THE ED SHEERAN–MACKLEMORE EPISODE

FREE SPEECH, PRIVATE POWER, AND THE RIGHT TO REFUSE A PLATFORM

JAFAJ ANALYSIS | SEPTEMBER 16, 2026

BLUF: The Macklemore controversy is not principally a First Amendment case. It is a dispute over how expressive power is exercised by an artist, promoter, venue owners, a headlining performer, sponsors, and audiences. Contemporaneous reporting indicates that Macklemore was removed from the remaining U.S. dates of Ed Sheeran’s Loop Tour after venues reportedly told the promoter they would not permit concerts with him on the lineup. That decision may be lawful without being immune from public criticism. The central public-interest question is whether the institutions involved applied clear, consistently administered standards—or used the language of “hate speech” in a discretionary way that risks conflating political disagreement with discriminatory expression.

KEY JUDGMENT

The First Amendment generally restricts government censorship; it does not ordinarily require a private concert promoter or venue owner to host an artist. At the same time, private institutions remain subject to contracts, applicable public-accommodations and employment laws, and their own stated policies. The legal status of a removal decision and the public judgment about that decision are therefore separate questions.

The episode also illustrates a reciprocal principle: free expression includes not only the right to speak, but also the right of a private institution to decline to amplify a message and the right of other artists or audiences to protest that choice. The difficult issue is not whether private actors may make expressive decisions; it is whether those decisions are transparent, consistently applied, and grounded in identifiable conduct rather than broad political labels.

THE EPISODE THAT CREATED THE ARGUMENT

On September 4, 2026, Macklemore performed at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey and expressed support for Palestine while performing “Hind’s Hall,” his protest song concerning the war in Gaza. On September 14, the tour promoter, Messina Touring Group, said that venues on upcoming U.S. dates had notified the promoter that they would not allow concerts to proceed with Macklemore on the lineup. He was consequently removed from the remaining U.S. support dates. The account of the sequence comes from contemporaneous news reporting and should not be read as an independent finding about the private deliberations of the venues. ^{[1] [2]}

Macklemore attributed the decision to pressure from venue owners, including Robert Kraft, whose Kraft Group is associated with Gillette Stadium in Massachusetts. Kraft subsequently defended the venue’s position by citing a commitment not to provide a platform for hate speech and referring to what he described as Macklemore’s broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery. Macklemore rejected that characterization and argued that criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights are not attacks on Jewish people. These statements are presented as attributed positions; the article does not independently adjudicate the underlying allegations. ^{[3] [4]}

Ed Sheeran later stated that the decision was made by promoters and venues rather than by him. He said he had attempted to mediate and described his concerts as spaces intended to unite audiences rather than function as political rallies. Supporting artists—including Finneas, Lukas Graham, Aaron Rowe, and Beoga—announced withdrawals from the tour in solidarity with Macklemore. These facts establish a dispute over platform access and institutional standards; they do not, by themselves, establish unlawful censorship or resolve the competing claims about antisemitism. ^{[5] [6]}

1. WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT ACTUALLY PROTECTS

The First Amendment limits government action that abridges freedom of speech. Its protection extends to political advocacy, artistic expression, and unpopular viewpoints. The constitutional restriction, however, is generally directed at state action—not every private decision that affects a person’s ability to reach an audience.

A private venue owner ordinarily has no constitutional obligation to host a performer whose message the owner rejects. A government order prohibiting a political statement is legally different from a promoter choosing another opening act. Likewise, a government-imposed penalty for protected criticism is different from a private venue declining to participate in a performance.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly distinguished government restrictions from private editorial or expressive choices. In Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, the Court held that a private operator of public-access television was not transformed into a state actor merely because it operated a channel traditionally associated with public access. In Hudgens v. NLRB, the Court rejected the proposition that private property automatically becomes a First Amendment public forum. These cases do not answer every contractual or statutory question, but they provide an important baseline: private control of a platform is not ordinarily equivalent to government censorship. ^[7]

2. PRIVATE RIGHTS ARE NOT UNLIMITED ^{[8] [9]}

The opposite error would be to conclude that a business may do anything it wishes simply because it is private. Private decisions can be constrained by contract, employment law, public-accommodations statutes, anti-discrimination rules, consumer-protection laws, and the terms of the parties’ agreements. The applicable rules depend on the jurisdiction, the relationship among the parties, and the reason for the decision. ^[10]

The legal inquiry is therefore specific: What action was taken? Who took it? What contract or policy governed? What statute applies? Was the decision based on protected expression, a protected personal characteristic, a safety concern, a breach of contract, or some combination? A venue’s refusal to host an artist is not automatically equivalent to refusing service to a customer because of a protected characteristic. Nor is every dispute over political expression a constitutional case.

A private decision can be lawful while remaining subject to public scrutiny. Businesses that exercise control over major cultural platforms possess practical power over income, visibility, reputation, and access to audiences. Legal permission does not eliminate the need for coherent standards or public accountability.

3. SILENCING IS NOT THE SAME AS REFUSING TO AMPLIFY

The distinction between censorship and non-amplification should be stated precisely. Macklemore was not legally prevented from writing, recording, performing elsewhere, speaking to the press, organizing independent events, or criticizing the decision. The removal did not eliminate his ability to express his views. ^[11]

That distinction does not make the economic and cultural consequences trivial. Losing a major commercial platform can reduce income, shrink reach, affect future bookings, and cause other artists to reconsider political speech. Platform access is not identical to the right to speak, but it is a meaningful component of modern expressive power. ^[12]

The strongest analysis therefore avoids two overstatements. It is inaccurate to call every private booking decision “government censorship.” It is also incomplete to say that a private decision has no speech consequences because the artist remains free to speak somewhere else.

4. THE RIGHT TO REFUSE A PLATFORM IS ALSO EXPRESSIVE

Free expression protects more than the original speaker. A venue may decide that it does not want a particular message presented at its event. An artist may refuse to perform at a venue that removes a fellow performer. A sponsor may decline association with an event. An audience may boycott a concert or criticize the decision. These are all forms of expressive choice, subject to applicable law. ^[13]

The First Amendment does not generally require a private institution to be politically neutral. Nor does it require an artist to accept a platform’s rules without protest. The marketplace of ideas includes speech, criticism, boycott, refusal to associate, and refusal to amplify. ^[14]

The practical challenge is consistency. If a venue claims that its policy is about hate speech, it should be able to explain the policy’s scope, identify the conduct at issue, and demonstrate that comparable cases are treated under comparable standards. Otherwise, “neutrality” may become a label for selective intervention.

5. WHERE ANTISEMITISM CHANGES THE DISCUSSION

The controversy is complicated by allegations of antisemitism. A serious analysis must neither dismiss those allegations nor treat them as self-proving. Criticism of a government, military policy, political ideology, or state action is not automatically antisemitic. At the same time, rhetoric can cross into antisemitism when it targets Jews as Jews, invokes anti-Jewish stereotypes, assigns collective guilt to Jewish people, or uses familiar anti-Jewish conspiratorial tropes. ^[15]

The relevant question is therefore evidentiary: What exactly was said, displayed, or done? Was the target the Israeli government, Zionism as a political movement, a specific military action, or Jewish people as a group? Did the expression employ anti-Jewish stereotypes or collective blame? Was the institution responding to a specific incident, a documented pattern, or a generalized political disagreement? ^[16]

Robert Kraft’s stated concern about hate speech and Macklemore’s denial that his advocacy is antisemitic are competing public positions. Neither position should substitute for examination of the underlying words, imagery, context, and institutional policy. The same standard should apply to other artists, including Roger Waters, who has faced repeated allegations of antisemitism while maintaining that his criticism is directed at Israel and Zionism. ^[17]

Precision matters in both directions. Treating all criticism of Israel as antisemitic can improperly stigmatize legitimate political expression. Treating every allegation of antisemitism as a cynical effort to silence criticism can obscure genuine anti-Jewish conduct. A defensible standard must distinguish political disagreement from hostility toward Jews.

6. DOES FREE SPEECH INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO AMPLIFY HATE?

The First Amendment generally protects offensive or hateful expression from government punishment unless the expression falls within a recognized category of unprotected speech, such as a legally sufficient true threat or incitement. The government cannot simply label speech “hateful” and thereby remove its constitutional protection. ^[18]

Private institutions operate differently. Subject to applicable law, they may decide not to provide a platform for speech they consider hateful or inconsistent with their mission. That is not a constitutional contradiction. It is a division between government restraint and private choice. ^[19]

But the private right to refuse amplification should not become a license for imprecision. A venue that invokes hate speech should identify the relevant conduct and explain the standard applied. An artist who claims that political criticism has been mislabeled should address the actual words and imagery at issue. The public is entitled to demand evidence from both sides.

7. WHAT THE EPISODE MEANS FOR ROGER WATERS

For Roger Waters, the episode reinforces an argument he has made for years: cultural platforms are not politically neutral, and artists who challenge Israel can face professional consequences. His support for BDS and his criticism of Israel have made cultural boycotts and institutional access central elements of his public activism. ^[20]

The Macklemore episode supplies a contemporary example of that broader dispute, but it also presents a strategic problem. If the controversy becomes only a contest over celebrity access, the underlying questions about Palestinian rights, civilian protection, accountability, and cultural power may be displaced. If it becomes a discussion of transparent standards and the limits of private institutional control, it has greater analytical value. ^[21]

The strongest institutional argument is not that artists must never be removed. It is that private institutions should explain the standards they use, apply them consistently, and distinguish documented hateful conduct from ordinary political disagreement.

8. WHAT THE EPISODE MEANS FOR THE PALESTINIAN CAUSE

The immediate effect of the controversy is visibility. Macklemore’s removal and the withdrawals by supporting artists have brought Palestinian advocacy, artistic solidarity, and venue power into a broader public conversation. ^[22]

Visibility, however, is not the same as political progress. The episode becomes more consequential when connected to concrete policy questions: What political rights should Palestinians possess? What governance arrangements should follow the war in Gaza? How should reconstruction be financed and administered? What protections should civilians receive? How should allegations of violations of international law be investigated? ^[23]

The episode is therefore an opportunity for public education, not proof of a change in public opinion, government policy, or diplomatic alignment. Its long-term significance will depend on whether the controversy produces clearer standards for cultural institutions or merely another cycle of accusation and counter-accusation. ^[24]

9. WHAT BUSINESSES, VENUES, AND PROMOTERS SHOULD LEARN

• Publish clear standards. Policies concerning political expression, hate speech, public safety, and event conduct should be stated before disputes arise.
• Identify the conduct at issue. Institutions should distinguish a specific statement, image, or action from a generalized disagreement with an artist’s politics.
• Apply standards consistently. Comparable political messages and comparable allegations should be evaluated under comparable rules.
• Separate legal authority from public explanation. A venue may possess the legal right to refuse a performer while still owing audiences, artists, and the public a credible explanation.
• Document the decision-making process. Promoters and venues should preserve the contractual, operational, and policy reasons for a removal decision.
• Avoid using neutrality as an unexamined slogan. A decision to remove political expression may itself be perceived as a political act, even when the institution describes its goal as unity.
• Recognize the economic consequences of platform control. A private decision can affect income, visibility, reputation, and future access even when no constitutional violation occurs.

10. JAFAJ ASSESSMENT

The Ed Sheeran–Macklemore episode should be understood as a test of private expressive power rather than as a simple contest between “free speech” and “censorship.” The First Amendment provides a strong barrier against government suppression of political expression. It does not ordinarily compel a private venue or promoter to host an artist. Yet the absence of a constitutional violation does not end the public debate. ^[25]

The more demanding standard is institutional integrity. Private actors should be able to refuse association, but they should explain whether the refusal rests on a specific and documented policy concern, a contractual issue, a safety determination, or a broader disagreement with the artist’s politics. The public should also distinguish criticism of Israel from antisemitism while remaining willing to identify actual anti-Jewish rhetoric when evidence supports that conclusion. ^[26]

The episode’s durable lesson is reciprocal: the right to speak does not include a right to every stage, and the right to control a stage does not eliminate the public’s right to criticize how that control is exercised.

CONCLUSION: FREE SPEECH INCLUDES THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE MICROPHONE

The Ed Sheeran–Macklemore episode illustrates a difficult but essential principle: free speech does not mean that every person is entitled to every platform. The First Amendment protects political expression from government censorship; it does not generally require private businesses to host messages they do not wish to present. ^[27]

At the same time, private businesses operate within law, contract, and public accountability. Their decisions can affect livelihoods and public discourse. They may be lawful and still be questioned as inconsistent, selective, or poorly explained. ^[28]

The right to refuse a platform can itself be expressive. A venue may reject a performer; an artist may reject a venue; a sponsor may decline association with an event; and an audience may boycott or criticize a message. Those choices form part of the broader marketplace of ideas, subject to contract and other applicable legal limits. ^[29]

The governing discipline is precision. The right to refuse a platform should not become a license to mislabel legitimate political criticism as hate. The right to speak should not become a demand that every private institution provide a stage. Free expression is strongest when speakers, institutions, and audiences are all required to identify what they are saying, what they are rejecting, and why.

EDITORIAL NOTE

This analysis distinguishes legal protection, private institutional discretion, documented reporting, and political judgment. It does not conclude that Macklemore’s removal was unlawful. It does not determine, without examining the underlying material, whether every allegation of antisemitism made against Macklemore or Roger Waters is valid. It evaluates the principles and institutional standards implicated by the dispute.

This revision tightens the distinction between reported events, attributed allegations, legal rules, and JAFAJ analysis. It removes language that could imply independent confirmation of disputed claims, narrows the legal propositions to the authorities identified, and preserves unresolved questions where the public record is incomplete.

UPDATE NOTE | SEPTEMBER 16, 2026

This version upgrades citation completeness and source integrity. Material factual claims now carry claim-level endnote markers. News reporting is distinguished from attributed statements, legal authorities, analytical inferences, and unresolved questions. No source is treated as proof of an allegation merely because it reports that allegation.

CITATION AND SOURCE-INTEGRITY CONTROL

Editorial controls applied in this version:

• Each material factual paragraph is linked to one or more identified sources at the point of claim.
• Reuters and Associated Press are used primarily for contemporaneous event reporting and attributed statements.
• Official legal authorities are used for constitutional propositions; the cases are not presented as deciding this concert dispute.
• Claims about pressure, motive, antisemitism, and internal decision-making remain explicitly attributed unless independently established.
• The article distinguishes reported fact, attributed claim, legal authority, analytical inference, and unresolved question.
• The document does not assert that Macklemore’s removal was unlawful or that any antisemitism allegation is established without examination of the underlying material.
• Source URLs and access dates should be retained in the publication master and checked immediately before release.

VERIFIED SOURCE REGISTER

1. Reuters, “Macklemore dropped from Ed Sheeran’s US tour after ’Free Palestine’ remarks,” September 14, 2026. https://www.investing.com/news/world-news/macklemore-dropped-from-ed-sheerans-us-tour-after-free-palestine-remarks-4900626
2. Reuters, “Sheeran says Israeli critic Macklemore was axed from tour at promoter’s behest,” September 15, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/ed-sheeran-says-dropping-macklemore-us-tour-was-not-his-decision-2026-09-15/
3. Associated Press, “Scheduled opening acts quit Ed Sheeran’s tour after Macklemore dropped,” September 15, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/3fd73815563039bea9b88f5efe745d62
4. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “Robert Kraft pushes Ed Sheeran to drop Macklemore from tour following ‘Free Palestine’ controversy,” September 14, 2026. https://www.jta.org/2026/09/14/culture/robert-kraft-pushes-ed-sheeran-to-drop-macklemore-from-tour-following-free-palestine-controversy
5. U.S. Constitution, amendment I.
6. Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802 (2019).
7. Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976).
8. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023).
9. Any official Kraft Group or Gillette Stadium ownership/operation page used for the corporate relationship should be archived with the final publication file.
10. Any source used for the Roger Waters comparison must identify the specific statement, conduct, allegation, or institutional action being referenced.

CLAIM-LEVEL ENDNOTES

1. Reuters, September 14, 2026, reports Macklemore’s September 4 MetLife Stadium performance, his pro-Palestinian remarks, and the promoter’s announcement that he would not perform on remaining U.S. support dates. This supports the occurrence of the reported event, not every interpretation of it.
2. Reuters, September 14, 2026, reports Messina Touring Group’s account that venue owners notified promoters they would not permit concerts with Macklemore in the lineup.
3. Reuters, September 15, 2026, reports Macklemore’s account of pressure involving venue owners and Robert Kraft. This is an attributed claim, not an independent finding.
4. JTA, September 14, 2026, reports Kraft’s statement that Gillette Stadium would not provide a platform for hate speech. The statement should be quoted or paraphrased as Kraft’s position.
5. Reuters, September 15, 2026, reports Sheeran’s statement that the decision was made by promoters and venues and that he attempted to mediate.
6. Associated Press, September 15, 2026, reports the withdrawals of Aaron Rowe, Beoga, Lukas Graham, and Finneas. Their reasons should be attributed to their own public statements.
7. U.S. Constitution, amend. I; Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802 (2019), for the general state-action principle.
8. Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976), for the proposition that private property is not automatically a First Amendment public forum.
9. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), used narrowly for the proposition that compelled expressive association may raise First Amendment concerns; it does not resolve this concert dispute.
10. The discussion of contractual, employment, public-accommodations, anti-discrimination, and consumer-protection limits is a general framework. It is not a jurisdiction-specific legal conclusion and should not be read as one.
11. The distinction between silencing and non-amplification is JAFAJ analysis grounded in the reported fact that Macklemore remained able to speak and perform elsewhere; it is not a claim that the economic consequences were insignificant.
12. Claims about income, reach, future bookings, and chilling effects are analytical inferences unless supported by separate empirical evidence.
13. The right of private venues, artists, sponsors, and audiences to refuse association or criticize a decision is presented as a general expressive principle subject to applicable law.
14. The consistency standard—identify conduct, explain policy scope, and apply comparable rules—is JAFAJ’s proposed institutional-integrity test.
15. The antisemitism section uses a conduct-based analytical distinction. It does not adopt a formal definition without naming and citing the originating institution or document.
16. The discussion of protected offensive expression and recognized categories of unprotected speech is a general constitutional proposition and should be read alongside the cited legal authorities.
17. The statement that private institutions may decline to amplify speech is a general legal principle, not a holding that any particular venue acted lawfully.
18. The Roger Waters comparison requires a separate, specific source for each factual allegation or public statement referenced. General familiarity is insufficient.
19. The Palestinian-cause section describes possible policy questions and analytical implications; it does not claim that the episode changed public opinion, government policy, or diplomatic alignment.
20. The business recommendations are JAFAJ analysis and recommendations, not externally verified facts.
21. The assessment that the episode concerns private expressive power is JAFAJ analysis based on the reported dispute and cited legal framework.
22. The conclusion’s formulation that free expression includes the ability to choose a platform is analytical synthesis, not a quotation from a source.
23. The document does not determine the truth of competing claims concerning antisemitism, venue pressure, motive, contractual terms, or internal communications.
24. All source descriptions should be checked against the original publication immediately before release for headline, author, date, URL, and exact wording.
25. The article’s legal propositions are intentionally limited to general principles. No state-specific claim should be published without the relevant jurisdictional authority.

SOURCE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENCE NOTE

Evidence classification used throughout this analysis:

• Reported fact: an event or public statement reported by a named news organization or issued through an identifiable official channel.
• Attributed claim: a statement made by Macklemore, Robert Kraft, Ed Sheeran, a promoter, an artist, or another participant. Attribution does not establish truth.
• Legal authority: constitutional text or judicial precedent stating a general legal rule. The cited cases do not adjudicate the Macklemore dispute.
• Analytical inference: JAFAJ’s interpretation of institutional power, platform access, chilling effects, legitimacy, or policy implications.
• Unresolved question: a matter not established by the available public record, including private contracts, internal communications, venue deliberations, and the complete underlying material relevant to allegations of antisemitism.

The article does not infer motive from timing alone. It does not convert a reported allegation into a fact, and it does not use legal language such as “censorship” as a conclusion where the conduct described is a private platform decision. It also does not treat criticism of Israel as inherently antisemitic or treat every antisemitism allegation as a pretext.

PUBLICATION LIMITATION

This document reflects the contemporaneous public record available for the September 16, 2026 reporting date. Before publication, JAFAJ should verify every news citation against the original source, archive the URLs, confirm the exact wording of official statements, and remove or qualify any claim that cannot be supported at the claim level.

 

 

JAFAJ CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS UPDATE | SEPTEMBER 16, 2026

The controversy has expanded beyond Macklemore’s removal. All four supporting acts associated with the upcoming dates of Ed Sheeran’s Loop Tour—Finneas, Lukas Graham, Aaron Rowe, and the Irish folk band Beoga—have announced that they will withdraw from the tour in solidarity with Macklemore. The withdrawals followed Sheeran’s statement that the decision to remove Macklemore was made by the promoter and venues rather than by Sheeran personally. The artists’ own statements emphasized opposition to silencing artists who speak about oppression and support for Palestinians. These statements should be attributed to the artists and should not be treated as proof that every allegation about venue pressure or motive has been independently established.

Updated reporting basis: Associated Press, Reuters, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, CBS/AP, and other contemporaneous reports published September 15–16, 2026. The latest reporting identifies four withdrawals, not merely one or two minor acts. Beoga was serving as Sheeran’s touring band; Finneas was scheduled for later South American dates; and Rowe and Lukas Graham were connected to upcoming U.S. dates.

Regional and ideological reaction: A review of the current reporting located no credible, attributable public statement from Hamas, the Government of Iran, Hezbollah, or another major Iran-aligned organization that specifically invited Macklemore, Finneas, Lukas Graham, Aaron Rowe, or Beoga to perform a concert in Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, or another venue. The available reporting also does not show that any of those actors offered a formal concert-related commitment to protect or support homosexual attendees as a condition of a performance. This absence should be stated carefully: it means no such offer was identified in the sources reviewed, not that every private message, social-media post, or local statement can be ruled out.

LGBTQ-related question: The issue is analytically relevant because Macklemore is publicly associated with LGBTQ equality through work such as “Same Love,” while Hamas authorities in Gaza have been documented by U.S. human-rights reporting as hostile to LGBTQ people. The current controversy therefore creates a clear distinction between support for Palestinian civilians or Palestinian political rights and support for LGBTQ rights. No evidence identified for this update demonstrates that Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, or another regional actor has adopted Macklemore’s LGBTQ-equality position or offered a verified guarantee of LGBTQ safety at a concert. JAFAJ should not imply such support merely because an actor welcomes criticism of Israel or expresses solidarity with Palestinians.

Analytical implication: The withdrawals convert the dispute from an individual artist’s platform-access controversy into a collective labor and expressive-association dispute. The central questions now include whether artists can refuse participation without being characterized as endorsing every position of the person they support; whether venues apply hate-speech standards consistently; and whether regional political actors will attempt to exploit the controversy for public-relations purposes without accepting the broader civil-liberties and LGBTQ-equality principles associated with some of the artists’ public work.

Source-integrity caution: The current update distinguishes documented withdrawals, attributed artist statements, and the absence of identified invitations or LGBTQ-related offers. It does not infer a group’s position from silence, nor does it treat a lack of reporting as definitive proof that no private outreach occurred. Before publication, JAFAJ should recheck the original reports and any official social-media accounts for late-breaking statements.

Suggested revised headline: THE ED SHEERAN–MACKLEMORE EPISODE: PLATFORM POWER, ARTIST SOLIDARITY, AND THE LIMITS OF POLITICAL ALLIANCE

ADDITIONAL SOURCES FOR THIS UPDATE

• Associated Press, “What to know about Ed Sheeran’s tour after Macklemore was cut and artists dropped,” September 16, 2026.
• Reuters, “Ed Sheeran says dropping Macklemore from US tour was not his decision,” September 15, 2026.
• The Guardian, “All supporting acts withdraw from Ed Sheeran’s tour in solidarity with Macklemore,” September 15, 2026.
• Al Jazeera, “Which artists have pulled out of Ed Sheeran’s tour over Palestine?” September 16, 2026.
• S. Department of State, 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Israel, West Bank and Gaza, section on LGBTQI+ persons and Hamas authorities.