Radiohead Band • Page 103

Lmao what was this statement intended to do? cause immense backlash ahead of the tour announcement?

 

But what about the real issue, Thom Yorke feeling a bit sad, once, nine months ago?

 

I don’t know who Reggie Watts is other than apparently a comedian, but I really liked this response.

 

I wasn’t planning on saying here but I have to say I’m really surprised by the lack of receptiveness to Thom’s message.

I thought it was very well written and articulated the nuance of the situation. And he very clearly calls for a ceasefire and to allow aid into Gaza immediately.

anything short of “free Palestine” was going to cause the masses to come out and voice their displeasure but he very clearly outlines the danger of those radical approaches and the divide it causes.

once that divide sets in, reason goes out the window and it’s a you vs me mindset. That only forces more hostility and more damage in the long run.

The fact is, there is a lot of nuance to this situation. He has a band mate who is married to an Israeli and who also uses his platform to promote collaboration and to try and bridge some of those hostilities which in and of itself was a big problem.

I guess I’m just sad to see the loss of critical thinking and rational analysis of this situation and the mass amount of vitriol being thrown around.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with his words. But I do wish there was more space for critical thinking, and less pressure to conform to the loudest slogans. This conflict deserves better than knee-jerk reactions. It demands the kind of nuance and empathy that Thom was brave enough to try to express.

I'm glad he said something even though he didn't have to and i am still very much looking forward to whatever comes next for these guys

 

I am happy to break down his statement and my issues with it line by line, if it will help you understand that these are not knee-jerk reactions and a "radical approach" is actually the one which reflects the understanding of the nuances of the situation. Nuance does not inherently mean that you have to fall somewhere in the middle. Critical thinking and nuance often leads one to realizing that there is indeed a correct position on issues and that it is to take a firm stand.

 

Critical thinking = fence sitting a genocide?

LOVE the condescension.

 

Again, Thom clearly is calling for an end to all hostilities so please enlighten me, how is he (and by extension myself) “fence sitting” a genocide.

No one in their right mind would be ok seeing the destruction happening.

 

Please do - genuinely would love that.

I completely agree with you that nuance doesn’t always mean finding a middle ground — and you’re right, sometimes critical thinking does lead to taking a clear, firm moral stance.

I don’t see those things as mutually exclusive. My concern is more about how quickly the space for engaging in that kind of analysis is closing — where even someone trying to call for peace, humanitarian aid, and a de-escalation of violence is immediately met with accusations of moral failure.

 

I won't even go into the first two slides in his statement as they are all about him and how he felt about being "shouted at" and his "silence being taken for complicity" and the way words would supposedly "trivialize" the issue. Sounds naff, is naff. But not ultimately the point.

I think Netanyahu and his crew of extremists are totally out of control and need to be stopped, and that the international community should put all the pressure it can on them to cease. Their excuse of self-defence has long since worn thin and has been replaced by a transparent desire to take control of Gaza and the West Bank permanently.

Netanyahu and his crew of extremists always wanted this and were never acting in self-defense. There were no fighters across the barbed wire walls of Gaza by the end of the day on October 8th. How can anything they have been doing since then have been self-defense? How can bombing Gaza ever be an act of self-defense by an unquestionably militarily superior polity that has entire intelligence apparatuses dedicated to monitoring Gaza, a region which no one has been able to enter or leave without Israeli permission since 2006? Believing that there ever was or could be any aspect of self-defense in military actions in Gaza in reaction to October 7th is accepting Netanyahu and Israel's premise.

I believe this ultra-nationalist administration has hidden itself behind a terrified & grievin gpeople and used them to deflect any criticism, using that fear and grief to further their ultra-nationalist agenda with terrible consequences, as we see now with the horrific blockade of aid to Gaza.

There are many issues with this, taken in combination with the other paragraph. The focus on the "administration" and "Netanyahu" elides that virtually all Jewish political parties in Israel have no problem with this blockade, or indeed the one that has been imposed on Gaza for almost 20 years. If Benny Gantz, the supposed moderate and chief opposition, took over tomorrow, the blockade of aid would continue. The largest difference between them is Gantz' rejection of Israeli occupation of Gaza after the genocide, but he has no more concern for Palestinian life than Netanyahu. He pushed for more focus on releasing hostages, rightly pointing out that Netanyahu's strategy was liable to (and verifiably did) kill many of them before there was a chance for them to be released. But no Jewish Israeli political parties have any opposition to Netanyahu on the basis of killing too many Palestinians or causing too much destruction in Gaza. Israeli society is very much united around these issues - 82% of Israelis support expelling all Palestinians from Gaza and 47% support the mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. This is not a "Netanyahu" issue and acting like it is is a harmful misdirection.

At the same time the unquestioning Free Palestine Refrain that surrounds us all does not answer the simple question of why the hostages have still not all been returned? For what possible reason?

First of all, remember that on October 9th or 10th Hamas offered to release all civilian hostages for the simple guarantee that the IDF would not enter Gaza. Israel declined. Second, Hamas has claimed and there has been no contradictory evidence offered that the remaining living hostage are not civilians, and therefore are not hostages but actually prisoners of war under international law. For what possible reason would Hamas release Prisoners of War unconditionally? They are under no obligation to do so under international law. Lastly, if you have been following the back and forth of negotiations over the last 18 months, you know that there have not been good faith negotiations for their release on behalf of Israel and that the genocide would not stop if they were released. What possible incentive is there for their release if there is no agreement to do so? How could Hamas even guarantee their safety after release in such a situation?

Not to belabor the hostage point too much, but every year there 500-700 Palestinian children detained and prosecuted by Israeli military courts. And another 10,000 adult Palestinian political prisoners remain in Israeli prisons. If hostage taking is a tactic de jure in this conflict this is it's origin. For what possible reason are these children and political prisoners held? Why does Thom not ask this question?

In fact, why does not he not mention 1) the massive power differential exemplified the difference in military and international backing between Hamas and Israel? 2) The larger system of apartheid Israel perpetrates against Palestinians? 3) The 77 years of displacement and ethnic cleansing since the Nakba? All of this goes to the answer to his question:

Why did Hamas choose the truly horrific acts of October 7th? The answer seems obvious, and I believe Hamas chooses too to hide behind the suffering of its people, in an equally cynical fashion for their own purposes.

Leaving aside all of the evidence that the IDF invoked the Hannibal directive in which it is authorized to take any action necessary, including friendly fire, to prevent the taking of hostages; Hamas is ultimately a moderate, non-sectarian, functionally pluralist, nationalist-islamist resistance group made up of people who have lived their entire lives as refugees and most of them under blockade. When they try to peacefully protest, unarmed children and civilians are shot by sniper fire for approaching a fence. The people of Palestine take up armed struggle because nothing else has any chance of working and armed struggle is the last bastion of desperate peoples. Maybe it isn't a good idea and won't lead to anything good - but the question of why? To say that its some cynical ploy on behalf of Hamas is ridiculous. A majority of Palestinians still supported armed struggle as the best way to end Israeli occupation and establish a Palestinian state in a poll released June 24, a number which had increased 8 points after 10/7. So, the idea that engaging in such struggle can only be a cynical ploy is a nonstarter based on evidence.

The rest is mostly back to how being yelled at about Palestine makes him feel bad, but I'll make a few more points. I'm going to ignore things like "proper face to face debate by people who genuinely wish the killing to stop and an understanding to be found" because to me this is plainly written so as to make criticisms of him fundamentally illegitimate because 1) they are happening online and not face to face and 2) the people criticizing him must not "genuinely" wish for the killing to stop because they don't agree with him. The first is fundamentally pointless because sure Thom, let's sit down face-to-face. You won't answer my calls though. The second because how do you know if someone is genuine? Many people genuinely disagree with you and not for cynical reasons.

My real concern in his last few slides are two things: the idea of this being "complex" and the idea that "pressuring artists" to not do things like play in Israel, or to speak out against genocide, "does not serve our fellow human beings and perpetuates a constant 'us and them' mentality."

First, the origin of the cultural boycott is in the BDS movement which, while not perfect, is a genuinely Palestinian movement which has articulated very clearly its case for a cultural boycott:

Whether you think this is valid or not, I don't think it's arguable that Thom doesn't engage with these ideas in any meaningful way and never has. Everything he has ever said on the topic of the boycott has just been about people being mean to him for playing in Israel as if its just something they decided to do because they're small minded sectarians, and not as part of an actual political movement emulating one that helped end South African apartheid.

Second, complexity. In short, no complexity or nuance can change the fundamental fact that the conflict in Gaza is between a state with a military that is backed near-unconditionally by the entire Western world, and a couple of million people, mostly children, being defended by a few dozen thousand using ancient rocket launchers in their attempts to do so. No level of violence in resistance to ethnic cleansing justifies ethnic cleansing. No 'terror' attacks against apartheid justify apartheid. No amount of nuance can change the fact that Israel is committing a genocide and Palestinians don't have the power to stop them.

Lastly, ultimately I think his vision is wildly idealistic. Thom seems to have a very kumbaya version of the world in his head, as if this conflict could be solved if everyone could just understand that everyone else is also a person. But, that is just not how the world works. Political problems need political solutions. "Understanding" itself is unfortunately no solution for any of the issues at hand, changing minds is not a viable tactic on its own. We can spend our lives trying to convince 82% of Israelis that Palestinians don't deserve to be ethnically cleansed from Gaza, but by then they will already be gone, so what good will it have done?