Palestinians have been suffering under Israeli occupation since the Nakba of 1948, even today, to the point that it has reached Genocide. A term that has been proven by many international human rights organisations and the UN Special Committee report 2024. There is no way to deny the horror that is being committed by the IOF in Gaza. And for that reason, many artists are using their influence and their platform to stand on the right side of history, only to be faced by the backlash of companies run for the Israeli interests. One of the recent examples of this is the deleted post, Palestine is the Story. Not Glastonbury, shared by Hans Zimmer.

Screenshot of Zimmer’s post he deleted after, on July 3, 2025 (Photo via Instagram)

The Digital Censorship: Why Artists Are Going Silent

The post got deleted quickly and without explanation, which left many fans speculating that the reason might be due to Zimmer’s ties to Israel. It is no secret that in 2014, Hans Zimmer helped raise $1.2 million for the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, where he was honoured with a lifetime achievement award.

He is not the first to do so and certainly not the last. Another case with Stormzy, the British grime artist, who deleted an old posting “Free Palestine” on Instagram, which could be because of his Brand partnership deal with McDonald’s.

We are in an era where we witness on our small screens how global icons and indie musicians are quietly erasing statements of solidarity with Palestine. Behind the scenes, the music industry is pressuring talent to stay “neutral” to protect sponsorships, avoid algorithmic suppression on platforms like Spotify and Meta, and keep their music in the good graces of media partners. just like what Rihanna and Paris Hilton did. They both deleted tweets supporting Palestine and replaced them with more neutral messages to avoid taking sides explicitly. But little did they know that being neutral, or staying silent, makes you complicit in the mass murder of innocent children.

So, this quiet censorship raises a critical question: if artists can’t speak out on injustice, who will?

We have learned the hard way that in today’s music industry, speaking up can come at a cost. Some dare to take responsibility for their opinion and are willing to continue to protest with their music like Macklemore and Massive Attack.

But unfortunately, according the a UK survey, 2024, 84% of artists admit they self-censor their political opinions, fearing public outrage to get cancelled, bullied, or lose career opportunities. Major labels and sponsors are known to actively discourage artists from engaging in “controversial” topics, prioritising brand safety over artistic freedom. The pressure is even higher on social media: in 2024 alone, over 40 artists reported having their content shadowbanned on Instagram for posting about political issues.

Silence in the face of atrocity is not neutrality; silence in the face of atrocity is acquiescence

Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN

The Golden Age of Political Music: Lessons from the 1960s

If we go back to the 60s, to the beautiful era of music. We see that Art and politics have always gone hand in hand. There were a lot of songs speaking against the Vietnam and Cambodia Wars, and even got to be played Live at festivals, without getting censored. The best example of this is Bob Dylan’s song (1963) The Times They Are A-Changin’ capturing the demand for political and social change, especially among the youth who were key drivers of the anti-war and civil rights movements.

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
For the times, they are a-changin'

WE COVER MORE ABOUT PROTEST MUSIC IN OUR 2ND ISSUE

All in all, the music in the 60s became a vehicle for comprehensive social change. Artists like The Beatles, despite their commercial success, weren’t afraid to express political views. The best example of it was when John Lennon sang “Give Peace a Chance” and later “Imagine“, demonstrating how mainstream artists could maintain their careers while advocating for radical political change.

The Grunge Generation: 1990s Political Revival

Dear millennials, this is like a nostalgia for us, because when we speak about 90s political music, we directly think about one Song. Do you know what I am talking about?

Exactly this:

Killing in the name OOOOOf !!!

And now that Melody is stuck on your head and will never leave. haha!

The 90s, as we know it, had a different character from the idealism of the 60s. This era was marked by cynicism about institutions and a raw, unfiltered approach to political commentary.

One of the best genres that has done that was Hip-hop. It emerged as the most potent political force in 1990s music. Artists like Public Enemy, N.W.A., and later Tupac Shakur and Nas used their platforms to address systemic racism, police brutality, and economic inequality. Notably, these artists faced censorship and controversy but maintained their political stance, understanding that their authenticity depended on speaking truth to power.

LEGENDS OF HIP HOP poster by ifunny.com

The political movement in that era not only touched hip hop but also it widespread to other genres, especially grunge and alternative rock. The Bands like the one that I have mentioned earlier, Rage Against the Machine, epitomised 90s political music, with explicitly anti-capitalist, anti-war messages. Their success proved that political music could be both commercially viable and uncompromising. Pearl Jam’s boycott of Ticketmaster and Nirvana’s feminist and LGBTQ+ advocacy showed how artists could use their commercial success to promote political causes.

The Stark Contrast: Then vs. Now

We are all aware that music and politics have a large history that needs to be covered, not just in one article. Though the difference between political music in the 60s and 90s compared to today’s climate around Palestine reveals how dramatically the landscape has shifted.

Back then, the artists may have faced government pressure, but they often found support from cultural institutions, record labels, and media outlets. They even benefited from media coverage that amplified their messages. Today, these same institutions are actively censoring Palestinian solidarity content across social media platforms with a mission to limit artists’ ability to reach their audiences

In other words, previous eras celebrated political artists as cultural heroes. Today, similar activism leads to cancellation and professional exile. One can only ask Why?

Sure, the question cannot be answered in one sentence, but one can only say that the lobby is extremely strong this time.

The Power Structures Behind the Silence

The systematic pressure on artists to delete pro-Palestine posts reflects deeper power structures that didn’t exist, or weren’t as sophisticated in earlier eras of political music as today.

The music industry is now dominated by fewer, larger corporations with more complex international business relationships, or as we call them, the Big Three. Do you know who the Big Three are? They are Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group; all three together represent 70% of the global music market. This makes artists more vulnerable to economic pressure.

Last but not least, the power of Social media. Platforms like Meta have become gatekeepers of political discourse, with algorithms and policies that can systematically suppress certain viewpoints.

He who controls the social media, controls the world

Despite the pressure, many artists continue to resist. Over 1,000 artists and residents have signed letters demanding that cultural institutions sever ties with organisations supporting certain policies. Theatre figures, including Kingsley Ben-Adir and Khalid Abdalla, have condemned censorship of Palestinian references.

A comprehensive list of artists who publicly back the Palestinian struggle for justice continues to grow, demonstrating that the spirit of political music activism hasn’t died, but it has simply been forced underground or into more subtle forms.

The Future of Political Music

The current suppression of pro-Palestine voices in the arts represents a critical test for the future of political music. If artists continue to face systematic censorship for addressing international human rights issues, we risk losing one of the most powerful forms of political expression that has historically driven social change.

The lessons from the 60s and 90s show us that political music thrives when artists dare to speak truth to power, when institutions protect rather than suppress political expression, and when audiences support rather than punish political authenticity. The question facing us now is whether we’ll allow the silencing of artistic voices on Palestine to become the new normal, or whether we’ll defend the tradition of political music that has been essential to social progress.

The deletion of pro-Palestine posts by artists isn’t just about one political issue, but it’s about the fundamental right of artists to comment on the world around them. If we lose this right, we lose something essential about what makes music a force for social change. The echoes of “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “Fight the Power” remind us that music’s political power lies not in its ability to reflect consensus, but in its courage to challenge it.

The question remains: will today’s artists find the courage to resist the pressure to remain silent, or will the digital age mark the end of music as a vehicle for political change? The answer may determine not just the future of political music, but the future of political expression itself.