Coldplay calls Israeli fans “Equal Humans on Earth.” Was it condescension or compassion?
Chris Martin’s fumbled welcome politicized a decidedly non-political moment and undermined the purpose of that concert, to bring people together and promote harmony - and humanity.
The summer of 2025 hasn’t been a great time to attend a Coldplay concert, at least if you are an adulterer caught on the Kiss Cam or a human being who happens to come from Israel. See below what happened when a pair of Israeli fans were given a decidedly mixed reception when asked where they came from:
Some were offended by Chris Martin’s snap response. Here’s an example:
Let’s break this down.
First of all, seeing the humanity in everyone is precisely what is most needed right now. Dehumanization is the tool of the despot and the hater. And it’s not what Chris Martin was trying to do. We can use this incident as a reminder of how important it is not to dehumanize.
On a visceral level, I reacted similarly to Babb. I felt devalued too, not so much as a Jew, but as one who is deeply attached to Israel.
I agree with Babb that acknowledging someone identifying as Israeli should not require equal mention for Palestinians in the audience. People are suffering all over the world. If someone had identified as Ukrainian, I doubt Martin would have added a “shout out to all you Russian humans out there. Anyone here from Taiwan or China?”
Palestinians do also need to be humanized, and their suffering acknowledged, but not as a prerequisite for recognizing the humanity of Israelis.
Martin may not be aware of the degree to which Israelis are experiencing PTSD right now, because of October 7, the hostages and everything else. It would have been wonderful for him to acknowledge that. For a deep-dive immersion into the topic, I highly recommend this gut-wrenching stand-up cri de coeur, “Battle Shock,” from Udi Kagan, one of Israel’s most well-known comedians. (Unfortunately, a version with English subtitles was just taken down from YouTube, but I assume one will appear before long. But it is summarized in detail here. The performance earned praise as “the greatest stand-up segment in history.”)
I also recognize that, right now, at this particular moment, Israel is engaging in activities in Gaza that a million of its own citizens have taken to the streets to protest, and its military leaders and many reservists are strongly protesting as well. So Martin’s awkwardness and the smattering of boos were somewhat predictable, if not proper.
Still, the two Israelis should not have been made to represent their whole country, and to bear the burden of every unwise decision of their leaders. But as an American right now, I would also expect to be booed if introduced by Chris Martin before 90,000 folks at Wembley. I’ve stayed close to home this summer, but I’ve heard from others that Americans have been treated with some combination of scornful derision and begrudging pity as they’ve wandered, dazed, and emotionally spent, through the streets of Paris and Katmandu.
Whether it’s justifiable or not, we often do become representatives of our nation when we go abroad, even if we hate what our nation is up to. And that’s how it has always been.
While there were some boos, I think that’s overblown. I heard more cheers than boos on the video1, and the Israeli women appeared non-fazed by the exchange. According to the Jerusalem Post, one of the two fans said, “For a quarter of a second, we thought of saying (we were from) Malta2. But then I said Israel. We couldn’t and didn’t want to lie. It’s a little scary that 90,000 people knew we’re from there, but we said it.” Nothing close to an accusation that Chris Martin had acted improperly.
For these two fans to proudly identify as Israeli was impressive, shaming me for having kept my affinities under wraps at times - often refusing to wear a Red Sox cap on the New York subways during the late ‘70s. I’m not sure what I would have said in their position.
So, as I see it, Chris Martin clumsily overcompensated for the smattering of boos with an improvised version of “All Lives Matter” that pleased no one. His intent was to make his guests comfortable and let them know they are not alone, but like many journalists and diplomats, he suddenly snapped into “equal time” mode and gave a both-sides-ist shout out to Palestinians, which then triggered a “right on” response from the crowd that isolated the Israeli fans all the more.
In other words, what happened was precisely the opposite of what any performer would have wanted to happen in a sold-out venue. Take ninety thousand diverse humans who are escaping from the crises tearing apart our world, who are singing in one voice, and force everyone to choose a team.
Well done, Coldplay!
Chris Martin’s fumbled response politicized a decidedly non-political moment and undermined the goal of bringing people together and promoting harmony - a declaration that in fact we ARE all humans, all equal and all precious in the eyes of God.
I do believe Martin tried in his own awkward way to embrace them - perhaps unaware that, while he was trying to summon his inner John Lennon, he came out sounding more like Shylock3. He wanted to say “We’re all human and that’s what matters,” but it sounded like he was saying, “We’re all human; EVEN ISRAELIS,” a qualifier that implies that some humans are less human than others.
I get it, but I come out of this little incident less indignant than sad. When people try to bring about reconciliation, as Martin did, their efforts are too quickly shot down as naive or misguided. And that’s where Casey Babb’s tweet is itself misguided. Dialogue and pluralism are still at the core of the Jewish tradition.4 To be a Jew is to be in constant dialogue with Creation, with God, and with others. To be a Jew is NOT to be looking for an antisemite behind every door. A “gotcha” mindset is exactly what propels fascism. It tickles the amygdala, prompting the fight-or-flight response that is honey for clicks and ratings but radioactive for a flourishing democracy. Jews cannot allow themselves to fall victim to victimhood and to be afraid to reach out to the Other.
That concert was not necessarily the time to bring together Israelis and Palestinians, but Chris Martin deserves credit for thinking that it might be, even if it came out wrong. We should always be looking for opportunities to engage, to seek understanding across lines of difference. Snarky people will laugh and call us naive - but we are not the first to go this route, and some have actually succeeded.
People like Israeli superstar singer David Broza, who turns 70 this week. He formed a combined Israeli - Palestinian band in 2013 for his album/documentary, East Jerusalem, West Jerusalem, and since October 7 has, according to the Jerusalem Post, performed “over 300 shows, for soldiers, the wounded, the displaced, Jews and non-Jews alike.” He often brings crowds to tears, as in one October 16, 2023, video that went viral, where he sang a “You’ve Got a Friend” duet with a female Ethiopian-Israeli soldier.
During these illiberal times, we need to remember that coexistence is the autocrat’s kryptonite. We need to grab at opportunities to celebrate our own humanity and the humanity of our neighbor, wherever possible, even if the gesture appears half-hearted and clumsy, as happened last week with Coldplay.
If America, Israel and the world are going to survive the current onslaught of fascist orthodoxy, where only one truth is acceptable, dissent is suppressed and the cult of the leader becomes enmeshed in the core value system of the nation, we need to find our way back to pluralism, the core value system of America’s founders. And we need to do it now. And that begins with acknowledging the humanity of the other - and ourselves.
Let’s hear it for our fellow “equal humans on earth.”
And to the degree that the scattered boos signal a double standard with regard to Israel, I believe that the world’s excessive preoccupation with that little sliver of land is less because of antisemitism than the fact that for nearly the entire western world, as Menachem Begin said, God is a local call.
Once when traveling in Europe with my young kids after a trip to Israel, when we were in public places tackling about where we had just been, we half-jokingly (but half not jokingly) called it “Ireland.” As in, “The falafel was better in IRELAND.” Such is the Jewish condition.
The Merchant of Venice: Shylock Monologue (Act 3 Scene 1)
SHYLOCK:
To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies, and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
For those who want to pursue this matter further, here’s some supplementary material on pluralism vs. fascism:
In 2019, David Brooks wrote of what he called the ideology of anti-pluralism that now comes in many shapes. “Trumpian nationalists, authoritarian populists and Islamic jihadists are different versions of anti-pluralism,” he said. We can add to that list Jewish ethno-nationalists, also known as Kahanists, who now control the Israeli government.
Brooks adds, “These movements are reactions against the diversity, fluidity and interdependent nature of modern life. Anti-pluralists yearn for a return to clear borders, settled truths and stable identities. They kill for a fantasy, a world that shines in their imaginations but never existed in real life.”
Given the increasing power of these forces, one wonders whether it is still possible for people with diverse views to come together in fruitful dialogue. And is it possible to do that on an equal playing field - where everyone is a human being - where the ruling authorities don’t stack the deck in favor of one viewpoint, or one religious, ethnic or cultural group?
As we grapple with the hatred all around us, here is how Diana Eck, the founder of the Pluralism Project, defines pluralism.
First, pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity. Diversity can and has meant the creation of religious ghettoes with little traffic between or among them. Today, religious diversity is a given, but pluralism is not a given; it is an achievement. Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies.
Second, pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active seeking of understanding across lines of difference. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but it does not require Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and ardent secularists to know anything about one another. Tolerance is too thin a foundation for a world of religious difference and proximity. It does nothing to remove our ignorance of one another, and leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truth, the fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly.
Third, pluralism is not relativism, but the encounter of commitments. The new paradigm of pluralism does not require us to leave our identities and our commitments behind, for pluralism is the encounter of commitments. It means holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another.
Fourth, pluralism is based on dialogue. The language of pluralism is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. Dialogue means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common understandings and real differences. Dialogue does not mean everyone at the “table” will agree with one another. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table — with one’s commitments.
Pluralism is the enemy of fascism. It is our prime weapon against those who wish to drag us all off the cliff. And it is what Chris Martin was aiming for, albeit clumsily.
As a musician who has performed and visited many countries all over the world, including Israel and Palestine, I agree with you. Music should break down all walls and bring people together. I have performed with people of almost every faith, and their faith was never a concern when we performed together, nor was the faith of the audience. Music brings people together. Music is color blind. Like I said in a comment on one of your other articles, we are all human beings; we are all the same. We are all equal. If everyone in the world believed this, all wars would end, and no new wars would start. Terrorism would not exist, and October 7, September 11, and many other acts of terrorism would never have happened!
Awesome piece Rabbi! A shame that it has been infiltrating the world of rock music for quite some time. On a lighter note I enjoyed the Red Sox hat on a NYC subway analogy! People were nice to me in Fenway in a Yankee hat! Baseball is a little scary now too!