Celebrities are generally quiet on the subject of Israel and Palestine. The reason is not difficult to infer.
It is popular for people in entertainment to join and/or support various causes. The weight of their image can be effective in shedding light on an issue or promoting the work of a given organization.
While some maintain that "actors should stick to acting" and so on, I think it needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. If the cause is worthwhile, the celebrity spokesperson informed, and the combined forces stand to alleviate human suffering, animal cruelty, or raise environmental awareness - all by a factor greater than zero - then there hardly seems to be a problem. Criticisms of entertainers' motives and expectations of altruism are irrational and can safely be ignored.
However, the question of motive does contain an added dimension. Normally the criticism of a celebrity's motives has to do with selection. Celebrity A decides to represent cause B. The motive might very well be superficial and merely an attempt to present him or herself in a humanitarian light. Again, if it helps, so be it. But are there also motives in turning a blind eye to certain issues?
There seems to be a cost-benefit evaluation in how an entertainer (I mainly have Anglo-Americans in mind) selects a cause. While promoting animal rights, the environment, and freedom for Tibet are all worthy endeavors, they come at a personal expense of zero. This is not to suggest that doing principled work has to come at a cost. Yet the pattern is noteworthy. When we speak in support of Tibetan freedom, for example, the corollary is a denouncement of the Chinese government - hardly controversial. When condemning China, one is in safe territory; one need only have his or her facts mostly in order.
Speaking out about the situation in the Palestinian territories is different. It involves finding fault with Israeli state policy. Israel is a US client. Israel is Jewish. The Palestinians are Arabs. American foreign policy comes into play. The subject quickly turns uncomfortable; it's too touchy and too close to home. All of a sudden, talking about Darfur (also a worthy endeavor) seems a far more attractive option.
There have been a meager few celebrities and entertainers who, especially in light of the violence visited upon the Gaza Strip in recent years, have had the courage to speak up on Israel-Palestine. People such as singer Annie Lennox, producer Brian Eno, actors Viggo Mortensen and Danny Glover, street artist Banksy, and activist Bianca Jagger have risen to the occasion. Former Pink Floyd singer Roger Waters has also lent his voice, and published a good article in yesterday's Guardian:
Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza needs all possible light cast upon it. Palestine, Israel, and the United States all stand to benefit - a fact frequently out of mind. Hopefully more entertainers and personalities will follow the few examples mentioned above. The more who do so, the easier it will get.
