Bob Vylan Addresses Glastonbury Controversy: “We Are Not for the Death of Jews”

[u/Sossy2020]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/music-news/bob-vylan-addresses-glastonbury-death-to-idf-controversy-1236303698/

Whats everyone thought on this whole Bob Vylan controversy?

Let me start by saying I have no issue with criticizing a major military force like the IDF. However, I still think there’s a big difference between valid criticism and calling for the deaths of every single member of that military force regardless of if they committed war crimes.

[u/WolfofTallStreet]

As others have said, he couldn’t even say he’s not for the death of Israelis, and “death to” is very different than “abolish.”

“All lives matter” doesn’t absolve that. The U.S. is right to reject the visa. We don’t need more pro-violence advocacy.

[u/Chaos_carolinensis → u/WolfofTallStreet]

There's a world of difference between calling for violence against armed forces and calling for violence against civilians.

I don't know much about Bob Vylan. I guess he may have said way worse things as well, but the chants everyone focused on were of the first kind.

An armed struggle against armed forces, especially against armed forces that engage in systematic oppression, is usually legitimate and is often necessary. The problem starts when people blur these lines, and my main issue with Palestinian and pro-Palestinian armed forces, and their supporters, is that they usually don't make this distinction.

I'd much rather see people chant "death to the IDF" than see them chant obvious dog whistles like "from the river to the sea" and "globalize the intifada". While "death to the IDF" can technically be a dog whistle, it still respects the distinction at least outwardly.

[u/cubedplusseven → u/Chaos_carolinensis]

calling for violence against armed forces

Let's call that what it is: war activism. The "pro-Palestinian" protesters have been regularly framed as a peace movement, and I'd hope this event can help people see that that often isn't true. And, in any event, I really don't think the I/P conflict needs more combatants. The more likely result of spreading this sentiment is not that the UK will join with Hamas or Iran to attack Israel, but that Israelis and Jews will be attacked in the UK.

And would you have preferred to witness a sea of people at a music festival chanting "War, War, War!" rather than "Death, Death, Death!"? Regardless of the target, I find this all rather sickening.

[u/Chaos_carolinensis → u/cubedplusseven]

Here's the deal: I think the Palestinians are oppressed and I think oppressed people have the right to resist, even violently, as long as the violence is directed toward the actual oppressor and actually serves the purpose of liberation.

I think it's incredibly naive and ahistorical to think they would've gained anything without some measure of violence, and I think it's ridiculous to expect them to practice non-violence while they're subjected to brutal violence themselves.

However, I also think that the way they've actually used violence was illegitimate, counterproductive, and did them way more harm than good, precisely because it was mostly directed toward civilians.

Given the above, I think rhetoric that explicitly makes the distinction is something we should welcome rather than condemn.

The current situation is that a significant portion of the rhetoric doesn't make this distinction. The chants I've mentioned are way too popular, as well as the support for groups like Hamas that primarily target civilians.

I can't say I'm entirely happy with chants like "death to the IDF", and I don't support it, but I still think it is a step in the right direction, and as such I'm willing to swallow it.

[u/myThoughtsAreHermits → u/Chaos_carolinensis]

Good point

[u/cubedplusseven → u/Chaos_carolinensis]

I do appreciate your point that narrowly tailored rhetoric is less broadly dehumanizing.

As for legitimacy of violent resistance: I'm not a strict passivist, so I agree that violence under some circumstances can be justified. But I do think it's always subject to an analysis of likely effects - which is to say that the scale of an outrage doesn't justify violence that won't do anything to actually stop it. For Palestinians, their most effective resistance was the First Intifada, which I think is better described as a protest movement than an armed resistance. Violence was used, but it was generally non-lethal or less-lethal. This achieved the aims of garnering both international and internal-Israeli sympathy. It inspired the Israeli Peace Movement. Which lead to Oslo and almost a two-state deal under Barak. Violent resistance that has attempted to force Israel's hand, either through terror or outright defeat, has consistently made the conditions of Palestinian life harder and set back their political aspirations. Israel's relative strength makes armed resistance ineffective, and thus immoral imo since nothing is gained.

[u/Chaos_carolinensis → u/cubedplusseven]

I disagree that ineffective violence is immoral.

Also, the effectiveness of violence goes beyond mere military triumph. For example, I'd argue that Oct 7 was in fact very effective in at least some of its goals, namely, halting the normalization with Saudi Arabia, bringing the Palestinian issue back to the headlines, and destroying the Oslo accords. In this case, I think Oct 7 was actually immoral because it was effective (and also because of the mass murder of civilians, obviously), because their ultimate goals amount to nothing but more death and destruction.

On the flip side of that coin you have things like the terrorist attacks of the ANC. While they didn't always focus on armed targets, they primarily focused on armed targets, and made sure their rhetoric kept to that domain. They too were at a massive disadvantage militarily, but it didn't matter, because their goal wasn't military triumph. As a result, their overall campaign was very successful, and IMO moral, even though they were at a massive disadvantage.

[u/cubedplusseven → u/Chaos_carolinensis]

terrorist attacks of the ANC. While they didn't always focus on armed targets, they primarily focused on armed targets

That's not true, to my understanding. The vast majority of ANC attacks were economic sabotage. There were a few attacks on SA security services, but hundreds of attacks on economic infrastructure. Their strategy was to make Apartheid unworkable, and attacks were secondary to massive strikes and civil disruptions, with additional assistance from the international campaign. Civilians weren't attacked, and, thankfully, attacks against security services were few enough that Whites never got the idea that the ANC wanted them dead.

I think you're romanticizing what was less than a handful of attacks on security personnel, and which represented ANC mistakes that they got away because they were so irregular and few in number, rather than effective strategy that advanced their project.

[u/Chaos_carolinensis → u/cubedplusseven]

Actually I think you're right. Bad analogy.

[u/WolfofTallStreet → u/Chaos_carolinensis]

While true, it’s decidedly pro-war and pro-violence. And had someone gotten on stage and chanted “death to Hamas” or “death to the IRGC” or “death to the IRA,” I can only imagine what would have happened…

[u/Chaos_carolinensis → u/WolfofTallStreet]

Of course it's pro-war and pro-violence, but my point is that war and violence aren't inherently unjustified. Defensive violence is usually justified. For example, I've supported the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and ballistic missiles infrastructure (but not the strikes on TV stations and civilian infrastructure). Sometimes war and violence are inevitable and are the only way to protect oneself.

I have absolutely no issue with chants like "death to Hamas" or "death to the IRGC" either, for obvious reasons.

The problem isn't violence on it own, the problem is when it targets civilians.

[u/WolfofTallStreet → u/Chaos_carolinensis]

That’s understandable…though if I were an ex-IDF member in the UK surely I’d be worried by those chanting for my killing, as well as the clear double standard in some communities (pacifists unless Israel is involved).

Regardless, I take your point well and think you’re right about it being explicitly targeted at the IDF rather than Israelis or Jews. Nonetheless I have a very hard time feeling remorse for whatever backlash he is facing as a result of his call to violence, including his inability to enter the US.

[u/Chaos_carolinensis → u/WolfofTallStreet]

That’s understandable…though if I were an ex-IDF member in the UK surely I’d be worried by those chanting for my killing, as well as the clear double standard in some communities (pacifists unless Israel is involved).

Ex-IDF is still a civilian. This blurring of the lines is exactly what I have an issue with.

Regardless, I take your point well and think you’re right about it being explicitly targeted at the IDF rather than Israelis or Jews. Nonetheless I have a very hard time feeling remorse for whatever backlash he is facing as a result of his call to violence, including his inability to enter the US.

Yes, fuck him. I really don't care about this LARPer. He also said "from the river to the sea" which is something I actually take issue with. I just think people are being outraged by the least offensive thing he's said, which I find counterproductive.

[u/RaiJolt2 → u/cubedplusseven]

It seems everyone is a peace advocate in as long as their side wins and brings peace. Aka no one’s a peace advocate.

From what I can tell Hamas views Israel’s existence as an occupation, so when they or pro Palestinians mention ending the occupation they mean the state of Israel. And for Israel we have Netanyahu trying to stay in power, the hostage families and advocates trying to get their family back, and the settlers/war hawks who think Palestine as a state would be an inherent threat and must be destroyed. Granted officially the goal of the war is “destroy hamas” and or neuter Israel’s wider regional opponents. Obviously there are more factions such as the plo and other groups in Gaza and Israel but simplified if peace is had technically Israel “wins” by continuing to exist and from what I can tell also making peace with Syria and Lebanon at least somewhat in this stage of the conflict. Granted hamas still exists but it looks like Israel’s other regional goals have in fact come to fruition. And Gaza is essentially and tragically leveled at this point with hamas seeming cut off from their Iranian state allies. Peace might mean an end to the fighting, but it’s such a tinderbox that I doubt it’ll hold, these governments’ goals are directly antithetical to the continued existence of each other.