UniversalRinging wrote:
Honestly, I don’t know. If the US government and military forcibly moved all black people to an interment camp in Montana and denied them basic human rights, I would call for boycott and be OK with never seeing a foreign touring rock band play in my town ever again. If I was in a band, I wouldn’t play Israel.
See, I try to stay out of this, ut the false equivalency just gets me angry and ready to argue. There is absolutely discrimination and horrors and Netanyahu is vile, but when you make such a false analogy, you're succumbing to propaganda yourself. Israeli Arabs have the vote and full citizen rights. You need to look at the history of the conflict and the nuance.
Do your research and draw your conclusions, but stay fair.
(For me, as a cultural Jew who has dealt with plenty of anti-Semitism and who would love to eradicate religion altogether and as a political and social activist, I struggle. I'm open to discussing and listening and seeking truth but we have to stay fair.)
Chaotican: Sorry to p*ss you off, and I’m not being facetious. I don’t take offense to you being angry or arguing. This is understandably a very fraught issue and perhaps I should have chosen my analogies more carefully. My intent wasn’t to construct a one to one analogy in any case, just to invent an extremely racist scenario, which would justify an international boycott. And you’re very much correct that I am not an expert on the subject.
Still, I don’t understand what your assertion that Palestinians (I just can’t call them Israeli Arabs, it’s f**king wrong) have citizenship has to do with anything. Citizenship doesn’t mean anything without rights. And the rights of non-Jews in Israel are a f**king joke. In fact, the parallel between Palestinians and black Americans is quite apt, as they both suffered state mandated segregation up until the 1960s. Black Americans were redlined out of home ownership. Palestinians had their property expropriated after the 1948 war. They face rampant discrimination, they are allocated fewer resources than the white population, they can’t travel without being harassed and possibly killed.
And that’s for Palestinians who are “lucky� enough to live in Israel. I know that if I was a Palestinian living in Gaza or the West Bank and I wanted to marry my sweetheart who was Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, I couldn’t live with my new spouse in Israel. Even if we owned a home there. But I dare say, BDS and condemnation of the State of Israel isn’t even about the quality of life of Palestinians living inside Israel. It’s about military occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. Demolition of Palestinian homes. Blockades. Denial of adequate water, power, fuel, economic freedom. Border walls and buffer zones. Patrol of air and sea. Prohibition of travel, of using roads, checkpoints, searches. Bombings. The denial of basic human rights in those areas, forget about citizenship. Much smarter people than me have declared Gaza an open air prison.
So perhaps a more fitting analogy would go like this: After intense, months long rioting in several black majority cities in the US, (not a stretch these days) the government and military declare martial law in those cities. But that’s not enough. Trump declares these riots to be a danger to white America. And that black people are a danger to the white Americans. Borders are patrolled by the military. Walls are erected. Travel out is prohibited. Resources going in are harshly rationed. Business with these zones is halted. Families cannot be reunited. When people inside these zones fire guns or rockets or Molotov cocktails, the government bombs the s**t out of them, destroying hospitals, schools, churches, whatever. Does it matter that the black people outside these zones are considered “citizens� and they have “rights?�
With respect, because even when you are angry and argumentative, you seem level headed and reasonable, any military actions taken by a state against a minority population, to the extent that they are walled-in and left to rot, treated as enemies and lesser-thans, are abhorrent. Regardless if that minority population hates the government and actively rebels against said state. Admittedly, a solution will be near impossible to find. But that doesn’t excuse internment. Anyway, sorry my first analogy was off base. My second one probably is too. Perhaps I will stay away from analogies from now on. And I’m happy to read anything else you have to say on the matter. Off to bed now.
UniversalRinging wrote:
Honestly, I don’t know. If the US government and military forcibly moved all black people to an interment camp in Montana and denied them basic human rights, I would call for boycott and be OK with never seeing a foreign touring rock band play in my town ever again. If I was in a band, I wouldn’t play Israel. If an artist that I truly loved and had not seen for a long time decided to tour and also play Israel, would I boycott their tour? I don’t know. I would rather they not play Israel. Is BDS a good strategy? Probably not, but it’s the one that’s in place right now and one that many artists support. Media coverage does seem to be increasing as well. Should artists, especially non right wing artists support BDS? I think so. If they don’t does that make them assholes? Probably. I think in the case of the Sisters of Mercy, their reach, their audience, their financial needs, playing Israel is worth the money. I think that’s sad. But s**t, I’m sad, everyone’s sad, everyone’s done things for a paycheck that in retrospect was not worth it. To me, there have been so many questions raised recently about separating art from artists’ actions, of whether it is possible to support a band regardless of their intolerant statements or their s**t behavior or their political beliefs. And I’ve had a hard time drawing my own limits. Sometimes, it’s clear like with Morrissey, sometimes it’s not, like with Michael Gira. I think the best thing to do is make a stink if your convictions are strong enough for boycott. If nothing else, it may cause an artist to respond in public, and that may lead to a clearer understanding of their positions on issues of which you may care. If your convictions for boycott aren’t strong, go ahead, buy that ticket, but it may sit funny with your conscience later.
1. Why you willing to drop only particluar tour(s) where bands plays in Isreal? Why not stop to go their gigs at all when artists/bands played in Israel even once, no matter when it was? How did you draw that line?
2. Do you think that suggesting that someone in asshole just because he/she/them did not suport particular action, organization would convince them to change their mind?
3. How do you feel on such high moral ground?
4. Do you think it's only about money that makes bands/artists to play in some particular places?
@Chaotican
Unfortunately, Israeli Arabs do not have full citizen rights. Just look at the Beduine communities in the Negev who have their villages, including schools and everything destroyed (regularly, i.e. more than 20 times) and are subject to forced displacement, while the State of Israel is building European-sponsored wood-planting projects and new villages on their traditional habitat that are given the right to accept only Jews in their neighbourhood. The situation is similar in Area C of the Westbank (especially the Jordan Valley) and in Jerusalem. Though in Jerusalem, there is no citizenship for Palestinians. Palestinian inhabitants of Jerusalem have nothing but a residence permit. And if they should leave to study abroad (or maybe only to visit their relatives elsewhere), there is often enough no coming back, their residence permit is withdrawn and they lose their right to live in their place of birth no matter, whether their family might have lived there for centuries ... and there is a hell lot more to tell about Israeli state strategies of land-grabbing.
@UniversalRinging
All your allegations describe just how it is, and if only from one side. But these are facts and the situation is fully unbearable and going on for 50 YEARS by now!!! Nonetheless, IMHO, the resposibility cannot be blamed on Israel alone. Palestinians have also committed violent attacks in their resistance (though - fair enough - that toll is not a percentage of what Israel has done, but one-tenth of a percent, rather) and above all the International community have far too long let Israel have its ways despite their ignorance of all international resolutions (with especially the US avoiding that too many resolutions ever made it through the Security Council). And looking at Gaza, when Hamas won the elections they were given NO chance to perform in any good direction as not only Israel imposed its illegal blockade (now for also 10 YEARS !!!), but also the EU, the US and many more denied them every legitimacy (Don't talk to Hamas!). Insofar, they bear a good part of the blame also for the inner-Palestinian difficulties, IMHPO.
Insofar, I find calling for boycotts at least debatable, basically, IF it were not the Palestinians who initialised it. And of course, goods produced in illegal settlements should not be allowed into world markets (and for sure not without an according labelling - but of course, Israel ignores these commonly agreed upon rules as it is used to get away with everything), nor should any company be allowed to invest in and profit from these illegal entities. There has to be some effective response to Israel from the outside to make clear that, ok, they have their points and their right to existence (well, there should be absolutely no doubt about that!!!) and more than that - they are a welcome and equal part of the entire international community (like all peoples should be!), but they're taking it too far and they've been crossing red lines far too often (and already for a very, very, very long time). Only, IMHO, it is the task of other states and governments to agree on effective measures and set an end to this ever more sprawling behaviour.
Culture, music, arts, sports, maybe even academic exchange are in my view positive interactions that can contribute to a change for the better, other than investments in settlements or trading goods from stolen land on world markets. Anyway, I won't swallow the bad conscience bait and really dislike any sort of allegedly necessary collective action. Too many bad encounters...
Ah, as to the Israeli military ... in Israel, there's obligatory military service for everyone, men and women alike. There is no alternative for those who object out of conscience; they are faced with repeated detention, before they are exempted. But still, they won't have the same chances as to jobs and everything for the rest of their lives. So the only chance for Israeli citizens to become not complicit with the regime is at the cost of their future...
Last edited by Being645 on 25 Jul 2017, 15:29, edited 2 times in total.
@UniversalRinging: Apologies for using an offensive term. I'm actually reading several of my aunt's writings about Jeruselum right now as I'll be visiting her in Austria in September. In one work of fiction, at least, she's created a world where the inhabitants refuse to speak of exact countries of origion in public with positive motivation for not doing so. (And trust me, she'll find me so objectionably liberal that her next book will likely feature some pampered, arrogant American c**t...)
To be clear to you both, I am very opposed to the Israeli government and the actions that are being carried out. I am, however, also alarmed at the tone of the response in many cases.
I'm not angry. I'm asking only that no one over-simplify a complex situation with a very long history, and that no one on either side responds with dehumanizing hatred.
Chaotican wrote:I'm asking only that no one over-simplify a complex situation with a very long history, and that no one on either side responds with dehumanizing hatred.
Hear hear
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
Read through the first gig thread from 2009, and some pictures from the (once in a life time?) meet and greet are still online! How the hell did they manage that? I mean both promoter and Andrew
1. Good questions. As I mentioned before, there are many things of which I’m uncertain, and it is up to each individual to decide for themselves as their consciences allow. Forgive me, but I haven’t always been politically aware, of the boycott issue amongst others. And as far as I know, the call for boycott only began in the mid-2000s. You’re right. There’s nothing to stop anyone from doing a bit of research to see what bands have played Israel since then, and make their choices about supporting those bands. Me, I honestly don’t know, but thanks to the increased conversation about boycott, I will scrutinize my choices in the future, which I think, is one of the major points of the activism surrounding the issue.
2. Change someone’s mind? I wouldn’t dream of having that power. Trying to change someone’s mind only re-entrenches positions. I do find it extremely odd that any band with an anti-fascist, egalitarian worldview would play Israel. But nothing I say or think is going to make a damn difference to those bands, when the international music community can’t convince them to reconsider. Secondly, is it the term “asshole� to which you object? Fair enough. I do have a potty mouth. I’ll try to tone it down.
3. I don’t see what’s the point of this comment, other than to mock me for having an opinion that’s different than yours. But that’s cool. We could all stand a little mockery. I don’t think I told anyone what to do with their money or their support. I don’t think I flamed anyone on this thread for supporting artists who play Israel. I admitted my own reservations about BDS as a strategy. I admitted my own struggles with how to apply boycott to my own life. I admitted I’ve done things for money that didn’t have integrity. I criticized bands not fans. If that makes me a snob, flame away.
4. Yes.
Being645: Very true. There are many sides to the story made ever more complex by the interference/ influence of foreign governments and organizations. I get why you’re skeptical of boycott and I think it’s useful to inform oneself about the whos and whys and make decisions for one’s own life according to one’s own compass.
Chaotican: Dehumanizing hatred? Do you really think this discussion has descended so low? If you think my responses can be characterized like that, then I regret having entered the fray. I found this thread very civil, the responses measured, good points brought up on both sides, so maybe it is me that’s the problem. I’m sure you and others can let me know.
UR: I wasn't implying that your reaction was one of dehumanizing hatred. I believe, at worst, I accused you of false equivalency and over-simplification. I think you're thoughtful, intelligent, and articulate. If you've truly come to your conclusions through open-minded examination and not an onslaught of manipulative information, then I may even re-examine my own moral compass to see if I'm off. When you make analogies of taking people prisoner and stripping them of all rights, however, I don't feel like we're having an honest exchange.
As an aside, I've had a s**t day and I'm now killing time in the pit, waiting for the psychedelic furs to come on stage so I can be somewhere else for a few hours, hopefully. Hate to think of depriving anyone of that.
Bartek wrote:
4. Do you think it's only about money that makes bands/artists to play in some particular places?
About this money argument - at least regarding our Sisters, Tel Aviv would have to be the gig costing them the most/earning them the least of all dates on this whole tour.
The gigs paying off the most for bands like the Sisters are those close to each other in both time and distance. Which basically goes for every gig on this tour *except* Tel Aviv. Much higher transport costs and a wasted week with no gig income after Amsterdam.
The Sisters are regularly turning down good offers because it doesn't fit their schedule. They tour for the money, yes, but they are not greedy. They turned down an offer of several dates from a promoter a few years ago, and yet one year later played Athens, where tickets were far less expensive (less income for the band) than further north.
markfiend wrote:If the Sisters were just about the money, they'd have accepted one of the insane offers they've had to play at Whitby G**h Weekend.
If they were just about the money, they'd have written and released a ton of low-end punter-friendly goth twaddle records back in the late 80s / early 90s. They could still choose to do that now and all retire to their bunker hab-units very comfortably. And yet they choose not to. Why does money even get mentioned in conversation about The Sisters?
UniversalRinging wrote:Bartek:
2. Change someone’s mind? I wouldn’t dream of having that power. Trying to change someone’s mind only re-entrenches positions. I do find it extremely odd that any band with an anti-fascist, egalitarian worldview would play Israel. But nothing I say or think is going to make a damn difference to those bands, when the international music community can’t convince them to reconsider. Secondly, is it the term “asshole� to which you object? Fair enough. I do have a potty mouth. I’ll try to tone it down.
3. I don’t see what’s the point of this comment, other than to mock me for having an opinion that’s different than yours. But that’s cool. We could all stand a little mockery. I don’t think I told anyone what to do with their money or their support. I don’t think I flamed anyone on this thread for supporting artists who play Israel. I admitted my own reservations about BDS as a strategy. I admitted my own struggles with how to apply boycott to my own life. I admitted I’ve done things for money that didn’t have integrity. I criticized bands not fans. If that makes me a snob, flame away.
4. Yes.
So why did put that "asshole" in this post? To me there are just two options, (i) pissing someone off or (ii) try to impact on them by using epiteth. Besides just saying that in someone opinione someone is asshole. And you see, now you're doing it again, you pointing that TSOM (AE) stands for some values therefore it's "odd" that they will play in some place. But you're not saying what they should or even ought to do.
Yeah, i was a bit messing with you with that high moral ground. But, to me, it looks like: this is my opinion, the best and only respond to invitation to play in Israel.
As mentioned above, not all artists are playing to get some extra money, like Sting who played in Uzbekistan for their semi~dictator.
Planet Dave wrote:If they were just about the money, they'd have written and released a ton of low-end punter-friendly goth twaddle records back in the late 80s / early 90s. They could still choose to do that now and all retire to their bunker hab-units very comfortably. And yet they choose not to. Why does money even get mentioned in conversation about The Sisters?
Yeah good point actually
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
Chaotican: Nothing but respect and mutual feelings from me. I hope you enjoyed yourself. You've given me many things to consider as well, so thanks. I appreciate it.
Hi Zacharias: Thanks for the support. Truly.
Bartek:
Hmm, I thought I covered the “asshole� and “changing people’s minds� issues in my last response to you. But if you want me to discuss it further, here goes:
I wrote: “Secondly, is it the term “asshole� to which you object? Fair enough. I do have a potty mouth. I’ll try to tone it down.�
I could have just as easily used another slang term like goober or jerk, but like I said, I curse a lot and I’ll try not to with you. I think it’s mean to play a concert in a place where certain minorities in the population get no opportunity to see said concert, whether they buy can afford a ticket or not. People on this thread have written about how there’s no need to deprive ordinary Israelis, fans of certain bands, the escape and entertainment of live music in difficult and complex times. Well what about, for example, the possibility that there are die hard Radiohead fans who live in Gaza or the West Bank who can’t access the same escape and entertainment for one night in Tel Aviv? What about their deprivation? It’s heartbreaking and unfair. I understand why bands would choose to play anyway. I understand that they may see a benefit to themselves, their tours, their Israeli fans. That demand may be high, that they may have a personal connection to the fans there. I still think it’s mean.
Even though I think it’s mean to play Israel, I can’t necessarily black-ball or cut out of my life every artist I admire who has played there or have engaged in behaviors with which I don’t agree. Perhaps it’s a failure of my morality. It’s a very personal issue, one which people have to decide for themselves, to support or withdraw support when one’s compass speaks. The OP decided to withdraw support or the Sisters. Others continue to support the Sisters. I don’t begrudge anyone their decisions. Me personally, I have never seen them live and certainly won’t see them on this tour. I have three CDs purchased second hand and ripped to my ipod. None of these circumstances have anything to do with boycott, but like I said, boycott may influence my decisions later on.
In addition, please do not make assumptions about my motives. Please do not make assumptions about why I would use the words s**t, f**k, c**t, asshole etc., because while you may see just two reasons why someone other than yourself would use these words, we are not the same in that respect.
Doing what again? It is my position that I have no right to tell anyone what to do. Bands or fans. I’m not you. I’m not Andrew Eldritch. I have no idea what you or he should or ought to do.
“But to me it looks like this: this is my opinion, the best and only response to invitation to play Israel�
Look, if you take my statements to be an expression of my opinion, then how can my statements be interpreted as the best and only response to bands playing Israel? Opinion isn’t decree. It isn’t a command. It isn’t even advice. It’s what a person thinks. It’s subjective. Again, as I have reiterated above, it is my position that I have no right to tell anyone what to do. To me, your statements look like this: “I can’t stand your opinions. You think you’re better than me.� Which is your prerogative. I’m not hurt or wronged. But please do not put words in my mouth and please do not accuse me of claims I have never made. I don’t want this to escalate with you, so perhaps we can agree to take a step back from each other. I respect your opinions and wish you nothing but the best.
On Money:
Euphoria, Planet Dave and markfiend, you raise some very astute examples. I’ll try to respond as narrowly as I can. I believe that people need money to live. People who play music for a living need money to live. I find it very hard to believe that any band, perhaps aside from those just starting out, can afford to lose money on a tour. Never mind, bands just starting out included. Since album sales are in the s**t, touring and licensing make up large portions of musicians’ incomes. (I’m sure there are other ways, and I’m happy to be enlightened on the subject.) And these days, even touring has razor thin margins.
I recall an interview with Von, can’t remember whether it was print or radio. I think it was a New Zealand radio show but I can’t look it up at the moment, wherein, he said, in his current situation, that he won’t play concerts unless there is a guarantee of x amount of money. I think it was a figure like 40,000 pound, because I remember doing the math. 2000 tickets at 20 pound per or thereabouts. And that seems perfectly reasonable to me, because the man needs to pay his crew, pay his bills and eat and live in a decent fashion. I can’t imagine why anyone would put their bottom lines in jeopardy by signing up for tour dates that would come at a loss. Especially with the state of album sales and the dealings of publishing houses and record companies.
Unless you’re a band like Radiohead, and it’s not uncommon for them to receive two million dollar paychecks for one gig, and after paying costs, they probably make close to a million dollars, pay their crew and walk away with a large sum of money each. They could stand to take a hit on a couple of tour dates, not that they do, because their gigs are frequently sold out. And unless you’re a lesser known band, and members have day jobs or other financial means with which their primary needs are met.
If it seemed like I was accusing Von of greediness, I apologize, because that wasn’t my intention. My position is that money determines where bands play. Baselines of income. And the extras, the icing on the cake, the high paid gigs at certain festivals, well, as long as baselines of income are met, bands do have the power to accept or decline. Clearly for Von, playing Whitby is not worth the cash. He doesn’t need the extra, and good for him. And I’m not trying to imply it would be greedy or wrong if he did accept. It’s a very good point, and one to which I gladly concede. There are instances where it’s not all about a payday. But what if a tour could not be arranged in which minimums were met?
On the subject of cashing in on low end punter friendly goth twaddle, I’m not convinced. Was the goth music market so lucrative in the late 80s/early 90s for Von to have been able to retire on the profits? You’re talking about the period after Floodland, a stunning pop record that introduced a wider audience to the Sisters and announced Von’s interest in going mainstream? Off the top of my head I can only think of the Cure’s Disintegration and Depeche Mode’s Violator during that time, as very successful millions selling records that have a whiff of goth. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I can see Von being able to retire to a bunker on that kind of money for sure. I also think of those records as genuinely fantastic, and if Von wanted to release goth twaddle like that, I for one, would die to hear it. So, no, I don’t think it’s as easy as not choosing to get rich off goth punter friendly music.
I know I’ll probably get flamed for writing all this, and I genuinely apologize to anyone who I’ve offended. I’m not trying to start fights. I hold you Heartlanders in high regard and respect everyone here very much. I know paychecks and profits and the information out there about that kind of stuff is not totally transparent, so speculation is unavoidable. And the reasons why any band would play in any location are ultimately personal and probably unknowable. But money makes the world go round. Bands are not exempt from that. It doesn’t necessarily make them greedy. It is a real life motive. Altruism or principles or integrity don’t often come at the expense of one’s livelihood. Sometimes they do, but we’re not talking about Chelsea Manning here. We’re talking about bands that go on tour of their own volition. Thanks for the opportunity to express myself and I wish you all the best.
UniversalRinging, I'm trying to keep it short: I have not denied they are touring for money, of course they are (Andrew has said in an interview that none of them really enjoy touring except Chris )
but it is not the paramount reason - what I mean by that is, they are selective and picky about gigs, for other reasons than money. They will and do turn down good offers moneywise if they don't feel like doing the gig/s.
The routine as I know it is:
The Sisters make themselves available during a certain period. Already here they make an active choice, as this availability is geographically limited. And this fact is of importance with regards to this thread.
Then they get offers from promoters. If too few or too bad, there won't be a tour. If enough good ones, the tour planning machinery gets going. But even at this point they can turn down offers they don't like.
The final stage is a matter of business and logistics, try to squeeze in as many gigs as possible in shortest possible space of time. This is also an important factor here, because the TA gig differs from this rule. This is very likely because there is another reason than purely economical to play there. I would guess they were impressed by the response of the crowd, and combined with the fact that the gig sold out (and that AE loves hot weather), they have probably looked at ways to include TA on following tours, and now the opportunity came.
This all leads me to the conclusion that the Sisters are playing TA very deliberately, and not just because they got a good enough economical offer. And this conclusion is the opposite to reasoning like "I guess they needed the money, so they accepted even if they know what's going on in the PA territories and would have liked to decline". There is no way in hell Andrew would play TA or anywhere else if he felt it went against his morals. His entire career is full of evidence that he is stubborn like noone else on this point, even when it hurts his future chances.
He can be accused of many things, but certainly not of easily being bought.
PS. Thank you for making me listen through that 20 minutes long NZ interview without hearing a word about what they get paid for a gig
I would think your estimate is too high, but I don't know. 2/3 of that I'd guess. The promoters will want to earn their share as well.
Chaotican wrote:[...]To be clear to you both, I am very opposed to the Israeli government and the actions that are being carried out. I am, however, also alarmed at the tone of the response in many cases.
I'm not angry. I'm asking only that no one over-simplify a complex situation with a very long history, and that no one on either side responds with dehumanizing hatred.
Yeah, the tone of response. There is no doubt that such things happen every day, though, I hope not here! I have to admit that I cannot avoid a certain anger about the situation, but the responsibility, in my view, is with the state and its representatives and the International Community, so I would surely not pick on any person just giving their opinion ... while ...
UniversalRinging wrote:
Being645: Very true. There are many sides to the story made ever more complex by the interference/ influence of foreign governments and organizations. I get why you’re skeptical of boycott and I think it’s useful to inform oneself about the whos and whys and make decisions for one’s own life according to one’s own compass.
... one should not forget what a country Israel is. After all, it is still the hope for a homeland, the spiritual home of the Jewish people and of many survivors of the Holocaust. And in a way, it is no wonder they don't care all that much about the International Community's opinion since the latter did not interfere in WW2 before 6 million of them were killed ... no such thing ever happened in SA or Palestine, however wrong Israel might be doing ... (although wrong remains wrong, no doubt. And for 50 years already!) ...
euphoria wrote:[...]
There is no way in hell Andrew would play TA or anywhere else if he felt it went against his morals. His entire career is full of evidence that he is stubborn like noone else on this point, even when it hurts his future chances.
He can be accused of many things, but certainly not of easily being bought.
Absolutely. Also, The Sisters of Mercy have traditional links to the Near East, not only with Ofra Haza, but already from the Floodland era ... it is an area of many conflicts and disputes, but The Sisters never shied away from playing such places. See former Yugoslavia ... before and after the wars and the separation into several nation states Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana, Banja Luka, all are part of the tour schedule if possible ... and should they not do so?
I´m German, but born in Lebanon, so I have my very own perspective on Israel...
The Israeli army has started several attacks on Lebanon, with lots of civilian casualties. Though you have to see, that since Lebanon was founded in 1943 more Lebanese were killed by other Lebanese than by Israelis.
And as for Germans criticizing Israel, this is not to well perceived due to history and a still simmering anti-semitism on the right AND the left. So you are quickly put into a corner when you critcize Irael and ist politics.
I think that´s wrong.
If you disagree with a country´s current politics it should be OK to say that, even if there is a historic burden to carry, like for the Germans. I completely agree that Israel´s policy towards the Palestinians is wrong and should be condemmed. I DON´T agree that you should halt exchange in sports and culture. Netanyahu doesn´t give a f**k if the Sisters play in Tel Aviv or not. Music enthusiasts in Israel do care. You would punish them.
And where do you draw the line? Hungary, Poland, Brazil?
Btw I don´t think the Palestinians are doing much better. They have 2 governments, one on the West Bank run by the PLO and ist core organization Fatah, which is considered one of the most corrupt organizations in the world, with its leaders blatantly stealing EU and US aid Money to maintain their lifestyles. And the other one by Hamas in Gaza, an opressive regime, compared to which Iran looks like Switzerland.
If you look around, you´ll find bad guys all over the place.
Imo boycotting is the wrong way.
Trying is the first step towards failure
(Homer Simpson)
Scheduled for concerts in Israel this year:
Sean Paul, Robbie Williams, Celine Dion, Cliff Richard, Charles Aznavour, Smokie, Coldplay, David Garrett, Alan Parsons Project, Nick Cave, Bryan Adams, Foreigner, Radiohead, Guns ´n Roses, Britney Spears, Tom Jones and and and... :
Cedarjet wrote:I´m German, but born in Lebanon, so I have my very own perspective on Israel...
The Israeli army has started several attacks on Lebanon, with lots of civilian casualties. Though you have to see, that since Lebanon was founded in 1943 more Lebanese were killed by other Lebanese than by Israelis.
And as for Germans criticizing Israel, this is not to well perceived due to history and a still simmering anti-semitism on the right AND the left. So you are quickly put into a corner when you critcize Irael and ist politics.
I think that´s wrong.
If you disagree with a country´s current politics it should be OK to say that, even if there is a historic burden to carry, like for the Germans. I completely agree that Israel´s policy towards the Palestinians is wrong and should be condemmed. I DON´T agree that you should halt exchange in sports and culture. Netanyahu doesn´t give a f**k if the Sisters play in Tel Aviv or not. Music enthusiasts in Israel do care. You would punish them.
And where do you draw the line? Hungary, Poland, Brazil?
Btw I don´t think the Palestinians are doing much better. They have 2 governments, one on the West Bank run by the PLO and ist core organization Fatah, which is considered one of the most corrupt organizations in the world, with its leaders blatantly stealing EU and US aid Money to maintain their lifestyles. And the other one by Hamas in Gaza, an opressive regime, compared to which Iran looks like Switzerland.
If you look around, you´ll find bad guys all over the place.
Imo boycotting is the wrong way.
)
