Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Oh, those terrible anti-semitic bullies!

When Lorde cancelled her Tel Aviv show after appeals from the BDS movement, there was a lot of talk about her having been subject to "anti-Semitic" "bullying."  Even on this blog, The Veteran accused her of "caving in to pressure from the anti-Semitic BDS movement."  The New Zealand Jewish Council announced :

"We are deeply disappointed that Lorde has succumbed to a small but loud group of extremist bullies."

The "extremist bullies" being referred to there are two young women, one Palestinian and one Jewish, who wrote a polite and respectful request titled "Dear Lorde, here’s why we’re urging you not to play Israel."

If you're struggling to find any extremist bullying in that request, fear not - as it turns out there's been plenty of bullying by extremists, just not from the BDS movement.  Funnily enough, all the bullying extremists seem to be on the Israeli side.

It would be too "fish in a barrel" to look at Whaleoil or Kiwiblog posts on the subject, so let's look at some international ones.  Roseanne Barr was quick off the mark with this thoughtful piece:

"She's so privileged that she's SCARED that she might have to live one second in the face of fascist anti-Semitism (that she approves of) like the Israelis/Jews do."

But the prize for extremist bullying has to go to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, for his full-page ad accusing Lorde of being a bigot:

It's pretty funny in various ways, but my favourites are:

1. "World Values Network?"  Did they forget the adjectival phrase "Fucked-Up" or are we just left to infer it?

2.  Lorde's got nothing she could teach Rabbi Shmuley about being a bigot, he's already an expert in the field.

3.  Kudos to Rabbi Shmuley for inadvertently comparing the Israeli government to the Assad regime.  Are you sure they want you on their side, Rabbi?

For its part, the Israeli government is approaching the issue of the BDS movement with the same level of integrity and ethical standards it brings to all its other dealings:

The Israeli government is paying for anti-BDS "journalism."

Project 50/50

Meanwhile, yet to find anything that looks like bullying or bribery from the other side...


David said...

10 thumbs up, Milt, but I expect your fellow bloggers will pile on to again support the terrorists running Israel.

David said...

This is why Lorde made the right decision.

A child, defending her home from armed thugs! How horrid. Israel must never be questioned, the Palestinians want to live in a Police State. There Adolf, saved you the time.

Anonymous said...

Did we ever get an apology from Mossad over the passport hijacking?......must have missed that one. Saw Lorde on the BBC Jools Holland show "Later'....very talented and very proud to be Kiwi. Meantime back at the ranch the slug Slater comments section are full of Russians with appalling grammar agreeing with each other........happy new year.

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

Coupla questions ... does the Jewish State have the right to exist and, who was there first ... the Palestinians or the Jews?

David said...

does the Jewish State have the right to exist

If it retreated from the lebensraum of the "settlers" then it would regain some moral credibility and may find a wider acceptance of its existence.

who was there first ... the Palestinians or the Jews?

The Jews or the Canaanites?

Hmm, the Maori or the English?

Psycho Milt said...

Coupla questions ... does the Jewish State have the right to exist and, who was there first ... the Palestinians or the Jews?

Both those questions come with a hell of a lot of philosophical baggage in tow.

The answer to the first one is "It depends." If you mean does Israel have a right to exist as a homeland for ethnic Jews, the answer is yes, for the same reason New Zealand has the right to exist as a homeland for Ngati Pākeha - it's too late to put that colonisation genie back in the bottle. If you mean does the Jewish religion have exclusive rights over a country, the answer is no.

The answer to the second one is "Who cares?" Israel is an artifact of European colonialism, but then so is New Zealand. Start down the track of "Who was where first?" and it doesn't end until we've found a way to figure out exactly what paths the original humans took from southern Africa and what ethnicities appeared when, and made everyone go to the appropriate places.

Now, a question from me: how are either of your questions relevant to my post?

The Veteran said...

Milt ... to answer. I have no problem with your post. It's the Jew haters like David I have a problem with and I refuse to give 'them' a free ride. Tell me, how many times has Israel been invaded since irs creation. I guess my point is and given the reality of the holocaust and the countless 'progroms' directed against the Jews of eastern Europe I can at least understand the 'never again' determination of the Jewish people. Doesn't necessarily mean they're right (or wrong).

Lorde with her boycott has set herself up for criticism and rightly so. Her selective morality exhibits certain 'birdbath' mentality.

Will her boycott advance the cause of peace in the region? If your answers 'Yes' then I have a bridge I can sell you cheap.

Noel said...

Lorde as an individual chose not to go. No problem with that. But lumping in the rest of the population including you and me is a bit over the top.
Hope he shows some guts behind his rant and publishes here.

Wilbur said...

Lorde has managers, agents and lawyers who would've advised her that the path of least resistance is not to do the gig.

Anonymous said...

Lorde will pay for her cancellation - Hebrews of one national stripe or other dominate the entertainment business. The preciousness of Jewish feelings must not be questioned, even by a post-adolescent singing girl.
So I would refer the august rabbi Shmuley to his own scripture, Proverbs 15:23 - "A man hath joy by the answer of his mouth; A word spoken in due season, how good it is..."

That word to him and all his 'four by two' mates piling on, is 'Get lost!'


Anonymous said...

I don't think you are correct on that one Mick. One of the problems in discussing this subject is that Palestinians are a non religious grouping with Muslim, Christian, Druze and Samaritan amongst them whereas Jews are a religious grouping. To be Jew you are either converted or have a Jewish mother. Israel and Israeli is the correct way to refer to citizens of that country.

The French War graves at Chassenuill use the the term Israelite on the head stones.

Being as an Israelite does not mean you are Jewish and certainly does not mean you are Zionist.

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...


".. does the Jewish State have the right to exist.."

No. No state on the planet has "the right" to exist, and no other state on the planet harps on about a non-existent right for even a second. Do Jewish people have the right to live in their own legally acquired homes? Yes. Most definitely. But then, so do the Palestinians. A small fact that has escaped Zionists for over 100 years.

"...who was there first ... the Palestinians or the Jews?"

Given that multiple genetic studies, including those by Israelis (Nebel et.al 2001 springs to mind), point to the Palestinians being descendants of local populations dating back to the Neolithic - the ones who've been there the longest would be the relatively small number of Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian people themselves (genetically they're the same population). Ashkenazi such as Nuttyahoo, being in large part the descendants of converts (no, not Khazars - Europeans as found by Atzmon et. al. in, I think, 2010) - well not so much. Of course that (very revealing) appeal to the ideology of blut und boden that Zionists like to use would open the way to Jews being expelled from everywhere in the Diaspora. After all who's been there longer - Germans or Jews? As of yet however I've never heard any Zionist support that particularly ill famed ideology anywhere except in Palestine. Funny that.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5.42 .......It appears you can't recognise the difference between a Zionist, a Jew and an Israeli. Cut and pasting doesn't do it here.

The same argument applied to Sth Africa years ago....nasty whites disposed the black African from his homelands. Wrong the rapidly expanding ZULU empire, moving south, met the Dutch settlers, moving north at Fish river. The poor sods that were there for a millennium the Bushman and hottentots were massacred by both sides.

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

Lord Egbut

".It appears you can't recognise the difference between a Zionist, a Jew and an Israeli"

YAWN! Sorry the old attempt to smear people with "ANTI-SEMITISM!!!" just isn't working any more. Any more than it does for the loopy American Rabbi. Did you not get the memo? Well, when you do get it could you forward it to Nuttyahoo and his cronies, their constant conflation more than meets the criteria.

As for South Africa - what has that, apart from the recent history of apartheid, got to do with the Zionist Reich? Palestine has been continuously populated for millennia. and frankly only the insane claim otherwise. Are you seriously, as you seem to be doing, defending S.Africa's horrendous policies of discrimination because the various Bantu speaking peoples arrived at around the same time as Europeans?

And btw - according to the Israeli Supreme Court, ruling in 2013 - there's no such thing as an Israeli. The nationality simply does not exist in that vile little ethnocracy - only Jews and Non-Jews.

Eugene Chignon de Croix Chaude said...

Lorde's principled stand is at the expense of her own bank account, not the Israelis.

India is far better at punt kicking the Israeli fascists - it has cancelled half a billion in arms purchases from Israel.


Why aren't the usual suspects piling on India?

Anonymous said...

Thank you......I was not aware of the 2013 ruling.. http://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/ornan_v_state_of_israel_summary.pdf

However this does not change the rule of law which existed prior and may change again. The right wing has complete control of the Knesset...at the moment. Wrong about Bantu and wrong about Zionist Reich. I lived in SA during the apartheid era and obviously you didn't....see what I did there..........no whataboutary at all.

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...


You're wriggling is amusing but the ruling clearly demonstrates that there is not now, nor has there ever been an "Israeli" nationality as you earlier claimed and that the Zionist Reich defines identity and rights based purely on ethnicity. As for the Right Wing controlling the Knesset - it has done so ever since the Zionist Reich was set up. The so-called "Israeli Left" - the ones who set up the settlements in the first place - are merely the not-too-far outliers of a radically and extreme Right Wing ideology - Zionism.

As for the Bantu - where was I wrong? Exactly. And as regards the "whataboutary," might I remind you that YOU were the one who introduced South Africa to the conversation, not I, and that you have not as yet answered my question about what the hell the arrival of Europeans and Zulu, or the plight of the San has to do with the matter at hand.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...


Here I am with Egbut (carbolic soap)

Whatever the Israeli Supreme Court may say counts for naught in the world of international diplomacy. Israel is a nation, make no mistake. Why else do you think countries have Ambassadors to Israel? They are not Ambassadors to Judaism. Why do you think there are Arab members of the Knesset?

Were you right, which you aren't, if a loopy NZ court declared NZ to be not a nation but a collection of European and Polynesian settlers then the country would cease to exist.

In short, I think you are an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Adolf (a VERY suitable name - well done)

The "world of international diplomacy" is not the matter at hand. It is, quite simply, does an Israeli nation exist. And it doesn't. According to the Israelis themselves. or in your boundless arrogance do you claim to know more about the matter than they do? Don't answer. It's obvious you do.

"It was ruled that it had not been proven that an Israeli nation has been formed in the State of Israel,
separately from the Jewish nation …"

Ethnic identity comes first, last and always in the Zionist Reich. it should also though be noted that the Israeli decision was made with an eye on international issues,

" The implications of this discussion are immensely wide. This pertains to Israel’s relations with diaspora Jews..."

"Were you right, which you aren't, if a loopy NZ court declared NZ to be not a nation but a collection of European and Polynesian settlers then the country would cease to exist.

Which funnily enough was the argument of the appellants in the case of Israeli nationality,

"According to the appellants’,the entire citizenry of Israel amounts to its constituent nationality, and therefore,negating the existence of an Israeli nationality is tantamount to negating the existence
of the State of Israel as a sovereign democratic state."

Except of course that New Zealand wasn't set up from the get-go to be the nation-state of one people and no others, and this fictitious court would not be ruling on a reality of 70 years ethno-supremacism. Nor does NZ trumpet itself around the world as the nation state of the "X" people, claiming that all such people, that they deem a supra-national "nation" are already citizens in potentia. And no one else. Further this was NOT the decision of one "loopy NZ court" but an appeal against decisions made in Lower Courts. Decisions defended by representatives of the Israeli government. So - loony courtS (note the plural) and loony governments (since this has been going on for 70 years).

And as for your attempt at playing semantics with the word "nation"

" the term “Israeli nationality”.......means nothing but citizenship; and the same holds for the term ‘nationality’ in the Israeli passport."

There is no Israeli nation.

Maybe next time - before calling someone else an idiot - you should do some basic reading and escape so badly embarrassing yourself.


Anonymous said...

Sorry, to a simple soul like me an Israeli passport has "State of Israel" on the front cover implying the carrier is an Israeli citizen not a Jewish citizen.......the verbal juggling here is just that, legalese that has little bearing on daily life.

I don't like them or their policies but it is still a democracy that has the opportunity to change for the better.......by signing off as Cretin you have just put yourself in the same frame as Troll Adolf.

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

Lord Egbut

It's not just legalese as it strikes to the very core of Zionist ideology, that "nation" is an ethnic label and nothing else and that rights are dependent upon membership of the dominant "nation." Citizenship in Israel likewise is delimited by ethnic rights - with over 50 laws on Israel's books that specifically discriminate against Non-Jews. And more being proposed almost constantly. We've even seen pogroms against African asylum seekers. Zionism is, at base, little more than Nazism in blue and white drag with the same reliance upon ideas of blut und boden, lebensraum, heims en reich and uber/untermensch. Not surprising since both Zionism and Nazism grew from the Europeans ideas of ethno-nationalism birthed during the Long 18th Century.

As for it being a democracy I'm afraid I can't agree. With an electorate whose demographic makeup has been manipulated and maintained with violence, with millions who live under Israeli suzerainty denied the vote purely because of their ethnicity; it is an out and proud ethnocracy. And was never intended to be anything else. And how much opportunity must we give it to change for the better? After 70 years it has demonstrated a total unwillingness in that regard, in fact the calls for dispossession and outright genocide from the Knesset increase every year. Just recently the Justice Minister herself stated that equality before the law should be predicated on national identity not universal human rights.

"Zionism,should not continue and will not continue to bow down to the system of individual rights interpreted in a universal way."
Ayelet Shaked, 2016
(incidently -this member of the government has also called for full on genocide of Palestinians)

And there again we have the importance in the Zionist Reich of the difference between citizenship and nation, the latter always trumping the former.

Now - please. Where was I wrong about the Bantu (and just so you know - I already knew that the Europeans and Bantu expansion hit S.Africa at about the same time and the hunts for the San committed by both European and Zuly before you mentioned them)?

Anonymous said...

The fact that you use the term Bantu and European show me that you are trawling the net. Firstly the term Bantu means people which to the Afrikaaners meant all Black people. The Zulu and the Xhosa are separate ethnic groups where the word Muntu or Mutu means people or human beings. It was the Dutch voortrekkers who regarded themselves as White Africans, not Europeans, on the Great Trek who first clashed with Zulu's.

The discussion about Palestine was about who got here first. I was merely pointing out that there was parallel between that and SA. The bottom line is that there is no right of occupation on your piece of the playground. You have the right to defend it but if a big boy takes it from you then tough luck, or you find a bigger boy to form an alliance with..

Lord Egbut (correspondence now closed)

Anonymous said...


The reason I use the term Bantu is because it's a linguistic term (that you, supposedly once from S. Africa don't know this is amazing frankly), and the term "Bantu Expansion" is well established in the literature, e.g.

"The connections between Bantu expansion and the spread of metallurgy in Africa...."
Childs and Herbert, "African Archaeology," 2005

There are a lot more references to the use of the term where that one came from. It simply saves listing every single ethnic grouping which would get tiresome fast. I might also make note of your use of the Colonial term "Hottentot" instead of the more widely recognized and modern "San." It seems at the very least revealing of your attitude to these people - it's just a wonder you didn't go whole hog and use "Bushmen". So. As of yet - you've not actually pointed out a single thing I got wrong. Do you always just say "you're wrong" with nothing to back it up. How Trumpian of you.

As for Palestine - you're arguing "Might = Right" and I have to wonder if you'd use that same "justification" for the Holocaust. Or apartheid for that matter. I suspect a scandalized no to the former at the very least.