The Zine UK

Ed, the numbers speak for themselves. A child was killed every day during the ceasefire. Even then, children kept dying. And yet you say both sides are equally suffering?

Over 73,000 Palestinians have been killed, including more than 21,500 children. 58,800 children have been orphaned. 223,000 tons of explosives have been dropped on an area smaller than Greater London. Since the October 2025 ceasefire, at least 300 Palestinian children have died, about one child every day during a time meant for restraint and protection.

Ed Sheeran says the suffering on "both sides" is a "human tragedy."

Both sides?

One side has F-35 jets, the Iron Dome, support from the world's most powerful military, and a billionaire stadium owner, Robert Kraft, who pressured venues to drop Macklemore. The other side has no hospitals, no clean water for 1.1 million children, no homes left, and a death toll of children higher than the population of some British towns.

You can't call that "both sides." It isn't.

What "One Side" Actually Means

"Both sides" is a lie because one side is committing genocide. But let's be precise about what that means, because the term gets thrown around and the specifics matter.

Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's Finance Minister, said: "It is justified and necessary to starve two million people." He said this on the record about Gaza.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, then the National Security Minister, said: "Jews are above the law in the West Bank" as he handed out firearms to settlers. He called for the "voluntary migration" of Palestinians from Gaza, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

Yoav Gallant, then Defence Minister, said: "We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly." Two days after the Hamas attacks, he announced a "complete siege" - no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel.

These are not fringe opinions. These are cabinet ministers. This is the official position of the government.

This isn't just a tragedy on both sides. It's a deliberate plan. Yet Ed Sheeran still calls it "both sides."

The Bands That Had Balls

Before talking about those who stayed silent, let's remember how things used to be.

The Clash didn't do "both sides." Joe Strummer wrote "White Riot" about the Notting Hill Carnival and police violence. On 30th April 1978, he played the Carnival Against the Nazis in Victoria Park, a free concert organised by Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League. 100,000 people marched six miles from Trafalgar Square through the East End of London, through National Front territory, to hear The Clash, Steel Pulse, X-Ray Spex, and the Tom Robinson Band. That wasn't just a song. It was a movement with a stage, a crowd, and a purpose beyond the music itself.

Manic Street Preachers wrote "If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next" about Welsh volunteers who went to fight Franco's fascists in the Spanish Civil War. The lyric comes from a Welsh farmer who was asked why he was leaving Wales to fight in Spain. He said: "Well, if I can shoot rabbits, then I can shoot fascists." The English Defence League later used the song in a rally video. The band was "appalled" and had it taken down immediately. The EDL clearly didn't know the song was anti-fascist.

Rage Against the Machine released "Killing in the Name" in 1992. It's about police brutality and the KKK's infiltration of law enforcement. In 2009, a fan campaign pushed it to Christmas number one in the UK, beating the X Factor winner, purely to protest the manufactured pop machine. Tom Morello has spent thirty years being told he should stick to music. He's still playing the same song.

Macklemore: Who Actually Did Something

Macklemore didn't just say "Free Palestine." He turned a stadium concert into a political act.

At MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, in front of ninety thousand people, he dedicated Hind's Hall to the people of Gaza and the West Bank. He displayed images of the slaughter on the screens behind him. He looked directly at the Jewish audience and said: "Criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, being against genocide, is in no way a criticism of you."

Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots and the stadium, and a major donor to Israeli causes, rallied other stadium owners and issued Sheeran an ultimatum: if Macklemore stays on the tour, you will not be allowed to play in our venues.

Macklemore was gone.

His response was the opposite of Sheeran's. He didn't hide behind promoters. He didn't say "both sides." He said: "If those words were more offensive than the tens of thousands of Palestinian children killed by Israel, then there was a fundamental disconnect between where those people stood and where I stood."

He said: "There is no neutral stance between oppressor and oppressed. When one side has bombs and unconditional US military support, refusing to choose sides doesn't put you outside the conflict."

He put his money where his mouth was. He donated the entire $1 million he earned from the tour to six organisations supporting Palestinians: the Palestine Children's Relief Fund, HEAL Palestine, Gaza Soup Kitchen, Medical Aid for Palestinians, UNRWA USA, and Anera. He challenged Robert Kraft to match it. "Whatever we disagree about, perhaps we can agree on this: Palestinian lives are worth protecting."

He lost his tour slot. He gained 750,000 Instagram followers in the 24 hours after his removal, then another 850,000, bringing him past 8.4 million. Sheeran lost over 200,000.

That's the standard. That's what it looks like when an artist truly believes something.

There's another detail that shows how unfair the system is: fans who bought tickets just to see Macklemore are being told "all sales are final" and won't get refunds. They paid to see an artist who was removed for saying "Free Palestine," and the same system that removed him is keeping their money.

Ed Sheeran: Safe Politics in a Nice Jumper

The man who headlined Glastonbury, played a charity concert for Ukraine in 2022, signed anti-Brexit letters, and once said he loved Jeremy Corbyn — that man has discovered the art of saying things that sound like something without threatening anything.

Macklemore was the warm-up act. Then he said, "Free Palestine" and was dropped. Sheeran's response?

"Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter's decision; it was not mine. Macklemore's contract for the tour was with the promoter, not me."
"I choose to use my fame and platform to be a place of safety and sanctuary."
"The suffering and pain caused on both sides is a human tragedy."

Both. Sides.

He could have stopped it. He has more power than anyone else on that tour but chose not to use it. The "safe space" argument sounds caring, but it's just avoiding responsibility. A stadium show is already political: ninety thousand people together, ticket prices deciding who can attend. Calling it "apolitical" is like saying a river is dry when the water is still there; you're just ignoring it.

And then there's the Ukraine thing. In 2022, he collaborated with the Ukrainian band Antytila on a charity version of "2step," with royalties benefiting humanitarian aid. He didn't have a problem with that. Presumably, the difference is that Ukraine is safe. Palestine is not.

His entire backing band quit. Finneas walked. Lukas Graham walked. Aaron Rowe walked. His Irish backing band Beoga walked, saying: "We are Irish people who understand colonialism... to play in venues that silence anyone advocating for a Free Palestine is simply not an option for us."

Sheeran's tour continues without opening acts. Ticket prices have dropped. The shows are still happening. He calculated that silence and safety would cost him less than solidarity.

He was mostly right, which is the problem.

Pink: Fear Is Not a Free Pass

Pink's situation requires more care than Sheeran's, but it doesn't require a pass.

Her fear is real. The antisemitism she's reacting to isn't imaginary. The Community Security Trust recorded 1,926 antisemitic incidents in the UK in the first half of 2026 alone, a 21% increase from the same period last year. Four volunteer ambulances were set on fire in Golders Green. Two visibly Jewish men were stabbed nearby in an attack treated as terrorism.

And none of it justifies her actions.

She reposted a message calling for Macklemore's removal in the middle of a campaign by the Israeli American Council and Robert Kraft to get him kicked off the tour. Her fear was weaponised by people who don't give a shit about Jewish safety. They care about protecting Israel from criticism. And Pink has handed them the ammunition.

She says she never asked for Macklemore to be silenced. Maybe true. But there's a difference between saying "this scared me" and saying "this scared me, therefore the person who said it should be removed from the tour." One is a feeling. The other is an action. And that action got Macklemore dropped.

Her fear deserved space. Their corpses apparently didn't.

Pink framed her entire statement around her own right to be heard. She wrote: "A repost isn't a statement, and a meme isn't a spine." Fair enough. But then she used that spine to say nothing about the 21,500 dead children. Not one word. She mentions "innocent life" and "children" in the abstract. She says she's "grieved every one of them, on both sides of that fence." But she never names the numbers. Never says "21,500." Never says "300." Never says "Gaza."

And there's a deeper inconsistency. Pink has spent her career as a rebel. She built a brand on not giving a fuck, on telling the establishment to shove it. She told the PM to fuck off. She was banned from China over a cake. She's sold 60 million albums as the person who doesn't back down.

But her rebellion had a ceiling. And that ceiling is where the bodies are.

When it actually mattered, when speaking risked backlash from pro-Israel pressure groups, Pink chose the safe option. She chose to amplify voices calling for silence. She chose to frame the conversation around her own discomfort rather than the slaughter of children.

Her fear may be real, but it is not an excuse. She could have said: "I'm scared, and I'm also horrified by what's happening in Gaza. Both things are true." She didn't. She chose her fear over their lives.

That's not a position of both sides. That's a choice.

Taylor Swift: The Silence That Screams

Taylor Swift has over 200 million followers. She could post a single Instagram Story about Gaza, and it would reach more people than the entire population of most countries. She could sign the Artists4Ceasefire letter. She could cut ties with Capital One, her tour sponsor, which loaned $500,000 to Elbit Systems, Israel's largest weapons manufacturer, which produces 85% of the drones and land-based equipment used by the Israeli army.

She has done none of it.

Her fans, in fairness, have organised. They launched #SwiftiesForPalestine. They wrote an open letter telling their idol: "Your influence transcends borders, and your words have the power to reach and activate a broad audience, including people who are unaware of the severity of the genocide."

She gave them nothing.

Not a statement. Not a sign. Not a whisper.

Swift has spent her career telling us she stands for something. Now we're finding out what that something is.

She built her brand on gender equality. "The Man" is a song about patriarchy. Her sexual assault trial was a feminist moment. But when women and children are being killed in Gaza, where a genocide is disproportionately killing them, her feminism goes silent.

This is white feminism, a feminism that fights for white Western women but doesn't extend to racial, colonial, or international struggles. Swift's solidarity is selective. It operates within the bounds of what's safe, what's profitable, and what won't alienate her fanbase. She'll sing about being "The Man." She won't sing about the women of Gaza.

Because silence is safe. Silence doesn't cost you Capital One. It doesn't lose you stadium bookings. It doesn't make Robert Kraft call your promoter. Silence is the most profitable political position in pop music, and Taylor Swift has mastered it. Her feminism was always a brand. When it mattered, it folded.

Kneecap: What It Actually Costs

Kneecap are divisive for many reasons. I understand that – but for the sake of this argument, let's stick to the facts:

Kneecap said "Free Palestine" at Coachella. They displayed messages on screen: "Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people" and "It is being enabled by the US government, which arms and funds Israel despite their war crimes."

The consequences:

Their US booking agency dropped them, automatically invalidating their work visas
Their 15-date US tour was cancelled
Mo Chara was charged with a terrorism offence in the UK over displaying a flag at a concert
The BBC refused to livestream their Glastonbury set
Keir Starmer personally said it would be "inappropriate" for them to perform

They played Glastonbury anyway.

They led a packed crowd waving Irish and Palestinian flags in chants of "Free Palestine." Then they announced their album Fenian:

"They tried to stop us by branding Kneecap 'terrorists', with cancellations, with statements from the Prime Minister himself. We had all the motivation we needed… this isn't a swift reaction, but a considered response to those that tried to silence us. And failed."

They named the album after the slur used to silence them.

That's not defiance. That's a fuck-you with a tracklist.

Jonny Greenwood, Boy George, and the Art of Hiding

Two more examples of how artists hide when they don't want to choose.

Jonny Greenwood played in Tel Aviv with Israeli musician Dudu Tassa. His UK shows were cancelled after BDS pressure. His response? "To me, cancelling music is the same as removing books from the shelves." But Tassa has repeatedly performed for Israeli military forces and acts as what BDS calls a "cultural ambassador for apartheid Israel." This isn't art. This is normalisation. Greenwood hides behind "art." Sheeran hides behind "safety." It's the same move.

Boy George released a pro-Israel song titled "We Will Dance Again," named after the Nova festival slogan. The lyrics: "You say genocide, I say war / When you're attacked, that's what the army's for." He rejected the Eurovision boycott. He said: "If you're ever confused: I stand with the Jews." At least he's honest about his choice. He didn't say "both sides." He said, "genocide is war." That's worse, but it's honest.

What the Alternative Actually Looks Like

While stadium artists worry about their image, there's a whole group of musicians who never had that luxury. They weren't big enough for the industry to notice, so they simply acted on their beliefs.

Craic Killers are a South East London Irish punk revelation. Their merch table features fundraiser balaclavas. Their shows double as leafleting operations for Palestinian friends. Their money goes to The Sameer Project. Recording, artwork, and promotion are all done themselves, on laptops, in bedrooms, after work.

They're not a headline. They're not a campaign. They're just people who decided silence wasn't an option. There are hundreds of bands like them across the UK and Ireland, playing in community halls, printing their own T-shirts, and donating what little they make. You won't find them on a stadium tour. You'll find them in a pub in Peckham, playing to twenty people, with a collection bucket by the door.

Perhaps that's not a movement yet. But it's where movements start.

No Music for Genocide: The Infrastructure of Withdrawal

This is what the alternative looks like at the industry level. Not a stadium speech. Not a repost. A withdrawal of labour.

Over 400 artists and labels have removed their music from Israeli streaming platforms as part of the No Music for Genocide campaign. Signatories include Massive Attack, Fontaines D.C., Kneecap, The Mary Wallopers, Amyl and The Sniffers, Black Country New Road, Björk, and hundreds more.

Massive Attack said: "In 2025, the same now applies to the genocidal state of Israel. As of today, there's a musician's equivalent to the recently announced Film Workers for Palestine campaign."

It's not asking for a statement. It's asking artists to remove themselves from the marketplace that profits from genocide. It costs money and disrupts markets. It's the cultural equivalent of a strike.

Macklemore said the words. Kneecap paid the price. 400 artists pulled their catalogues. Craic Killers put their soul in balaclavas on the merch table.

That's what solidarity looks like when it costs something. Sheeran and Pink are still deciding whether the cost is worth it.

The Eurovision Boycott

Over 1,100 artists signed a petition calling for Israel's exclusion from Eurovision 2026. Signatories included Peter Gabriel, Björk, Brian Eno, Massive Attack, Mogwai, and Macklemore. Official broadcasters in Ireland, Spain, Iceland, Slovenia, and the Netherlands withdrew entirely.

Ireland's RTÉ aired an episode of Father Ted instead of the final. Spain aired its own musical special. Danish winner Emmelie de Forest returned her prize. Swiss band Nemo announced they'd return their trophy in protest.

But was it a success?

The 2026 final drew 131 million viewers, down 35 million from 2025, but still higher than any edition between 2009 and 2023. Israel finished second in the public vote.

The boycott hurt. It didn't cripple. It didn't stop Israel from nearly winning.

That's not a reason to stop. It's proof of how much more there is to do. The machine is designed to absorb resistance. It metabolises protest and continues. The machine is stronger than a boycott. It's not stronger than a movement.

The Double Standard Proves Everything

Raymond James Stadium in Tampa hosted two Kanye West shows in June 2026. After his swastikas. After "Heil Hitler." After his well-documented history of virulent antisemitism. That's the same stadium system that pressured Sheeran into dropping Macklemore.

Kraft said that Gillette Stadium "does not provide a platform for hate speech." Kanye performed in Tampa.

The double standard isn't subtle.

If the venues cared about antisemitism, Kanye wouldn't have a stage. He did. Macklemore didn't. This was never about protecting Jewish people. It was about protecting Israel from criticism.

Kanye wore a swastika. Macklemore wore a keffiyeh. One is hate speech. The other is a scarf. The venues got it backward. They knew they had it backward. They did it anyway.

The Political Context: Sheeran and Pink Are Lagging Behind the Bare Minimum

Sheeran and Pink aren't operating in a vacuum. The political establishment, the one they claim to avoid, is slowly and reluctantly beginning to say what they won't.

In July 2026, ten Western countries, including the UK, imposed travel bans and asset freezes on Israeli ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir for their "overt support for genocide."

In the same month, Andy Burnham admitted that Britain's response to Gaza had "not been good enough" and was "too slow."

More than 300 Foreign Office staff signed a letter stating that the government was "abetting Israeli breaches of international law." Their bosses told them to "quit if you don't like it."

And none of this is enough.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign called the sanctions "long-overdue" but "completely inadequate." The UK continues to sell arms and still hasn't recognised genocide.

But even this - complicit, slow, inadequate - is more than Sheeran and Pink can handle. If the Foreign Secretary can sanction Israeli ministers, if the Prime Minister can say the UK was "too slow," and if 300 civil servants can risk their careers to say what Sheeran won't say in a stadium, then a multi-millionaire singer saying "both sides" isn't diplomacy.

It's cowardice dressed up as caution.

What a Good Statement Would Look Like

Sheeran is a coward, Pink is compromised, and Swift is silent. But what should they have done?

It's not complicated.

"Macklemore has been removed from my tour for saying 'Free Palestine.' I disagree with that decision. I believe Palestinians deserve freedom, and I believe saying so is not antisemitic. I'm donating to the same causes that Macklemore donated to. I'm asking my fans to do the same."

That's it. Three sentences. No equivocation. No "both sides." No hiding behind promoters, fear, or brand management.

That's what it would have looked like. It's not controversial. It's simply courage.

The Fans: The Human Cost of "Both Sides"

The BBC spoke to concertgoers caught in the middle. The controversy has "plunged the tour into crisis and left concertgoers caught in the fraught Israel-Gaza debate."

These are people who paid for tickets to see Ed Sheeran. They didn't ask to be part of a geopolitical crisis. And now they're being forced to think about a genocide because the artist they paid to see won't.

But the fans aren't the problem.

SwiftiesForPalestine existed before the Macklemore controversy. The open letter was written before then. The protests at Eras Tour shows were happening before then. The fans organised. They launched the campaign. They wrote the letter. They showed up with flags. They did everything fans can do.

Their idols gave them nothing.

The fans aren't the problem. The fans are proof that the problem is the artists. The fans were already doing what their idols wouldn't.

To The People Who Say "Politics Has No Place In Music"

You're wrong, and you know you're wrong.

Politics is already in music. The only question is whose politics. When Ed Sheeran says, "I keep my shows apolitical," he's not removing politics. He's removing one specific kind of politics, the kind that might annoy a billionaire stadium owner, while leaving the politics of ticket prices, sponsorships, the $500,000 loans from Capital One to Elbit Systems, and the entire infrastructure that makes a stadium tour possible intact.

The argument that music should avoid politics is itself political; it's an argument for the status quo.

The people who say "stick to music" never say it to artists who praise the government. They say it to Stormzy when he asks where the Grenfell money went. They say it to Macklemore when he says, "Free Palestine."

It's not about keeping politics out of music. It's about keeping the wrong kind of politics out.

Why am I writing this?

This article won't stop the bombs. It won't make Sheeran develop a conscience. It won't make Swift say "Gaza."

But it might make one person who reads it feel less alone in their anger. It might make one person decide to go to a Craic Killers show instead of an Ed Sheeran show. It might make one person put on a balaclava at a merch table. It might make one person name Sam Abu Haikal when they talk about Gaza, instead of just citing a number.

That's the level we're working on, and that's what really matters.

An Unpopular Opinion That Shouldn't Be Unpopular

Of course… We shouldn't need pop stars to tell us genocide is wrong. I've written about this before, and I still stand by it.

Taylor Swift writes songs about her ex-boyfriends. Ed Sheeran writes songs for weddings. Pink writes songs you scream along to in your car after a breakup. They are not international law experts. They are not conflict mediators. Expecting them to solve Gaza is absurd.

But when they do say it, when they have the platform, the money, and the security, and they still choose "both sides," that's not a failure of expectations. That's a failure of character.

The expectation isn't that they solve Gaza. The expectation is that they don't actively help the machine that's doing it.

Sheeran and Pink failed that minimum. Macklemore didn't. The difference matters.

So Why Would They Do It?

Why would Sheeran and Pink put out such an unpopular opinion? Why tank your career for "both sides"?

They don't believe it's unpopular.

They think "both sides" is the safe middle ground. They think their fanbase is too comfortable to care. They think the machine will absorb it. Sheeran's tour continues without opening acts. Ticket prices have dropped, but the shows are still happening. Pink disabled comments and moved on.

They calculated that silence and safety would cost them less than solidarity would.

And… They were mostly right.

The maths is simple. It always has been. The only people pretending it isn't are those who've decided the cost of solidarity is too high.

The bands that made a stand — The Clash, the Manics, RATM, Kneecap, Craic Killers, the 400 artists in No Music for Genocide, the 1,100 artists who signed the Eurovision boycott, and the hundreds on the Artists4Ceasefire list — are still standing. Macklemore is still standing, with 1.6 million more followers and a clear conscience.

The ones who said "both sides" are just standing there, checking their follower counts, waiting for the controversy to blow over.

It won't. Every ceasefire that kills 300 children is a reminder that "both sides" is a lie.

And the people who tell that lie will be remembered for it.

Want to actually do something?

Don't stream Sheeran. Don't buy Pink's merch. Don't wait for Taylor Swift to grow a conscience. Find the artists who are already saying it — Macklemore, Kneecap, Craic Killers, Lowkey, anyone who's been screaming about Palestine since before it was trending. Go to their shows. Buy their music directly. Donate to a venue fund. Support community-owned venues like Gut Level in Sheffield. Support the No Music for Genocide campaign. The algorithm will not save you; your feet and your wallet might.

Remember: 21,500 children. 300 killed during a ceasefire. 58,800 orphaned.

That's not "both sides." That's a body count. And fuck you, Ed.