I’m a fan of both Macklemore and Ed Sheeran.

I’m a fan of their music first.

When it comes to their politics, their opinions and their world views, I don’t particularly care whether they choose to share them with me or not. I respect Macklemore’s choice to use his platform to speak about the treatment of the Palestinian people. Equally, I respect Ed Sheeran’s right not to.

Having a platform does not create an obligation to use it to comment on every political issue.

That seems to have become a strangely controversial idea.

The immediate backdrop is Macklemore’s removal from Ed Sheeran’s US tour after his pro-Palestinian comments onstage. The promoter said venues had threatened to cancel shows if he remained on the bill.

The right to speak — and the right not to

Macklemore has chosen to be incredibly vocal about Palestine. He has made his position clear, repeatedly, and he knows perfectly well that doing so will cost him some fans, opportunities and probably quite a lot of money.

That is his choice.

Ed Sheeran has largely chosen not to take the same public political stance.

That is his choice too.

Questioning Ed Sheeran’s explanation

Now, I’ll concede that I found Ed’s explanation for his silence rather weak. Particularly because he has previously been vocal in his support for the people of Ukraine. If your argument is essentially that you don’t involve yourself in geopolitical issues, people are inevitably going to point towards the geopolitical issue you did involve yourself in.

It’s a fair criticism.

But criticising the consistency of his explanation is very different from demanding that he publicly choose a side.

And I don’t think he should have to.

What walking away from a stadium tour really means

There’s also been criticism that Ed should have done more to defend Macklemore, including suggestions that he should have walked away from the tour himself.

Initially, that sounds reasonable.

Until you think about what “Ed Sheeran walking away” actually means.

Ed isn’t one of the support acts. He’s the headline artist. These are enormous productions involving venues, promoters, technicians, security, transport, catering, local staff, touring crews and countless other people whose livelihoods have absolutely nothing to do with Israel or Palestine.

Then there are the tens of thousands of fans who have bought tickets, booked hotels and arranged travel.

Walking away doesn’t just affect Ed Sheeran.

And whatever you think he should have done, I think it’s reasonable to acknowledge that the consequences of him cancelling a stadium tour are considerably larger than those facing a support act deciding to withdraw.

When political engagement becomes a purity test

There’s another problem with demanding that people like Ed publicly declare their position.

It’s a lose-lose situation.

If he vocalises support for Israel, some people supporting Palestine will boycott him.

If he vocalises support for Palestine, some supporters of Israel will condemn him, and inevitably some will accuse him of antisemitism.

If he says nothing, apparently that isn’t acceptable either.

At some point, we’ve stopped asking celebrities what they think and started demanding that they think the correct thing, say the correct thing, use the correct language and say it loudly enough to satisfy us.

That isn’t political engagement.

It’s a purity test.

Supporting Palestine is not inherently antisemitic

And nowhere is that more obvious than in the increasingly careless use of the word antisemitism.

I recently heard somebody on the news state, with absolute conviction, that saying “Free Palestine” means you want to eradicate Jewish people and is therefore antisemitic.

No.

It fucking isn’t.

Antisemitism exists. It is real, it is dangerous, and there are absolutely people who use criticism of Israel as a thin disguise for hatred of Jewish people.

Those people should be called out.

But opposing the actions of the Israeli state is not inherently antisemitic.

Supporting Palestinian freedom is not inherently antisemitic.

Condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians is not inherently antisemitic.

And saying “Free Palestine” does not automatically mean “I support Hamas”.

To pretend otherwise does a tremendous disservice to the fight against actual antisemitism.

Macklemore himself has made an important distinction here: speaking against the Israeli state is not speaking against Jewish people.

And it shouldn’t be difficult to understand why.

People are not their governments

Palestinians are not Hamas.

Jewish people are not the Israeli government.

These are distinctions we seem perfectly capable of making in almost every other context.

I can condemn Hamas for murdering Israeli civilians without blaming every Palestinian for what Hamas did.

Likewise, I can condemn the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government without holding Jewish people around the world responsible for them.

Innocent people do not inherit collective responsibility because of their nationality, ethnicity or religion.

And that works both ways.

Civilian suffering is not a justification

What Hamas did was horrific.

That does not mean Palestinian children deserved to die.

It does not mean entire neighbourhoods deserved to be reduced to rubble.

It does not mean civilians deserved displacement, hunger and the destruction of their homes.

And it does not make attacks on Palestinians or the seizure of Palestinian land by settlers morally acceptable simply because those committing them happen to be Israeli.

Likewise, nothing done by the Israeli government retroactively justifies Hamas murdering, kidnapping or terrorising Israeli civilians.

I don’t believe supporting innocent people requires me to support either Hamas or the Israeli government.

That isn’t sitting on the fence.

It’s recognising that civilians are human beings before they are Israelis or Palestinians.

Where our anger should be directed

Which brings me back to Ed Sheeran.

Boycott him if you want. Nobody is obligated to listen to his music.

Criticise his explanation. Question whether he could have defended Macklemore more forcefully. Discuss whether somebody with his enormous influence has a moral responsibility to speak when he sees injustice.

Those are all legitimate conversations.

But Ed Sheeran is not responsible for what is happening in Gaza.

He didn’t carry out the October 7 attacks.

He didn’t formulate the Israeli military response.

He doesn’t control Hamas.

He doesn’t control Netanyahu.

He doesn’t decide American, British or European foreign policy.

Somewhere along the way, though, a portion of the outrage surrounding one of the most horrific conflicts of our time has been redirected towards whether a bloke who wrote Shape of You has issued a sufficiently satisfactory political statement.

Perhaps our anger would be better directed towards the people who actually have power over what happens next.

Let him speak. Let him sing.

There is something deeply strange about turning enormous humanitarian tragedies into celebrity loyalty tests.

Macklemore wants to speak.

Good.

Let him speak.

Ed Sheeran doesn’t want to become a spokesman for either side.

Fine.

Let him sing.

I can respect Macklemore for using his platform without demanding Ed Sheeran use his in exactly the same way.

Because having millions of followers does not suddenly make somebody a diplomat, a foreign-policy expert or our elected representative.

Sometimes an artist is allowed to just be an artist.

And ultimately, this shouldn’t be about Macklemore or Ed Sheeran anyway.

It should be about the innocent Israeli people who never deserved what Hamas did to them.

It should be about the innocent Palestinian people who do not deserve to be punished for what Hamas did.

It should be about rejecting antisemitism without pretending every criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

It should be about supporting Palestinians without pretending Hamas represents them.

Macklemore has every right to speak.

Ed Sheeran has every right not to.

And neither man’s choice should distract us from the people who are actually suffering.