Washington Post ad slams Lorde as ‘bigot’ for boycotting Israel
Washington Post ad slams Lorde as ‘bigot’ for boycotting Israel
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, known as “America’s Rabbi,” took out a full-page ad against New Zealand singer Lorde in the Washington Post , saying, “21 is Young to Become a Bigot.”
New Zealand pop star Lorde, who recently announced she was canceling her concert in Israel after buckling to pressure by anti-Israel activists, has come under fire on Sunday in a full-page advertisement in the Washington Post that blasted her for joining “a global anti-Semitic boycott of Israel.”
The ad, taken out by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s “This World: The Values Network,” features a photo of the singer superimposed on Israeli flags in Jerusalem on the right and, on the left, on men running through rubble cradling babies in Syria. The headline reads, “Lorde and New Zealand ignore Syria to attack Israel.”
The World Values Network’s stated mission is to disseminate universal Jewish values in politics, culture, and media.
“While Lorde claims to be concerned with human rights, she hypocritically chose to proceed with her two concerts in Putin’s Russia, despite his support for [Syrian president Bashar] Assad’s genocidal regime,” the ad charges.
The ad calls for action, saying, “let’s boycott the boycotters and tell Lorde and her fellow bigots that Jew-hatred has no place in the 21st century.”
The words “21 is Young To Become a Bigot” are written in bold across the page.
The ad also accuses New Zealand of anti-Semitism because it voted in December in favor of a Palestinian-sponsored United Nations (UN) resolution calling on the US to withdraw its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
The Jewish Council of New Zealand and the Zionist Federation of New Zealand, as well as a number of public figures , also slammed Lorde for acquiescing to BDS activists. Israel’s ambassador to New Zealand, Itzhak Gerberg, said that Lorde has “succumbed to the supporters of a small fanatic group” and invited the singer to meet him in person and learn about the true facts surrounding Israel and her harmful actions.
Tags
Who is online
424 visitors
It's time to boycott the boycotters. Both can play at that game.
It's working for the NFL. I turned on a game this past weekend and there were A LOT of empty seats.
I think you are wrong, at least according to this you are,
Ok, I stopped reading the link at "msn".
That's your problem, the Touchdown Wire wrote the story, MSN only posted it on the internet.
Maybe they should stop playing the national anthem at sporting events, since it offends so many people.
Actually, that's a good question for a poll of NT members:
"Should the national anthem no longer be played at sporting events since so many people are offended by it?"
I voted this up but, I must say that I like the National Anthem even though it is "war mongering" in it's wording. What I find offensive is all the people who think that pro athletes don't have a right to protest.
I have always felt that a national anthem, which transcends and outlives any presidency, or temporary government, was symbolic of a nation. I also felt that a country's flag was a symbol not of a president, nor of a a party in power for a peiod of time, but of a nation in perpetuity. Since Americans feel that their anthem and their flag are hateful to them, why don't the athletes also have a flag-burning ceremony at half time as well? That should please a lot of people as well. Why don't the armed forces all kneel in front of the country's enemies?
As well, the anthem is discredited by a lot of Americans because God is mentioned in it, and as you have said, it speaks of war (and I say it speaks of victory). I was thinking about maybe the anthem should be changed. Maybe America the Beautiful should be your anthem, but then it mentions God as well. So how about My Country Tis of Thee? Oh no. It mentions God too, so never mind. Maybe you should make "It's a Small World" your anthem.Then of course nobody should have to pledge allegiance:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
So why are new citizens required to do so at their citizenship ceremony. I suppose schools no longer require it to be said.
Since freedom to do whatever you want is more important than loyalty, and Americans don't give a shit about their own country's traditions and history, why would anyone else in the world respect America?
Well, the lyrics are "the land of the free", right?
Of course freedom is more important than loyalty. This country was founded by people who were determined to be free from forced loyalty.
Loyalty to whom or, what? When a country only shows loyalty to a portion of its citizens is that government that runs that country worth keeping? Freedom is earned and, it has been earned by the men and, women who have fought for it, people like Martin Luther King Jr. and, the Olympic Athletes who held up their fists at the Olympics.
Our traditions and, history depends on us taking a stand for freedom of every citizen to stand up for what is right, that is what these athletes are doing, standing up by kneeling in protest.
They did until the Tweeter-in-Chief became president.
No foreigner respects us because of our traditions and history, that would be crazy.
They only respect us if they benefited from our military might, fear it, or benefit from our foreign aid
or fear the withdrawal of the same!
I suspect that many of our allies can still respect us as a country, without respecting the leadership.
It changes with every Administration.
So be it.
What is the purpose of the pledge of allegience? "Allegience is defined as "loyalty".
What you are saying is that America is not worth keeping, because as long as there are Republicans and Democrats, the government, no matter who is president and which party is in control, is, according to you, only going to show loyalty to a portion of its citizens. It seems to me that polarization between the parties, and if the members of NT are any kind of example, is so extreme that America may as well give up its existence because it will always be loyal to those voters who put that government in power.
Seems to me that the recent vote at the UN disproves that.
There's a reason it's not compulsory. Forced allegiance is not in keeping with liberty.
Only the ignorant at NFL games. I watch NHL all the time. They play the National Anthem all the time. Not only do the players do the right thing and stand, so does the audience and they ALL sing.
"What I find offensive is all the people who think that pro athletes don't have a right to protest."
They don't, while they are on the clock.
The original pledge also did not have "Under God" until the '50's to separate us from the USSR, try reading it without the under God part in it, that is the way my parents learned it.
Where in the Constitution does it say that? Don't bother looking, it doesn't say it anywhere. An Americans rights do not end when they clock in for work.
No, what I am saying is that as long as we keep letting millionaires and, billionaires pick our politicians and, our leaders we will lose a government that has the interests of every American in mind.
Only as long as we let rules like Citizens United exist and, make it so that every one who runs for office must have lots of money to do so.
I haven't seen anyone say the NFL is toast. just that it's viewership is "Down".....which IS true !
Any Down time is a loss of bucks. Owners don't like that.
Did you see the Alabama/Georgia game ?
It sounded like everyone in that friggin stadium was singing the National Anthem......as a Protest against those that want to kneel ?
I have noticed that the NFL is not showing much of that part of the game like they used to.
hmmmmmm......
I wonder why ?
out of Sight....Out of MIND ?
They absolutely have the right while on the clock. They may be fired from their job, but that does not negate their right.
National unity as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example is not in question. The problem is whether under our Constitution compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its achievement.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 11, 1943
Decided June 14, 1943
Sounds like something W. C. Fields would say.
Says the person that posted an opinion piece from Fusin-GPS. Skirting the CoC [ph]
You are about to get on my last nerve dude, quit trolling me. If you don't want to read anything from an "MSN" source then quit listing to NBC, CBS, ABC, or, reading anything from Reuters, USA Today, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or, any other news source because that is were MSN gets its story's.
You mean like this?:
Exactly.
I don't regard any of those sources you listed as reputable.
Yeah, I know, you like the "Drudge Report".
Why is it absolutely wrong to boycott Isarael?
If you don't want to go to a Lorde's concert, don't go.
Why do you think it is right?
Does one not have the right to not go where one does not want to, or buy something one does not want to buy? Are we to be compelled to go where we do not want to go and buy that which we do not want to buy?
I don't really see the issue.
She was probably prepared to go to Israel, and then was convinced by someone's lying Palestinian propaganda to not go. At least there are a lot of world renowned performers who are not so gullible.
It was no loss to the Israelis, but now the door will swing back and hit her in the face because of the number of people who won't buy her records or go to her concerts. But at least she has earned her "bliss" (what is bliss the same as?)
I'll just say that far too many people are blissfully unaware of their ignorance.
I still don't see an issue with her not going to Israel. It is her right, it was her choice.
I find it interesting that the rabbi would call her a bigot when by definition he is expressing bigotry with that statement.
Assumptions........
"I find it interesting that the rabbi would call her a bigot..."
He was being generous. Supporting BDS is antisemitic by definition.
It's kind of hard to boycott something I've never been to.
That's what I'm saying.
The boycott is about more than not going there. It is about not buying anything from Israel and not buying anything from countries who do business with, or have businessess in, Israel.