Elvis Costello’s cancellation of two upcoming summer concerts in Israel is just the latest 2010 musician’s repudiation of the apartheid state. Carlos Santana and Gil Scott-Heron cancelled winter and spring appearances there. Costello seems to have gone further than Santana or Scott-Heron, by issuing a long, eloquent statement:
Then there are occasions when merely having your name added to a concert schedule may be interpreted as a political act that resonates more than anything that might be sung and it may be assumed that one has no mind for the suffering of the innocent.
I must believe that the audience for the coming concerts would have contained many people who question the policies of their government on settlement and deplore conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians in the name of national security.
I am also keenly aware of the sensitivity of these themes in the wake of so many despicable acts of violence perpetrated in the name of liberation.
Some will regard all of this an unknowable without personal experience but if these subjects are actually too grave and complex to be addressed in a concert, then it is also quite impossible to simply look the other way.
Sometimes a silence in music is better than adding to the static and so an end to it.
I cannot imagine receiving another invitation to perform in Israel, which is a matter of regret but I can imagine a better time when I would not be writing this.
Inside Israel, the response to this latest cancelation is more strident than the responses to the withdrawals of Santana and Scott-Heron:
Costello’s cancellation drew an angry response from his Israeli fans. “There is an enormous group of people in Israel who are humanists and hunger for peace, who yearn for a normal life and are prepared to make painful concessions. And they are also sworn culture-lovers,” one disappointed ticket-holder, Shai Lahav, wrote in the Maariv daily, noting that he had listened to Costello every day since he was 15. “With this miserable decision of yours, it is this group of people you have weakened.”
“Sometimes, a musician ought to focus just on music. At least that is a field in which he has some knowledge,” Lahav wrote.
Ah, yes, Israel, where everyone just wants to focus on the music. No doubt, somebody is preparing a Tel Aviv performance of Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg as I write, eh? I seem to remember that the greatest violinist of all time, Jascha Heifetz, had a negative experience in Israel, while attempting to "just be a musician, focusing on the music":
On his third tour to Israel in 1953, Heifetz included in his recitals the Violin Sonata by Richard Strauss. At the time, Strauss was considered by many to be a Nazi composer, and his works were unofficially banned in Israel along with those of Richard Wagner. Despite the fact that the Holocaust had occurred less than ten years earlier and a last-minute plea from the Israeli Minister of Education, the defiant Heifetz argued, "The music is above these factors … I will not change my program. I have the right to decide on my repertoire." Throughout his tour the performance of the Strauss sonata was followed by dead silence.
Heifetz was attacked after his recital in Jerusalem outside his hotel by a young man who struck Heifetz’s violin case, Heifetz resorting to using his right hand to protect his priceless violins from the crowbar. As the attacker started to flee, Heifetz alerted his companions, who were armed, "Shoot that man, he tried to kill me." The attacker escaped and was never found. The incident made headlines in the press and Heifetz defiantly announced that he would not stop playing the Strauss. Threats continued to come, however, and he omitted the Strauss from his next recital without explanation. His last concert was cancelled after his swollen right hand began to hurt. He left Israel and did not return until 1970.
And current Israeli Culture Minister, Livor Limnat, seems to be taking the strength of Costello’s written statement as something that needs to be sternly addressed:
Israeli Culture Minister Limor Livnat said a singer who boycotts Israeli fans “is not worthy of performing in front of them.”
When Gil Scott-Heron was approached by people encouraging him to terminate his agreement to perform in Israel, he was reminded that he had performed on the groundbreaking 1985 album, Sun City, which notified the world that prominent artists were ready and willing to commit against the South African apartheid state, even giving up some of the most lucrative contracts available at the time.
Regarding Costello’s cancellation, Adam Horowitz, writing at Mondoweiss, noted that a Forward article by Nathan Gutman on this development claims:
[A] music industry insider confirmed that the winds could be shifting. The music executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity in light of his ongoing business ties with artists, said that in recent months he had approached more than 15 performing artists with proposals to give concerts in Israel. None had agreed. The contracts offered high levels of compensation. He called them “extreme, big numbers that could match any other gig.” [emphasis added]
Horowitz’ Mondoweiss article is titled "What’s Hebrew for ‘Sun City’?" In the comments, the Mondoweiss community, one of the most fascinating commenting families around, debates whether a cultural boycott of Israel, organized to the level of that in the 1980s directed toward South Africa, might or might not be a good thing.
Madonna. Paul McCartney and Leonard Cohen have all performed recently in Israel. Elton John will perform there next month. Will Elton John sing about Bono’s "Palestinian Dream"? Will Sir Elton show the courage of Heifitz, and play from banned repertoire?
Are there enough prominent artists out there, upset by continuing Israeli apartheid, West Bank expansion and by the inhumane siege of Gaza, (where the inmates receive only 40% more calories per day than did laborers at Auschwitz) to come up with an album that might rival Sun City or The Concert for Bangladesh, in cultural impact?
Perhaps not in 2010. But the album will be made soon. The impetus for breaking on through to the other side on this might happen as soon as late May or early June, when we witness the response to the nine-vessel Gaza blockade-running mission.



40 Comments




Sounds like they are stealing PR response pages from AZ. I wonder if Musicians are boycotting AZ?
Some Fan of Elvis hasn’t this chump read the lyrics Whats so Funny about Peace Love and Understanding?
Heck if Elvis didn’t cancel the concert he would break faith with the fans!
What the Israeli Culture Minister doesn’t complain about Santana not playing Israel? Not that I think they are racist in doing so.
Nobody sane is thinking of asking a Brown person to play in a place where they kill Brown people even if were not related we all look alike don’t cha know.
Whats Racist is assuming Elvis would not feel the same way.
Cypress Hill has canceled a reunion tour appearance in AZ
thanks ET ! joined freegaza yesterday and have been trying to follow the Freedom Flotilla – do you have a good twitter or any other real time link ?
of course it dawned on me, there may be none for the general public ’cause Israeli ears may be listenng – but I would like to follow their progress
I’ve posted this same diary over at Daily Kos, with a poll:
Is it Time for a Sun City 2010 Album?
Running 80% “yes” right now, which I find a bit surprising.
Free Gaza on Twitter.
Col. Ann Wright has joined the 600 people who are going on the trip.
Good News maybe we can get a We won’t play AZ album put together get some Musicians, Baseball Players and maybe Basketball and Football players.
Kobe’s wife would be up for it. We could have a video where people torch pictures of AZ’s Gov, Jon McCain and Phil Jackson
Excellent idea! Except for the picture burning thing.
Burning pictures is preferable, no matter what anyone thinks of Phil jackson.
Vodoo Dolls of Phil Jackson yes much more effective.
Crooks and Liars is trying to get the baseball players together I think they have music industry connections over there.
Ok no Vodoo no more jokes.
Maybe photos of all the immigrants who died trying to get to America crossing the desert. Maybe photos of all the immigrants killed or maimed in industrial accidents once they get jobs.
Then Photos of Fat Cat CEO’s from Wallmart and McDonalds bragging about their profits as white Americans stand in an unemployment line
oh Prof, I should have guessed it was Col Wright.
thanks for the twitter links
I hope that you’ll excuse that it’s slightly O/T but I’m going to post a link to Ann Wright’s letter of resignation from the State Department. It merits reading
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0303/032103wright.htm
If only all the psy-trance DJ’s would join the boycott.
An interesting note:
At my Daily Kos post and poll, over 80% felt that it is time for Sun City 2010. This was somewhat surprising.
Additionally, I used the term “apartheid” toward Israel. I expected commenters to object. None appears to have done that.
Of my I/P posts there, this one got far less over-the-top objections than any of the earlier ones.
This is a remarkable time in terms of reassessment of blind or silent support of one far-right Israeli government after another. And more people are deciding for themselves that maybe there is a good reason to learn more about how much our “special relationship” actually costs.
Yep. When a sea-change is underway, what was once safe, orthodox conventional wisdom can swiftly be discarded, and “The only Democracy in the Middle East” can swiftly become perceived instead as a nasty, paranoid, apartheid state for whom it is distasteful to advocate in polite company.
I liked the post. The term is incorrectly applied.
which term?
Religious apartheid:
Essentially, macaquerman, in Israel, one group of people can use their privileged status as citizens of a particular religion, and go to a place nearby where people from one or another less privileged religion have been thrown out of their houses, and occupy the less privileged person’s house, without compensating the less privileged person.
In the same situation, one of the beneficiaries of this apartheid may often bear arms openly in the West Bank, for instance, while should one of the less privileged people openly bear arms there, they will most likely be shot and killed.
The fact that citizens of Israel may openly do this, merely by crossing a “border” (the green line) controlled by their own government, does not immunize Israel itself from the term “apartheid,” though the activities happen mostly in occupied territories being colonized, rather than in the rump state itself.
two points:
your “religious apartheid” doesn’t add up to an “apartheid state”.
(if it did, the list of of apartheid states would be a long one.)
and
conditions in the West Bank, which is not Israel, but is under military occupation, are pretty close to apartheid.
and there is a vast difference between the occupied territory and Israel, at least as yet.
Bless you for your insights and eloquence to share them with us layfolks.
GREAT read, rccd of course, and thanks again for all your work!
And a thank you to all the musicians with the heart to NOT take work in Israel until that country changes its behavior and policy towards Palistineans.
If you choose to accept the definition of racal apartheid but not that of religious apartheid when it comes to actions by Israeli citizens, that’s shortsighted. If Israeli citizens of one group can cross a line their government clearly states time and time again to be a fiction, while the rest of the world doesn’t accept the Israeli government stance, and act out their apartheid, then go back into Israel and not be held accountable, that is apartheid in its most basic term.
Essentially, by denying that this is the case, you are siding with an illegal, foreign government, in violation of international law, and in contradiction to the often reiterated position of the government of the USA.
I don’t know what it is that you’re seeing, but the official position of the Israeli government, as stated by its High Court, is that the West Bank is held in belligerent occupation.
The end of your comment;
;
I simply fail to understand. Has the US government declared the government of Israel to be illegal? Or what position have I taken that differs from the position of the US government?
Please explain.
The position that Israel is out of compliance with international law in regard to seizures of property in the occupied territories.
and where did I state that I supported those seizures?
what have I said that puts me in opposition to US policy?
I would guess that endorsement of efforts to buttress Hamas’ governance is more likely to leave you in opposition to US policy and siding with people that the US holds to be an illegal, terrorist organization.
of course, if you want to argue that the relief effort is only for the people of Gaza, and, in no way, reflects an endorsement of Hamas or any desire to aid Hamas, I’m traitorous enough to oblige you.
You’re tipping over the edge.
Endorsement of BDS artists is not endorsement of Hamas. Look, I’ve raised money in the UK for several organizations that may or may not have hired personnel with ties to Hamas. If the Anglican Hospital in Gaza, which I am helping rebuild, hires a nurse whose husband is a firefighter in the employ of the Gaza government, I’m supporting Hamas, by your book, eh?
No, Teller, I’m not even near the edge.
I just wanted you to have a taste of the nonsense that you served up to me in your comment 25.
Until you can back up how I’m in a position of opposition to the US government, or until you retract the comment, it’s you who’s gone over.
care to do one or the other?
You’ve voiced support, by denying Israeli citizens who cross back and forth between Israel and the occupied territories are, as Israeli citizens, practicing apartheid, of the position regarding the occupied territories that no country on the planet save Israel claims to be the case. The stated, official position of the U.S. Government is that the Green Line is the border between Israel and the occupied territories.
There is no moral difference between the Israeli government allowing its citizens of one class or background to practice open, rather hateful apartheid in the occupied territories against another class or heritage with impunity, then freely go back to Israel, than if that government allowed their citizens to do the same within their internationally recognized borders.
off to work….
I think that the real irony is that Israeli’s are actually about as close to Palestinians genetically as any two culturally defined populations could be. In fact the Palestinians are far more genetically like Israeli Jews than they are Arabs. And Carlos Santana’s “brown-ness” is vastly different from either group.
The Apartheid vassal states also had elections, but were denied the vote in the larger state that controlled their immigration and economies. While the world would have recognized an invasion by a military of South Africa into Zambia or Mozambique as a violation of sovreignty…South African military forces regularly swept into the apartheid vassal “Republics” to capture “rebels” and insurgents. Workers needed passports to work inside South Africa and these were frequently used as political leverage to keep the leaders of the vassal states, and their publics, in check. The boundaries of the apartheid states looked like Gerrymandered congressional districts, with isolated enclaves of black communities denied South African citizenship and “attached” to some place like Transkei (i.e. requiring passports) within an island of white-owned farms. The best arable land, access to water, and roads, were all incorporated into “South Africa” with the arid, scablands given to the Native Reserves.
more nonsense, Teller.
glad you’ve gone off to work if all there is to your story is that my saying that the West Bank is not Israel is support for hateful practices, especially not at the same time that you try to defend your own fundraising for Hamas affiliates as morally inconsistent with support for Hamas.
The South African parliament passed the Separate Representation of Voters Act in 1956, which removed coloureds from the common voters’ roll in the Cape, and established a separate voters’ roll for them. At about the same time the Verwoerd Plan of instituting bantustans was initiated, making blacks citizens of artificial states and, in some cases, removing or coercing them to move into these vassal entities. All other blacks were compelled to carry passports.
A whole historical mythology was created about how the land had been “empty” before white colonization. How the land had been wasted and unproductive. And how the Blacks were recent immigrants, contemporary with the white settlers. This mythology was used to justify the taking of peoples lands and to treat them as foreigners. In fact the “granting” of the worst land was even considered as a generous charitable act by the white Afrikaaners.
The apartheid system continued for some 35 years when the “unthinkable” occurred.
when the Israelis give up on the effort to return the West Bank to the Palestinians for a Palestinian state, and cave in to the extremists determined to keep the land and perpetuate the subjugation of the Palestinians, I’m open to calling it.
and until Arafat explains why he walked out on Barak rather than work forward, it remains a mixed curse.
To actually comment on the substance of the post, you know, artists making statements that challenge authoritarians, I agree with ET.
Music can and has influenced political ends in major ways, and it’s time for some major pushback on the Israeli government’s authoritarian-ness.
Well Arafat is dead, and can’t explain to YOU, why he rejected the “generous offer”. But he commented on why before his death and stated he regarded the deal as very much like the ones that created the Bantustans of South Africa, and not one that would have created a real nation. The Barak offer had the following provisos.
No territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state,
No control of its external borders,
Limited control of its own resources,
No full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law, included continued military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley;
Legalized the deployment of Israeli forces in the Palestinian state at short notice;
Continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the “international community.”
I don’t require an explanation of why he didn’t accept conditions he didn’t like, nor did I ask for that.
I want to know why he walked out instead of negotiated.
There was more to be had from the Israelis then (beyond the not-generous offer) and maybe not as much now.