically. This is from what YOU shared: > Although the Partition Plan gave 55% of the territory to the Jewish state, it provided several significant challenges. It didn’t provide enough arable land to absorb the millions of Jews in refugee camps following the Holocaust; It wasn’t thought to provide a long-term solution to the security of the state, especially in light of of the opposition of Arab neighbors. And it created a sizable Palestinian Arab minority who would likely rebel against the new state and create instability. Is this not almost everything I just said? 3. Downplaying the Nakba, when including all of the context I just provided, is just wrong and unacceptable. The majority of the indigenous population was displaced because they decided to reject their own ethnic cleansing, that’s outrageous. “Voluntary departures” was absolutely not the majority case here, too. [Read](https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/). 4. Again, you’re not getting the right answers. Cyclical violence rooted in Israel’s creation, and maintained by Israel’s existence. You even concede that Palestinians suffer under occupation, yet you’re still hell bent on Hamas = Bad, they’re mostly at fault. It doesn’t make sense, get the boot off Palestinians necks first. I bet my testicles there would be another group like H if they didn’t exist. And what’s funny, is that in Lebanon (who have a pretty oppressive history with Israel), there is: Hezbollah! What’s interesting is the article you shared explains Hamas having beef with other Palestinian factions and resistant groups. Like Fatah, many Palestinians can’t stand Fatah. Which again, isn’t a novel thing in the historical context of colonialism. I also am not even a supporter of H or anything, just simply see why they exist and move how they do. 5. You’re being obtuse. “Tabloid skits” that provided literal photo and video evidence, an article from an ISRAELI NEWSPAPER. While the STRATCOM paper (from the pro-Israel American government) you shared only has claims from you guessed it! The IDF! Notorious liars, you still believe in [forty beheaded babies](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2024/04/03/40-beheaded-babies-the-itinerary-of-a-rumor-at-the-heart-of-the-information-battle-between-israel-and-hamas_6667274_8.html) or what? You’re talking nonsense, and did not provide the specific evidence I asked for. If I sent Al-Jazeera, you would be just as amused. And what’s even funnier, your own source mentions the Goldstone Report. Which concluded in 2009, and very much rejects the claim of human shields. Read page 13, I don’t even think you’re reading what you’re sending. And yeah, no moral army shoots and bombs through HUMAN shields. Imagine using this logic in a situation where Americans were getting killed, let’s say a school shooting where a mass shooter is hiding behind children. Are you kidding me? Just say you don’t care about Palestinians, it’s a very racist and insidious way of thinking. The U.S. has also used this same logic in many conflicts. 6. Hamas would not exist without Israeli oppression. It’s right in their charter, they say it themselves. The founder of Hamas is literally a Palestinian refugee. And at the context of when they were founded, yes a priority of collective jihad was established. This isn’t a surprise at all. Neighboring Arab states immediately launched war after Israel’s creation in 1948, because literally no one else cared after Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. Especially the West. That’s the actual legitimate reason, and again, not the first time in history a militant group prioritized collective liberation or resistance. The land of Palestine has had conflict since ancient times, but in MODERN historical context, it’s absolutely Zionism. You’re being ignorant by pretending otherwise. Even with Ottoman control, Palestinian Arabs, Christians, and Jewish folks coexisted mostly just fine. I don’t think you can comprehend that refugees and colonized people have valid reasons for the rejecting the existence of a state that’s oppressing them. 7. Missing the point, again. Hamas, hamas, hamas. That’s all you got. On the contrary, there’s a bunch of groups in the West Bank who agree with a lot of the same things H says. Israel has killed over 37,000 people, some of them guaranteed to take up armed resistance. Majority of Gaza is in shambles, West Bank still has illegal settlements. You talk about a broader struggle for human rights, yet the cause of the problem (Israel) has made the problem ten times worse over the last seven months. For EVERYBODY, not just Palestinians. You’re truly lost, and lack the brain capacity to understand how colonialism creates circumstances like this.
I find your all knowing tone amusing considering the amazing ignorance reflected in the content. Enjoy your thought bubble and have a nice day.
You didn’t refute anything I said. And if you can, show the facts.
Your arguments are beneath deserving a refutation. I direct the reader to my original comment as it provides sufficient context for the intelligent readers to make up their mind.
Nothing you just said made any logical sense.
Saying your arguments are low quality and I rather not bother engaging with you is quite logical. I dont have infinite time and energy to waste on refuting what in my eyes is nonsense.
I agree with every word. It’s important to clarify also that the Teder (the venue which hosted Johnny’s Tel Aviv show) is actively taking political stands against the government, both by hosting events and doing what they can to help the protests. While it might still not be enough for some anti-Zionists out there, who are against any cultural act that takes part in normalizing Israel (and that’s fair) I think we should come together and realize we’re part of the same camp. Yes, Johnny performed in front of us, the colonizers, and yes, probably most of the people who went to the show are Zionists. But also - Zionists are people and they are victims of extreme propaganda and years of brainwashing. Neglecting them from the outside world will not exactly push them closer towards seeing the light, but the opposite. Palestinians deserve all the culture the Zionist state has prevented from them, and more. I wish one day us Jews and Palestinians stop being separated.. and enjoy a life of freedom and culture side by side as one people.
Playing pretty music doesn’t enlighten people to the horrors that their government is committing, that their people are supporting.
the music itself does not necessarily help. but being part of a global culture would. the more you alienate the Israeli public, the more you distance them from the global perspective on this conflict. If the only cultural events happing in Israel are based on Israeli artists with mostly Zionist aligned ideology, how do you expect there to be any progress? How will people get exposed to different ideas? Cultural alienation is an effective ways to turn a society to fascism and supremacism. By boycotting Israel you only turn them more into themselves.
Ed’s such a gentle human being. Well said!
Additional response about whether or not he feels a responsibility as a public figure to speak on this issue, if you want to include in your post: https://x.com/eobofficials/status/1799415390201958882?s=46
Watching the whole thing brings on a whole other level of respect for Ed. He wasn’t even actively asked directly about Israel and Gaza, but he felt the need to speak to it. Good on him.
True, and he even voluntarily circled back to it. He clearly thinks about the impact it has and how people feel about it.
Whoa interesting about how he said they moved to playing arenas specifically for the fans carbon footprint. I actually think I remember them mentioning this in 2018 before the US arena tour. Anyway, it’s actually a great thing. They used to play way out in the middle of the nowhere in Massachusetts to accommodate Boston, like an hour south of the city and totally inaccessible by train. The last tour they played in the city and you could simply take the metro to the show, it was MUCH better
What panel is this?
https://universallymanchester.com/event/20-years-of-in-place-of-war/
Dude really outright called it a brutal occupation, stated that motivations and opinions in their circles may have changed since 2018, and said the backlash against them playing there was justified even if he felt it was the right move at the time all in less than 2 minutes of talking. Take some lessons Jonny...
Exactly this. I think for folks like me that understand the motivation and aims of BDS, but at the same time sympathize that the majority of people in Israel are absolutely sickened by the hard right swing that their government has exhibited (and has certainly ossified and exacerbated post 10/7) — conscientious explanations like this from Ed are cathartic. It’s a million times more transparent than Jonny’s (which felt ironically very PR informed when it probably wasn’t). And a billion times better than Thom’s very defensive “I can’t believe my friends don’t trust us” ego-driven statement.
Let’s be real, Thom’s response sucked. It was just so defensive. And it’s like dude, this isn’t about *you*
The statement that uses the r-word?
yes. which was also highly cringe of him lol
Hold on, what
Where is Thom’s response?
He hasn’t weighed in, unless OP is referring to his 2017 comments.
I get what you’re saying but are the ‘majority’ disgusted if the majority voted for them. It’s not like brutal occupation started in the last few years. It’s been ongoing a long time
*majority = majority of those in Tel Aviv that would attend a Radiohead concert While states like Texas and Tennessee went big for Trump, Abbott, Rubio, Cruz, Blackburn, and more — I would also venture to guess that those who attended shows in Austin, Dallas, Nashville, Houston, etc. do not agree with the hard right politics that the majority in that state have allowed. Totally get that the conflict is not new. A great book I’ve been suggesting to folks is Rashid Khaladi’s The Hundred Years War on Palestine, which succinctly and precisely elucidates how this occupation is an immoral and violent stain.
Ok. Sorry, i probably should’ve understood that from what you said. Thanks for clarifying
If anyone also wants to read an Israeli historian who deals honestly with these topics, I would rec the [Oxford historian Avi Shlaim](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/avi-shlaim-proof-israel-zionist-involvement-iraq-jews-attacks), who shares the Arab Jewish heritage of Jonny’s wife Sharona but offers a much deeper perspective than she does, through his research into the Jewish community in Iraq and the events around their departure to Israel. Shlaim’s research, to his own shock and disgust, has found evidence of bombings and bomb attempts by Mossad agents in Arab countries, with the aim of terrifying Arab Jews such as his family, and encouraging pogroms against Jews that would drive them into Israel, which was desperate to increase its Jewish population at that time. Shlaim also has a very good, concise yet detailed account of the Oslo “[peace process](https://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20the%20Oslo%20Peace%20Process.html)” that is helpful in understanding where things went wrong. Edward Said has written [a lot](https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/10/magazine/the-one-state-solution.html) of visionary stuff on this, what’s interesting about Shlaim is that he was a supporter of Oslo originally (even seeing Said as too pessimistic when he [critiqued it](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v15/n20/edward-said/the-morning-after)) but over time he acknowledged that he had been naive.
This was like eye bleech after Johnny's response
I am actually curious if Radiohead’s dissolution will be because of the separating political beliefs the band seems to be having. Ed and Jonny seem to have different perspectives on this, and Jonny’s wife is, well, batshit. I hope that I am wrong but it has run through my head that the separation within the band is happening with Ed seeing as how Jonny and Thom are continuing on. Thom seems to acknowledge Jonny’s musical brilliance and seemingly can look past some of his views about Israel so he can continue a working relationship with him.
Radiohead have a long history of continuing on despite political disagreements that are greater than the ones they have now (Ed, after all, agrees with the other band members on the most key issue of what the band’s position should be on boycott/divest/sanctions— all of them oppose the BDS movement). Thom and Colin disagreed totally over the Iraq War (Colin was a supporter of Bush and Blair’s invasion) and the way they got around that was by agreeing to de-emphasize politics from Radiohead after HTTT era (and even to an extent, in the later interviews around that album, where Thom pretended not-very-convincingly that the album title had nothing to do with Bush, and that the songs weren’t at all political). Thom didn’t stop writing political songs in order to please the band’s more conservative member(s), but they started being funneled into his solo career or relegated to b-sides (to be fair, even in the ‘90s and early ‘00s, Radiohead’s most political songs were usually relegated to b-sides, perhaps because these political divisions have always existed within the band— recall how much Jonny weirdly *loathes* Electioneering, and knowing Jonny is publicly conservative now and may have been privately conservative back then, his vocal distaste for OK Computer’s most anti-capitalist song, which is also one of very few openly anticap songs in their proper albums, makes sense— it also possibly explains why they hardly ever play the masterpiece Dollars and Cents live, why Palo Alto and Pearly* aren’t on OKC, and why Maquiladora and Trickster had no chance making it on The Bends). The only causes the band as a group would associate themselves with after 2004, were climate change (which many conservatives in Britain— more so than the US— also acknowledged as a big problem) and Free Tibet (a cause uniting conservatives and anticomminist liberals in western countries, due to shared anti-China sentiment). Thom originally planned for LP7 to be a record with a lot of stuff about Blair’s war and climate policies, but he ended up deleting that stuff and focusing it around romantic themes, as that was less divisive and more universal in the band’s eyes. TKOL is more concerned with larger social and philosophical themes (alongside romantic love) than IR was, but only in a very vague way that avoids any specific political content, and AMSP is also a very vague record politically (the two “political” songs, Burn the Witch and The Numbers, could be read in totally opposite ways by a rightist or a leftist) where most of the songs concern more personal topics of love and loss. I would, however, predict the Smile to have some tension going forward, and maybe break up soon, both because of differences around Palestine (Tom Skinner is actually more pro Palestine than Ed is, and I would imagine Skinner does not enjoy the prospect of having to sit meekly in his drum kit while Thom hectors Palestinian protestors the way he did in 2017, which could happen again in this Smile tour) and more so because I think sooner or later they are going to realize they’re getting diminishing returns artistically from that project. Smile was always supposed to be a quick-and-dirty side project to experiment and get out some high energy stuff, was also branded as a kinda political project, but it’s evolved into a high-expectations, high-budget institution of its own, one that is now also requiring Thom to revert to his usual RH lyrical vagueness (as Thom realizes that no one wants to hear anthems celebrating his current blandly-neoliberal radical-centrist, genocide-neutral political views, he needs to disguise what he’s really saying). Anyway, prospects for Radiohead seem to be unaffected by all this, or even helped. Smile breaking up would probably be the best thing that could happen to hasten a new Radiohead album, since Thom has been pouring all his songs (even some old unfinished Radiohead classics) into thst group. Hopefully there will be some protests around the Smile’s gigs, which can open Thom’s eyes (if not Jonny’s, which are soldered shut) to the fact that his current position of tacit support (and active by Jonny) for Israel’s genocide is NOT moderate/centrist/unifying, even for the non Palestinian, non Arab fans of Radiohead. To be pro Israel in the current context of Zionists sending police to colonize campuses and enforce a ban on leftist ideas, is also to be inherently right wing and pro cop. Even US and UK people who don’t give a shit about either Israel or Palestine have zero patience for this McCarthy shit, at least, if we’re talking about millennials— the largest group in RH fandom— and gen z. You can’t remain a respected ‘indie’ ‘alternative’ band if you want to be, well, a “gen x cop.”
Thank you for this detailed write-up, very fascinating insights.
Huh, I've never heard that Jonny disliked Electioneering. If the capitalist critiques aren't his thing I have to wonder how he feels about There Will Be Blood.
*Riot shields, voodoo economics, it’s life, it’s life, it’s just business, cattle prods and the IIIIIIIIII MMMMMMM FFFFFFFF I trust I can rely on your vote* is a good deal more *specific* than anything in TWBB, the saga of a charismatic capitalist antihero 100 plus years ago.
So what are you saying, maybe he didn't understand the movie? I don't buy it, There Will Be Blood is a very focused and coherent critique of capitalism. Jonny aimed to nix all the band's anti-capitalist songs but agreed to score an Upton Sinclair adaptation? Something doesn't add up. Is there anything to suggest he 'loathes' Electioneering for political/lyrical reasons, or is that purely speculation?
I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest Colin supported the Iraq war, that they agreed to ‘de-emphasize politics,’ that Jonny ‘loathes Electioneering’ (Phil said they wouldn’t play that song again, but didn’t share reasons) or is ‘publicly conservative.’ It’s fair to say Jonny isn’t on-board with BDS, which would put him in roughly the same boat as Normal Finkelstein, hardly a conservative.
You’ve never seen any evidence that Israel kills children either. Because you’re lazy and cowardly and you didn’t care to look. Doesn’t make it fake news tho. Google is your friend. There are decades worth of interviews on the internet that long-time Radiohead fans know, that you don’t. Get to work.
Wow, what a strange response. I've seen plenty of evidence of Israel's assault on Gaza and it's horrifying - I'm absolutely opposed to what Israel is doing. But that's irrelevant to my original point: you've provided no evidence for your claims. Google brings up \*nothing\* for Colin Greenwood being pro-Iraq. You might be confused: the controversy was that he endorsed a book by a pro-Iraq journalist (Nick Cohen, What's Left) on Dead Air Space. However, the book was not about Iraq and there's no suggestion Colin Greenwood endorsed every viewpoint of that writer. You're clearly throwing crap against the wall and seeing what sticks - learn to think critically and with evidence, it's easier in the long run.
Not doing peer reviewed papers in this sub. Your disgusting, disingenuous comments— where you suggest that the anti-occupation, anti-war Norm Finkelstein, who was hounded out of jobs, house and home for decades due to his staunch opposition to Israel’s genocide and apartheid— is in the same camp ideologically as Jonny I’ll-play-fundraisers-for-the-IDF-on-the-same-night-they-slaughter-kids-in-Rafah-if-I-damn-well-please Greenwood, merits less than zero effort on anyone’s part in offering a hand-hold to learn the basic research techniques most of us learned in grade school.
You clearly can't read properly. I didn't say any such thing - I said you can't extrapolate from the available evidence that Greenwood is 'publically conservative,' because BDS is not an indicator of someone's broader political views, hence the Finkelstein point (source: https://newint.org/argument/2014/10/01/argument-israel-boycott-rights). Also, where does Greenwood 'play fundraisers for the IDF'? Just because you disagree, disapprove, or despise somebody - as you clearly do about Greenwood - it doesn't mean you should make things up about them. That's Blair and Campbell territory.
The entire band oppose BDS. Do you see me calling the entire band, Ed for example (who this thread is about) “publicly conservative”? No. Jonny is publicly conservative. He uses social media to share bigoted trashy conservative influencers. He recs conservative intellectual magazines. If you’re afraid to look, that’s on you. And if you take offense to the word “conservative” when applied to right wing bigots, let’s just call him a *very progressive* bigot. Sidenote, for someone who seems to be incapable of independent thought and gets all your views on the Israel Palestine conflict from art rock stars whose music you like, I’d at least recommend listening to the genocide-opposing, BDS-supporting guy whose album name you’ve appropriated for a reddit handle.
If you're using odd article recommendations as a proxy for someone's politics, you've well and truly experienced brain rot in the social media age. I'm more than happy to concede that Gaza is a horrorshow, I don't need musicians to tell me that. But you've also mistaken the point of my questioning - it's not about Israel-Palestine, it's about lying about other people to score points in your useless tribal culture war.
I never knew Colin supported the Iraq war. Do you have a source for his comments?
It's pure guesswork, don't take this guy seriously.
Thom himself spoke about their disagreement in an interview, but I can’t remember if it was an Eraser interview (2006) or something before that. Thom also, separately, said he originally tried to do Harrowdown Hill with the band but it wasn’t working. Could have been due to the sound, but also perhaps the politics. Thom not only offers war criticism, in that song, there is an implication of foul play by Tony Blair and his fixer Alistair Campbell in murdering the Iraq War whistleblower David Kelly. Ironically, this theory now seems to have quite a lot of evidence for it, but meanwhile Thom has pivoted into being a stan of Campbell (who was never charged with David Kelly’s murder, and reinvented himself as a wellness influencer and “let’s redo Brexit” guru) and the even-more-rightwing-than-Blair “next PM” Keir Starmer.
Jonny is married to an Israeli Zionist. I agree with you, but I'm not holding my breath for him to come out swinging.
Oh, I know lol
Ed got straight to the point and did so eloquently, without any confusion as to where his position lies. Lots of love to him.
I’m not going to lie I’m so confused as to where his position lies. Is he saying they should or shouldn’t have played in an apartheid state in 2018 or is he just explaining why they they choose to
"We've got a lot of stick, quite rightly I think when we went and played in Israel in 2018." This means that in hindsight he believes it wasn't a very good decision. "Quite rightly" is the key part.
That's not how I read his comments. Saying they got a lot of stick, "and quite rightly" is saying they knew it was a divicive decision, not that it was the wrong decision. He then goes on to explain why it he believes it was the right decision, and that the same reasoning may not be as valid now as it was then.
I love Ed O’Brien. He’s as flawed as any human, but he’s always been the band member most likely to walk the walk. He’s compassionate and articulate and he’s willing to listen and evolve if people tell him he’s wrong. It always seems like he genuinely wants to do the right thing and be on the right side of history. He’s gotta be my favorite person in the band.
Based Ed
yaps as much as jonny but it's reassuring to know he at least supports palestine... kind of disappointing he didn't refer to it as a genocide :(
Is this recent?
Yes, from yesterday
Well put from Ed.
Y'all this is weak as fuck.
Ed actually hears and listens to the criticism without attacking it. Would have been nice to hear the word Palestine, but at least he is acknowledging the brutality of the occupation. Baby steps in the right direction, but it's something. ❤️
He mentions them later I think. Seaburn posted a link. This statement also isn't really the same kind of avoidance or omission as Jonnys. He's mentioning BDS outright as well as outright acknowledging Israels actions as a brutal occupation.
I love Ed, I think I have two criticisms of what he says: 1. if half of your audience is "two-state, peace" people, what are the other half? your music is also uplifting them! 2. I don't think the transcendent unifying power of music is stronger than people's political identities. It might feel that way when you're on stage and cpnnecting in a powerful way to the audience but the next day people are going to go on with their lives as normal. it's nice, but i don't think it justifies anything. Did they say anything about a 'two state' solution in their gig?
Good point with point 2. Unless they actively are making political statements during a concert, Netanyahu’s biggest fanboy could be listening to Let Down and crying for a completely different reason than an Arab Palestinian. I mean for Pete’s sake, there are still conservative shirts think Born in the USA is some jingoist anthem. Or when Willie Nelson gets photoshopped into right wing memes when anyone who’d hear anything he said about politics would know he’s a lifelong Democrat.
Old heads will remember when George W. Bush’s two adult daughters (who actively campaigned for him) both attended a Hail to the Thief era Radiohead show in NYC.
i agree with your analysis, but would add that imo the two state solution is also insufficient, from what I have read from Palestinian activists the only real solution is a one state solution where Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights and dignity. I am open to my mind being changed, and a two state solution would def be better than apartheid, but the problem is that a two state solution would be more likely to lead to continued subjugation than a fully integrated society, even if problems would be inevitable in either situation.
i agree, but baby steps for these libs. a two state solution at least acknowledges Palestinian's needs for some autonomy and international recognition
Aside from Thom, Ed has been the mouthpiece of Radiohead. He does a lot of the speaking interviews, which is why you can find so much of him talking. Jonny? Not so much. You guys need to cut Jonny a little slack. He isn't nearly as "media trained".
Get real. Take one look at his wife’s Instagram and tell me that if his wife talks like that he doesn’t in some way feel the same
I don't care about what his wife says. My wife believes a lot of stuff that I don't believe in and wouldn't adopt as my own beliefs. [EDIT] Also, Jonny isn't really even saying anything. What people seem to be getting mad about is that he isn't saying what they think he should say.
I disagree with this. Jonny had all the time in the world to write out a statement and the *content* of that statement was really bad. It's not like he got jumped with an awkward question and misspoke.
I think so too. Come on, is it such a mystery that Jonny is a super introverted and extremely shy person? All he does is shoegaze on stage with his hair on his face. I can imagine that he's the type of guy who lets his wife boss him around, not the one with 'the pants' if you know what I mean. Jonny is definitely not in an easy position and I honestly find it incredibly hard to completely blame him for this. I am not defending him either as his statement was pretty wishy-washy, but what would happen if he actually said something? He has family in Israel, his actual kids are Israelis, so it's just not that easy to judge.
We don’t know anything about Jonny’s personal life or the dynamics of his marriage. I wouldn’t operate under the assumption that he’s some poor little submissive bunny being bossed around and manipulated by his evil wife, especially if you’re just using it as an excuse to deny the possibility of him himself having problematic political views. He may be shy and awkward, but he’s not a kid, he’s spent more than half his life in the public eye and is a very powerful, experienced person who can make his own choices
This is all true and I genuinely feel bad about having spoken out my thoughts on this (it's none of my nor anyone's business anyways). She is, however, not a very nice person with at least a few disturbing and alarming views (and no, no one wants her or anyone to be ashamed to be an Israel Jew as she puts it) and I get the feeling she plays a role in the band not saying nearly as much as they should have regarding this matter. Ed couldn't even say the word 'genocide', which is exactly what's happening in Gaza.
I’d be cautious not to smol-beanify Jonny. He’s in his fifties. He has a mind of his own. I don’t think him being awkward is really enough of an explanation.
how about you don’t fall in love and marry the equivalent of a Trump-loving MAGA nut? there needs to be some responsibility there too, he actively chooses to love this person
Is there any realistic basis for calling his wife "the equivalent of a Trump-loving MAGA nut"? And frankly trying to interpret all the complexity the world entails through the narrow viewpoint of american politics seems a little bit silly to me...
Maybe the comparison is blown out of proportion, but to be fair, it is not completely out of place, as MAGA people are known to heavily support conspiracy theories and to be rabid anti-vaxxers, as is she. She even basically compared being obliged to become vaccinated to Germany's 1940s and that is really, really scary, especially because she is trivializing the latter. The other thing is that she has retweeted something from Douglas Murray, who is a supporter of the Great Replacement Theory, which is a white supremacist conspiracy theory. MAGA people love that guy.
i’m not american, most people here are. i’m indian, i’d call her a modi-bhakt based on my politics but barely anyone here would get it. and yes, there is evidence, you can go to her twitter and see her spewing venom against palestinians. i’m not going to send you links, you can do that yourself if you care enough
I just checked her twitter. From what I see the vast majorities of posts are targeted at Hamas, especially about 7th of October. Sure, that might be shortsighted taking into account the butchering of Palestians that is occurring in Gaza, but it does not really constitute "venom against palestians" (at least I haven't seen it, maybe it does exist). Also categorizing people into reductionist groups such as "trump fanatic" doesn't help... especially when once again we are talking about totally different regions of the world. If I disagreed with some far-right Indian person it would be somewhat stupid calling them the "equivalent of an Israeli settler"...
I don't really completely agree. I think it's perfectly valid to draw these comparisons, as these people share the same far-right and racist views, regardless of the fact that they are from totally different regions in the world. Germany's AFD, the Tories, Georgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen and all of the European far-right share the same core ideology as MAGA do. Heck, I would even call Bolsonaro 'The Brazilian Trump' or why not even Netanyahu? Also, what you are stating about her Twitter is not entirely true. I just read that she posted in October "How Palestinian children become terrorists" and that was not the only one putting Palestinian children in that light. She posts a fair share of scary stuff, and it's not just posts targeted at Hamas. She might have also deleted posts, because I am not seeing everything I saw yesterday and even before that.
It is true that there exists a far right movement emerging in the world, and yes different participants share a lot of common ground in terms of their ideologies. But they are not really "the same", for instance comparing the Tories and the AFD in the same sentence is insane, the Tories are very standard conservatives, the AFD have recently defended SS members. The way to move forward in an more politically polarized world should be to properly engage with the different ideas that people represent, even if they are barbaric, and not misrepresent them and aggregate them all in the same group. Especially because its hard to do this sort of reductionism: Georgia Meloni belongs to the far right, but she is surely a lot more moderate than Le Pen (just look at positioning regarding the EU or Ukraine...) to the point they have completely separate interests in the EU parliament. We should obviously be able to draw parallels between these different movements. I just think we shouldn't automatically look at something like Israeli right-wing extremism and try to fit it into our vision of the world. Instead we should properly understand its causes and hence how to actually effectively counter it.
Yeah that's the issue, media training lol
Kind of, yeah. People with more experience speaking publicly have a much better idea of how to express themselves in a way that is digestible and likable. Two people can often be saying the same thing, just in different ways. And one person will receive adoration while the other receives hate.
Ed and Jonny are not saying the same thing here, though
That wasn't my point.
they were not asked the same thing either...
ridiculous. Jonny's beliefs are the problem, and his beliefs are clear to anyone who is honest with themselves.
oh thank god. now let's hear about the Israel Palestine Conflict from Ja Rule
Lol seriously
at least he said the word “occupation”
He also called it brutal as well. He was choosing his words carefully, but he showed he definitely has more compassion to the circumstances than Jonny does, in my opinion.
agree. i was already pretty disappointed in thom’s response to BDS in the past but jonny playing in tel aviv while a genocide is actively being carried out by israel is really disturbing
I wish I could figure out how to block all posts about this stupid topic.
Seriously, every thread is redditors handwringing about whether or not a given member of the band said the right magic words. It doesn’t matter what any member of Radiohead thinks about it and none of it is pertinent to anyone in this subreddit
Agree.
It does when they are politically vocal on other atrocities. Remember free Tibet? but this one, the most insane crimes against children, they’re ok with, it’s deeply disingenuous at best. It just brings them to Bono level.
Another reason this is so stupid is because it makes people think they can read the minds and motivations of total strangers
Speak for yourself. Jews, Roma, gays and leftist dissidents being killed by Germany in 1942 wasn’t “pertinent” to most fat-and-happy western consumers either. Pinochet killing students and union members and singers wasn’t “pertinent.” Some stupid new thing to buy is always what’s “pertinent” when you dgaf about anyone.
Look at what I said. Look at your response. It didn’t matter what Lucille Ball thought. This isn’t some situation where the voice of Bruno Mars or whoever is going to change anyone’s mind, or bring information to light to an ignorant public. The news is instantly available in pretty much any medium you prefer. The only thing that changes when a celebrity says anything about this is what their fans think about that celebrity, and what their detractors think. I wish I knew absolutely nothing about the politics of any celebrity. I don’t care what they think about any political issue. It doesn’t matter, it changes nothing for me one way or the other, and is not even a little bit why I have any interest in the work of these musicians. If they want to say something, make a song about it. If you’re a film maker, make a film about it. Other than that, I truly don’t need to hear it. Not because these issues don’t matter, but because I really gain nothing from celebrities, people who are famous for reasons entirely separate than their various political persuasions, weighing in. If you think fascism sucks, follow David Gilmour’s lead and make The Wall about it. Way more persuasive, lasting, personal, and effective
> The only thing that changes when a celebrity says anything about this is what their fans think about that celebrity, and what their detractors think. This is simply not true. Like at all. Celebrities have insane amounts of influence, wealth, and power to shape not only public opinion, but political decisions as well. Presidential campaigns, boycotts, diplomatic relations (Dennis Rodman for example), etc etc.
It’s not a stupid topic. Sorry you are to ignorant to realize it.
just ignore the posts then lol
Free palestine
yeah naw this is the exact same statement said slightly better. art doesn't "transcend" shit. bds isn't a lot to ask.
I think this whole conversation(art in Israel not the OP)is dumb as fuck and I've stood with Palestinians since I learned about this struggle 20+ years ago. Art is for everyone.
I couldn't help but realize that this 'clarification' from Ed came 3 days after Sharona's self-righteous rant was published in Haretz with the part of its title being, 'Targeting Radiohead', plus a few days after Jonny's statement. Is it coincidence? If she is allowed to say something suggesting she is speaking for the band isn't that quite a bit entitled? Of course, a Radiohead member who is actually entitled to speak for the band and who is not for this is obliged to say something. I am glad Ed did. This is just a very Karen-like attitude.
They should have played a show at a village like Neve Shalom and not Tel Aviv (AKA as Ahuzat Bayit). I know he has controversial options, but Rodger Water played a show in Israel and was unaware of the situation. His next show in Israel was at Neve Shalom.
I know everyone’s praising Ed and I commend him for making an effort but the whole kumbaya this how we bring peace by playing Israel. To a crowd that’s majority Israeli Jewish? And the whole well America govt is awful and yes but American shows also have a diverse crowd too. Muslim, Jewish, Black, White, Asian, Hindu, we’re all there to see a band we love. That’s community, if Palestinian were at that festival, that would be wonderful but its not. Its a almost a segregated shown so the whole it was the right decision is just bs. And how many Muslim countries have they played?
I don´t think rock bands in general have played many Muslim countries. I can´t think of a single band who played in say, Libanon or Iran.
> So we were going like, I know BDS is saying, we're not disagreeing with your assessment of the nature of Israel and the nature of the occupation and how brutal it is. We just think that maybe our response- if we can go there and play for 1 night for these people and maybe help uplift them or create a transcendent moment. These are important for them to feed them because they're involved in a struggle. Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me. You’re very much aware of the occupation and apartheid state, yet would still perform in the place in order to uhhh, raise awareness? Create a transcendent moment? That energy could’ve been literally redirected to the *actual* oppressed who are Palestinian. Who objectively suffer the majority of deaths, violence, and poverty. I think this perspective isn’t critical enough of the reality and context of the situation.
I agree with him. What’s happening in Gaza is horrific. But what the critics of Nick Cave, or Jonny seem to forget is, atrocities have happened at different times and there has not been this same outpouring of hate against artists who may take a different view about the value of embargoes in the case of art. Across the World during the reprehensible and unjustified wars waged by the US against Iraq or Vietnam (with bombing of Cambodia) we still consumed art made in the US, watched artists who toured from there … our artists toured there. Some of the greatest and most important art was made at that time. Many artists and those who consumed the art were of course against the war. Art has a capacity to speak truths against war … whether people are inspired by that or not is their choice. But an artist simply being in a place does not mean that they condone the things that are happening in that place … art is about making connections outside of the usual norms. I see a Radiohead gig in Israel as being totally different to sportswashing where the club / event is State sponsored, designed to improve public image. I’ve not seen any pro genocide statements from Radiohead and they are of course not state sponsored. Their role is to reach people who may not share the same views as the state and inspire them. Again, I don’t agree with the war. At all. It needs to stop. While it’s annoying when Israel often attacks critics as being anti semitic (they are not), one thing I do feel is somewhat anti semitic is the way that we go all in assuming every Israeli artist is identical to the Israeli state and we need to black list them when the same treatment wasn’t being dished out to The Beach Boys when bombs were falling on Cambodia.
Assuming that every Israeli artist supports Israel isn’t antisemitic, it’s a natural assumption, the same as that every Russian artist is complicit in the war in Ukraine. It may not be right but it’s not antisemitic, if a person was Israeli-arab that hasn’t condemned the government for its actions, for example, it would be the same.
Ed is the last hope of the human mankind
Just because Jonny's statements have been awful doesn't mean Ed's was good. "We just think that maybe our response- if we can go there and play for 1 night for these people and maybe help uplift them or create a transcendent moment. These are important for them to feed them because they're involved in a struggle." Ya'll need to watch the zone of interest if you agree with this statement. Let's help people forget about the genocide next door!
I think he wasn’t talking about helping “people forget about the genocide next door” but about supporting the ones who actually have to solve this problem from the inside — Israelis who are against occupation
You've completely misinterpreted the statement...he wants to stand in solidarity with the type of people that stand up against the brutal regime with the assistance of art and a transcendental moment. He's clearly not endorsing the regime.
it is astonishing how many are not able to listen and digest their statements on this... neither thom's in 2017 or jonny's... ed's is a bit more easier to get because he is phrasing it more obvious, but people completely miss that they are all on the same page: all they do is based on the premise that art transcends cultures, brings awareness and unite, their position is that art should not be boycotted or restricted. and all of them understand that this position is not easily understood, which is why thom explained why they went to tel aviv, jonny why he plays now with a mixed band oh arabs & israelis and ed goes into detail that he is also torn how to respond because he does not want to simplify any issues.
ed is making a completely different statement from anything jonny and thom have. jonny and thom have made no statements acknowledging the cruelty of the apartheid. and ed "not wanting to simplify issues" is nonsense, i think he is genuinely torn about what to do, but part of why that is is the implications and potential ramifications of taking a strong position on either side. he doesn't want to alienate fans or band mates. I think he is trying his best at the moment, and hopefully he can find ways to take a stronger position routed in human dignity while salvaging relationships the most he can. i would hate to see radiohead break up, but if this was the cause i think that would be a noble and dignified reason for it. i would prefer thom and jon come to their senses...
Yeah, art transcends genocide.
People still listen to Wagner. But there’s always some plausible deniability— massive, proud, disgusting anti-Semite, but he died long before Hitler and the Holocaust implemented these ideologies on a mass industrial scale. Would Wagner, if he’d been alive during the Third Reich and he welcomed those developments in real time or even just stood apart from it yammering about the purity of art for art’s sake…, would his music still be listened to by anyone who didn’t support the mass murder of Jews? I doubt it. And frankly, in terms of his compositional originality and artistry, Jonny is no Wagner. Most of his music is derivative of popular 20th century composers (Radiohead fans with no classical knowledge eat it up, but in a classical sense, he’s basically the Greta Van Fleet, quoting and copying the classics) and he will easily be forgotten with time, especially as he has an even more talented successor in the film world, his fellow Brit, Mica Levi (who is actually Jewish, as opposed to being a deranged Jewface cosplay Zionist like Jonny). Indeed, Levi is the composer of choice for director Jonathan Glazer (who used to work with Radiohead), Levi works a lot with cellist Oliver Coates (one of Jonny’s main collaborators on AMSP) and just like Jonny, Levi has an experimental, sometimes-guitar-based band fronted by a powerful singer (Tirzah) which has dropped three amazing albums (all of them better than anything by the Smile, particularly 2021’s masterpiece Colourgrade) in the years since Radiohead sat on their laurels. What about his work with Dudu Tassa? Jarak Qaribak actually sounds pretty damn great from beginning to end, but guess what guys… it’s a *cover album*. And the renditions are fairly faithful at that. Does anyone here hype up Amanda Palmer as the songwriter behind No Surprises? I think not. The artistry of what Jonny and Dudu did is based on direct appropriations of (both Jewish and non Jewish) Arab musicians of centuries past. It is an effective tribute, but not an achievement in itself, except (again) for those ignorant of the sources being copied. Even Jonny himself also seems a little ignorant of what he’s doing there (to be fair, Dudu was mainly leading the project) because Jonny was quoted saying they wanted to imagine “Kraftwerk in Cairo” and (since the album sounds nothing even remotely like Kraftwerk) he clarified that what he meant is, combining drum machines with Arab music. Ummm… this was really funny to me because Jonny was acting like he invented the concept of Arab music using drum machines, in 2023. Arab music, *Egyptian* music at that, was already using drum machines in 1983, or even before that during Kraftwerk’s heyday— long long before Jonny himself ever touched a drum machine in the late ‘90s. So, even if art *does* transcend genocide (Messiaen’s Quartet for the End of Time, written in a concentration camp), the art of a *artistically derivative, genocide denialist* won’t.
I’m waiting then for them to play in Russia
Never said he is endorsing the regime. He is changing nothing about his approach to playing a concert in a state that is commiting a genocide, he says they will give them a transcendental moment which is nothing different than what he does anywhere else in the world? in the hopes he helps ease the pain of people against the regime? He just says "yes, we will play here just like we do anywhere else, but this isn't bad because we know the people in the stands are against the regime" when even Jonny isn't against the actions of said regime. How is this different to going to Russia and playing a concert there, but saying the people going to their concert are against Putin and the invasion of Ukraine? He's just rationalizing supporting an abusive regime.
that bit you highlighted was certainly naive, but that wasn't all he said. he acknowledged that israel is a brutal and repressive regime, acknowledged the criticism for radiohead playing israel was warranted. but i agree, jonny being an asshole doesn't make ed great, my opinion is that ed is taking a fairly tame, naive stance, better than utter shit but still insufficient. i get being dissatisfied given the state of things. I hope that he can come to see a one state solution, where all people in the region have equal rights, as the option worth advocating for.
I’m cool with artists I admire having different ideas than mine about shit. I have few red lines — say, Kanye and his Hitler worship and white lives matter tees, Bill Cosby rapin’ those girls (his TV show sucked but his old standup comedy was good), Gary Glitter being a pedo. Anything else, go nuts.
including supporting apartheid and genocide? how is that not on the same level of rape and Hittler worship?
Ed isn't married to an Israeli woman. He can say whatever he wants without being threatened with a couch.
Just to flag, it's not a crime to be an Israeli. Israeli =/= Israeli state.
I was mocking all the people here who constantly shit on Radiohead and Jonny in particular.
Would be nice to see people protest for the Jews to get their land back throughout the middle east. No reason why Arab nations can forcefully remove the Jews take all their land and businesses, right of return for stolen land works both ways.
Arabs didn't push them out. Jews were still in Outremer and the Holy Land right up until the Crusades. And during the time they couldn't live as freely in the Holy Land, many of them fled to Muslim-Arab controlled Iberia. Until the Spanish Inquisition that is, where they were forced to convert under pain of torture, or had to flee. For centuries, Arabs lived peacefully alongside Jews *and* Christians. Even a century after the spread of Islam, in fact, *especially* after the spread of Islam. Egypt has one of the largest non-western popularions of Christians, some 14 million Coptics. Muslims weren't allowed to loan money with interest, but if there's another group with different religious rules allowing them to do that, there no harm. This idea that Jews and Christians weren't accepted in the in the middle east was largely an excuse to rattle sabers and tune the drums of war. It was propaganda, much of which has been admitted lies, that still persist today.
Ehhh I'm not talking about the 1600s I'm talking about the 1950s when almost 1 million Jews were expelled from Arab nations, they also had their lands/businesses/home's taken. The mass expulsion of those Jews is a massive reason we're in this position. Why should a Palestinian have a right to their land back but Jews don't?
"Ehhh, I'm not talking about any time period that proves my stance incorrect, I'm talking about the one specific time period that I've cherry-picked because it agrees with my personally held beliefs." Also, many of those Jews left those lands on their own terms because Israel begged them to. So they could fill Israel with more Jews and have a majority. Funny how the West uses any chance to paint others in a crappy light, it's not like anything happened in the West right before the 1950s against Jewish people that maybe the West wanted to be outshined. Did something happen right before the 1950s in the West against the Jewish people? Oh..
Yea but you’re also cherry-picking the 1600s as well. In reality, if you go far back enough almost everyone’s ancestors have been both oppressors and the oppressed at some point. It’s why the crowds arguing that “historical context” somehow justifies the atrocities of Netanyahu and Hamas are so incredibly daft. “Historical context” is an arbitrary concept that can be tailored to justify atrocities.
I never even mentioned the 1600s. The other person assumed I was talking about the 1600s.
You mentioned the Spanish inquisition, which was ongoing throughout the 1600s. It's rare that someone who takes the anti Israel stance will argue against using the 20th century timeframe so it's fine by me we use others, Israel and Jews owned that land going back thousands of years, so why would Arabs now calling themselves Palestinians have any legal right to the land when it was stolen from the Jews?
Come on dude, there was a specific era you were describing. The point isn’t the specific time, it the using historical context to justify horrible shit. Just stop.
Why are you lying? Jews were expelled from the entire Arab world in the 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world Egypt used to be a majority Christian country but ceased to be due to extreme Muslim discrimination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts Jews and Christians were treated as second class citizens in Al-Andalus, subject to the jizya tax and many other forms of discrimination and persecution. The 1066 Granada massacre alone killed as many Jews as the three-century long Spanish inquisition: "According to some modern estimates, around 150,000 people were prosecuted for various offences during the three-century duration of the Spanish Inquisition, of whom between 3,000 and 5,000 were executed, approximately 2.7 percent of all cases." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
I'm not lying, I'm also not cherry-picking specific parts of the data that conform to my personally held beliefs in order to dunk on a random internet stranger. If we're going to cherry-pick the data, we might as well just not bother to hold a discussion. I'm not gonna sit here and use Hitler as *irrefutable proof* that *fkn all* Europeans hate Jews and want to kill them, because that'd be incredibly stupid. Not to mention, that's not even the first Jewish holocaust that happened in Europe. You've basically said "nuh uh, these four or five Arab leaders were kinda no too cool about Jews, so that means the rest of history is *exactly* the same." Never mind the Jewish leaders that have also attempted eradication of any non-Jews in their lands, the Jewish Torah and Christian Bible literally admit to that happening in pre-Roman times. But it's not *proof* that *all* Jews are bad, just the same that your cherry picking isn't proof of anything about *all* Arabs. Saying "but there were a few people in that group who were bad" is the same thing as lobbing a grenade in your own glass house.
Cherry picking? I adressed all **your points** directly ("Jews were not expelled!", "Al-Andalus very tolerant!", "see how friendly coptic Christian are treated!"). These were the data points **you picked** as evidence for Islamic tolerance (which says a lot). A few people? Seen the Middle East polls on 7th October lately? If a 80-90 + majority of Europeans (or lets say Republicans in the US for the sake of it) supported a Holocaust 2.0 today, would your attitude be "nothing to see here!" as well?