To jam, or not to jam: Why Carlos Santana’s reasons for ignoring israel boycott are dubious at best

Over 400 artists have signed on to an Israel boycott. So why won't the guitarist-activist follow suit?

David Palumbo-Liu

 

Topics: Carlos Santana, cultural boycott, Editor's Picks, Israel, Palestine, Working Ahead News, Social News, Entertainment News, Politics News

Carlos Santana (Credit: Reuters/Mario Anzuoni)

Ever since the cultural boycott of Israel came onto the scene in 2006, a growing number of artists, musicians and writers have joined the struggle.  Immediately after the initial call, some 94 artists led by renown UK critic and writer John Berger and including musicians and songwriters Brian Eno and Leon Rosselson; filmmakers Sophie Fiennes, Elia Suleiman and Haim Bresheeth; documentary maker Jenny Morgan; singer Reem Kelani; writers Arundhati Roy, Ahdaf Soueif, and Eduardo Galeano called on their colleagues not to visit, exhibit or perform in Israel. Berger added a personal note to the appeal:

The boycott is an active protest against two forms of exclusion which have persisted, despite many other forms of protestations, for over sixty years — for almost three generations. 
During this period the state of Israel has consistently excluded itself from any international obligation to heed UN resolutions or the judgment of any international court. To date, it has defied 246 Security Council Resolutions.

As a direct consequence seven million Palestinians have been excluded from the right to live as they wish on land internationally acknowledged to be theirs; and now increasingly, with every week that passes, they are being excluded from their right to any future at all as a nation. 

Here in the United States, Pulitzer Prize winners Alice Walker, Junot Diaz and Viet Thanh Nguyen, musicians Chuck D and Boots Riley, journalists Barbara Ehrenreich, Ben Ehrenreich, Naomi Klein and Dave Zirin and over 400 other artists, musicians and authors have endorsed the boycott, while Lauryn Hill and Pharrell Williams have cancelled their performances in Israel. Yet, as of this writing, one of the most famous and influential musicians in the US has refused to honor the boycott, despite his progressive stances on many social issues.

While of course any individual has the right and indeed the responsibility to act as they see fit, based on their convictions, two things make Carlos Santana’s resistance to the cultural boycott noteworthy.  To begin with, Santana started as a hero of the counterculture. Along with bands such as Sly and the Family Stone, Santana’s original crew was notable for its multi-racial composition and its equally eclectic fusion of different musical traditions.  In the late ’60s and well into the ’70s, many musicians were taking political stances in their music and in their actions — particularly with regard to the Vietnam War, student protests, black power and various liberatory causes. Music and political action were outward looking, explorative, synthetic, boundary-challenging and, in many cases, activist.  Marvin Gaye’s masterpiece, “What’s Going On,” was a call to consciousness and solidarity. Gaye noted: “In 1969 or 1970, I began to re-evaluate my whole concept of what I wanted my music to say … I was very much affected by letters my brother was sending me from Vietnam, as well as the social situation here at home. I realized that I had to put my own fantasies behind me if I wanted to write songs that would reach the souls of people. I wanted them to take a look at what was happening in the world.” 

Santana is no stranger to activism. He is the founder of the Milagro Foundation, whose fundamental belief is “that children everywhere deserve to live a life with full access to proper healthcare and education as well as opportunities to develop into creative human beings.” It would seem that now he has the opportunity to make a powerful statement for the rights of Palestinian children to just those things.

But while those urging him to honor the boycott have pointed out the numerous and egregious instances of Israel’s denial of healthcare and education to Palestinian children, in this case Santana seems yet another instance of someone being “progressive except for Palestine.” Apparently, he has a specific sense of what is incorporated in “everywhere,” and which children are indeed “deserving.”
On the landing page of the Foundation is a terse statement:

“Carlos Santana is a citizen of the World and he plays his music and spreads his message of Love, Light & Peace wherever he goes. Carlos believes the World should have no borders so he is not detoured [sic] or discouraged to play anywhere on this planet. He and the band are looking forward to performing in Israel this summer.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/23/to_jam_or_not_to_jam_why_carlos_santanas_reasons_for_ignoring_israel_boycott_are_dubious_at_best/?source=newsletter