Radiohead to play Israel again.

And I thought that art and music are supposed to build bridges not take them down. Why don't Radiohead give  a concert In Israel and then perform in the West Bank and in Gaza  as well?

Daniel Barenboim, the pianist and conductor, had grouped young Palestinian and Israeli musicians into one Peace Orchestra which has been performing for quite some time.

http://www.aljazeera.com/progr...132117333086936.html

Haim Ronen posted:

And I thought that art and music are supposed to build bridges not take them down. Why don't Radiohead give  a concert In Israel and then perform in the West Bank and in Gaza  as well?

Daniel Barenboim, the pianist and conductor, had grouped young Palestinian and Israeli musicians into one Peace Orchestra which has been performing for quite some time.

http://www.aljazeera.com/progr...132117333086936.html

An excellent point.

Don't understand on what rational grounds anyone would want to boycott a fully functioning parliamentary democracy and why Israel is alone singled out for such attention. If it's (ostensibly) on human rights concerns, why not boycott the rest of the Middle East, Turkey, China, Russia, many of the former Soviet republics, Malaysia, the Philippines, bits of South America,  most of Africa for starters?

In answer to your question I'd say boycotting Israel is illogical, hypocritical, divisive and futile.  If Israel wanted to boycott Radiohead for crimes against music, now that I'd understand.

Norton posted:

Don't understand on what rational grounds anyone would want to boycott a fully functioning parliamentary democracy and why Israel is alone singled out for such attention. If it's (ostensibly) on human rights concerns, why not boycott the rest of the Middle East, Turkey, China, Russia, many of the former Soviet republics, Malaysia, the Philippines, bits of South America,  most of Africa for starters?

In answer to your question I'd say boycotting Israel is illogical, hypocritical, divisive and futile.  If Israel wanted to boycott Radiohead for crimes against music, now that I'd understand.

 

 

I understand your point of view. I do think Radiohead are a very talented bunch though. Oh the other hand, I boycotted Dire Straits, still do, long  before they decided not to play South Africa. Never blamed it on apartheid.

Shalom!

Norton posted:

Don't understand on what rational grounds anyone would want to boycott a fully functioning parliamentary democracy and why Israel is alone singled out for such attention. If it's (ostensibly) on .  If Israel wanted to boycott Radiohead for crimes against music, now that I'd understand.

 

Ouch. I'm just finishing watching their brilliant 1997 Glastonbury set. 20 years since this gig, which some regard as the greatest-ever at Glastonbury, and the release of OK Computer. How time flies.

Norton posted:

If Israel wanted to boycott Radiohead for crimes against music, now that I'd understand.

Another excellent, and much more pertinent point! 

Haim Ronen posted:

And I thought that art and music are supposed to build bridges not take them down. Why don't Radiohead give  a concert In Israel and then perform in the West Bank and in Gaza  as well?

Daniel Barenboim, the pianist and conductor, had grouped young Palestinian and Israeli musicians into one Peace Orchestra which has been performing for quite some time.

http://www.aljazeera.com/progr...132117333086936.html

That is a very sensible suggestion and one I hope comes true.

Norton posted:

Don't understand on what rational grounds anyone would want to boycott a fully functioning parliamentary democracy and why Israel is alone singled out for such attention. If it's (ostensibly) on human rights concerns, why not boycott the rest of the Middle East, Turkey, China, Russia, many of the former Soviet republics, Malaysia, the Philippines, bits of South America,  most of Africa for starters?

In answer to your question I'd say boycotting Israel is illogical, hypocritical, divisive and futile.  If Israel wanted to boycott Radiohead for crimes against music, now that I'd understand.

Do you really have you head so far in the sand you don't understand why some people boycott Israel?  Or are you simply saying there is no justification for criticising any Israeli policy?

Eloise posted:

Do you really have you head so far in the sand you don't understand why some people boycott Israel?  Or are you simply saying there is no justification for criticising any Israeli policy?

Individuala can boycott anyone they want to. The question is should artists mix their art with politics, particularly when there is a question if they know enough about the history of a conflict to pick sides. I doubt that you get the whole Middle East picture yourself.

Is there any other nation on our planet that you think Radiohead should boycott?

Eloise posted:

Norton posted:

Don't understand on what rational grounds anyone would want to boycott a fully functioning parliamentary democracy and why Israel is alone singled out for such attention. If it's (ostensibly) on human rights concerns, why not boycott the rest of the Middle East, Turkey, China, Russia, many of the former Soviet republics, Malaysia, the Philippines, bits of South America,  most of Africa for starters?

In answer to your question I'd say boycotting Israel is illogical, hypocritical, divisive and futile.  If Israel wanted to boycott Radiohead for crimes against music, now that I'd understand.

Do you really have you head so far in the sand you don't understand why some people boycott Israel?  Or are you simply saying there is no justification for criticising any Israeli policy?

I know full well the ostensible reasons some people give to justify a boycott of Israel; but it's their sheer selectivity as to which state to boycott that  undermines the argument to me and hints at something darker.  Suggesting that opposition to a boycott equates to an inability to critique policy  appears to be a straw man you have constructed.  

What I do have though is a reasonable understanding of the historical events leading up to the current situation in Israel, backed up by direct experience of the region having been to both Israel and the West Bank for my work.  On that basis, I can't see that a boycott would be  justified, fair or effective.

Norton posted:

Eloise posted:

Norton posted:

Don't understand on what rational grounds anyone would want to boycott a fully functioning parliamentary democracy and why Israel is alone singled out for such attention. If it's (ostensibly) on human rights concerns, why not boycott the rest of the Middle East, Turkey, China, Russia, many of the former Soviet republics, Malaysia, the Philippines, bits of South America,  most of Africa for starters?

In answer to your question I'd say boycotting Israel is illogical, hypocritical, divisive and futile.  If Israel wanted to boycott Radiohead for crimes against music, now that I'd understand.

Do you really have you head so far in the sand you don't understand why some people boycott Israel?  Or are you simply saying there is no justification for criticising any Israeli policy?

I know full well the ostensible reasons some people give to justify a boycott of Israel; but it's their sheer selectivity as to which state to boycott that  undermines the argument to me and hints at something darker.  Suggesting that opposition to a boycott equates to an inability to critique policy  appears to be a straw man you have constructed.  

But you didn't say you opposed the boycott ... you said "Don't understand on what rational grounds anyone would want to boycott a fully functioning parliamentary democracy" ... well there can be a lot of rational ground to boycott parliamentary democracies.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the boycott of Israel - it should be a decision made by individuals ... but there are complex arguments on both sides of the international disagreement.  But anyone who cannot understand why there is a call for a boycott appears to be ignoring half of the arguments.  And thats not a straw man argument - in fact calling it a straw man argument is tantamount to ignoring what I asked and so therefore is a straw man argument in itself.

Even now by saying "the ostensible reasons some people give to justify a boycott of Israel" you are essentially denying there MAY be legitimate reasons to criticise Israel.

Boycotts are by their nature selective, and in saying you disagree with something in one country without mentioning other countries doesn't mean you agree with them there.  Equally by criticising opposition to something, doesn't mean you agree with what is being opposed unquestioningly.  

For example - I disagree with prohibition of smoking; that doesn't mean that I think smoking is a good thing.

Also boycotting things only work if the "people" involved actually cares about being boycotted.  Israel want to be seen as a cultural nation; therefore artists boycotting them can be effective.  The same was true of South Africa in the past.  Saudi Arabia (for example) on the other hand have less interest in western culture; so a boycott by musicians who aren't even invited to the nation would not have any meaning.  Many of the places you mentioned in your original post have been "boycotted" either currently or in the past.

Eloise posted:

Norton posted:

Eloise posted:

Norton posted:

Don't understand on what rational grounds anyone would want to boycott a fully functioning parliamentary democracy and why Israel is alone singled out for such attention. If it's (ostensibly) on human rights concerns, why not boycott the rest of the Middle East, Turkey, China, Russia, many of the former Soviet republics, Malaysia, the Philippines, bits of South America,  most of Africa for starters?

In answer to your question I'd say boycotting Israel is illogical, hypocritical, divisive and futile.  If Israel wanted to boycott Radiohead for crimes against music, now that I'd understand.

Do you really have you head so far in the sand you don't understand why some people boycott Israel?  Or are you simply saying there is no justification for criticising any Israeli policy?

I know full well the ostensible reasons some people give to justify a boycott of Israel; but it's their sheer selectivity as to which state to boycott that  undermines the argument to me and hints at something darker.  Suggesting that opposition to a boycott equates to an inability to critique policy  appears to be a straw man you have constructed.  

But you didn't say you opposed the boycott ... you said "Don't understand on what rational grounds anyone would want to boycott a fully functioning parliamentary democracy" ... well there can be a lot of rational ground to boycott parliamentary democracies.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the boycott of Israel - it should be a decision made by individuals ... but there are complex arguments on both sides of the international disagreement.  But anyone who cannot understand why there is a call for a boycott appears to be ignoring half of the arguments.  And thats not a straw man argument - in fact calling it a straw man argument is tantamount to ignoring what I asked and so therefore is a straw man argument in itself.

Even now by saying "the ostensible reasons some people give to justify a boycott of Israel" you are essentially denying there MAY be legitimate reasons to criticise Israel.

Boycotts are by their nature selective, and in saying you disagree with something in one country without mentioning other countries doesn't mean you agree with them there.  Equally by criticising opposition to something, doesn't mean you agree with what is being opposed unquestioningly.  

For example - I disagree with prohibition of smoking; that doesn't mean that I think smoking is a good thing.

Also boycotting things only work if the "people" involved actually cares about being boycotted.  Israel want to be seen as a cultural nation; therefore artists boycotting them can be effective.  The same was true of South Africa in the past.  Saudi Arabia (for example) on the other hand have less interest in western culture; so a boycott by musicians who aren't even invited to the nation would not have any meaning.  Many of the places you mentioned in your original post have been "boycotted" either currently or in the past.

I think it's abundantly clear from my posts that I do oppose boycotts of Israel.  The reason I can find no rational grounds is that the reasons  cited  are not consistently applied in calling for boycotts of other regimes by those calling for boycotts of Israel  and thus not rational if their adherents were genuinely seeking to address the issues concerned.  Hence I term them "ostensible " reasons because I don't believe they are the real reasons why boycotts of Israel are sought.

The straw man you set up was equating my criticism of calls for boycotts of Israel with a refusal to  criticise the Israeli regime.  Nothing in my posts suggests Israel is beyond criticism, although it is rather down the list of regimes I'd be personally most concerned about.