BDS Academic boycott – Eat Crow

The insane left has been calling for academic boycotts of Israeli Academics for decades.

Now they are getting a taste of their own medicine.

Would you like salt with your Crow?

Academic boycott launched AGAINST U.S. after Trump Immigration Executive Order

Posted by January 31, 2017 http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/01/academic-boycott-launched-against-u-s-after-trump-immigration-executive-order/

The academic boycott circular firing squad forms on the left.

It’s not like I told you so.

But I told you so. Many, many times.

To those in the U.S. academic community who support the academic boycott of Israeli academics because they don’t like the policies of the Israeli government, I warned that they better prepare for the day when foreign academics start to boycott them for the actions of the U.S. government.

That day has arrived sooner than I thought. Though the boycott of U.S. academics being mounted is much less severe than the boycott sought against Israel, it’s a boycott nonetheless.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports:

Some faculty members are calling for a boycott of academic conferences in the United States in reaction to an executive order, signed on Friday by President Trump, that bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

A petition circulating online has drawn the signatures of hundreds of academics around the world.

“We the undersigned take action in solidarity with those affected by Trump’s executive order by pledging not to attend international conferences in the U.S. while the ban persists,” the petition says. “We question the intellectual integrity of these spaces and the dialogues they are designed to encourage while Muslim colleagues are explicitly excluded from them.” …

Max Weiss, an associate professor of history and Near Eastern studies at Princeton University and a signer of the petition, said in an interview that “academic boycott is one of the few resources that intellectuals and academics have for expressing their opposition to policies of a given government.”

Emery Berger, a professor of information and computer sciences at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, said he had heard discussions of relocating or banning conferences set to be held in the United States. Mr. Berger, who is involved in two subgroups of the Association for Computing Machinery, an international organization that runs many computer-science conferences, said members were discussing ways to lessen the effects of the travel ban.

“Science is intended to be free and open, and any place that restricts the travel of scientists to present their work is a problem,” Mr. Berger said. “We are talking about taking steps to mitigate this problem however we can.” He said he suspected other disciplines were having similar discussions.

He’s heard some academics call for a complete ban on conferences in the United States, until the order is lifted, Mr. Berger said.

In Solidarity with People Affected by the ‘Muslim Ban’: Call for an Academic Boycott of International Conferences held in the US

On 27 January 2017, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order putting in place a 90-day ban that denies US entry to citizens from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia. So far, the ban includes dual nationals, current visa, and green card holders, and is affecting those born in these countries while not holding citizenship of them. The Order also suspends the admittance of all refugees to the US for a period of 120 days and terminates indefinitely all refugee admissions from Syria. There are indications that the Order could be extended to include other Muslim majority countries.

The Order has affected people with residence rights in the US, as well as those with rights of entry and stay. Some of those affected are fleeing violence and persecution, and have been waiting for years for resettlement in the US as refugees. Others are effectively trapped in the US, having cancelled planned travel for fear that they will be barred from returning. The order institutionalises racism, and fosters an environment in which people racialised as Muslim are vulnerable to ongoing and intensifying acts of violence and hatred.

Among those affected by the Order are academics and students who are unable to participate in conferences and the free communication of ideas. We the undersigned take action in solidarity with those affected by Trump’s Executive Order by pledging not to attend international conferences in the US while the ban persists. We question the intellectual integrity of these spaces and the dialogues they are designed to encourage while Muslim colleagues are explicitly excluded from them.

*In order to add your signature, please write your name and institution in the box below where it says ‘Short answer’. This list is updated manually (at least twice per day) so your signature will not appear immediately. Please do not enter your signature more than once.
As of 1 February 2017, 13.00 GMT the letter has 5000+ signatures.

A column in The Guardian raises the same issue, Should academics boycott Donald Trump’s America?:

The inauguration of President Trump poses a challenge to liberals inside the US and beyond; a truth brought home only too vividly by the introduction of an executive order barring entry to all refugees and any citizens from a list of Muslim-majority countries. There are many ways that the academic community can resist – and is resisting – the illiberal, populist regime represented by Trump’s White House.

But for non-US academics who travel regularly to the US to participate in scholarly meetings, this latest measure presents a dilemma of a very particular kind: should we continue to participate in conferences held in the US which many of our colleagues, including British academics with dual citizenship, may be prevented from attending?

This is not an abstract question. I am myself in the process of making a panel submission for a conference to be held in Denver in November. Others already have places confirmed and flights booked for major events taking place in the coming months. Should we change our plans in solidarity with our banned colleagues, or would doing so only isolate US-based scholars whose critical voices are needed now more than ever?

 

I’m basically laughing my ass off over this development because it proves my point that academic boycotts are a systemic threat.

I still haven’t seen anyone call for an academic boycott of Turkey, despite thousands of academics having been arrested. And what about all the Arab countries and universities controlled by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority where there is no academic freedom?

Pretty selective outrage among the circular firing squad forming on the left.

UPDATE: The boycott is spreading, particularly in Canada, as the Toronto Star reports, and accusations that the U.S. is an Apartheid State are being made (just as they are made against Israeli to justify the boycott), Canadian academics boycott U.S. conferences over Trump ban:


TOP

New Report Confirms Ties Between BDS-Promoting NGOs and Terrorist Organizations

Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy (MSA) today released its “Terrorists in Suits” report, which reveals over a whopping 100 links shared between the internationally-designated terrorist organizations Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and at least 13 anti-Israel BDS promoting NGOs.

Click to Download the report Click to download PDF file MSA-Terrorists-In-Suits-English-1

What Starts Online, Doesn’t Stay There

TOP

Trump signs executive order to combat anti-Semitism on college campuses

Jennifer Kabbany – Fix Editor 11December2019 https://www.thecollegefix.com/trump-signs-executive-order-to-combat-anti-semitism-on-college-campuses/

‘My administration will never tolerate the suppression, persecution or silencing of the Jewish people’

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order that aims to fight anti-Semitism — particularly on college campuses — by clarifying that federal laws protect against discrimination against Jewish people and warning public institutions could lose funding if they ignore “the vile, hate-filled poison of anti-Semitism.”

“This action makes clear that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits the federal funding of universities and other institutions that engage in discrimination, applies to institutions that traffic in anti-Semitic hate,” Trump said in a ceremony right before signing the order.

“This is our message to universities,” Trump said. “If you want to accept the tremendous amount of federal dollars that you get every year, you must reject anti-Semitism. It’s very simple.”
TOP

Federal Court upholds constitutionality of Arkansas anti-BDS law

Posted by 23January2019 https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/01/federal-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-arkansas-anti-bds-law/

“Because engaging in a boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is neither speech nor inherently expressive conduct, it is not protected by the First Amendment.”

The U.S. has had a federal anti-Boycott law (Anti-boycott Regulations) on the books since the 1970s, to counter the Arab League Boycott of Israel.

There is under consideration in Congress, and many states have passed, laws to modernize the anti-Boycott laws to take into account the new form of the boycott, the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. As I have proven, BDS is a new form not only of the anti-Jewish boycotts of the 1920s and 1930s, but also of the Arab League Boycott, The REAL history of the BDS movement.

The popular wisdom is that such laws are an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. This popular wisdom is based on a misunderstanding of the law and the laws.

A decision in Arkansas upholding Arkansas’s anti-BDS law is a case in point.

The Arkansas Times challenged Arkansas’ anti-BDS law, represented by the ACLU:

The Arkansas Times Limited Partnership, the company that owns and publishes the Arkansas Times, is challenging in federal court a state law that requires government contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel or reduce their fees by at least 20 percent.

The suit, filed Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas on behalf of Arkansas Times LP, says Act 710 of 2017 violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by suppressing public debate. State Rep. Jim Dotson (R-Bentonville) and Sen. Bart Hester (R-Cave Springs) sponsored the bill that became Act 710, which took effect July 31, 2017.

Here is the complaint, the motion for a preliminary injunction and declaratory relief and a brief in support of an injunction and declaratory relief. The lawsuit has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Beth Deere and U.S. District Judge Brian Miller.

The Times initiated the suit after the University of Arkansas-Pulaski Technical College, which has advertised regularly in the Times and its sister publications, informed the Times that it had to sign a certification that it would not engage in a boycott of Israel if it wanted to continue to receive advertising contracts from the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees on behalf of UAPTC. The university imposed this condition because Act 710 requires all state institutions to do so. Timespublisher Alan Leveritt declined, and UAPTC has refused to advertise further with the Times. The Times has never participated in a boycott of Israel or editorialized in support of one.

You can read the Brief in Opposition to the Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by Arkansas, setting for the arguments that the  anti-BDS law was constitutional.

Chief Judge Brian S. Miller in the Eastern District of Arkansas just threw out the lawsuit in an opinion which concluded that the law was not as the Judge initially expected it would be.  The Order (pdf.) is embedded at the bottom of this post.

The Judge’s opening paragraph was instructive of why we shouldn’t accept the common wisdom:

I routinely instruct jurors to follow my instructions on the law, even if they thought the law was different or think it should be different. This case presents an occasion in which I must follow the same principle, which is that I have a duty to follow the law even though, before researching the issue, I thought the law required a different outcome than the one ultimately reached.

The Judge noted that there are many similar laws:

This law is not the only one of its kind. Dozens of states have passed similar statutes. See Br. Opp. Pl. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 2 n.1, Doc. No. 14. There is a somewhat similar federal law authorizing the “President [to] issue regulations prohibiting any United States person . . . from . . . support[ing] any boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country against a [friendly] country.” 50 U.S.C. § 4607(a)(1) (1979); see also Anti-Boycott Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-232, §§ 1771–74.

Here’s the heart of the Judge’s legal analysis upholding the law:

The Times is unlikely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claims because it has not demonstrated that a boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is protected by the First Amendment. This finding diverges from decisions recently reached by two other federal district courts. Jordahl, 336 F. Supp. 3d at 1016; Koontz v. Watson, 283 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1021–22 (D. Kan. 2018)

* * *

A boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is neither speech nor inherently expressive conduct.

First, a boycott is not purely speech because, after putting aside any accompanying explanatory speech, a refusal to deal, or particular commercial purchasing decisions, do not communicate ideas through words or other expressive media….

Second, such conduct is not “inherently expressive.” FAIR, 547 U.S. at 66. In FAIR, an association of law schools restricted military recruiting on campuses to express their opposition to the military’s then-existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Id. at 51. Congress responded to this restriction by passing the Solomon Amendment, which denied federal funding to law schools unless they allowed military recruiters to have equal access to campuses. Id. The law schools asserted that the law violated the First Amendment, id., but a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the challenge, holding that such conduct was “not inherently expressive” because the actions “were expressive only because the law schools accompanied their conduct with speech explaining it.” Id. at 66 (emphasis added).

* * *

The Arkansas Times’s argument that an individual’s refusal to deal, or his purchasing decisions, when taken in connection with a larger social movement, become inherently expressive is well-taken but ultimately unpersuasive. Such an argument is foreclosed by FAIR, as individual law schools were effectively boycotting military recruiters as part of a larger protest against the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

For these reasons, the First Amendment does not protect the Arkansas Times’s purchasing decisions or refusal to deal with Israel.

The court also rejected the common wisdom that there is an unfettered right to boycott:

The Times’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) creates an unfettered, black-letter right to engage in political boycotts is unpersuasive.

Claiborne concerned a primary boycott of white-owned businesses in Port Gibson, Mississippi by civil rights activists in order to protest racial discrimination. 458 U.S. at 899–900. The boycotters’ constitutional rights were being violated by local government officials, many of whom also owned the businesses being boycotted. Id. The Supreme Court observed that “[t]he right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott designed to force governmental and economic change and to effectuate rights guaranteed by the Constitution itself.” Id. at 914.

Crucially, Claiborne did not “address purchasing decisions or other non-expressive conduct.” Jordahl, Case No. 18-16896, Dkt. No. 26 slip op. at 5 (9th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018) (order denying stayof preliminaryinjunction) (Ikuta, J., dissenting); see also FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass’n, 493 U.S. 411, 426–27 (1990). Rather, the Court arrived at its decision only after carefully inspecting the various elements of the boycott, which consisted of meetings, speeches, and non-violent picketing. Claiborne, 458 U.S. at 907–08. It concluded that “[e]ach of these elements of the boycott is a form of speech or conduct that is ordinarily entitled to protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id. The Court, however, did not hold that individual purchasing decisions were protected by the First Amendment. See id.

Similarly, under Claiborne, the Times maywrite and send representatives to meetings, speeches, and picketing events in opposition to Israel’s policies, free from any state interference. It may even call upon others to boycott Israel, write in support ofsuch boycotts, and engage in picketing and pamphleteering to that effect. This does not mean, however, that its decision to refuse to deal, or to refrain from purchasing certain goods, is protected by the First Amendment….

For these reasons, Claiborne does not hold that individual purchasing decisions are constitutionally protected, nor does it create an unqualified right to engage in political boycotts. In the years following Claiborne, it does not appear that the Supreme Court or any court of appeals has extended Claiborne in such a manner.

The court then dismissed the case.

In Arkansas, as elsewhere, anti-Israel pro-BDS activists still can dress up as peppers to protect America from Zionist vegetables. But they can’t contract with the state if they conduct their business with the state in a discriminatory fashion by boycotting Israel.

Roz Rothstein of the pro-Israel StandWithUs is thrilled:

“We commend the wisdom of the judge’s decision,” StandWithUs CEO Roz Rothstein said. “As the court recognized, taxpayers need to be protected from being complicit in discrimination, which both undermines state policy and harms its economy.”

I’m sure the reaction from anti-Israel activists will be furious.

I’m not familiar enough with the various state laws to compare Arkansas’s anti-BDS law to the others. But clearly the issue is not as clear cut, from a constitutional perspective, as some would have you believe.

Federal judge upholds anti-BDS law in Arkansas, says it has nothing to do with the First Amendment. He’s right.

January 24, 2019 http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/01/federal-judge-upholds-anti-bds-law-in.html
The judge is correct. Boycotts aren’t speech – they are actions, which are not protected by the First Amendment.

And they are discriminatory actions. If boycotting Israel is considered free speech, then so should boycotting African American businesses, or women-owned businesses.

The ACLU disagrees:

“We disagree with the district court’s decision, which contradicts two recent federal court decisions and which would radically limit the First Amendment right to boycott,” said Holly Dickson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, which represented the Times.

Yet the argument that refusing to do business with a specific group is not considered a First Amendment issue was given by none other than the ACLU themselves, which wrote in another case:

We filed our brief to explain why the First Amendment does not give a commercial business license to offer services to the general public and then – in violation of a state’s public accommodation law – refuse to provide photography services to particular customers based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or any other characteristic. Under Elane Photography’s proposal, customers could walk into the photography studio at Sears or JCPenny for a family portrait and be told they cannot have their picture taken because they are a Latino family, or a Jewish family, or a family with a child who has Down Syndrome. A photography studio could tell an interracial family that taking their portrait would create expression celebrating their interracial relationship and that it would violate the studio’s First Amendment rights to participate in that expression.

I see no First Amendment difference between a “boycott” by a business of gay customers, as the Elane Photography case was, and a refusal to do business with Israeli-linked people or companies. In neither case is the issue free speech, as the ACLU says explicitly.

Refusing to accommodate a gay couple on religious grounds may be a different story, because then there is a case of two differing sets of rights that contradict each other and those cases need to be decided by a judge to determine whose rights are more important under the law. But in this case, it is clear that boycotting itself is not considered free speech, even when the boycott is done through a medium of expression such as, as the ACLU letter notes, “countless other businesses that use words, pictures, or other forms of creative expression, including court reporting services, translation services, graphic-design agencies, architecture firms, sound technicians, print shops, and dance studios, almost any good or service involving computer code, makeup artists, hair stylists, florists, and countless other services.”

Federal court upholds anti-BDS bill in Arkansas

By Jackson Richman https://www.jns.org/federal-court-upholds-anti-bds-bill-in-arkansas/

… The judge added, “Israel in particular is known for its dynamic and innovative approach in many business sectors, and therefore a company’s decision to discriminate against Israel, Israeli entities, or entities that do business with or in Israel, is an unsound business practice, making the company an unduly risky contracting partner or vehicle for investment.”…

…Eugene Kontorovich, a legal expert with the Kohelet Policy Forum and George Mason Law School, told JNS that the decision in Arkansas “correctly concluded what Supreme Court precedent clearly says: a company’s decision to refuse to do business with a particular group is simply not speech at all, it is commercial conduct.”

JerusalemCats Comments: If you are for BDS then you are for the Klu Klux Klan boycotting Gay, Blacks, Liberals and others. Are you for Cross Burning? And as the Judge stated. “Israel in particular is known for its dynamic and innovative approach in many business sectors, and therefore a company’s decision to discriminate against Israel, Israeli entities, or entities that do business with or in Israel, is an unsound business practice, making the company an unduly risky contracting partner or vehicle for investment.”
TOP

And speaking about birds

Jerusalem Bird Observatory

A great place for Hitbodedut http://natureisrael.org/JBO

The Jerusalem Bird Observatory – JBO, houses one of many national bird-ringing centers. Together with the active ringing station, it serves as an ideal tool for conservation studies and research that monitor bird populations. Birds Migration patterns in Israel are studied throughout the various seasons and data is collected and analyzed in a comprehensive national database. The national database also receives information from our other birding stations throughout the country, including the Hula Valley, Eilat, Ma’agan Michael, Hazeva and Sde Boker.

The JBO is located in the center of Jerusalem near the Knesset. Visitors can stop by for an eco-experience. Bird watching, presentations, about bird migration in Israel, and a comprehensive urban nature experience is available for tourists visiting as groups or individuals.

The Gail Rubin Gallery, which was established to encourage nature artists and photographers in Israel, always houses exhibitions. The exhibitions focus on different aspects of nature and are free and open to the public whenever the building is open.

Birdwatching in Jerusalem

The Israeli government allocated the JBO a one-acre plot (5,000 square meters) of prime real estate, between the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) and the Supreme Court. The site is one of the few traditional birdwatching areas in Jerusalem that has not been harmed by development, and is centrally located, making it attractive as an educational and tourist center for the public.

Since the establishment of the JBO, birds have arrived in greater numbers each year, to the great pleasure of bird and bird watcher alike. The JBO acts as a magnet for many common migrating and wintering birds: Wrynecks, Collared flycatchers, Masked and Red-backed Shrikes, and Thrush Nightingales can be seen migrating and European Robins, Hawfinches, and Bramblings are regular winter visitors. In addition many resident Israeli birds make their home at the JBO, including Palestine Sunbirds, Spectacled Bulbuls and Israel’s national bird, the Hoopoe. The endangered Lesser Kestrels can be seen nesting in springtime in nearby Musrara and many Short-toed eagles and Little Owls can be found in the hills surrounding the city. The JBO is also home to a vast amount of animals and plants that make up an inseparable part of the local environment.

Visiting the JBO

The JBO is located directly next to the Knesset (Israeli Parliament), past the main entrance, nestled between the Rose Garden and Sacher Park. The bird hide of the JBO is open every day, 24 hours a day to the general public and is fully wheelchair accessible, thanks to the help of the Nyman family.

Visitors are invited to sit and observe the natural diversity of birds and wildlife that live in or pass through Jerusalem. Feel free to meander the paved road that leads from the Knesset and the Rose Garden to the gate of the cemetery, but we ask that you leave the rest of the site for the birds and not leave the paved road. For the sake of the wildlife and the comfort of our visitors, please refrain from smoking, lighting bonfires, loud music or littering.  Please keep your dogs on a leash while on the site.

Schedule: Sunday-Thursday from 9:00-3:00pm or by appointment.

Types of activities: Bird watching, night hikes, nature movies, bird banding, group tours, nature crafts, tree planting, photography workshops, sketching workshops, and birdwatching for beginners workshops.

Bird Ringing is conducted several days a week and guided tours are available by appointment. Please call or e-mail for details.

Phone: +972 (0)2-653-7374.
Mobile: +972 (0)52-386-9488

Email: jbo@inter.net.il
JBO Brochure
TOP


The secret history BDS hides from you

Vengefulness of Eisav on Display
TOP

24December 2018 Elder of Ziyon http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-frightening-parallel-between-german.html

A frightening parallel between German antisemites in the 1920s and BDS activists today

An eyewitness writing in 1920 described the effect in Germany of the publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

In Berlin I attended several meetings which were entirely devoted to the Protocols. The speaker was usually a professor, a teacher, an editor, a lawyer or someone of that kind. The audience consisted of members of the educated class, civil servants, tradesmen, former officers, ladies, above all students …. Passions were whipped up to the boiling point. There, in front of one, in the flesh, was the cause of all ills – those who had made the war and brought about the defeat and engineered the revolution, those who had conjured up all our suffering …. I observed the students. A few hours earlier they had perhaps been exerting all their mental energy in a seminar under the guidance of a world-famous scholar. … Now young blood was boiling, eyes flashed, fists clenched, hoarse voices roared applause or vengeance. (W. K. Timmermann – Incitement in international criminal law)

Imagine the scene. Authority figures – often academics – riling up groups of people, often students, with lies that are meant to do only one thing: to incite the audience into hating Jews. And their methods worked – they seemed to gather “incontrovertible facts” that fed into the people’s need to find a scapegoat, to find a symbol that they can channel all their hate into.

This happens, today, too.

What are BDS meetings all about, anyway? They are meant to incite the audience with lies (in this case, the Protocols are replaced with heavily edited videos and fabricated news stories) in order to get them to hate Israel, and Zionist Jews.

Like the German antisemites of the 1920s, today’s Israel-bashers work hard to ensure that any information about their avowed enemies that is not wholly negative get censored, stopped, or drowned out with protests. The entire concept of accusations of “pinkwashing” and “artwashing” is meant to say that even when Israelis do something that aligns with modern liberal and moral values, it is really a nefarious plot to hide their unspeakable crimes. When Israeli Jews do something seemingly bad it is horrendous, when they do something good even that is bad. There is no room in their discourse for truth or honesty. And like then, there are enough idiots who are more than willing to fully adapt a simplistic theory of Jewish/Zionist evil to explain all the ills of the world (today including things like US police brutality, racism, colonialism, slavery, stealing organs, poisoning water, economic woes, and so forth.)

And, sometimes, the BDS meetings go full circle to attack Jews themselves, as this recent video of David Sheen blaming false and twisted interpretations of the Talmud and Jewish scholars for Israeli actions at a BDS meeting in Amsterdam:

This lecture is exactly what the witness from 1920 was talking about.

Sheen makes explicit what BDS and Israel-haters have made implicit: the purpose of these meetings  is to rile people up and cause them to hate mainstream Jews who dare to support the existence of a Jewish state and sanctuary for Jews worldwide.

_______________________

In case you actually watch this antisemitic video, Sheen quotes Maimonides to make it appear that he teaches Jews to ethnically cleanse gentiles. But the quotes are taken out of context, of course; Maimonides says that gentiles who live in Israel and accept the basic moral (Noachide) laws are to be treated with respect:

“Similarly, it appears to me that in regard to respect and honor and also, in regard to charity, a resident alien is to be treated as a Jew for behold, we are commanded to sustain them as Deuteronomy 14:21 states: ‘You may not eat any animal that has not been properly slaughtered… give it to the resident alien in your gates that he may eat it.’ …
However, our Sages commanded us to visit (all) gentiles (not just resident aliens) when ill, to bury their dead in addition to the Jewish dead, and support their poor in addition to the Jewish poor for the sake of peace. Behold, Psalms 145:9 states: ‘God is good to all and His mercies extend over all His works’ and Proverbs 3:17 states: ‘The Torah’s ways are pleasant ways and all its paths are peace.’

וכן יראה לי שנוהגין עם גרי תושב בדרך ארץ וגמילות חסדים כישראל. שהרי אנו מצווין להחיותן שנאמר לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה. …. אפילו העכו”ם צוו חכמים לבקר חוליהם. ולקבור מתיהם עם מתי ישראל. ולפרנס ענייהם בכלל עניי ישראל. מפני דרכי שלום. הרי נאמר טוב ה’ לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו. ונאמר דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום:

And Maimonides’ words about how to treat Gentiles come from the Talmud, where they are mentioned (with some variations)  no less than five times without any dispute: Tosefta Gittin 3:13-14, Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 5:9 47c, Jerusalem Talmud Demai 4:6 24a, Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zara 1:3 39c and Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 61a.

Similarly, Jew-haters like Sheen like to say that when the Talmud says “Whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world” it is really referring only to Jewish lives, but the quote is given twice: once in context of Jews, and once in context of everyone including non-Jews (Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 22a).

Sheen’s claim that “neighbor” in Leviticus excludes females and the non-religious is too absurd to even discuss. It has no basis in reality, period.
TOP


When you have to deal with a rude BDS Nazi that hates you because you are a Jew or someone who supports the State Of Israel.

9 Comebacks for Dealing with Rude People

9 Comebacks for Dealing with Rude People

“When someone is rude, keep a smile on your face. When you stay on the high road and keep your joy, you take away their power.” – Joel Osteen

People can tend to have a love/hate relationship with their families, bosses, friends, and even spouses. They can be the sweetest people with loving intentions one second, and the next, say something so offensive that makes you want to call them every name under the sun and react negatively. Questions like “When did you gain so much weight?” or “When will you ever get another boyfriend?” or “Why haven’t you found a job yet?” can really hit below the belt and really set off your temper, if you allow it. People don’t often think about what they say before they say it, which can lead to disaster if the person they are speaking to (you) becomes offended.

You have a right to defend yourself and speak your mind, but you can come up with a retort that allows you to express yourself while still being positive and polite.

Finding the right comeback to deal with rude people isn’t always easy, especially if that person signs your paychecks. If you have been wondering how to handle your mother-in-law who can’t seem to keep her mouth shut about your weight, or your boss who shows no remorse when he gives you extra work to do, consider these comebacks the next time you encounter rudeness.

1. Thank you.

A simple “thank you” speaks volumes when you encounter rudeness. Not only does it show the other person that you didn’t let their words affect you, it reflects maturity on your part. You chose not to ignore the person or get angry, but met both of those tactics somewhere in the middle. A “thank you” usually implies that you acknowledge someone’s thoughtfulness and are responding to that. However, in this case, your “thank you” will mean that you acknowledge the person’s rudeness and you choose not to let it affect you. That will shut the other person down quickly when he or she realizes that the comments didn’t phase you.

You choose how to react in any given situation, so choose happiness. It will keep your thoughts and actions positive, and show others that their rude words simply cannot take your power from you.

2. I appreciate your perspective.

Not only does is this an intelligent approach, it will show the person that you only wish to communicate in an adult manner, and not stoop to their level. Any rude comments reflect the other person’s shaky perception of themselves, so remember that when someone blurts out something tactless. They may want to bring you down, but you don’t have to let them. Show them that you will only continue the conversation with dignity and respect. They may actually respect you more by reacting in such a considerate way. If this doesn’t happen, shift your focus with this next tip.

3. This conversation is now over.

If you find yourself too angry to respond to someone in a civil way, simply end the conversation. You don’t want to cause permanent damage to a relationship by losing your cool, but you also don’t want to disrespect yourself by pretending like the person’s comments or questions are acceptable.

Choose to take the high road and not allow the conversation to carry on, and you will be able to keep your dignity while skipping a potential all-out brawl or heated argument.

4. Why do you feel that was necessary, and do you really expect me to answer?

Especially in group settings, this will likely put the other person in check very quickly. Instead of getting the expected irate response out of you, they will meet a calm, cool and collected you, ready to talk things over sensibly and decently. Also, it will give them a chance to redeem themselves, and apologize to you in front of your friends, family or co-workers.

Other people do need to know that you do not tolerate rude or uncalled for questions and comments, and that you will call attention to their uncouth behavior. If they say “yes” to the second part of your question, you can simply reply with “Well, it looks like this isn’t your lucky day,” and be done with the conversation.

5. That almost hurt my feelings.

While a little on the sarcastic side, it tells the other person that you choose not to absorb their negativity. It also deals with rude people in a mature way, and will probably discourage the other person from making any other remarks once they realize you aren’t affected by them.

6. You’re right.

While most people have a hard time saying these two words, it will benefit you to make the other person believe they were in the right in what they said, and will likely cause the conversation to be cut short. What more can they say after this comeback? You admit their rightness, and then disengage from the conversation. While you might not get as much satisfaction by using this tactic, it will put a damper on the other person’s enjoyment since they won’t get a rise out of you, which is what they were after in the first place.

 7. You always have something negative to say, don’t you?

This takes the attention off of you and back onto them, making them think twice about their choice of conversation topics. Not only will you, rightfully so, draw their focus onto their own words, but also force them to reconsider what they say in the future.

Speaking your mind when a person repeats behavior that offends you is never wrong or uncalled for; if you feel you need to draw attention to someone’s behavior, then listen to your gut. The person’s negativity likely affects other people besides you, so making them aware of their own toxic behavior will actually benefit you and others in future situations with this person.

8. I love myself, and I love you, too.

This may only apply in certain situations with friends, family, and your spouse. If you say it to your boss, you might either get a strange look or get your named removed from the payroll, so use it at your discretion. However, this comeback had to make an appearance on the list because of its effectiveness at shutting down rude people. Kindness always prevails over negativity; darkness cannot thrive where light is present. When you express to the other person just how much you love life and others, their comments become irrelevant and lose power quickly. Their sour mood and bleak outlook on themselves, you, and life will not be a match for your extreme happiness and zest for life. People also aren’t used to such raw emotion from others, and will probably be too surprised to formulate a proper response.

Your words have the ability to boost the entire energy of a room and promote more positive conversation. You can’t go wrong with that!

9. Laugh

This reaction will definitely catch the offender off-guard and make a rude person feel embarrassed for even making the comment in the first place. For instance, if your aunt brings up your recent job loss at dinner again, just laugh. It will make the present moment seem a little less serious, and will send a message that you don’t let other people’s rude comments affect your mood or outlook on life.
TOP

A good apology:

  1. Uses the words “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”
  2. Is specific about what one is apologizing for.
  3. Makes clear that one understands the impact of one’s words or actions on others.
  4. Makes clear how this won’t happen again.
  5. Makes amends. Explanation of one’s actions can be illuminating but is more often risky, because it easily veers into excuse-making.

TOP

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*