EDITOR: Anti-Iran hysteria gets to the point of no-return
Israel can be proud of itself this week. Having spent over six years of anti-Iranian propaganda campaign, it now stands at the point of pouncing on Iran, with the support of the world’s most aggressive war-mongers – US and UK. Not only did they kill over 700,000 Iraqis, destroyed Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, but they are now planning an attack on Syria, Iran and Somalis, with the UK also consider another war with Argentina. Can someone please suggest another country to make war on? So a war on Iran is no big deal, is it?
Israel has been extremely successful in selling this anti-Muslim, anti-Arab agenda to its western backers, and we are all likely to pay very much for this criminal madness in decades to come. As you are reading those lines, the attack on Iran is in its final stages of preparation. People acting in our name, being financed by our taxes, are going to attack, or support an attack, on another Muslim land.
An attack on Iran would be an act of criminal stupidity: Guardian
US and Israeli leaders are talking themselves into a disastrous conflict that will make Iranian nuclear weapons a certainty
Seumas Milne
After a decade of calamitous western wars in the wider Middle East, the signs are becoming ever more ominous that we’re heading for another. And, hard as it is to credit, the same discredited arguments used to justify the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan – from weapons of mass destruction to sponsorship of terrorism and fundamentalist fanatics – are now being used to make the case for an attack on Iran.
War talk about Iran and its nuclear programme has been going on for so long it might be tempting to dismiss it as bluster. The mixed messages about Iran coming from the US and Israeli governments in recent weeks have become increasingly contradictory and bewildering. Maybe it’s all a game of bluff and psychological warfare. Perhaps Iran’s offer of new talks or this week’s atomic energy inspectors’ visit might lead to a breakthrough.
But the mood music has become more menacing. US defence secretary Leon Panetta has let it be known there is a “strong likelihood” Israel will attack Iran between April and June, even as Barack Obama says no Israeli decision has yet been taken. US officials told the Guardian last week they believed the administration would be left with “no alternative” but to attack Iran or watch Israel do so later this year.
Meanwhile, a US-Israeli stealth war is already raging on the ground, including covert assassinations of scientists, cyber warfare and attacks on military and missile installations. And Britain and France have successfully dragooned the EU into ramping up sanctions on Iran’s economic life-blood of oil exports as a buildup of western military forces continues in the Gulf.
Any of this could easily be regarded as an act of war against Iran – and Iranian retaliation used as the pretext for a more direct military assault, as the risk of escalation grows. But instead of challenging what is a profoundly dangerous path to full-scale regional conflict – with or without western intervention in Iran’s ally, Syria – the bulk of the western media and political class is busy softening up the public to accept another war as the unfortunate consequence of Iranian intransigence.
When it was reported that British officials expected the Cameron government to take part in a US attack on Iran, it passed with barely a murmur. In a parliamentary debate on Monday, only six votes were mustered to press for the threat of attack on Iran to be withdrawn. The Times claimed yesterday it to be “beyond doubt” that Iran “is trying to develop a nuclear weapon”, even though neither the US nor the IAEA has managed to prove any such thing.
And even when US and British leaders have called for Israeli restraint, as William Hague and US joint chiefs of staff chairman Martin Dempsey have done in recent days, the issue is only one of timing. Military force would, they say, be “premature” and unwise “at this point”.
If an attack is launched by Israel or the US, it would not just be an act of criminal aggression, but of wanton destructive stupidity. As Michael Clarke, director of the British defence establishment’s Royal United Services Institute, points out, such an attack would be entirely illegal: “There is no basis in international law for preventative, rather than pre-emptive, war.”
It would also be guaranteed to trigger a regional conflagration with uncontrollable global consequences. Iran could be expected to retaliate against Israel, the US and its allies, both directly and indirectly, and block the fifth of international oil supplies shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. The trail of death, destruction and economic havoc would be awesome.
But while in the case of Iraq an attack was launched over weapons of mass destruction that didn’t in fact exist, the US isn’t even claiming that Iran is attempting to build a bomb. “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No,” Panetta said bluntly last month. Israeli intelligence is said to be of the same view. Unlike Israel itself, which has had nuclear weapons for decades, it believes the Iranian leadership has taken no decision to go nuclear.
The issue, instead, is whether Iran – which has always insisted it doesn’t want nuclear weapons – might develop the capability to build them. So Iran – surrounded by US bases and occupation troops, nuclear-armed states from Israel to Pakistan and Gulf autocracies begging the Americans to “cut off the head of the snake” – is threatened with a military onslaught because of a future potential the aggressor states have long ago turned into reality.
Such a capability wouldn’t be the “existential threat” Israeli politicians have claimed. It might, of course, blunt Israel’s strategic edge. Or as Matthew Kroenig, the US defence secretary’s special adviser until last summer, spelled it out recently, a nuclear Iran “would immediately limit US freedom of action in the Middle East”. Which gets to the heart of the matter: freedom of action in the Middle East is the prerogative of the US and its allies, not independent Middle Eastern states.
But if the western powers and Israel are really concerned about the threat of a nuclear arms race in the region, they could throw their weight behind negotiations to acheive a nuclear-free Middle East – which most Israelis favour.
What is clear, as both US and Israeli officials acknowledge, is that neither sanctions nor war are likely to divert Iran from its nuclear programme. Military attack can set it back – along with the prospects for progressive change in Iran – but would offer the strongest incentive possible for Iranian leaders to take the decision they haven’t yet done and develop nuclear weapons.
Obama has every interest in heading off an Israeli attack on Iran that would draw in the US, until at least until after the presidential election. But as the sabre-rattling, crippling sanctions and covert attacks increase, so do the risks of stumbling into an accidental war. A military confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz in the next two or three months is now “quite likely”, Clarke believes: “western policy towards Iran is a slow-motion road accident”.
There is another factor driving towards war. The more they talk up the supposed threat from Iran’s nuclear programme and the military option, the more US and Israeli leaders risk undermining their own credibility if they end up doing nothing. A potentially catastrophic attack isn’t inevitable, but it’s becoming perilously more likely all the time.
Iran’s supreme leader denies Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons: Guardian
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says atomic weapons are ‘useless, harmful and dangerous’ day after IAEA declares visit a failure
Iran’s supreme leader has said the Islamic republic is not seeking nuclear weapons, saying they are “useless, harmful and dangerous”.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was speaking after meetings with Iranian nuclear scientists and officials on Wednesday. He did not mention a visit this week to Iran by the UN nuclear watchdog.
The International Atomic Energy Agency team left Tehran on Tuesday without finding any way forward in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms.
In remarks broadcast on state TV, Khamenei said atomic weapons do not bring power but that Iran’s achievements in nuclear technology, including proficiency in the nuclear fuel cycle from extracting uranium ore to producing nuclear fuel, have brought dignity and pride to the nation.
Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters in Iran, also said that western powers know “we are not seeking nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic of Iran considers possession of nuclear weapons a sin … and believes that holding such weapons is useless, harmful and dangerous”.
He added: “The Islamic Republic of Iran wants to prove to the world that possessing nuclear weapons does not bring power and that might doesn’t come from atomic weapons. Might based on nuclear weapons can be defeated and the Iranian nation will do this.”
U.S. ‘closely consulting’ with Israel over Iran nuclear program: Haaretz
State Department says failure of UN nuclear watchdog mission to Tehran a ‘disappointment’; White House spokesman chides Iran over lack of progress in talks.
State Department Deputy spokesman Mark Toner said on Wednesday that the U.S. closely consults with Israel over its policy regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
Addressing the failure of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s mission to Tehran this week, Toner said, “This is a disappointment. It wasn’t all that surprising, frankly. But, you know, we’re going to look at the totality of the issue here and the letter and what we think is the best course of action moving forward”.
“let’s be very clear that we consult very closely with Israel on these issues,” he added. “We are very clear that we are working on this two-track approach. We believe, and are conveying to our partners, both Israel and elsewhere, that this is having an effect.”
Also on Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney criticized Iran over the failure of the IAEA mission’s failure, saying it again showed Tehran’s refusal to abide by its international obligations over its nuclear program.
“We regret the failure of Iran to reach an agreement this week with the IAEA that would permit the agency to fully investigate the serious allegation raised allegations, rather, raised in its November report,” said Carney.
“Unfortunately this is another demonstration of Iran’s refusal to abide by its international obligations,” he added.
Carney also said the United States was continuing to evaluate Iran’s intentions after it sent a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton last week, raising hopes for the prospects of renewed talks with world powers.
“This particular action by Iran suggest that they have not changed their behavior when it comes to abiding by their international obligations,” Carney told reporters, expressing U.S. regret that the IAEA mission had ended in failure.
Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency said his team “could not find a way forward” in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms.
Nackaerts said the talks in Tehran were inconclusive, although his mission .approached the talks “in a constructive spirit.”
An IAEA statement published overnight already acknowledged the talks had failed.
Iran denies it has experimented with nuclear arms programs but has refused to cooperate with an IAEA probe on the issue for nearly four years.
Lieberman: U.S., Russian warnings against Iran strike will not affect Israel’s decision: Haaretz
Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, says in TV interview that Israeli decision is ‘not their business’; says security of Israel’s citizens is ‘Israeli government’s responsibility.’
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said in an interview on Wednesday that Israel will not bow to U.S. and Russian pressure in deciding whether to attack Iran.
Speaking on Channel 2 news, Avigdor Lieberman rebuffed suggestions that American and Russian warnings against striking Iran would affect Israeli decision making, saying the decision “is not their business.”
He said “the security of the citizens of Israel, the future of the state of Israel, this is the Israeli government’s responsibility.”
Russia warned Israel not to attack Iran over its nuclear program on Wednesday, saying that military action would have catastrophic consequences.
“Of course any possible military scenario against Iran will be catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations,” Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said.
“Therefore I hope Israel understands all these consequences … and they should also consider the consequences of such action for themselves,” Gatilov said at a news conference.
This week, the U.S. military chief said an Israeli attack would be “not
prudent.”
Meanwhile, a top UN nuclear official said on Wednesday his team could “could not find a way forward” in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms.
Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency says the talks in Tehran were inconclusive, although his mission approached the talks “in a constructive spirit.”
Nackaerts spoke to reporters at Vienna airport shortly after returning from the Iranian capital.
An IAEA statement published overnight already acknowledged the talks had failed.
Iran denies it has experimented with nuclear arms programs but has refused to cooperate with an IAEA probe on the issue for nearly four years.
EDITOR: BDS works OK!
Few more small victories this week, as well as a serious betrayal by Norman Finkelstein, the new warrior for Israel and its ‘preservation’. In a recorded interview, Finkelstein attacks both BDS and the single-state solution. In an article below, Haaretz celebrates Finkelstein ‘telling the truth’, or in other words, joining the Israeli propaganda machine.
Anti-Israel attitudes spreading at U.S. universities, report says: Haaretz
The David Report says that while anti-Semitism is less of an issue for U.S. Jewish college students, negativity about Israel threatens to erode bipartisan support.
A report released February 8 by The David Project, one of a handful of Jewish groups devoted to campus activism on Israel, paints a nuanced picture of the challenges Israel faces on U.S. university campuses. Called “A Burning Campus? Rethinking Israel Advocacy at America’s Universities and Colleges,” the paper claims that universities are host to the worst anti-Israel behavior in America, even as the American public, more broadly, is supportive of the Jewish state.
But veering from the Israel advocacy world’s frequent position, the report makes a strong distinction between “anti-Israelism” and anti-Semitism on campus. Conflating the two does not “jive” with the experience of Jewish students who feel largely comfortable in American universities, the report warns. The problem, it stresses, is not anti-Semitism; it’s a “drip-drip negativity” about Israel that, according to the David Project’s Executive Director David Bernstein, threatens to erode support over the long term.
“The chief concern, therefore, is not the welfare of Jewish students,” the report states, “but that a pervasively negative atmosphere will affect the long-term thinking of current college students, negatively affecting strong bipartisan support for Israel.”
The way the new David Project sees it, a subtle problem deserves a subtle response. Its new agenda focuses on selling Israel rather than on reaming out its critics. Rather than counter anti-Israel speech on campus with flashy events featuring big-name speakers, the group proposes a kind of pro-Israel diplomacy in which students “map” their campuses to find and influence thought leaders — namely, other students and faculty members.
Power of the people at work: Al Ahram Weekly
A recent BDS conference at the University of Pennsylvania only benefited from the hysterical opposition, discovers Ramzy Baroud*
The issue is not about hummus, chocolate bars or Dead Sea vacations. It is about civil society taking full responsibility for its own action (or lack of). The issue is not exactly about Israeli products either, but rather about how even a seemingly innocent decision like buying Israeli dates may enable the continued subjugation of the Palestinian people.
Because the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) highlights this, the reaction it often generates is charged and vehement. Many also react to the BDS because it actually works. Israel supporters have every right to be concerned that their carefully customised discourse on Israel’s infallibility (juxtaposed with Palestinian depravity) — promoted for decades in media and political outlets in the US and Western countries — is now simply falling apart.
The recent University of Pennsylvania BDS conference, organised by student group PennBDS was the latest example to illustrate both the effectiveness of the global movement and also of the real worry felt by supporters of Israel in the United States. Knowing fully that facing BDS allegations head on would most likely be unsuccessful, they organised around misinformation, name-calling and intimidation. However, the tired strategy is no longer bearing fruit.
Israel’s Zionist supporters made every attempt to galvanise the Jewish community in Philadelphia into targeting the conference that called for Israel to be held accountable for its military occupation, racial discrimination and flagrant violations of international law.
One of those angered by the conference is Ruben Gur, a professor of psychiatry at the university. In an article published in the Daily Pennsylvanian, he likened the conference organisers to Nazis. “A relevant precedent for such a movement is the groups organised by the Nazis in the 1930s to boycott, divest and sanction Jews and their businesses,” he wrote, perhaps knowing fully the historical inaccuracy of his statement.
Penn President Amy Gutmann and Trustees Chair David Cohen insisted that allowing PennBDS to organise was merely a moral duty aimed at “protecting speech we may not like” (a strangely balanced statement, to say the least). “The University has repeatedly, consistently and forcefully expressed our adamant opposition to this agenda. Simply stated, we fundamentally disagree with the position taken by PennBDS,” they wrote in the Daily Pennsylvanian.
The debate registered in every available medium and extended far beyond the parameters of the university itself. Bizarrely, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia wished to counter the BDS conference by hosting no other than Alan Dershowitz to deliver an emergency speech on campus. Dershowitz, known for his inflammatory rhetoric and smearing approach to pro- Palestinian activists, was forced to change tactics, as the conference and the controversy it generated allowed BDS activists a platform to organise and convey a clear and peaceful message. “The BDS conference gives us an opportunity to respond to hate with positive messages,” Dershowitz said meekly, as reported in Philadelphia’s Jewish Exponent newspaper.
Those involved in promoting causes of peace and justice know well that such hysteria is an indication of fear and palpable weakness. The pro-Israeli logic — justifying racial superiority, rationalising military occupation, defending ethnic cleansing — is simply worthless in the face of an articulate opposing message. Therefore, whenever confronted by such events, Israel sympathisers resort to igniting controversy. This is fed mostly by biased reporting, inflammatory language and unfounded accusations. Professor Gur was unmatched in representing the model, as he attacked even the student newspaper itself: “I could barely believe my eyes. It is bad enough that Penn has allowed itself to be associated with this hateful genocidal organisation, but for you to give room for their ‘explanation’ and then dignify this outpouring of misinformation and anti- Semitism.”
Still, “while the opponents of BDS were busy name- calling, the people at the conference were engaged in pointing out the facts on the ground,” according to Uri Hores, an Israeli peace activist (writing in +972 Magazine ). These include: “practical facts, historical facts and legal facts, presented by experts in international human rights law like Noura Erakat, who provided the conference with a comprehensive overview of the complex legal system under which Palestinians live.”
According to Hores, the Penn conference was “modeled after a similar conference held in 2009 at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts.” This is very important since the success of these initiatives, despite the defamations and exaggerated controversy, invite discussions elsewhere. One such precedent was in April 2010, when the student senate at the University of California, Berkeley debated the issue of divestment from US companies that were “materially or militarily profiting” from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. A divestment bill was put to a vote. Notable individuals including Noam Chomsky, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Naomi Klein and Alice Walker issued statements in support of the bill, while Nobel laureates Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Maguire, Rigoberta Menchu Tum and Jody Williams signed a letter echoing the outpouring of support: “We stand united in our belief that divesting from companies that provide significant support for the Israeli military provides moral and strategic stewardship of tuition and taxpayer-funded public education money. We are all peace makers, and we believe that no amount of dialogue without economic pressure can motivate Israel to change its policy of using overwhelming force against Palestinian civilians.”
It should be noted that the outpouring of support for BDS initiatives was hardly done at the behest of any individual or group. Rather it was a response to a call made by 171 Palestinian civil society organisations in July 2005.
The Middle East region is already testimony to the rise of people power which has inspired the world. BDS is a mere continuation of a global struggle for justice, and PennBDS are but mere facilitators of an expanding movement that will surely usher real change in a long-stagnant colonial paradigm. Prominent Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah told the conference in his keynote speech: “This insane hysteria about the conference tells us something about the moment we are in. In terms of the battle of ideas, we are in the end game.”
A growing number of people are already realising this fact. One of the US’s most celebrated rock musicians, Cat Power, just cancelled her Israel show, “joining a list of artists shunning the country,” according to the Washington Post. She canceled a scheduled Tel Aviv concert because she felt “sick in her spirit”. Numerous artists, companies and ordinary individuals also feel that way, proving that global solidarity is not a sentimental value, but real podium for those who wish to bring about positive change.
* The writer is editor of PalestineChronicle.com and author of My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story.
It’s Israeli Apartheid Week. Just tell the truth: Haaretz
The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement is mounting its annual Israeli Apartheid Week. Yet this year, there is something different – people have begun telling the truth about BDS.
By Bradley Burston
It’s that time again. On campuses the world over, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is mounting its eighth annual Israeli Apartheid Week.
In the past, this has been a time for hardline pro-Palestinians and hardline pro-Israelis to rumble, counter-accuse, hurl half-truths and, often as not, scrum to an ineffectual draw.
Not this year. This year there’s something distinctly unfamiliar in the air. People have begun telling the truth about BDS.
The door was opened by author and lecturer Norman Finkelstein. Earlier this month, Finkelstein, one of Israel’s harshest critics, rocked the BDS movement with a critique devastating in its candor.
Finkelstein said he loathed the movement’s duplicity and disingenuousness in hiding the fact that a large part of its membership “wants to eliminate Israel.”
“I support the BDS,” Finkelstein said, but “it will never reach a broad public until and unless they’re explicit in their goal. And their goal has to include the recognition of Israel, or it’s a nonstarter.”
Instead, he said, the movement insists that it’s “agnostic” on whether or not Israel should exist. “No, you’re not agnostic! You don’t want it! Then just say it! But (BDS leaders) know full well, that if you say it, you don’t have a prayer of reaching a broad public … And frankly, you know what, you shouldn’t. You shouldn’t reach a broad public, because you’re dishonest.”
Though BDS constantly claims successes, “it’s a cult, where the guru says ‘We have all these victories’ and everyone nods their head,” Finkelstein said. “People promote it as if it’s proven itself and we’re on the … verge of a victory of some sort. It’s just sheer nonsense. It’s a cult. And I, personally, I’m tired of it.”
It’s Israeli Apartheid Week. You can tell the truth. About BDS. And about Israel as well. It’s not the robust and vibrant democracy that’s hailed by the right, even as the right works to curb freedoms. It is a troubled democracy, a compromised democracy, under threat from within, under threat from its own government, eroded by war and internal strife and external threat and the human and moral costs of the religion of manifest destiny.
Not unlike the United States at age 64, a country pursuing the brutal occupation of a native population in order to protect ever-expanding settlements, a nation divided over the millions of people in its midst deprived of basic liberties and rights. A work in progress.
But like the United States, Israel is a work in progress which deserves a chance to find its way, to foster and deepen democracy. A work in progress which needs support for efforts at democracy, and recognition when it works.
It’s Israeli Apartheid Week. You can tell the truth. There is something in the air here, something distinctly unfamiliar. Something good. A whiff of democracy. A dim horizon of light. The stirrings of hope. And all from the most unlikely of places.
This week alone, in an extraordinary expression of the power of non-violence, a 68-day hunger strike by one jailed Palestinian forced Israelis, for the first time, to truly face and begin to debate the carefully hidden practice of administrative detention, imprisoning Palestinians without trial, criminal indictment or other due process.
This week, under threat of a possible High Court order, and with an international media spotlight on the case, officials struck a deal under which the prisoner, Khader Adnan, will be freed in April.
This was a week in which Israeli society as a whole began to re-examine itself. In the Prime Minister’s Office, the unthinkable occurred: an untouchable, Netanyahu-bosom, backroom boss actually resigned in response to harassment allegations brought by colleagues. In Tel Aviv, the decades-old ban on public transportation on the Sabbath was overturned, in what may prove to be a step of more symbolism than substance – but this in a country where symbol be more weighty by far than substance.
And, in a move that could have profound implications for Israeli democracy, the High Court quashed the law which exempts the ultra-Orthodox from universal military service. More significantly, the court ordered that a new law on the issue be everything that the satin-coated racketeers of theocratic blackmail have come to fear most: egalitarian, proportionate, and consistent with the principles of the laws of a democracy.
It’s Israel Apartheid Week 2012. Time for people who support Israel to tell the truth. Yes, the settlements are an obstacle to peace. Yes, the occupation, which exists to protect the settlements, is the opposite of democracy. Yes, the present government speaks of two states in theory alone.
In the democracy that was the United States in the year 1840, there were those who said that slavery was essential, irreversible, eternal, God’s will. And that people of color and women of all races should not, and therefore would not, be granted the freedoms and rights of full citizenship, that the only good Native American was a dead one.
And, at the same time, there were those who believed that democracy and equality would become law, however dreadful and protracted the process might be, and they were right.
It is 2012. America’s freedoms, its promises of opportunity and openness to immigrants and minorities, are still under attack, still being tested. The answer is not to dismantle America, but to strengthen its freedoms.
All Americans deserve democracy and self-determination. So do both of the native peoples of the Holy Land, Palestinians and Israelis alike. Just as in 1840 America, in this Holy Land there are people working on both sides, quietly, continually, toward that goal. Not freedom for one people at the expense of the other, but freedom and independence for both.
This is the lesson that BDS has yet to learn. And this is why BDS, and Israeli Apartheid Week, are failures.
Cassandra Wilson cancels Holon concert, joining artistic boycott of Israel: Haaretz
Wilson, an American jazz singer known for her unmistakably husky voice, had been scheduled to perform at the Holon International Women’s Festival.
Grammy-winning jazz singer Cassandra Wilson has called off her scheduled concert in Holon tonight, after receiving requests from pro-Palestinian activists asking that she join an artistic boycott of Israel.
Wilson, an American jazz singer known for her unmistakably husky voice, had been scheduled to perform at the Holon International Women’s Festival.
Tuesday morning’s surprising last-minute cancelation comes months after Wilson signed a contract to perform in Israel − but only one day after she received full payment for her scheduled appearance, according to the director of the Holon Theater, Guy Telem.
Telem says he spoke with Wilson at length on Tuesday in an attempt to convince her not to cancel the appearance.
“Her first explanation was that she read recently about Israel’s intention to attack Iran and she feared for her safety and the safety of her people,” said Telem. He recommended she speak with official agencies in Israel and the United States to inquire about whether there were any official travel warnings, rather than relying on media reports. He also said such warnings have been in the media for months, including well before she signed the contract to travel to Israel.
Wilson later admitted that her decision stemmed from a desire to support Palestinians’ civil rights, Telem said.
Telem said he asked Wilson whether she actively supported the Palestinian cause before pro-Palestinian activists approached her about canceling tonight’s concert; Wilson had no answer, he said.
For legal reasons, Wilson refused to disclose the names of the groups that approached her, said Telem.
“What makes this cancelation exceptional is that the entire matter arose only a day after she received her payment for the performance,” said Telem. It seems that she pulled a fast one and the singer’s manager has agreed to refund only part of the money as of now, he said. But the damage done to the festival is much greater than just her appearance fee and the damage to the theater’s reputation; there is also the matter of compensating the public and other large expenses related to the appearance.
Wilson joins a host of performers who have canceled appearances in Israel for for political reasons. The Pains of Being Pure at Heart, Cat Power and Tune-Yards have all canceled concerts recently.
Two years ago, a boycott and divestment organization against Israel signed up 500 artists who stated they would not perform in Israel. Tune-Yards signed the statement, although a few months later the group signed a deal to perform here.
Singer-songwriter Chan Marshall, better known by her stage name Cat Power, canceled a show in Israel this month, tweeting that, due to “much confusion in her soul” over “such unrest between Israel and Palestine,” she could not perform. She added, “I feel sick in my spirit.”
The Pains of Being Pure at Heart canceled a performance in Israel in recent months, citing political reasons, and took on a more profitable deal in Malaysia instead.
The Knesset Education, Culture and Sports Committee met at the beginning of the month to discuss the boycott. It established a special subcommittee to look into how to compensate Israeli promoters in the cases of politically motivated cancelations. The subcommittee is supposed to present its recommendations within 90 days, but no progress has yet been made.
While many artists have canceled appearances in Israel over the past few years for political reasons, it seems that many only develop their political awareness on the matter after they sign the contracts to perform. Promoters are now introducing clauses to protect against such cancelations, stipulating that the artist is aware of possible political pressure to cancel their appearance.