Macklemore, Ed Sheeran & P!nk: Israel v. Palestine

"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning author, political activist, and Holocaust survivor, 1986.

Image description: a photo of Holocaust-survivor Elie Wiesel and a quotation of his:

“Always take sides.

Neutrality helps the oppressor,

never the victim.

Silence encourages the tormentor,

never the tormented.”

Applying Elie Wiesel’s profound words directly to P!nk's comments and from Instagram on the Macklemore speech, provides a powerful philosophical-lens which underpins the exact criticism P!nk faces. Wiesel’s quotation, delivered during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, is one of the most definitive moral arguments against public neutrality in the face of Human Suffering.

For critics of P!nk, Wiesel’s philosophy is the core justification for why her partial silence is viewed as condonance.

Selective solidarity as neutrality: Critics argue that by actively using her platform to condemn Macklemore and defend Jewish concert-goers, but choosing not to condemn the actions of the Israeli military or state, she is effectively choosing neutrality regarding Palestinian suffering.

Aiding the "oppressor": In this view, failing to speak out against barbaric state-sanctioned violence means P!nk's silence acts as a shield. By Wiesel's metric, this silence directly "encourages the tormentor" by allowing their actions to pass without public push-back from influential cultural figures.

It ought to be noted that P!nk has often spoken and sung about Social Justice issues, with which I have invariably agreed.

Her down-playing and scapegoating of the term Zionist and thus Zionism is disingenuous at best.

The State of Israel is an aggressor nation, illegally occupying lands belonging to other states. The Israeli State, its agencies - including the IDF - and some of its pro-Zionist citizens are all guilty of crimes &/or war-crimes, across Israel, Palestine & Lebanon, and possibly Syria & Iran.

Being pro-Jewish and at the same time anti-Israel or anti-Zionist are compatible stand-points. Haredi Jews (ultra-orthodox religionists), JVP, IJAN & Jews for Justice for Palestinians in the UK (all so-called left-wing political groups) hold such a stance.

I am a Quaker. Judaism is a wonderful, matriarchal faith in my opinion. But like everyone else, there are good & bad Jews. The pro-Zionists who currently control the Knesset (NB there is no second chamber), are pro-apartheid, pro-genocide, criminals & war-mongers.

The Israeli government is a coälition made up of the following members:

[Likud: Right-wing, secular-nationalist (largest party in the coalition).

Shas: Ultra-Orthodox Sephardic/Mizrachi religious party.

United Torah Judaism (UTJ): Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi religious party.

Religious Zionist Party: Far-right, national-religious faction.

Otzma Yehudit: Far-right, ultranationalist party led by Itamar Ben-Gvir.]*

They have the majority. As such, all are complicit in the prime minister Netanyahu's actions. Recall that he is subject to a dynamic ICC international arrest-warrant in respect to both suspected War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity. The ICJ has also been running a separate, ongoing legal case (#192) against the State of Israel as a whole regarding the Genocide Convention.

Quakers have long held (officially in UK since 2011 I think) a stance against the refractory behaviours of the Israeli state. I myself have blogged on the need to boycott buying goods from the Israeli-occupied lands, so that we do not tacitly support the state economically.

In this respect the USA especially and several European countries inter alia the UK, have continued to support Israel financially or with weaponry and support systems. These nations are also morally complicit, if not legally so.

In 2025, eight global Quaker groups released a joint statement declaring with "moral clarity" that ongoing actions in Gaza constitute the crime of genocide. They urged a permanent ceasefire, a full weapons embargo, and the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid.

Ed Sheeran's volte-face on 19th September declared his support for Palestine. This puts him in the same position Macklemore was in. I doubt Kraft and the other pro-Israel billionaire-owners of the concert-venues will be banning Sheeran, which will make hypocrites of them.

I doubt P!nk will change her statements or view-points as she tends to be strong-willed - just like myself. Despite being (visibly) disabled (minority) & queer (minority) it is often difficult for me to perceive my white privilege (majority) & male privilege (technically minority, but majority power-holders, hence patriarchy). I do wonder whether something similar is clouding P!nk's moral-compass. I have a few P!nk CDs, but I will not be able to listen again until Peace is established or she changes her mind. Sheeran has demonstrated that one can alter one's views.

I personally shall continue to pray for Peace across West Asia (Middle East in statu quo ante). 🙏🏻🕊️

*[Per Google AI]

On Using Potential Slurs

I was bullied with the term queer as a teenager. With Queer Theory in the 1990s, I wholeheartedly reclaimed the term for myself and acknowledged my queerness. I currently label myself as a queer demisexual.

I am severely disabled, essentially what used to be called crippled. I have reclaimed this term as well as queer and use both in my own blog's title. Friends can call me gay, queer, cripple/d and it is meant humorously and with zero spite. I will insult them back in kind, and we all laugh.

Being shouted at by a stranger or strangers in the street is a completely different matter. These words all become slurs loaded with spite & malice.

Context is everything.

Nevertheless I would not use the R-word [r*t*rd], ever.

This leads me to suggest that it is better to talk about an individual's behaviour rather than labelling the person. The act of two straight men kissing (as was used in a German awareness campaign §) might be described as a gay or queer act, but it does not make the men gay or queer, they are still straight. Would the men be insulted to be called gay or queer. In the example cited they would not, as they were strong allies of the LGBTQIA+ communities. Would the man-in-the-street? It totally depends on their own beliefs: some would take offence, others would not care less. As we cannot know a stranger's beliefs, we ought to refrain from using terms that could be construed as an insult.

Essentially it comes down to treating others as we wish to be treated: with kindness & respect. Try to empathise with the other person. Feel and express your own fearless humanity.

___________________

Photo & ©️GQ Germany.

Mundpropaganda video on YouTube from GQ Germany.

Per Google AI:

The campaign you are looking for is "#Mundpropaganda – Gentlemen Against Homophobia", launched in December 2013 by GQ Germany. The anti-intolerance initiative featured 13 prominent heterosexual male celebrities—including actors and athletes—photographed sharing tender kisses on the lips to promote solidarity and a free, open society. [1, 2]

Key Campaign Details

• Meaning of the Name: "Mundpropaganda" is a German pun combining the terms for "word of mouth" and "kissing propaganda". [1]
• The Goal: The campaign was created to fight homophobia and show solidarity for LGBTQ+ rights, partly in response to anti-gay legislation that was circulating in Russia at the time. [1, 2]
• The Participants: The heterosexual figures who locked lips included actors August Diehl and Kostja Ullmann, Olympic beach volleyball champions Julius Brink and Jonas Reckermann, and rock stars like Johannes Strate (from the band Revolverheld). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Impact: The photos were featured heavily across Germany on public transport, large-scale billboards, and inside the January 2014 print issue. [1, 2]

___________________

On a personal note, I apologise for the lack of updates. I am severely disabled & chronically ill. 2026 thus far has been my worst year from a health-perspective since I first became disabled and ill back in the late 1990s.

I am working on several posts behind the scenes, but it takes me a very long time to complete a single blog-post.

Nevertheless, I thank first-time and returning readers for taking an interest in my thoughts.

*

The Indy Scapegoats The Poor!

This balderdash from The Independent newspaper really gets my goat!

“Reeves stealth taxes ‘hammering’ workers while pensioners and benefits claimants ‘better off’” 02.01.2026

There is zero balance to the article, but rather a deliberate anti-social neoliberal slant.

40% of folk on benefits are in employment, but jobs pay so badly that the State is topping up their income. It ought to be pointed out that UK benefits pay mere survival rates no where near reaching the level of a Living Wage, with many foregoing food, heating &/or medications. Most users of food-banks are benefit-recipients with disabilities, severe illnesses or children.

Yes, children! Some 4,500,000 children in the United Kingdom live in poverty. Scrapping the two-child limit means that more Child Benefit will be paid out, a desperate fillip that in no way makes up for the ever-ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

As to pensioners, UK pensioners are by far the worst-off in Western Europe, and below average for OECD countries.

That the once-balanced and fair Indy cites an example of someone earning £50,000 (£31,602 is the median UK annual income per O.N.S.) per year having to pay £505 p.a. more tax without explaining that those receiving Social Security are on such low levels of support and have experienced real-term cuts* for years, absolutely disgusts me.

* Increases based on general inflation do not recognise the above-inflation increases in food & energy prices, let alone medications & prescriptions & optician & dental-care & mobility-aids, etc. that force folk in the lower income deciles to often borrow money to pay for basic necessities of life.

Link to description of data of DWP benefit claims.