The recent clash between Radiohead’s Thom Yorke and an audience member demanding condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza sparked widespread discussion, not only about Radiohead’s long-standing refusal to boycott Israel but also about whether they, and other musicians, would have made the same choice during apartheid-era South Africa. Would Yorke’s defence of music as “crossing borders, not building them” have held if Radiohead were asked to perform in South Africa under apartheid?
Part 1: The Melbourne Incident and Radiohead’s Stance on Israel
Thom Yorke’s brief departure from the Melbourne stage highlighted the tension between artists and audience members on sensitive political issues. Yorke’s response to the heckler, urging him to “hop up on stage” to express his condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza, reflects a recurring conflict in Radiohead’s career, with band members steadfast in separating art from politics. However, the protester’s question – “how many dead children will it take?” – touches upon an uncomfortable moral dimension, one that cannot easily be dismissed as a “disruption” to a music performance.
For years, Radiohead and its members, including guitarist Jonny Greenwood, have faced pressure to refrain from playing in Israel as a protest against its treatment of Palestinians. Proponents of the boycott argue that Radiohead’s performances lend credibility to a government widely criticised for its treatment of Palestinian civilians and its policies in the occupied territories. Yorke has rebuffed these calls by insisting that playing in a country does not equate to endorsing its government, stating that the band’s music is a vehicle for connecting people, regardless of political boundaries.
Jonny Greenwood, too, recently defended his collaboration with Israeli-Arab musician Dudu Tassa, arguing that interacting and collaborating with artists from diverse backgrounds fosters understanding rather than division. Greenwood called out attempts to “silence” Israeli artists as counterproductive, suggesting that dialogue, rather than cultural exclusion, is a more effective path to peace.
Part 2: The History of Cultural Boycotts and Apartheid South Africa
To better understand whether Radiohead’s arguments would apply to apartheid South Africa, it’s essential to look at the historical precedent set by the anti-apartheid cultural boycott. In the 1980s, musicians and artists worldwide faced significant pressure to refuse performances in South Africa. This was not just an abstract political gesture; it was a global, concerted effort that aimed to isolate the apartheid government culturally and economically. The boycott became a powerful, symbolic stand against institutionalised racism, with artists such as Stevie Wonder, Nina Simone, and Bruce Springsteen refusing to play in South Africa, even when financially lucrative opportunities were offered.
The apartheid boycott gained unprecedented momentum in 1985 when the Artists United Against Apartheid group, led by musicians like Little Steven and Bruce Springsteen, produced the song “Sun City” as a direct condemnation of artists performing in the segregated entertainment complex. This period saw intense debate over the ethics of performance and collaboration in countries with oppressive regimes, with the ultimate consensus being that any involvement, even through music, was tantamount to tacit support.
While the music scene was divided, with some musicians – including Queen and Frank Sinatra – choosing to perform in South Africa, the cultural boycott became an influential movement that drew international attention to apartheid. The boycott’s success contributed to the end of apartheid in 1994, proving that the moral stance of artists can influence political change.
Part 3: Comparisons between Israel and Apartheid South Africa
Comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa is complex and controversial. However, several human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have used the term “apartheid” in reference to Israel’s policies towards Palestinians. These organisations cite Israel’s restrictions on Palestinian movement, systemic inequalities in land ownership, and treatment of Palestinian citizens as evidence of a government maintaining an apartheid-like system.
This perspective has fuelled the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which calls for a comprehensive cultural, economic, and academic boycott of Israel until it ends its occupation of Palestinian territories and grants full equality to Palestinian citizens. Proponents of BDS argue that Israel’s policies towards Palestinians mirror those of apartheid South Africa and that cultural boycotts are a legitimate, non-violent method of pressuring the Israeli government to change its policies.
In this context, Radiohead’s stance on Israel draws criticism. Supporters of BDS believe that by playing in Israel, Radiohead not only overlooks these injustices but also legitimises them by participating in a cultural industry that they argue is complicit in erasing Palestinian narratives.
Part 4: Thom Yorke and the Philosophy of Art Transcending Politics
Yorke’s stance hinges on the idea that music transcends politics and provides a universal language that can unite people across divisions. This perspective has roots in a long tradition of artists who view their work as apolitical, intended to reach hearts and minds without political endorsement. Yorke’s argument that playing in Israel doesn’t mean endorsing Netanyahu’s government aligns with the idea that music should be a neutral ground, a space where people can gather regardless of political affiliations or nationalistic sentiments.
However, critics argue that this “neutrality” can function as complicity, particularly when an artist’s presence in a contentious location lends cultural legitimacy to a government’s policies. Just as Radiohead plays to audiences in Tel Aviv, many argue, it indirectly endorses an environment where Palestinian voices and stories are often overshadowed or erased.
The apartheid boycott demonstrated that art is not isolated from politics, especially in contexts where governments use cultural events as a means of propaganda or international credibility. If Radiohead were to adopt the same approach to apartheid South Africa as they have to Israel, they might argue that performing in Johannesburg does not endorse racial segregation. But would that argument hold moral weight when apartheid’s suffering was so evident?
Part 5: The Role of Music in Social and Political Movements
Music has long been a vehicle for social and political change. From the civil rights movement in the United States to anti-apartheid efforts in South Africa, musicians have often played a crucial role in raising awareness and mobilising people. In the case of apartheid, musicians were urged to take a moral stance, with many embracing the idea that silence, rather than performance, would be the most powerful statement.
Radiohead’s belief in the unifying power of music is valid, but it contrasts with the ethos that drove musicians to boycott apartheid South Africa. The willingness to boycott was an acknowledgement that silence could sometimes speak louder than music, especially when music could inadvertently be used as a tool of oppression. Supporters of BDS argue that a similar moral stance is necessary today to address Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
Part 6: Jonny Greenwood’s Defence and the Complexity of Dialogue
Jonny Greenwood has defended his collaborations with Israeli and Israeli-Arab artists as a means of building bridges, arguing that art should foster understanding. His collaboration with Dudu Tassa, an Israeli-Arab musician, underscores his belief in dialogue over division. Greenwood’s perspective raises important questions: is cultural engagement with Israeli artists necessarily a form of complicity? Or can it indeed be a pathway to mutual understanding?
The debate about cultural boycotts is not black and white. There are artists who believe in engaging with Israeli citizens to inspire change from within, viewing dialogue and collaboration as ways to break down barriers. Greenwood’s stance resonates with those who argue that music, art, and academia should serve as platforms for communication rather than isolation. However, for activists who view Israel’s actions as paralleling apartheid, such collaborations are seen as normalising a situation they believe should be opposed outright.
Part 7: Examining the Hypothetical – Would Radiohead Play in Apartheid South Africa?
If Radiohead were invited to play in South Africa during apartheid, how might Yorke’s argument that “playing in a country isn’t the same as endorsing its government” hold up? During apartheid, artists who chose to perform in South Africa often faced severe backlash, and many later expressed regret for not taking a stronger stance. Performers in South Africa were viewed as giving implicit support to a regime that discriminated based on race and stripped citizens of basic rights. The moral argument at that time was clear: even if the artist’s intention was apolitical, the act of performing carried political consequences.
If Radiohead were to take the same position in apartheid South Africa that they do now with Israel, their justification of neutrality might seem hollow given the pervasive suffering under apartheid. The cultural boycott was seen as a necessary sacrifice to highlight the inhumanity of South African policies, and artists who broke the boycott were often seen as undermining the global solidarity needed to fight against apartheid.
Part 8: Ethical Reflections and the Role of Artists in Politics
The debate around Radiohead and Israel is part of a larger question: what ethical responsibilities do artists have in times of political crisis? Many artists view themselves as separate from politics, with their work as a universal means of expression rather than endorsement. However, history shows that art often influences, reflects, or even shapes political sentiment. Art can either challenge oppression or inadvertently legitimise it, depending on the context.
In the case of apartheid, the collective decision among artists to boycott South Africa sent a clear message that art could not, in good conscience, ignore the suffering of the oppressed. Today, the BDS movement argues that Israel’s policies merit the same response. For Radiohead, the question remains whether their commitment to playing in Israel aligns with their stated values of human rights and justice, or if it unwittingly places them on the wrong side of history.
A Personal or Political Stand?
Radiohead’s decision to play in Israel is a personal one, but it has unavoidable political implications. While Yorke and Greenwood advocate for dialogue and artistic freedom, critics argue that cultural boycotts have historically been necessary to oppose injustices. If Radiohead were faced with the same decision in apartheid-era South Africa, would they still see their performances as neutral? Or would they recognise the power of their absence as a stand against oppression?
As history shows, the role of artists in political movements is not easily defined. For now, Radiohead stands firm in their belief that music transcends politics – but history may yet judge the wisdom of this approach. The legacy of the apartheid boycott suggests that sometimes silence, rather than song, makes the strongest statement. Whether Radiohead’s legacy will similarly align with these principles remains to be seen, as debates over Israel and Palestine continue to intensify.
Prominent Artists Who Have Boycotted Israel
Several prominent artists and bands have chosen to boycott performing in Israel, often in solidarity with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which calls for non-violent pressure on Israel until it complies with international law regarding Palestinian rights. Here is a list of some artists who have refused to perform in Israel or canceled scheduled performances in protest:
1. Roger Waters
- The Pink Floyd co-founder is one of the most vocal supporters of the BDS movement. Waters has been outspoken about his stance and has encouraged other musicians to boycott Israel.
2. Lauryn Hill
- The Grammy-winning singer canceled a scheduled performance in Israel in 2015, stating that she hoped to perform in both Israel and Palestine but ultimately decided to avoid performing only in Israel.
3. Elvis Costello
- In 2010, Costello canceled two concerts in Israel, stating that his decision was based on the “intimidation, humiliation, or much worse suffered by ordinary Palestinian civilians.”
4. Gorillaz
- Damon Albarn’s band, Gorillaz, is among those who have adhered to the cultural boycott and avoided scheduling performances in Israel.
5. Brian Eno
- Eno has been an advocate for Palestinian rights and has openly supported the BDS movement, refusing any involvement with Israeli cultural institutions.
6. Stevie Wonder
- While not directly a tour boycott, Stevie Wonder refused to perform at a 2012 gala for the Israeli Defense Forces, aligning with BDS principles.
7. Thurston Moore
- The Sonic Youth co-founder canceled a planned concert in Israel, expressing his support for the boycott after learning about the human rights issues in the region.
8. Massive Attack
- The trip-hop group, particularly member Robert Del Naja, has voiced support for the BDS movement and has refused to perform in Israel, calling for cultural and economic pressure on the country.
9. Carlos Santana
- Santana canceled his planned performance in Tel Aviv in 2010 after pressure from pro-Palestinian activists and decided not to reschedule.
10. Sinead O’Connor
- The late singer initially planned to perform in Israel but canceled her show, later supporting the boycott as she became aware of the situation in Palestine.
11. Lord
- In 2018, Lorde canceled a performance in Tel Aviv after fans and activists urged her to respect the cultural boycott.
12. Gil Scott-Heron
- The influential jazz poet and musician canceled a performance in Israel in 2010 after fans expressed concern over his appearance there.
13. Natalie Merchant
- Merchant has shown support for BDS and declined offers to perform in Israel, stating her stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
14. Young Fathers
- The Scottish hip-hop group is a vocal supporter of BDS and has been vocal about why they won’t perform in Israel.
15. Devendra Banhart
- The singer-songwriter canceled a show in Israel in 2010, citing concerns about the political implications of performing there.
16. Faithless
- British band Faithless has refused to perform in Israel, aligning with BDS efforts.
17. Annie Lennox
- Although Lennox has not had a direct tour boycott, she has voiced support for Palestinian rights and has supported various pro-Palestinian initiatives.
These artists have made their stance known either by cancelling scheduled shows, declining invitations, or publicly endorsing the boycott in solidarity with the BDS movement. The movement aims to apply international pressure on Israel similar to the cultural boycotts during apartheid in South Africa, seeking to bring attention to the Palestinian cause.
