Standing with Israel after three years of genocide means standing with evil

Siding with a rogue, terrorist, genocidal state is no different than standing with the worst criminal states of the last century that have inflicted inhumane crimes on an unimaginable scale.

By Fareed Khan
A version of this article is available on Substack.

In two weeks, the Western world will hold official ceremonies and issue solemn government statements to mark the third anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel — an event in which 1,200 Israelis were killed, including more than 300 Jews who were killed by the Israeli military under the controversial “Hannibal Directive.” As Western politicians prepare to centre their grief on those deaths while ignoring the genocide Israel launched in response, it is worth asking a simple, unavoidable question: What does it truly mean when someone says they “stand with Israel” or a government says they support Israel?

What it means is: I stand with shooting children, killing babies, raping women, demolishing homes, and bombing hospitals. It means supporting the torture of Palestinian detainees, the burning of families in tents, and the execution of unarmed civilians. It means endorsing leaders who openly orchestrate and advocate the genocide of Palestinians. It means supporting mass starvation, the use of illegal weapons, and the assassination of hundreds of journalists. It means ignoring state‑sponsored sexual violence and the total disregard for international law. It means defending crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.

This is what it means. It means supporting and defending the actions of a racist, apartheid, fascist, genocidal state that has violated international law with impunity for decades. And it means that those who “stand with Israel” and support it are choosing to stand with the sort of evil not seen since World War II — because there is no other word that can describe a state that commits genocide with impunity, and uses the same language when referring to Palestinians that the Nazis used when talking about Jews during the Holocaust.

For decades, Israel has violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Conventions, the Genocide Convention, the Vienna Conventions, and the UN Charter — not occasionally, not accidentally, but systematically, deliberately, and without apology. It has done so while killing tens of thousands of Palestinians since its creation, ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands more, and entrenching a regime of racist apartheid recognized by leading human rights organizations.

Since October 2023, Israel’s assault on Gaza has been described as genocide by dozens of respected international institutions, legal bodies, human rights organizations, and Jewish genocide and Holocaust scholars. This is not hyperbole but rather a legal determination grounded in evidence about mass murder, mass starvation, deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure, and explicit statements of genocidal intent by Israeli political, military and religious leaders.

Since the fall of 2023, a broad and authoritative consensus has emerged: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. This conclusion has been reached by the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry; the UN Special Committee; the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; Israeli human rights group B’Tselem; Physicians for Human Rights Israel; Doctors Without Borders; Oxfam; Save the Children; the International Federation of Human Rights; the International Association of Genocide Scholars; leading Israeli Holocaust scholars Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman, Raz Segal, and Shmuel Lederman; as well as the 30 nations supporting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Together, these bodies, experts, and states represent the most significant legal, humanitarian, and scholarly institutions in the world, and they have all reached the same devastating conclusion.

When someone says they “stand with Israel,” they are standing with all of this — with a state whose actions have been identified as genocidal by the world’s most respected human rights institutions and genocide scholars. They are standing with a system of violence that extends far beyond the battlefield and deep into the daily lives of Palestinians.

They are standing with settlers who burn Palestinian homes, destroy olive groves tended to for generations by Palestinian families, kill Palestinian livestock, and attack Palestinian villages with firearms — crimes documented extensively by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B’Tselem. They are standing with settlers who murdered 19‑year‑old Qusai Matan in 2023, who torched homes in Turmus Ayya, and who carried out pogroms in Huwara. And they are standing with a state that protects these settlers, arms them, and integrates them into its military operations — a state whose violence is not incidental, but systematic, sanctioned, and central to its occupation, domination and oppression of Palestinians.

They are standing with a government that has ignored every UN Security Council resolution demanding an end to settlement expansion, every ruling of the International Court of Justice, every obligation under the Geneva Conventions, and every principle of international humanitarian law. They are standing with a state that has situated more than 750,000 illegal Jewish settlers into the West Bank, many of whom terrorize Palestinians with impunity.

They are standing with a state that has bombed hospitals, schools, refugee camps, UN shelters, ambulances, journalists, and aid workers — all documented by international monitors. They are standing with a state that has deliberately starved more than two million people in Gaza, blocked humanitarian aid, and used starvation as a weapon of war — a war crime under international law. They are standing with a state whose leaders have repeatedly declared their intent to destroy Gaza, “erase” entire neighborhoods, and “eliminate” the Palestinian people — statements that meet the legal definition of genocidal intent.

And they are standing with Western governments whose performative condemnations — like the August 20, 2026 joint statement by Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom — are nothing more than public relations exercises designed to create the illusion of moral concern while ensuring that nothing changes.

These governments have armed Israel, funded Israel, protected Israel diplomatically, and shielded Israel from accountability for decades. They have watched Israel violate every major international legal instrument meant to keep the peace and protect human rights, and responded with statements of “grave concern” instead of sanctions, arms embargoes, or diplomatic isolation. Their complicity has enabled Israel’s crimes, and continues to do so.

The hypocrisy of these and other Western governments is staggering. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Western governments unleashed sweeping sanctions, froze assets, expelled diplomats, mobilized international institutions, and poured military aid into Ukraine within days. But when Israel commits genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and apartheid, those same governments retreat into the familiar language of “concern” while continuing business as usual.

This selective application of international law exposes the racial and geopolitical biases at the core of the so‑called “rules‑based order.” It reveals that Western governments do not oppose genocide as a principle — they oppose genocide only when committed by their enemies. When committed by their allies, they tolerate it, excuse it, and enable it. 

So yes — standing with Israel means standing with evil. And as Western governments prepare their anniversary speeches, their candlelight vigils, their choreographed displays of solidarity with Israeli victims, they will once again erase the more than 80,000 of thousands of Palestinians killed since October 2023. They will mourn 1,200 Israelis while refusing to acknowledge that Israel has killed more than fifty times that number of Palestinians, many of them children, and that hundreds of Israelis died not at the hands of Hamas but under Israel’s own Hannibal Directive. Standing with Israel today means choosing to sanctify one group’s suffering while denying another group’s humanity. It means choosing to defend atrocity rather than defend life.

The world cannot survive if genocide is tolerated — and yet Western governments are preparing to commemorate October 7th while continuing to arm, fund, and politically shield the state committing that genocide. Their ceremonies and statements will not be expressions of moral clarity, they will be monuments to moral collapse. If Western leaders refuse to confront Israel with real coercive force — sanctions, arms embargoes, diplomatic isolation, and, if necessary, military intervention — then their anniversary statements will not be remembrance. They will be complicity no different than that which has been happening since October 2023.

Standing with Israel, especially in this moment, is not a moral position. It is the abandonment of morality and humanity itself.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Ed Sheeran had options to removing Macklemore from his tour, instead he chose cowardice

Had Sheeran refused to censor Macklemore, any venue that retaliated and didn’t fulfill contractual obligations with his tour would have exposed itself to severe legal liability.

 
By Fareed Khan
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

The controversy surrounding Ed Sheeran’s decision to drop Macklemore from his tour under pressure from Robert Kraft and other stadium owners is not just a story about celebrity conflict. It is a story about moral failure, legal cowardice, and the ease with which powerful artists can abandon their principles when confronted by billionaire influence. Entertainment attorneys have now weighed in, and their analysis makes one thing clear: Sheeran had options — legally, ethically, and artistically. He simply chose not to use them.

 

The public narrative has largely framed Sheeran as a passive participant swept up in a political storm. But this framing is false. Sheeran was not powerless. He was not cornered. He was not forced into submission. He had contractual rights, legal leverage, and a global fan base that would have backed him had he chosen to stand with Macklemore. Instead, he capitulated — and in doing so, he betrayed a friend, undermined artistic freedom, and aligned himself with political forces that demanded silence in the face of genocide.

The legal power Sheeran refused to use

Concert agreements between artists and venues are binding contracts. They are not suggestions, nor are they easily discarded when a stadium owner dislikes an artist’s political stance. If a venue unilaterally cancels a performance without a valid contractual justification, the artist is entitled to damages. Entertainment lawyers have made clear that Sheeran could have refused the demand to drop Macklemore and forced the stadium owners to either honour their contracts or cancel the shows — and if they had cancelled, Sheeran would have had the right to sue for breach of contract.

This is not theoretical. It is grounded in established entertainment law. Venue cancellation liability is well documented, and artists routinely pursue damages when venues break agreements for political or reputational reasons.

Sheeran’s legal leverage didn’t end with breach‑of‑contract claims. Entertainment attorneys have commented that he also had grounds to pursue tortious interference — a doctrine that applies when a third party deliberately disrupts an existing business relationship or contract. In this case, the situation is straightforward. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and other stadium executives allegedly used pressure, threats, and coercion to push Sheeran into breaking his professional relationship with Macklemore. By demanding that Sheeran sever ties with his touring partner these stadium owners inserted themselves directly into the business arrangement between the two artists, creating precisely the kind of interference the law is designed to address.

Tortious interference claims are common in the entertainment industry, where reputational pressure is often weaponized to manipulate business relationships. In this instance Sheeran had a powerful legal pathway available to him. So either he received bad advice or he simply chose not to do the right thing.

The political machinery behind the pressure

The pressure campaign against Macklemore did not materialize out of thin air. It was the predictable result of a deeply entrenched anti-Palestinian political ecosystem — one dominated by billionaire stadium owners whose financial interests, ideological commitments, and personal networks intersect with the most hard-line elements of American and Israeli politics. Many of these owners have longstanding relationships with Donald Trump and influential Zionist supporters in his inner circle, individuals who have spent years shaping US political discourse around Israel and aggressively policing public criticism of its actions. Robert Kraft is not merely the owner of the New England Patriots and the stadium where they play, he is a major political actor with a long record of supporting Israeli policies, funding pro‑Israel initiatives, and cultivating ties with political figures who treat any support for Palestine as a threat to be neutralized. In this context, the demand to remove Macklemore was never a neutral business decision, it was a political act — a deliberate attempt to silence an artist who dared to speak openly about Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the decades‑long brutal oppression of Palestinians.

One can hardly say that Sheeran is naive with little understanding about how politics plays out in the entertainment industry. He understood exactly what was happening. He knew the pressure was political, not artistic. He knew that Macklemore was being targeted because he refused to align himself with pro-Zionist narratives around Israel and the Gaza genocide. And yet Sheeran still complied with the demands of stadium owners.

What makes Sheeran’s capitulation even more baffling is that standing firm would have strengthened his legal position, not weakened it. Had Sheeran refused to censor his friend, any stadium or venue that retaliated by refusing to fulfill contractual obligations with his tour would have exposed itself to additional legal claims — including breach‑of‑contract damages and potential tortious‑interference liability. In other words, the law was not only on Sheeran’s side in the present moment, it would have remained on his side in every future instance where a venue attempted to punish him for defending artistic freedom. He had political cover, legal leverage, and moral clarity available to him. He simply chose not to use any of it.

Sheeran’s empty words and hypocrisy

When Sheeran finally addressed the controversy on social media this past Tuesday, his statement was a masterclass in evasion and hypocrisy. He stated that he doesn’t use his professional platform for politics, a line that was meant to portray himself as neutral, apolitical, and above the fray. But this claim collapses under the weight of his own record.

Sheeran did get involved in politics when the victims were white and predominantly Christian in Ukraine. He publicly condemned Russia’s invasion of that country, expressed solidarity with Ukrainians, and used his platform to raise awareness about their suffering. He did not hide behind neutrality then. He did not claim that he doesn’t get involved in politics. He took a side.

But when the victims are brown, Palestinian, and largely Muslim — when the suffering is inflicted by a state allied with Western power — Sheeran suddenly retreats into the safety of apolitical posturing. He suddenly claims neutrality. He suddenly insists that he cannot take sides.

This is not neutrality, it is unmitigated hypocrisy.

His refusal to acknowledge the Gaza genocide — even as he took sides in Ukraine — reveals a pattern that is impossible to ignore. Sheeran seems willing to speak out when the victims fit a Western cultural narrative of innocence, but when the victims are Palestinian, when the oppressor is Israel, when the political cost is higher, he hides behind the crutch of “not getting involved.”

His social media response was not a principled stand. It was a calculated dodge. It was empty words designed to deflect criticism while avoiding moral responsibility. And fans saw through it immediately. The backlash has been intense with the remaining supporting acts and the back up band on his tour quitting over the removal of Macklemore. Supporting acts Aaron Rowe, Lukas Graham, Beoga and Finneas announced that they were withdrawing from Sheeran’s tour to stand in solidarity with Macklemore and with Palestinians — meaning the tour now has no openers or back up band.

The moral failure

Instead of defending artistic freedom, Sheeran chose to silence someone he called a friend who was speaking out against genocide. Macklemore’s statements were not fringe and this was not the first time he had used his performances to speak about Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. They reflected the views of many of his own fans and millions of people around the world who have watched, in horror, as Israel has slaughtered Palestinians in Gaza for three years, and the decades‑long brutal oppression by the Israeli state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Macklemore used his platform to call attention to this suffering. Sheeran chose to use his platform to distance himself from that call.

Artists have long been at the forefront of moral resistance — from musicians protesting the Vietnam War in the 1960s to anti‑apartheid performers in the 1980s. Sheeran had the chance to join that lineage by standing with his friend, with many of his fans, and with the oppressed. He had the chance to be remembered as someone who refused to bow to billionaire pressure. Instead, he will be remembered as someone who chose to be complicit with those supporting Israeli atrocities.

The irony is that Sheeran’s fan base — particularly the younger demographic — overwhelmingly supports Palestinian rights and opposes genocide, as was demonstrated by the reactions of fans at the shows where Macklemore made his anti-Israel comments. Had Sheeran stood with Macklemore, he would have been celebrated and seen as a hero. He would have earned goodwill that no marketing campaign could buy. And yes, he would have made money — because fans reward courage.

Instead, he alienated many of those fans. He showed them that when confronted with a moral test, he chose comfort over conscience, billionaire approval over artistic integrity, and apathy over solidarity.

The price of cowardice

Sheeran is not alone in this moral collapse. Pink slammed Macklemore’s on stage anti-genocide advocacy on social media, aligning herself with the same forces that demanded silence. She, along with Sheeran, will pay a price for this. Their reputations have already taken a hit, Sheeran’s tour has imploded, and the backlash will not fade quickly. Fans do not forget when artists betray their own stated values.

They now join a growing list of entertainers without a moral compass who have chosen to defend or excuse Israel’s atrocities in Gaza and have called those protesting the Gaza genocide “antisemitic” — a list that includes actors Debra Messing, Gal Gadot, Jerry Seinfeld, Mayim Bialik, Michael Douglas, and others. These are artists who have used their platforms not to challenge the brutality of power but to reinforce it. They have aligned themselves with state violence rather than human rights, and are reminiscent of those entertainers and artists in 1930s Germany who aligned themselves with the Nazi regime.

Had Sheeran chosen differently, the story today would be radically different. He would be celebrated for standing with Macklemore. He would be praised for defending artistic freedom and admired for refusing to bow to political pressure. He would have strengthened his bond with fans who care deeply about justice, and he would have had strong legal claims that would have protected him financially.

He had every incentive — moral, legal, artistic, and economic — to do the right thing. He simply chose not to.

Ed Sheeran’s decision was a choice where he betrayed a friend, abandoned a righteous and moral cause, and sided with billionaire power brokers who demanded that those who oppose Israel’s genocide be silenced.

He had options. He had leverage. He had the law on his side. He just didn’t have the courage, and he now sees the result of that cowardice.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.