Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger visit Jerusalem's Western Wall before first ever Israel concert

DailyMail ^ | 5 June 2014 | By Eliza Wilson and Shyam Dodge

[dennisw]

The Rolling Stones were taking the stage in Tel Aviv on Wednesday, and were extremely excited to perform in Israel for the very first time.

Ahead of the milestone show they decided to travel to Jerusalem where they visited the Western Wall.

While Keith Richards skipped the outing, Mick Jagger, Ronnie Wood and Charlie Watts were all photographed at the holy spot, also known as the Kotel or Wailing Wall.

Mick, 70, was paying his respects at the sacred site, and was spotted placing a hand on the Wall after following the lead of two men in kippah.

Ronnie, who turned 67 on Sunday, was joined by his wife Sally Humphreys, while Charlie, who celebrated his 73rd birthday on Monday, brought up the rear.

Later that day the band started their concert at Hayarkon Park 45 minutes late, according to Washington Post, in order to give those celebrating the Jewish holiday Shavuot extra time to get there.

The Stones, who are currently taking part in their 14 On Fire world tour, performed some of their best-loved classic hits during the evening.

However fellow rockers Pink Floyd had pleaded with them to cancel their Israel concert.Nick Mason and Roger Waters of the band wrote a letter on Slate last month which read: ‘So, to the bands that intend to play Israel in 2014, we urge you to reconsider.

‘Playing Israel now is the moral equivalent of playing Sun City at the height of South African apartheid; regardless of your intentions, crossing the picket line provides propaganda that the Israeli government will use in its attempts to whitewash the policies of its unjust and racist regime.’

Justin Timberlake performed in Tel Aviv last week, and he too made the trip to Jerusalem to visit the Western Wall.

[SunkenCiv]

If Keith Richards were to just stroll through the city, it would make all the ancient and medieval structures look much better, sort of spruce up the whole place.

Thanks dennisw.

[SunkenCiv]

Wow, that’s great! I’m definitely putting that into the files!

[CatherineofAragon]

Good for them; I give them credit.

It’s not too late for them. Jesus could get His hands on them yet. ;)

[Bigg Red]

Mind your language, please; there are ladies present.

[Patriot Babe]

Perhaps someone could have planted a Palm Tree. I believe it was Keith Richards that fell off a Palm while in vacation. Yet the question still lingers til this day. What the heck was he doing up on a Palm Tree?

[PGalt]

HOORAY Rolling Stones!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4YlW2ix3zo

[Agamemnon]

Perhaps you might consider reading the lyrics to that song. It doesn’t present Lucifer in a good light. It’s ironic.

Let's read some of them together, shall we? It seems you have missed the point of the song.

Mick mouths the words of Lucifer celebrating his dubious accomplishments.

"Just call me Lucifer

Cause I'm in need of some restraint

So if you meet me

Have some courtesy

Have some sympathy, and some taste

Use all your well-learned politesse

Or I'll lay your soul to waste...."

Ironic, you say?

Revealing, for sure.

Can you give me one good reason why conservatives generally (and Christians in particular) should be attracted in any way toward a song where Satan pays tribute to himself and the evil for which he is responsible?

FReegards!

[Ransomed]

I reckon I always liked it for the background vocal part.

Anyhow, seems to me if he named all these positive things as satan and then associated himself with them or implied he didn’t have anything to do with all the bad things he does name it would be a lot more towards what you are saying I guess, at least for me. “I’m satan, I associate with all these bad things, here are some things that aren’t true (the every cop is a criminal, all sinners are saints, heads and tails are the same thing part) and feel bad for me” is always how I took it, but I’m no scholar about it for sure.

Freegards

[trisham]

That’s an excerpt. We don’t agree. Fine.

[trisham]

Exactly right.

[CatherineofAragon]

Thanks, trisham.

Hope you’re doing well. :)

[midnightcat]

Too funny! I love the Stones.

[Agamemnon]

That’s an excerpt. We don’t agree. Fine.

I suppose I could have posted the entire set of lyrics, but you and I already know them well enough.

But you did not answer my question.

Speaking to you, trisham and to you Ransomed, as one Christian speaks to another Christian: can you give me one good reason why you would be attracted to a song that is the taunting embodiment of Satan praising the works of Satan and celebrating historical evils with which he is associated?

Do each of you desire to have peace in your lives?

Contrast this with the scriptural writings of Paul where he advises:

"8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

Philippians 4:8&9

FReegards!

[GOPJ]

Justin Timberlake performed in Tel Aviv last week, and he too made the trip to Jerusalem to visit the Western Wall.

Good for Justin

Hallelujah...

[Ransomed]

“...can you give me one good reason why you would be attracted to a song that is the taunting embodiment of Satan praising the works of Satan and celebrating historical evils with which he is associated?”

Like I said, I like the backing vocals.

As for the rest, if anyone is liking it because they are into all the bad stuff he names and is associated with, I guess I wouldn’t know what to say, besides thinking that person must be a mouth breather. Same if they think every cop is indeed a criminal, all the sinners are indeed saints, and heads is the same as tails. Guess I’m not seeing the problem. I mean, if someone reads the Screwtape letters and thinks it is awesome because it is a really good manual on how to get a Christian to fall written from a devil’s perspective and they think that’s a really good thing I reckon they are beyond my comprehension.

Seems to me if he named all these positive things as satan and then associated himself with them or implied he didn’t have anything to do with all the bad things he does name it would be a lot more towards what you are saying I guess, at least for me.

FReegards