Violinist tumbles while climbing separation wall, is unable to perform historic concert

On his blog Ramallah Café, the author Sandy Tolan* has published a first-hand report on the Ramallah Orchestra’s 2013 performance at St. Anne’s Church in East Jerusalem.

suarez idf on ram orch bus 2012 cropped
IDF soldiers aboard the Ramallah Orchestra bus in 2012  (T Suarez)

The Ramallah Orchestra, an initiative of the Ramallah-based music school Al Kamandjati, is composed of both Palestinian and foreign musicians. But whereas the foreign musicians can make the roughly ten-mile journey from Ramallah to East Jerusalem (assuming Israel did not block their entrance from abroad to begin with), the Palestinians need Israeli ‘permission’. East Jerusalem lies in Palestine according to international law, but Israel militarily seized the land and employs various pseudo-legalistic and bureaucratic smokescreens to cleanse it of its Palestinian citizens and block their access to it.

Last year, in 2012, the Ramallah Orchestra had to cancel its St. Anne Church concert when Israel failed to give the Palestinian musicians permits. This year’s smokescreen was more imaginative—the musicians would need new magnetic cards, but those cards would not be available until after the concert.

The musicians need to cross a major checkpoint to get past Israel’s apartheid wall. But it is an open secret that this Wall paralyzes only normal daily life in Palestine; it is farcical as regards security, its claimed purpose. Those desperate enough can get around it, and this year, the Orchestra’s Palestinian musicians were determined not to be stopped. So they hired professional wall-evaders, who brought them to an isolated area, cut through barbed wire and hung a knotted rope from the top of the wall so that the musicians could climb over it.

One by one, the young musicians mounted the ladder, sat atop the wall, grabbed the rope, and slowly slithered down, trying to use the knots as footholds.  It wasn’t easy; the knots were small.  Halfway down, one of the string players saw a vehicle approaching on the narrow access road.  He froze; was this a soldier coming to arrest him?  “Don’t worry,” the coyote called down, “it’s a local Palestinian.”

This is a risky undertaking for those not seasoned in the ritual, and one of the musicians, a violinist, misjudged his height on the far (‘Israeli’) side and jumped to the ground too soon, falling onto his back. He reached St. Anne’s church along with the others but suffered a vomiting fit before the concert and was unable to play.

suarez st anne church 2012
St. Anne’s Church, set for a Ramallah Orchestra concert  (T Suarez, 2012)

Mr. Tolan’s report adds yet further support to the call for BDS. When one country suppresses another people—in this case, blocking them from playing music on what, by international law, is their own land—that country’s cultural institutions should not be patronized as a matter of elementary fairness. Simple reciprocity makes the boycott of Israel an unassailable matter of principle.

What is important about this incident is that it is not exceptional, but represents life as usual for Palestinians. “It’s just the way it is here,” one fourteen-year-old boy told me when he came to a lesson with a borrowed violin, his having been smashed by Israeli soldiers. One Palestinian colleague had as a student been beaten to unconsiousness by Israeli soldiers miffed that he studied with a renowned teacher in Jerusalem (those studies then ended). Mr. Tolan documented the recent plight of a young Palestinian singer arbitrarily accused of throwing stones at the invading IDF and forced to sign a fake ‘confession’ in order to avoid the terror of long-term Israeli prison—prison that Israel can and does impose on Palestinians without charge and without limit. These are all mere snippets of every-day life as usual in Palestine under the Israeli yoke; they are not the exception, not the excess, not the mistake, but all mechanisms in Israel’s strategies of culturecide. Even as an outsider, one quickly witnesses Palestinian children blocked from performing the concerts they had worked for months to prepare; professional Palestinian musicians whose families were ethnically cleansed then blocked from reaching their concert in the West Bank; and music institutions burdened with the expensive and never-ending dance around Israeli interference.

Yet the US musicians’ union, which flaunts the torch of boycott in solidarity with musicians suffering far lesser injustice in other parts of the world, censors any mention of injustice against Palestinians by Israel. In its journal International Musician, the national organization refuses not only to publish information about gross injustice against Palestinian musicians, but even to publish mention of the difficulties faced by one of its own members teaching and performing in Palestine. The New York local (802), to which I belong, privately acknowledged that its strict policy forbidding the topic in its otherwise eclectic journal Allegro, is the result of pressure by certain of its members. This censorship is so strict that the very topic may not be broached even in a letter to the editor.

This imposed ignorance perpetuates not just injustice against Palestinian musicians, but indeed helps perpetuate the entire Israel-Palestine nightmare.

Mr. Tolan’s full report is here.

With best wishes to the violinist who suffered the fall attempting to reach the concert.
 
* Sandy Tolan is the author of The Lemon Tree, and (the following from Amazon) the author of Me & Hank: A Boy and His Hero, Twenty-Five Years Later. He has written extensively for newspapers and magazines, and has produced dozens of radio documentaries for NPR and PRI. His work has won numerous awards. He was a 1993 Nieman Fellow at Harvard University and an I. F. Stone Fellow at the UC-Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, where he directs the school’s Project on International Reporting.

 
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 29 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. DissedStance says:

    I guess Alicia Keys’ message about music being a language that “is meant
    to unify audiences in peace and love” hasn’t yet reached into the vile hearts
    of the fascist occupiers. I hope she reads this piece- and finally understands
    that boycott was her only choice as a “universal language” to resist a force that
    extinguishes the light of truth and beauty whenever it can.

  2. mondonut says:

    First of all, there is nothing in international law that makes Jerusalem part of the State of Palestine. Second, falling from a flimsy rope can be blamed on who provided the flimsy rope and the person who chose to hang from it.

    • Hostage says:

      First of all, there is nothing in international law that makes Jerusalem part of the State of Palestine.

      Correction: Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany was required to recognize the dispositions made concerning the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, “and to recognize the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.” The other Central powers and some of the treaty articles that required them to recognize the new states were:
      *Bulgaria Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly;
      *Hungary Article 74 (2) of The Treaty of Trianon
      *Austria Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye

      Turkey and the US ratified the Treaty of Lausanne which contained an indentical obligation. The US also ratified the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention. It did, and still does, recognize Palestinian nationality and statehood as a matter of inter-temporal law. In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said “The use of the term “Palestine” is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its “revived usage enrages” individual Israelis”. Crawford replied “It is difficult to see how it “enrages” Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, ”in a de jure sense”, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty.”

      See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341. .

      The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 Reporter’s Note 3 says: “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.” The same body of customary international law prohibits the United States and countries from recognizing any State that acquired the qualifications of statehood through wars conducted in violation of the UN Charter.

      • mondonut says:

        Again hoping that something will stick if you throw enough crap?

        The entirety of your first paragraph is irrelevant. The Treaty of Versailles? Really?

        The Treaty of Lausanne did not create the State of Palestine. And no, inter-temporal law does not apply. The US does not recognize Palestine as a state now, nor does it “inter-temporally”.

        So your entire reply pretty much boils down to the comments (and opinion) of a career diplomat in the State Department. Somehow or other Jerusalem is to be part of an Arab state based on that single off hand comment.

        • Hostage says:

          The entirety of your first paragraph is irrelevant. The Treaty of Versailles? Really?

          Here it is verbatim. The signatories required Germany to recognize the new States created in Ottoman Asia in accordance with the subsequent “Treaties of Peace and Additional Conventions concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with Turkey. That included the Treaty of Lausanne, which most certainly did result in the creation of the Mandated State of Palestine:

          ARTICLE 434.

          Germany undertakes to recognise the full force of the Treaties of Peace and Additional Conventions which may be concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with the Powers who fought on the side of Germany and to recognise whatever dispositions may be made concerning the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, of the Kingdom of Bulgaria and of the Ottoman Empire, and to recognise the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.

          link to net.lib.byu.edu

          The other treaties I cited required Germany’s allies to recognize the new States.

          And no, inter-temporal law does not apply. The US does not recognize Palestine as a state now, nor does it “inter-temporally”.

          On the contrary, the United States recognized the State of Palestine and Palestinian nationality – and that recognition continued to have legal consequences. For example, the case of “Kletter v. Dulles, Secretary of State”, the United States District Court District Of Columbia ruled in 1953 that Mr. Kletter had lost his US citizenship when he was naturalized in the State of Palestine:

          The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit. . . . Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.

          link to dc.findacase.com

          The conversation recorded in the Foreign Relations of the United States that I cited above, went on to point out that there were still US laws in effect, that require the government to treat people with permanent visas who immigrated here during the mandate era as persons from the separate foreign state of Palestine. Country of origin and nationality are federally protected characteristics under US civil rights laws. Mr. Kletter discovered that the US still recognizes Palestinian nationality and origin after the fact as a matter of inter-temporal law.

          U.S. Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1101. “Definitions” still distinguishes between aliens who immigrated from mandates and those from outlying imperial possessions. It says that territories under mandate or UN trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states. But imperial possessions and outlying territories are not.

          All you’re proving is that you are completely clueless and out of your depth.

        • Hostage says:

          P.S. The Attorney General of Palestine, a Jewish expert on international law named Norman Bentwich, wrote a journal article at the time which explained that the coming into force of Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne on August 26, 1924 allowed the governments of the States of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq to issue Nationality Acts.

          According to Bentwich, the guiding principle adopted by the signatories was that Ottoman subjects habitually resident in the territories detached from Turkey by the treaty, became ipso facto nationals of the State to which the territory had been transferred. link to heinonline.org

        • Hostage says:

          FYI, The Justice Department has prosecuted several cases of Palestinian national origin employment discrimination since 9/11. e.g.
          * link to www1.eeoc.gov
          * link to eeoc.gov

          That and cases like Kletter illustrate beyond any doubt that the government does still recognize the State of Palestine and Palestinian nationality as a matter of inter-temporal law. Unlike recognition of governing regimes and the maintenance of diplomatic relations, recognition of statehood is irrevocable according to the terms of Article 6 of the Montevideo Convention. That’s a treaty the US State Department lists as an instrument that is still in force.

        • Cliff says:

          As opposed to the Israelis doing as they like because they have the power to do so?

          So if some military force drove out all the Jews, as the Jews did to the Palestinians – would you be fine with the logic of that?

          Why do you even comment here if your fundamental belief in ‘might makes right’ nullifies the philosophy of ‘rule of law’?

          Discussing this conflict with Zionists is like discussing ethics with rapists, murderers, and thieves.

        • talknic says:

          mondonut “Somehow or other Jerusalem is to be part of an Arab state based on that single off hand comment”

          UNSC res 1860 … are you allowed to read it?

          “The US does not recognize Palestine as a state now, nor does it “inter-temporally”. “

          The US is not the majority of the International Community. Numerous states exist without the recognition of a minority, including Israel.

        • Hostage says:

          Why do you even comment here if your fundamental belief in ‘might makes right’ nullifies the philosophy of ‘rule of law’?

          You’re dealing with a dummy who doesn’t even realize that the Covenant of the League of Nations happens to be contained in the first 26 Articles of the Treaty of Versailles. So he cluelessly writes: The entirety of your first paragraph is irrelevant. The Treaty of Versailles? Really?

          He doesn’t realize that Jerusalem was the capital city of a Mandated State created by Article 22 and 434 of the Treaty of Versailles or that the Covenant was that part of conventional international law that made Jerusalem part of a “sacred trust of civilization” called Palestine. This is another verbatim quote from the Treaty of Versailles:

          Article 22 To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

          Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

          In the 1990s the US government was still publishing the documentary history of its major policy decisions on the subject and explaining to the government of Israel that we really don’t care if the term Palestine enrages individual Israelis, because “in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty.”

        • mondonut says:

          Hostage says:

          Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

          That’s right, can be. But it never happened as the British made quite clear, repeatedly.

        • Hostage says:

          That’s right, can be. But it never happened as the British made quite clear, repeatedly.

          Wrong! The Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne both established terms for the “newly created states” to begin repaying their assessed portions of the Ottoman Public debt effective no later than March, 1920. Article 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne required that any disputes be settled by a court of arbitration appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.

          It’s a matter of public record that both Great Britain and France went to Court to have the amount of the assessments for their Mandated States adjudicated. It was decided by the Council that each of the Mandated States were responsible for a share of the costs of arbitrating the case. Great Britain and France argued that their mandate instruments had in fact resulted in the creation of more than one new state. The Judge said:

          “The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalent to those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from the other.” — See Volume I of the Reports of International Arbitral Awards (United Nations, 1948), “Affaire de la Dette publique ottomane. Bulgarie, Irak, Palestine, Transjordanie, Grèce, Italie et Turquie. Genève, 18 avril 1925″, pages 529-614

          That same year the Permanent International Court of Justice (PCIJ) ruled in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case that Palestine, not Great Britain, was the Allied successor State mentioned in the various protocols of the Treaty of Lausanne.

          So the State of Palestine was already in existence according to conventional international law and the decisions of two international courts on that specific point. Those determinations were final according to the explicit terms of the Statute for the PCIJ and Article 47 of the Treaty of Lausanne. Here is the relevant portion of the latter:

          Any disputes which may arise between the parties concerned as to the application of the principles laid down in the present Article shall be referred, not more than one month after the notification referred to in the first paragraph, to an arbitrator whom the Council of the League of Nations will be asked to appoint; this arbitrator shall give his decision within a period of not more than three months. The remuneration of the arbitrator shall be determined by the Council of the League of Nations, and shall, together with the other expenses of the arbitration, be borne by the parties concerned. The decisions of the arbitrator shall be final. The payment of the annuities shall not be suspended by the reference of any disputes to the above-mentioned arbitrator.

          link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

        • talknic says:

          @ mondonut “it never happened as the British made quite clear, repeatedly”

          Keen for another dip Tarzan? link to google.com You sure do like swinging from the flimsy olde rope

          Maybe you should choose another occupation, you’re a dismal failure as a propagandist and Zionist colonizers are notorious for turning their own when things don’t work out their way… link to guardian.co.uk

          You could always flip, wash all that poop off. With a clean break (‘scuse the pun) you could have a real piece of rope

    • ziusudra says:

      Pssst, Mondonut,
      Zionistan doesn’t respect international law &/or UN resolutions,
      so don’t quip about law when it suits Crudeville!
      ziusudra

    • eljay says:

      >> … there is nothing in international law that makes Jerusalem part of the State of Palestine.

      There’s nothing in international law that makes it part of the oppressive, colonialist, expansionst and supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel, either.

    • talknic says:

      @ mondonut “First of all, there is nothing in international law that makes Jerusalem part of the State of Palestine.”

      Very funny. Again you show readers how Israeli apologists will say anything no matter how stupid they make themselves look.

      UNSC resolutions are based in International Law. Just for once read UNSC res 476 link to unispal.un.org or even more recently (2009) UNSC res 1860 link to unispal.un.org Both reaffirm, emphasize and otherwise remind folk of binding law, the UN Charter and binding Conventions

      “Second, falling from a flimsy rope can be blamed on who provided the flimsy rope and the person who chose to hang from it”

      Israeli propaganda is the flimsiest of ropes. It hangs over the fetid pool of elephant poo flooding the room

      BTW thanks for again allowing the opportunity to post links showing other readers just how idiotic Israeli apologists are. Links they can use again and again and again informing ever more people. Well done Tarzan

      • mondonut says:

        talknic says:UNSC resolutions are based in International Law. Just for once read UNSC res 476
        ========================================
        I have read it. There is nothing in that resolution that makes Jerusalem Palestinian territory.

        • Hostage says:

          I have read it. There is nothing in that resolution that makes Jerusalem Palestinian territory.

          Sure it did. Even the US government was marking birth certificates and passports “Jerusalem, Palestine”. At the time, the US State Department explained to the government of Israel that in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and had not subsequently become part of any other sovereignty. FYI, Jerusalem’s international status had been retained in accordance with Article 28 of the Palestine Mandate and the powers of the UN General Assembly to make decisions and conclude agreements regarding territories subject to international trusts in accordance with Articles 18 and 85 of the UN Charter.
          link to avalon.law.yale.edu
          link to yale.edu
          link to yale.edu

          Here’s link to the representative of the Jewish Agency bitching about the fact that the UN “Plan for the Future Government of Palestine” had kept Western Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jewish State. It’s a matter of public record that the Jewish Agency found both the UNSCOP majority and minority reports unacceptable to the Jewish people and that it would only recommend adoption of either (by Vaad Leumi) subject to it being granted immediate control over immigration and to further discussions of the constitutional and territorial details of the UN plan. In short, the Jews rejected the UNSCOP majority plan and eventually attempted to alter it by military force and conquest. Yearbook of the United Nations for 1947-48

          In his 1986 article on “The International Status of Jerusalem”, the late Judge Antonio Cassese wrote that Robert Jennings (author of “The Acquisition of Territory in International Law”, Manchester University Press, 1963 and editor of several volumes of Oppenheim’s International Law, London, Longman) was recognized as the great authority on the acquisition of territory in international law.
          In “The Acquisition of Territory in International Law (1963)” Jennings had explained (see pages 54-57) that as a result of developments in customary international law and the adoption of the UN Charter “conquest as a title to territorial sovereignty had ceased to be a part of the law.” Jennings cited the Jewish Agency’s former legal advisor, Judge Hersh Lauterpacht’s, work on the International Law Commission (ILC). Lauterpacht had explained that, even when force is used against an aggressor, the fact of aggression itself is irrelevant in deciding the legal remedies. They do not include acquisition of title to territory through a treaty settlement imposed by or as the result of force or the threat of force.

          Jerusalem is a divided city under the terms of the armistice agreements that Israel negotiated as a provisional measure, pending an agreed upon final settlement. The terms of the agreements established permanent armistice lines of demarcation under the auspices of two chapter seven UN Security Council resolutions, 62 and 73. Those terms cannot be unilaterally altered without the consent of the other parties and the UN organization. The administration of Jerusalem and responsibility for development of future plans was placed under the exclusive competence of a joint Israeli-Jordanian Commission working through the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization.

        • talknic says:

          mondonut “I have read it. There is nothing in that resolution that makes Jerusalem Palestinian territory”

          In for another dip Tarzan? Bravo!

          1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; link to wp.me

          “falling from a flimsy rope can be blamed on who provided the flimsy rope and the person who chose to hang from it” PLOP!!!

    • just says:

      Hasbara 101 does not work here, mondonut.

      It’s not working in a lot of places anymore, thankfully. We can see the truth.

  3. Hostage says:

    I guess Alicia Keys’ message about music being a language that “is meant
    to unify audiences in peace and love” hasn’t yet reached into the vile hearts
    of the fascist occupiers. I hope she reads this piece- and finally understands
    that boycott was her only choice as a “universal language” to resist a force that
    extinguishes the light of truth and beauty whenever it can.

    Alicia Keyes wasn’t entertaining at an Israeli government event. How does bitching about her concert audience square with claims made by Judith Butler and Omar Barghouti speaking at Brooklyn College when it was claimed that:

    “BDS focuses on state agencies and corporations that build machinery designed to destroy homes, that build military materiel that targets populations, that profit from the occupation, that are situated illegally on Palestinian lands, to name a few,” she said. “BDS does not discriminate against individuals on the basis of their national citizenship. I concede that not all versions of BDS have been consistent on this point in the past, but the present policy confirms this principle.”

    Mr. Tolan’s report adds yet further support to the call for BDS. When one country suppresses another people—in this case, blocking them from playing music on what, by international law, is their own land—that country’s cultural institutions should not be patronized as a matter of elementary fairness. Simple reciprocity makes the boycott of Israel an unassailable matter of principle.

    Fair enough if you really only mean “the Israeli government” when you say “the country’s cultural institutions”. If not, then reverse discrimination against others on the basis of their nationality – regardless of the personal beliefs of those targeted – is simply wrong (if not illegal in some situations). That’s one of the things about the thinking regarding the cultural boycott that I’ve always found a little too vague. We’re not going to evoke any sympathy for the victims of bigotry, based upon national origin, by practicing intolerance ourselves and directing it towards others on the basis of their national origin. Reciprocity is not the answer to the problem of racism.

    • DissedStance says:

      I wasn’t “bitching about her concert audience”–I was responding to the
      answer she gave after the many eloquent pleas in writing and videos
      asking her to cancel her engagement in Israel. After reading this article about
      the occupation once again thwarting the aspirations of Palestinian
      life-in this case playing a concert in Jerusalem-I was struck that the Ramallah
      Orchestra cannot so easily express their universal language to bring people together as Ms. Keys can. And her message falls on deaf ears when it comes to the behemoth of Israeli apartheid.

      I have no authority on the matter other than as a fellow human being. My
      government is complicit and it breaks my heart when I read about
      the boy whose violin was broken by the soldiers, and the other one who was
      beaten unconscious because he was studying with an important music
      teacher, as well as all the rest of the vile and evil ways occupation operates.

      My comment was only about the symbolic meaning of Alicia Keys not
      respecting the call to boycott, and I used her as an example in the
      context of music and unifying people in peace in love. I obviously don’t know as much as you, Hostage, but my only intention is to express solidarity with the people of Palestine and their right to be free and to live in equality.

      • Hostage says:

        And her message falls on deaf ears when it comes to the behemoth of Israeli apartheid.

        It sounds like you are still advocating that we practice racism and target all of her ticket buyers on the basis of their nationality.

        It isn’t eloquent to simply assume that her audience is comprised of racists who ignored her message. Do you really think that the Zionists, who believe in racial apartheid and worry about blacks destroying the Jewish character of their State, are the very same people who bought all of the tickets and attended her concert?

        This is what people were inviting her to do:
        *Mos Def and J.Lo Sued for Cancellation of Concerts, Breach of Contract, and Performance Agreements link to fashionentlaw.com
        * Michael Jackson Concert Insurers File Lawsuit
        link to billboard.com
        * Taylor Swift Sued: Singer Hit With Lawsuit Over Canceled Canada Show
        link to huffingtonpost.com

        Promoters can take it very personally when an artist decides to break a contract for political reasons:

        Jennifer Lopez may be facing a $40 million dollar lawsuit after canceling a show at Cratos Premium hotel and casino in Cyprus.
        J.Lo withdrew from a scheduled concert after deciding it could have been construed as a political statement. She was scheduled to perform at an event that Greek Cypriots have said would further polarize the already divided country, the New York Times reports.
        The singer was scheduled to perform on the 36th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Some 20,000 people, including Greek-American groups, signed up for a Facebook page protesting the concert.
        Lopez subsequently withdrew from the gig. But the chief executive of the Turkish company which runs the hotel is now threatening to go to court to claiming $35 to $40 million in damages.
        It is reported that the hotel paid Lopez for the performance and if J.Lo fails to show, they will attempt to recoup the money. In addition, according to hotel execs, a cancellation was not covered in the contract J. Lo signed with the Cratos Premium hotel.
        So what is a breach of contract? Typically, a breach of contract is one party’s failure to live up to any of his or her responsibilities under a contract.
        A breach of contract can occur by:
        the failure to perform as promised;
        making it impossible for the other party to perform; or
        the repudiation of the contract (announcing an intent not to perform)
        When a breach of contract happens (or when a breach is alleged), one or both of the parties may wish to have the contract enforced on its terms, or may try to recover for any financial harm caused by the alleged breach.
        If a dispute over a contract arises and informal attempts at resolution fail, the most common method used to resolve contract disputes and enforce contracts is through lawsuits and the court system.
        The main remedies for a breach of contract include damages, specific performance, cancellation and restitution.

        link to blogs.findlaw.com

        • DissedStance says:

          Wow, Hostage- again, I wasn’t referring to her audience- only her response
          to the call to boycott- did you read Alice Walker’s letter?

          Like I stated above, you know more than me about many things,
          but I hoped that you could understand that I wrote that post in good faith. This is the last one I will make on the subject.

          I care so deeply about this, and the story about the orchestra moved me very much; I’m only trying to express that, however imperfectly. I realize this should not be about about MY feelings, so if you need the last word, you got it, Hostage. I’m just sorry you couldn’t acknowledge the spirit of
          my intent.

    • yrn says:

      Hostage
      been Naive is sometimes better then been stupid, There is no connection at all anymore between what you think the BDS should do, to the acts the Bullies in the name of the BDS execute everything they can to stop artist, that’s why the BDS lost all their credibility and the Palestinians lost more they the gained in all this rubbish.
      See how Alicia was pushed by everyone, did the celebrity hypocrite Roger Waters ever thought of the issue, that she dose not perform in front of “state agencies and corporations” but to the open public…… as he did the same 7 years ago and enjoyed the $$$$ he earned and insisted to push his force…… and lost.
      As usual, Israel Haters use the BDS , The only once that lose are the Palestinians.

      • Hostage says:

        that’s why the BDS lost all their credibility and the Palestinians lost more they the gained in all this rubbish.

        The BDS movement hasn’t lost all of its credibility. It has actually picked-up quite a few key endorsements from universities, scholars, labor unions, and major religious institutions whose members support boycotts, sanctions, divestment, or ending foreign assistance subsidies for government institutions and businesses that facilitate the illegal settlements, the occupation, and the system of apartheid. I personally support all of those strategies, including the cultural boycott of Israeli state-run institutions or any agents that act directly on the State’s behalf.

        If I didn’t care about and support the others here who are involved in the BDS movement, I’d just keep these critiques to myself. In this particular case, I think it’s obvious that Alicia Keyes is appearing in concert on her own behalf, and that the ticket holders don’t represent any specific government institution, agency, or business entity. It’s platitudinous under those conditions to say that we aren’t targeting her customers on the basis of their Israeli nationality. I don’t think we can fight fire with fire when it comes to bigotry, or that we win anything by pursuing this course of action, i.e. Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbors. That’s the sum total of the law, the rest is just commentary.

  4. Tom Suarez says:

    Regarding East Jerusalem [re mondonut]
    The Green Line—which of course was never meant to award Israel the land it seized beyond the Partition, but ended up doing so because Israel simply refused to budge—unequivocally placed East Jerusalem on the Palestinian side.

    Then Israel militarily seized it in 1967.

    Various UN Resolutions since then have reaffirmed that East Jerusalem is not in Israel and specifically restated that no amount of Israeli intringisence (facts on the ground, ethnic cleansing) will change that.

    • 1968: Res 252
    • 1969: Res 267
    • 1969: Res 271
    • 1971: Res 298
    • 1980: Res 465
    • 1980: Res 476
    • 1980: Res 478

    All these specifically reaffirm that [1] East Jerusalem is not in Israel; [2] Israel’s ethnic cleansing and ‘annexation’ of it do nothing to change this; [3] creating ‘facts on the ground’ can not be used in the future to claim a fait accompli.

  5. talknic says:

    Poor mondonut.

    Provides NOTHING in the way of evidence.

    Is provided with irrefutable factual evidence.

    Keeps banging that old mondo nut against the wall, ears and eyes covered in pathological denial.

    A true propagandist in every sense of the word.

    Thanks to the mondonuts, ample contrary and factual evidence is put at readers disposal. The irony is delicious :-)

  6. Citizen says:

    Thanks to the US, Israel is protected from international accountability originating in the ashes of WW2 and Nuremberg Trials, 1945. The irony is the US, by virtue of its UN SC veto in the pocket of AIPAC, immunizes Israel from the principles of international law initiated at Nuremberg in behalf the Jewish people and against aggressive war and lebensraum policy. The successive US regimes can’t seem to make up their mind about the legality of on-going Israeli settlements–Obama’s was the lone UN SC veto of the resolution calling them just that, illegal.
    link to en.wikipedia.org
    Thanks to the lone superpower US, Israel is totally unaccountable at the UN and thumbs its nose at the very international organization that gave it legitimacy in the first place:
    link to darkpolitricks.com