After Ed Sheeran allowed Macklemore to be removed from his tour for vocalising support for Palestine, the internet is asking what we should expect of ‘apolitical’ pop stars.
Well, well, well – it would seem that everyone’s go-to choice for retail music, Ed Sheeran, has found himself in some hot water. The reason, you ask? Sheeran has been the face of a controversial decision to remove Macklemore, an opening act, from his tour due to his choice to speak out in favour of Palestinian liberation.
This move was largely pushed by venue owners, principally Robert Kraft, who owns Gillette Stadium near Boston and confirmed he had barred Macklemore from performing there. According to Macklemore, Sheeran told him Kraft had also rallied other stadium owners into a collective ultimatum: drop Macklemore, or lose every venue left on the tour. Sheeran subsequently capitulated to the demand, prompting his other opening acts and backing band to pull out with immediate effect.
Amid the PR gas fire that this situation has caused, the patron saint of soccer mom music, Pink, also threw her hat into the ring to praise the choice to remove Macklemore. When the internet responded to her sentiments, she proceeded to go on a very Gen X-coded tirade, posting a collection of “totally unbothered” memes to her Instagram story. In an age where nothing is apolitical, the whole thing has us questioning exactly what we expect from our favourite (or in this case, barely tolerated) pop stars.
Sheeran initially described himself as apolitical. This is despite the fact that he has been a vocal and ardent voice for Ukraine throughout the Russian invasion, headlining a benefit concert the country after the war broke out. I find this extremely telling. Sheeran does not view the war in Ukraine as political because the aggressor is one that his investors and business relationships also view as a pariah state. Russia is unambiguous in their eyes; it is a rogue state that exists in contrast to their own interests. Israel, however, is not so easy to cast in the same light for them. Israel is integral to American interests in the Middle East, is woven into the fabric of Western economic and security operations – and so they can wage a genocide that is propped up by the same organisations that willingly cast Russia out of the global community.
Widen the net further, to the multipolar forces at play in conflicts like those in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and you find the same powers benefiting from public disinterest and confusion. Who gets to be seen as a victim is inherently political, and Sheeran’s own fervent support for one cause while rolling over to allow denial of another is a demonstration of this dichotomy.
A stark contrast is seen along generational lines. While there are indeed more senior artists who have been consistent in their advocacy for Palestinian liberation, recognising the Gaza genocide, the majority of vocal artists seem to be solidly in Gen Z. Perhaps most visible of late was Olivia Rodrigo, who wore a dress made by the Palestinian fashion label Nöl Collective ahead of her inaugural Daisy Chain Fields festival, alongside a $10m donation to organisations supporting women and girls. Nöl Collective’s founder, Yasmeen Mjalli, later revealed the label had come close to shutting down after Israeli customs destroyed a shipment of fabric, and described Rodrigo’s commission as “divine intervention.” Decisions like Rodrigo’s are important because they leverage the power that comes with fame. Rodrigo understands that there will be media outlets that want to report on what, and who, she is wearing – by placing Palestine, and especially Palestinian women, at the heart of that conversation, she is furthering the conversation about the multifaceted violence and subjugation that has been waged against the Palestinian people for decades.
Capitalism, sweet awful capitalism
Sheeran is the face of this story, and he is clearly aware of that, given his choice to cry on stage as he read a preprepared message about Palestine at his recent show in Philadelphia. Note, he still did not call what is happening in Gaza a genocide, despite that being exactly what it is by definition. While I think his tears are genuine, they are not shed for the 64,000 murdered and injured children of Gaza, but for his own rapidly diminishing stock in the public eye. That is because Ed Sheeran is not a mere man, but a brand. He exists on the basis of whether or not we decide to stream his music and buy his concert tickets.
Naturally, for many of us who prefer to listen to music that doesn’t have all the personality of white bread, he was never going to be a choice we made anyway. The reality is that regardless of where his actual opinions lie, his choice to acquiesce immediately to remove Macklemore from his tour was something that was based purely on money. The venues that urged the choice could have been responded to with a candid no, and Sheeran could have made the choice to take his show elsewhere – that did not happen. This is because he would rather keep the show going, ignoring the noise until it is too loud to drown out.
Capitalism is an inherently violent force. What is happening in Palestine, or Congo, or Sudan, or across other regions impacted by armed conflict, is as much afflicted by capitalistic motivations as it is by any along ideological or sectarian lines. It is also the language that is used to try and assuage guilt in the eyes of the public. Macklemore has pledged the entire $1m of his net earnings from the tour to Palestinian relief organisations, and dared Kraft to match it. Kraft, in response, revealed that Sheeran had already asked him to match his own $2m donation to humanitarian aid “in the region” – a combined $4m between the two of them. Make no mistake, this does not come from a place of goodwill. While money does indeed talk, we have to ask exactly what this money is saying.
Sheeran and Kraft, if allowed by the general public, would have skated past this situation without a care in the world, sleeping soundly at night knowing they deplatformed a smaller artist using his position on stage to advocate for people suffering genocide. Removing the purposefully ambiguous language Kraft used in his statement on the matter – the gesture is hollow and shows a misunderstanding of the situation at hand. People are not appalled by Macklemore’s removal because of money, but because it is an example of capitalistic censorship of a vital conversation we all need to continue to have.
It is also blatant when we consider that the same venues that banded together to remove Macklemore from this tour are the same ones that are all too happy to provide a stage to Kanye West. That is in spite of the fact that while Macklemore advocated for victims of genocide, West has publicly praised Nazi ideology and Adolf Hitler, a literal orchestrator of one of the planet’s most deadly genocides. Perhaps the issue is not ideology, but whoever guarantees the most money in corporate pockets?
Okay, let’s talk about the Pink of it all…
Thorgy Thor, a drag queen who competed on RuPaul’s Drag Race, once went viral for a meme in which she described Pink as a “bad seed on this earth”. Who knew that only a few years later she would be proven to be so very correct. I will admit I have always been a detractor of Pink’s – I find her approach to other women in the industry to reek of internalised misogyny. I did not, however, expect her to be the latest in a growing cohort of Gen X celebrities who have thrown themselves at the altar of Zionist ideology.
Pink reshared a StopAntisemitism post attacking Macklemore’s set and demanding refunds for concertgoers, days before he was dropped. She has since insisted she never asked for him to be removed. I’d argue that amplifying a pressure campaign to your millions of followers is a distinction without much of a difference. She was quickly subject to a wave of criticism from fans who recognise that this is a call that is woven into the fabric of Zionism. She promptly had a very ‘live laugh love’ coded meltdown on her Instagram feed, sharing a plethora of posts all to the sentiment of being unbothered by the backlash, while clearly being extremely bothered by it.
Pink later posted a lengthy statement about how she was, in her words, “standing up for her people”. She pointed out that Macklemore’s choice to explicitly state that his message was not pointed toward Jewish people in the audience when he shared his criticism of Israel was not appropriate, writing that he did not get to separate Jewish people from his condemnation of Zionist violence. I have to break it to her – that is exactly what we all must do. Zionism is a movement that is largely propped up by Evangelical Christians in the United States, and the current government of Israel. It is not an inherent part of Jewish religious beliefs, culture, or identity. The use of Judaism as a shield with which to deflect good-faith condemnation of Zionism is extremely dangerous. There are millions of Jewish people around the world who understand that to use their faith as a justification of genocide is an aberration of its values and history. Pink clearly missed the memo on that. To conflate the violence of Israel with Jewish identity breeds a climate that allows antisemitism to flourish.
When Pink gave her unwarranted opinion on the situation, she clearly expected to be met with social capital and praise. Once it was clear this was not the case, she doubled down. Followed by the celebrity stereotype of writing a lengthy word salad statement that does nothing but clog up the timeline and detract from the actual issue at hand – the fact that pro-Palestinian voices are being silenced by large corporations and their bannermen.
By furthering the conflation of Zionism with Jewish identity, she not only fans the flames of antisemitism but also co-opts the narrative of Jewish people who have tirelessly worked to untangle themselves from Zionist ideology. It is something that has been spoon-fed to everyone in the Western world, recognising the idea that Israel has an inherent right to the land and its resources, a land that has been home to Palestinians for centuries – centuries where they lived side by side with indigenous Jewish populations in stability.
Just like with Ed Sheeran, I did not have to remove Pink songs from my playlists because I had none on them anyway. Artistically, she has been low on steam for the better part of 15 years, but those who still held to her brand of retail music now have the choice to make of whether they want to continue to tacitly consent to the damaging and genocide-denying views that she clearly holds dear. I, for one, do not want to ever knowingly line the pockets of an artist who spent days amplifying a post dismissing Gaza’s death toll as a “false genocide”. It would seem I am not alone in this, as an online petition calling to remove Pink as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador has garnered, at the time of writing, over 165,000 signatures – my own included. People recognise that her choice to share, then double down, on views that conflate the desire to see Palestinians free of decades of apartheid and genocide with antisemitism is not in line with any form of goodwill.
Do pop stars owe us their politics?
I love pop music; you need only look at the numerous articles I have about it under my byline to see that I am a devotee of it both as a genre and as a cultural force. During this whole debacle, I have once again returned to a conversation I often find myself having, about whether an artist owes us their political stance or their moral alignment.
There is an argument that a musician has one job: to make music and perform it; their politics and the expectation to share their views should not factor into the quality of their music or how we interact with it. There are some artists who have served as cautionary tales for why this line of thinking holds. We need only look at the way The Chicks (formerly The Dixie Chicks) were raked over the coals for speaking out against George Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 to see that sticking your neck out as an artist can be extremely damaging for your PR. A more recent example comes from Zara Larsson losing a $3m brand deal due to sharing an abortion joke with a fan, or pulling out of a $1m contract to perform at Eurovision due to Israeli participation. Having a stance costs something, and that something is often financial and reputational.
Zara has been one of the most refreshing voices in pop culture as of late, being very frank and open with her political stances. After a fan urged her to “read about what UAE is doing to Sudan” and cancel her upcoming Abu Dhabi Grand Prix show, over the country’s alleged funding of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, Larsson replied simply: “I will not be going to Abu Dhabi.” She later softened her framing, saying the decision came down to “personal reasons beyond politics” rather than confirming it outright as a stand, which you can cynically read as a move to appease her audience rather than align with a specific morality. If that was the case, which, given her repeated actions, I do not think to be true, she understands that an audience demands a reflection of their values. Olivia Rodrigo also understands that her audience expects her to mirror their own beliefs, including clear support for justice and liberation for Palestine.
Frankly, I do think that pop stars owe us their morality. I do not want to give streams to an artist if I know that they are a shitty person with political views I cannot overlook. It is for that reason I swiftly scrubbed any Nicki Minaj songs from my listening the second she started to align herself with the cult of MAGA and convicted sex offenders.
I understand that there are individual contexts that influence what a public figure is going to say, when they say it, and how, but I believe firmly that to say something is their responsibility. I do not need Zara Larsson to tell me that what is happening in Palestine is a genocide; that is something I understood long before she was on my radar, but to hear her mirror the sentiment and to then actively turn down opportunities to reinforce that belief makes me more inclined to support her as an artist. Equally, as much as I did not really care for the music of Pink or Ed Sheeran, I am far less interested in even offering their projects a chance to creep into my listening habits now that I know they’re Zionist apologists and spineless corporate lap dogs, respectively.
As I have been writing this article, I think back to during the first Trump presidency when Shakira, my personal favourite artist, wrote an eloquent op-ed about his brutal and inhumane treatment of undocumented individuals on the southern US border. I have been lucky to know that she is an artist who, while often resistant to commenting on governmental politics directly, has always been unafraid to stand firm on matters of human rights. If she had not written her op-ed, I would have still enjoyed her music, unchanged in how I interact with her as an artist. What her piece did was reinforce the understanding I had that a famous person with a platform of her size can choose to be silent or decide to throw their weight behind the right side of history.
The privilege and power that come from a life in the public eye, in my opinion, warrant a commitment to asserting what is right and just in our world. That means that even when an opening act at your concert is urging people to not forget the genocide that many of us have moved on from talking about, you put the voiceless ahead of your own capitalist interests. Ed Sheeran failed to pick up the mantle, capitulating to a corporate system that doesn’t just turn its back on dying Palestinians, but props up the government that stains itself with their blood.
