For the last one hundred years the 70 Nations and the leftist have been trying to bring peace to the Middle East without luck. In the mean time the Jews in Eretz Israel built a Jewish Country. How about going back and trying the original options. Build a Jewish State for Jews, by Jews, with Jewish Torah Laws, Jewish Labor, Torah Courts and a Torah Government of stead of a bad recreation of the Leftist countries of Europe.
The U.S. Congress in 1922 March 7, 2008 | Eli E. Hertz http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=100
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:
“Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]
On September 21, 1922, the then President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.
Here is how members of congress expressed their support for the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine – Eretz-Israel (Selective text read from the floor of the U.S. Congress by the Congressman from New York on June 30, 1922). All quotes included in this document are taken verbatim from the given source.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
1922 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NATIONAL HOME
FOR
THE JEWISH PEOPLE
JUNE 30, 1922
HOUSE RESOLUTION 360
(Rept. NO. 1172)
Representative Walter M. Chandler from New York – I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.
(2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.
(3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.
“Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss briefly each of these alternatives in order. And first let me read the now celebrated Balfour declaration of date of November 2, 1917, during the progress of the Great War, and afterwards incorporated in the preamble of the British mandate authorized by the League of Nations. The Balfour declaration was in the following language:
His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country.
“If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one. It is conceded by the Arabs themselves that the present government of the country under the British mandate and through the Zionist organization as an administrative agency is infinitely better than the government of the Turks who were chased out of the country by Allenby, the British general. It is probably better than any that the Arabs could create and maintain for themselves.
“I respectfully submit that the Arabs in Palestine should be and would be happy and content under the present government of that country if it were not for Turkish and Arab agitators, who travel around over the land stirring up trouble by making false representations concerning the true character of the Zionist movement, and by preaching a kind of holy war against the immigrant Jews who arrive from day to day. The Arabs are well represented in the personnel of the present Palestine administration, which has recognized their language as one of the official languages of the country, and has given official standing to the Moslem religion.
“In the second place, if the Arabs do not wish to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination there is plenty of room outside in purely Arab surroundings. The British Government and her allies made overtures and gave pledges to the Arab people to furnish them lands and protect their freedom in consideration of Arab alliance with the Allies during the World War. That pledge has been kept. The Hedjaz kingdom was established in ancient Arabia, and Hussein, Grand Sheriff of Mecca, was made king and freed from all Turkish influence. The son of King Hussein, Prince Feisal, is now the head of the kingdom of Mesopotamia [Iraq], and Arab predominance in that country has been assured by the Allies to the Arab people.
“Mesopotamia is alone capable of absorbing 30,000,000 people, according to a report submitted to the British Government by the Great English engineer, Sir William Wilcocks. Arab rights are also fully recognized and protected by the French mandate over Syria. There are also several flourishing Arabic cultural and political colonies in Egypt. In short, the Arab-speaking populations of Asia and Africa number about 38,000,000 souls and occupy approximately 2,375,000 square miles, many times larger than the territory of Great Britain. In other words under the reconstruction of the map of the east, the Arabs have been given practical control of Greater Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and parts of Egypt, which gives them an average of 38 acres per person. If the Arabs are compelled to leave Palestine and turn it over entirely to the Jews, it is admitted that the Arab race would still be one of the wealthiest landowning races on the earth. Therefore, I contend that if they will not consent to live peaceably with the Jews, they should be made to sell their lands and retire to places reserved for them somewhere in Arabia [Saudi], Syria, Mesopotamia, or Egypt, that suit them best, and where they can worship Allah, Mahomet [Muhammad], and the Koran to their heart’s content. After all is said, the fact remains that the Arabs have more lands than they need, and the Jews have none. I am in favor of a readjustment under the Balfour declaration, without too great regard to nice distinctions in the matter of the question of self-determination. This thought brings me to my third proposal heretofore mentioned, that the Arabs should be driven out of Palestine by the British and Jews, or by somebody else, if they will not listen to the voice of reason and of justice.
“I shall probably be told that, regardless of the question of land and property rights, the Arabs have an interest in the holy places around Jerusalem. Admitting that their claims in this regard are just, there should be no trouble along this line. There is no reason to believe that Jews and Christians would deny them access to the holy places in the pilgrimages that they might desire to make from their Arab countries. But if the rights of the Jews to their ancient homeland are to be made dependent, as a final question, upon Moslem interests in the holy places around Jerusalem, I am willing and prepared to repudiate these rights entirely and to shut the Arabs out altogether.”
6 Facts That You Need to Know About Israel’s Legal Rights
So in the last one Hundred years the Arabs have rejected Option one. Israel needs to take Option Two and Three.
Failed Two State Solution ‘אולי הסרטון הכי חזק נגד ‘שתי מדינות לשני עמים
hakolhayehudi-co-il logo https://hakolhayehudi.co.il/
Last week, 400 Rabbis in Israel signed a proclamation rejecting the “Deal of the Century” peace plan. Without calling up every Rabbi in the Promised Land, I tried in vain to find a Torah scholar who would ratify the peace proposal that was set forth in Washington by United States President Donald Trump, indicating that the broad consensus of Israeli Rabbis believes that the deal is a rotten one. We asked a few leading Rabbis of the Religious Zionist community to explain their vehement opposition.
HaRav Dov Lior, Former Chief Rabbi of Hevron
Anyone who supports this plan is a follower of the Spies in the Wilderness who weakened the spirit of the Nation and betrayed the Land of Israel. This is not a deal – it is a mousetrap, and woe to all to grab at the cheese.
Before the establishment of the Medinah, in response to the Peel Commission, which sliced up the Land of Israel and drastically restricted Aliyah via the White Paper, HaRav Moshe Harlop declared that it was preferable to have one’s hand chopped off than to sign the treacherous document. Years previously, the Balfour Declaration allotted to the Jews all of the borders of Biblical Israel, on both sides of the Jordan River. Then the British gave Transjordon to the Arabs with a scratch of the pen. HaRav Harlop said it is preferable to have one’s hand chopped off than to sign any document agreeing to give any portion of Ertetz Yisrael to the goyim. At that time, we were physically and economically weak. We needed the goyim to survive. Today isn’t the same. Today we can uphold the Torah obligation to keep the Land of Israel under our control, and from that will come the greatest blessing. You can’t perform a transgression for the promise of a reward. You can’t agree to an agreement that states if you work 2 hours on Shabbat you will receive a ten million dollars bonus. People said to HaRav Harlop – if we don’t agree, we won’t have any State at all. He replied that it was better to remain in exile rather than to transgress the word of Hashem and the Torah commandment to conquer and dwell in the Land of Israel, and to keep it under our control, as delineated by Ramban in his treatise, “Supplement to the Sefer HaMitzvot of the Rambam,” Positive Commandment 4. The same holds true today. It is better to reject the whole plan than to open the door to a foreign terror regime in our midst. Administrations in Washington come and go. Once you sign an international agreement, there’s no backing out. And who knows what a leftist government in Israel will agree to give the Arabs for the illusion of peace? We cannot be an active partner to such an heretical agreement in any shape or form. To do so would be a clear continuation of the Sin of the Spies, as the verse states: “They despised the cherished Land.”
By Yishai Fleisher
2 Iyyar 5780 – April 26, 2020 https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/yishai-fleisher/san-remo-the-original-deal-of-the-century/2020/04/26/
1920 mandate for Palestine
One hundred years ago this week, the British Balfour Declaration—which recognized the Jewish rights to the land of Israel—became international law.
The Allies, the countries that defeated the Ottoman Empire in World War I, gathered in San Remo, Italy, in late April 1920 to carve up the Middle East. Basing their outlook on Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination, they set out to establish new would-be countries through a mentoring program called “mandates.” The Arabs, now free of the Turks, would get Syria, Lebanon and Mesopotamia (Iraq). The Jews would get “Palestine” (Palestine was a Jewish thing back then).
The language of the 1917 Balfour Declaration was put directly into the San Remo accords: “[T]he Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
This decision was soon unanimously ratified by 56 member states of the League of Nations, and later became part of the United Nations Charter, thus paving the way for the third Jewish commonwealth, reborn on its ancestral soil after 2000 years.
Yet this momentous occasion, on which the international community recognized and then ratified the inalienable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel for the first time in modern history, is often forgotten. Instead, attention is diverted to the radio broadcast of the U.N. vote for Partition on Nov. 29, 1947, where the U.N. General Assembly voted in favor of a resolution adopting the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) partition plan of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states and for which 33 states voted in favor, 13 against and 10 abstained.
Legally speaking, the two events cannot be put on the same scale. The San Remo Accords were binding law, ratified by member states, which took quick effect. Even the United States, which was not a member of the League of Nations, took measures to recognize the accords.
Conversely, the UNSCOP Partition Plan was merely a non-binding resolution, voted on in the toothless General Assembly (not the Security Council), and was immediately rejected by the Arabs—in other words, the whole exercise of the partition plan vote was null and void.
The U.N. bundle narrative
The U.N. partition vote does have the distinction of being the immediate precursor to Israel’s declaration of independence. While David Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan—ready to take what they could get for the Jewish people in the aftermath of the Holocaust—other Zionists rejected the plan outright as an abrogation of previous agreements. At the time, the U.N. resolution was instrumental, but that is a far cry from the portrayal of the U.N. partition vote as the foundational moment of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state.
So why does the empty U.N. partition resolution get so much play as compared with the real law of San Remo Accords? The answer lies in who is presenting the history—what they want Israeli policy to look like and what they want to say about Israel’s legitimacy.
For those who wish to see a “two-state solution” implemented, the idea that Israel was created through the U.N. partition vote is an indispensable narrative. The logic is clear: If the U.N. gave birth to Israel, and that birth was within the partition framework, then that original vision of two states is the controlling rubric. Any deviation from partition/two-states is an act of imperialism, colonialism and occupation—words which U.N.-narrative folks use against Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria regularly.
Moreover, if the U.N. is the parent of the Jewish State, then under the principle of “Honor thy father and mother,” Israel must kneel to the U.N.’s many anti-Israel resolutions and declarations. The U.N.’s admonitions that Israel is not democratic enough, that it has stolen land, that it abuses the Palestinians and most centrally that it must “give back” land to create yet another Palestinian state, must be heeded.
In short, promoters of the U.N. narrative argue that Israel was born in the halls of the General Assembly and that the original vision of partition is its only legitimate path forward. It is not surprising therefore that two-state proponents are invariably U.N.-touters—cut from the same narrative cloth.
The liberals of San Remo
The San Remo narrative, however, is very different. For those who argue that San Remo is the international legal basis for the creation of Israel, the agreement stands for an unabashed recognition of historic Jewish rights in the land of Israel and a stated goal of reconstituting a Jewish commonwealth.
The text of the Mandate for Palestine (the 1922 document that put the resolutions of San Remo into practice) is straightforward: “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”
At the San Remo conference, delegates never contemplated giving “Palestine” to the Arabs—the absurd idea of taking Judea away from the Jews and creating an Arab state there. For the delegates, giving Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to the Arabs and giving the Jews their historic and biblical land was equitable enough. This was in line with the Wilsonian “self-determination” doctrine—indigenous peoples would gain independence from former empires and govern themselves. Indeed, no one was about to give recognition to the imperialistic Islamic conquests of the 7th century, nor to the 400-year Ottoman domination which the Allies had just terminated.
The text of the Mandate is clear on the issue of land division: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine [Jewish] territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.”
Indeed, original Israel, as recognized by San Remo-crafted international law, was going to be a big Jewish state, surrounded by newly freed and even bigger Arab states. That was the vision.
And what about democracy?
The issue of democratic voting in the new Mandate states was not clearly defined at San Remo. However, the framers at the conference were well aware of what it would take to balance power in the region: The Jewish state would be Jewish by charter and not by majority rule.
The Mandate for Palestine states that “nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” but does not mention national rights, which could potentially undo the Jewish character of the country in any given election. There was no intent to back an untenable, all-out participatory democracy.
But U.N.-touters cannot stomach the idea that Israel’s core identity is Jewish, without the necessity of a Jewish majority. That is why they are always stressing the contrived “Jewish and Democratic” stipulation—so as to force the two values onto equal footing. In that line of thinking, Israel is not a Jewish state, but rather a democratic state that happens to house a lot of Jews.
However, since demography coupled with democracy could spell the end of the Jewish character of the state, their only viable solution is to shrink away from Arab populations and gerrymander the borders smaller and smaller until there are no Arabs left, only a perfect Jewish democracy on a very small parcel of land remains.
Indeed, the framers of San Remo foresaw the folly of such an approach.
The non-jihad Arab narrative
Anti-Zionist tendencies among Arabs were strong in the 1920s, but were not ubiquitous. At the time, there also existed a line of thinking among some Arab leaders which saw the process of Middle East self-determination as being a boon to all the indigenous people of the region—all the children of Abraham.
Two weeks before the Paris Peace Conference of 1919—the prelude to the San Remo Accords—the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann met with Emir Feisal, son of the Sharif of Mecca, and put an agreement to paper in which the Arabs would accept the tenets of the Balfour Declaration:
“His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration….”
A few weeks later Feisal wrote a letter to the future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, a Zionist: “The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper.”
Since that time, much has been done to undermine the goodwill between Arabs and Jews as expressed by the Feisal-Weitzman dialogue. But hidden in the ashes are a few coals of this thinking among the Arabs of today. These Arab thinkers, who usually live in fear of jihadists, believe that Arabs have their 22 states on their tribal lands, and Jews their one state on their tribal land, and that mutual acceptance of these facts will avert needless war and will bring about regional cooperation and then prosperity.
But the U.N.-partition narrative denies that Arabs could possibly accept a sovereign Israel in Judea and Samaria or that regional cooperation could come about without further partition. Instead, the U.N. types promulgate the belief that there is no possibility of peace without partition. Without saying it, they assert the jihadist position that the Arabs could never really accept a Jewish state in their midst and that large areas of the land of Israel must be Judenrein if there is ever to be a chance for peace.
Yet, after the 2005 Gaza disengagement, Israelis have seen clearly that surrendering land only leads to more violence and more demands. A smaller Israel is nothing but a weaker target.
Arab Palestine 1.0
There is yet another fundamental reason why U.N.-narrative folks wish to bury the story of San Remo: They don’t want us to remember that an Arab Palestine was created in the ’20s that should have satisfied Arab demands and made the Israel-Palestine conflict disappear before it began.
In the three years between San Remo and the League’s ratification of the accords in 1923, the British utilized a legal loophole to strip away 77 percent of the mandate for a Jewish Palestine and gift it to the leaders of the Hashemite clan. This was the creation of Trans-Jordan, which was later renamed the Kingdom of Jordan.
For many years, we have been told by the U.N. proponents that there is no Middle East peace because there is no Arab Palestine. They want us to avert our eyes from the fact that the Kingdom of Jordan, created on the land originally intended for the Jewish state, is actually an Arab Palestine—but one which refuses to absorb the Palestinians.
Therefore, for the pro-Palestine camp, history must start in 1947, where a Jewish state was slated for partitioning as the U.N. gave birth to it. No one has to know that an Arab Palestine was created 20 years prior.
Deal of the century
We are in the era of the Trump administration’s “deal of the century”—with Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria slated to become a reality. And yet, for some, the goal of an Arab Palestinian state on Jewish land persists.
It would behoove us now to remember the original deal of the century—the San Remo Accords, signed exactly 100 years ago—which recognized and confirmed Jewish historical national rights to the land of Israel, and equitably divided up the Middle East into a strong Jewish state neighbored by strong Arab states. In that deal of the century, Israel was meant to be big, defensible—and Jewish by charter and not by majority—and there were many Arabs ready to accept and respect it.
As we celebrate Israeli independence this year, let us cast off the contrived U.N. narrative in which Israel was born into the inevitability of two states. One hundred years ago, the framers of San Remo laid down common-sense principles, that with implementation, can still become the real deal of the century.
US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman delivers remarks at Kohelet Forum, in an event marking US Secretary of State’s statement regarding the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Jerusalem, January 8, 2020.
*The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
*James Dorsey, “Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden”, Trouw, 31 March 1977.
How Middle East realities are a reflection of the behavior of the Palestinians.
Barry Shaw 04February2020 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/25139 Barry Shaw
The writer is the Senior Associate for Public Diplomacy at the Israeli Institute for Strategic Studies. He is also the author of ‘Fighting Hamas, BDS and Anti-Semitism.’
The Middle East is characterized by the following 14-century-old intra-Muslim features which can be summed up as:
No intra-Muslim peaceful coexistence, but constant unpredictability, instability, religious and ethnic fragmentation, violent intolerance, terrorism, subversion, and a drive to fulfill Islam-driven goals including the unacceptance of an “infidel” entity in the “abode of Islam.”
Most of the Middle East is not driven by a desire to improve its standard of living, but by religious/ideological visions.
Western imposed concessions, appeasement and gestures actually embolden them to more aggression and terrorism.
The assumption that a Palestinian Arab state could be effectively demilitarized and de-terrorized should be assessed against the track record of the Palestinian Arabs themselves.
The 1993 Oslo Accord and the 2005 Gaza Disengagement were supposed to demilitarize and de-terrorize the Palestinians in return for dramatically enhanced political and economic benefits. Instead, both events intensified terrorism in a dramatic manner.
A direct correlation exists between the degree of Palestinian Arab sovereignty and the level of Palestinian terrorism. For example, in 1968-70, Jordan provided the Palestinian Arabs with an unprecedented platform of operation. Consequently, they triggered a civil war, attempting to topple the pro-US Hashemite regime.
During the 1970s, the Palestinians initiated a series of civil wars in Lebanon.
In August 1990, the Palestinian Arabs collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of their host county (Kuwait), which triggered the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars.
Immediately after Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian civil,war erupted and Hamas usurped power, oppressed any opposition, destroyed the agricultural and community projects left by Israel, and turned Gaza into a network of terror bases, indoctrinated the people into violence, and launched thousands of rockets into Israeli civilian centers.
The assumption that granting Palestinians territory to develop a peaceful base for statehood and prosperity has become a classic oxymoron and is a terrible diplomatic mistake.
The Palestinians are agitated not by the size of the Jewish State but by its very existence. All sides of the Palestinian political divide call for the “liberation” of Palestine “From the River to the Sea,” the annihilation of Israel.
It is worth recalling past Arab voices. They are as relevant today as when they were spoken decades ago.
In October 1994 Jordan’s military commanders advised their Israeli counterparts: “That which the Palestinians sign in the morning they tend to violate by the evening.” They added that “A Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the Hashemite regime east of the River.”
Former Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak (1981-2011): “Jordan’s King Hussein does not want a Palestinian state; Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are not concerned about the Palestinians.”
Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat (1970-1981): “Do I want a Palestinian state? Why should I want another Soviet base and another member of the Rejectionist Front?” (“No More War”)
Israeli affirmative action and the lack of global counter action.
In 1948/49, Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, unilaterally applied sovereignty to West Jerusalem and large parts of the Negev and the Galilee, in spite of US and global opposition.
In the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, Israel’s Prime Minister Eshkol united the city of Jerusalem, notwithstanding US and global opposition.
Israel Defense Forces (IDF) destroyed a nuclear reactor built in the northeastern Syrian province of Deir al-Zor in 2007.
In December 1981, Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin asserted the Israeli law in the Golan Heights despite brutal pressure by the US, including the suspension of a major strategic pact.
In June 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor, notwithstanding White House opposition. Begin’s unilateral action spared the US a nuclear confrontation in January 1991.
It is in Israel’s vital interest to annex both the Jordan Valley and the bulk of territory in Judea & Samaria, including all the high ground that dominates central Israel’s narrow, low-lying, coastal strip.
These facts are self-evident and essential to maintain the security and safety of Israeli citizens, if not the rest of the Middle East which, as this article proves, will continue to be a maelstrom of ethnic, tribal and religious violence.
With acknowledgement to Ambassador Yoram Ettinger for lighting the spark for this article.
As soon as Hitler, y”sh rose to power, any doubts any European Jews still harbored as to his intentions should have been put to rest. But, surely by the time Kristallnacht happened, could anyone have still had any illusions that Jews could continue to live in Europe? Just go through the history of what the German Jews went through between January 30, 1933 – Adolf Hitler is appointed Chancellor of Germany a nation with a Jewish population of 566,000. and November 9/10, 1938 – Kristallnacht – The Night of Broken Glass. (Source)
New Consider the situation in Eretz Yisrael over the same time period…
…in Mandatory Palestine, a growing Jewish population (174,610 in 1931, rising to 384,078 in 1936) was acquiring land and developing the structures of a future Jewish state despite opposition from the Arab population.
Hanotea (הַנּוֹטֵעַ, “the Planter”) was a citrus planting company based in Netanya and established in 1929 by long-established Jewish settlers in Palestine involved in the Benei Binyamin movement. In a deal worked out with the Reich Economics Ministry, the blocked German bank accounts of prospective immigrants would be unblocked and funds from them used by Hanotea to buy agricultural German goods; these goods, along with the immigrants, would then be shipped to Palestine, and the immigrants would be granted a house or citrus plantation by the company to the same value. Hanotea’s director, Sam Cohen, represented the company in direct negotiation with the Reich Economics Ministry beginning in March 1933. In May 1933 Hanotea applied for permission to transfer capital from Germany to Palestine. This pilot arrangement appeared to be operating successfully, and so paved the way for the later Haavara Agreement.
The Haavara (Transfer) Agreement, negotiated by Eliezer Hoofein, director of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, was agreed to by the Reich Economics Ministry in 1933, and continued, with declining German government support, until it was wound up in 1939. Under the agreement, Jews emigrating from Germany could use their assets to purchase German-manufactured goods for export, thus salvaging their personal assets during emigration. The agreement provided a substantial export market for German factories to British-ruled Palestine. Between November, 1933, and 31 December 1937, 77,800,000 Reichmarks, or $22,500,000, (values in 1938 currency) worth of goods were exported to Jewish businesses in Palestine under the program. By the time the program ended with the start of World War II, the total had risen to 105,000,000 marks (about $35,000,000, 1939 values).
Emigrants with capital of £1,000, (about $5,000 in 1930s currency value) could move to Palestine in spite of severe British restrictions on Jewish immigration under an immigrant investor program similar to the modern EB-5 visa. Under the Transfer Agreement, about 39% of an emigrant’s funds were given to Jewish communal economic development projects, leaving individuals with about 43% of the funds.
The Haavara Agreement was thought among some German circles to be a possible way to solve the “Jewish problem.” The head of the Middle Eastern division of the foreign ministry, the anti-NSDAP politician Werner Otto von Hentig, supported the policy of settling Jews in Palestine. Hentig believed that if the Jewish population was concentrated in a single foreign entity, then foreign diplomatic policy and containment of the Jews would become easier. Hitler’s own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s. Initially, Hitler seemed indifferent to the economic details of the plan, but he supported it in the period from September 1937 to 1939.
After the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 the program was ended.
The agreement was controversial both within the NSDAP and in the Zionist movement. As historian Edwin Black put it, “The Transfer Agreement tore the Jewish world apart, turning leader against leader, threatening rebellion and even assassination.” Opposition came in particular from the mainstream US leadership of the World Zionist Congress, in particular Abba Hillel Silver and American Jewish Congress president Rabbi Stephen Wise. Wise and other leaders of the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933 argued against the agreement, narrowly failing to persuade the Nineteenth Zionist Congress in August 1935 to vote against it.
The right-wing Revisionist Zionists and their leader Vladimir Jabotinsky were even more vocal in their opposition. The Revisionist newspaper in Palestine, Hazit Haam published a sharp denunciation of those involved in the agreement as “betrayers”, and shortly afterwards one of the negotiators, Haim Arlosoroff was assassinated. (Source)
Clearly, Hashem provided an escape hatch, but only up until a certain point. And that point seems to have been 1939. Until then, immigration to Eretz Yisrael for Jews was unrestricted.
The White Paper of 1939 was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville Chamberlain in response to the 1936–39 Arab Revolt. Following its formal approval in the House of Commons on 23 May 1939, it acted as the governing policy for Mandatory Palestine from 1939 until the British departure in 1948, the matter of the Mandate meanwhile having been referred to the United Nations.
The policy, first drafted in March 1939, was prepared by the British government unilaterally as a result of the failure of the Arab-Zionist London Conference. The paper called for the establishment of a Jewish national home in an independent Palestinian state within 10 years, rejecting the idea of partitioning Palestine. It also limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 for 5 years, and ruled that further immigration was to be determined by the Arab majority (section II). Restrictions were put on the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III).
And the “grace” period for the Jews of Europe was over as they found themselves both locked in and locked out.
Einat Wilf: Why the Israeli left collapsed
Palestine is Jordan, Jordan is Palestine
Comments on the “Einat Wilf: Why the Israeli left collapsed” video from YouTube:
Mark Simons2 years ago (edited)
She’s absolutely hit the nail on the head! Palestinians had everything they now desire under Jordanian sovereignty, Complete absence of settlements, access to Jerusalem, albeit not their capital, passports, freedom of movement, equality, Jews not even allowed as visitors. Admittedly, political freedom was curtailed but no more than anywhere else in the Arab world. Sadly, they chose the silly promises of Yasser Arafat over King Hussein, and it’s been downhill ever since.
What Will Israel Look like in 5 Years with a Palestinian Arab State Alongside It?
Israel gives away land for fake “Peace Plans”, US gets Disasters
Yamit (Hebrew: ימית) was an Israeli settlement in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula[1] Population: 2,500 people. Yamit was established after the 1967 Six-Day War until the Sinai was handed over to Egypt in April 1982. All the homes were evacuated and bulldozed.[2]
This legendary storm traveled 1000 miles the wrong direction and sent 35 foot waves slamming directly into President Bush’s home in Kennebunkport, Maine.
Hurricane Emily on August 31, 1993 caused record flooding in the Outer Banks of North Carolina while remaining just offshore. It dissipated on September 6 to the southeast of Newfoundland.
Northridge Earthquake, CA, January 17, 1994 — . FEMA News Photo
M 7.2 Earthquake*Damage occurred up to 85 miles (125 km) away, with the most damage in the west San Fernando Valley, and the cities of Santa Monica, Simi Valley and Santa Clarita. The “official” death toll was placed at 57;[14] More than 8,700 were injured [19]Total damage $13–$44 billion[3]
* Reported as 7.2 Old M Scale
Oct. 17–19, 1998: Rainstorm. Hill Country. A massive, devastating flood set all-time records for rainfall and river levels, resulted in the deaths of 25 people, injured more than 2,000 others, and caused more than $500 million damage from the Hill Country to the counties south and east of San Antonio.
The May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence in the United States was a series of tornado outbreaks that occurred from May 3 to May 11, 2003. Tornadoes began occurring over the affected area on April 30, but the most prolific continuous period was the seven-day period of May 4–10. There were 401 tornado reports in 19 states and 1 Canadian province.[2]
Pascagoula, Mississippi surge damaged destroyed condos from Hurricane Katrina
Israel sent an IDF delegation to New Orleans to transport aid equipment including 80 tons of food, disposable diapers, beds, blankets, generators and additional equipment which were donated from different governmental institutions, civilian institutions and the IDF.[149]
Hurricane Katrina was the costliest natural disaster.
1,245–1,836[1][2]people died in the hurricane and subsequent floods.
Total property damage ~ $108 billion (2005 USD),[1]
FEMA provided housing assistance (rental assistance, trailers, etc.) to more than 700,000 applicants.[129]
22May2011 a half-mile wide EF-5 multiple-vortex tornado ripped through Joplin, Missouri. According to Wikipedia, it was “the costliest single tornado in U.S. history.”
Posted by William A. Jacobson 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.
Boycott Israel Sign Crossed Out USA
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.
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.
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.
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?
Helen McCarthy-tweet-28January2017-Should academics participate in conferences in the US
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:
About the IHRA non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism
The IHRA is the only intergovernmental organization mandated to focus solely on Holocaust-related issues, so with evidence that the scourge of antisemitism is once again on the rise, we resolved to take a leading role in combatting it. IHRA experts determined that in order to begin to address the problem of antisemitism, there must be clarity about what antisemitism is.
The IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial worked to build international consensus around a non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism, which was subsequently adopted by the Plenary. By doing so, the IHRA set an example of responsible conduct for other international fora and provided an important tool with practical applicability for its Member Countries. This is just one illustration of how the IHRA has equipped policymakers to address this rise in hate and discrimination at their national level.
The working definition of antisemitism
In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.
Information on adoption and endorsement
National level
The following UN member states have adopted or endorsed the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Beyond the countries listed below, a wide range of other political entities, including a large number of regional/state and local governments, have done so as well.
David Lange February 3, 2019 https://www.israellycool.com/2019/02/03/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.
Ministry Of Strategic Affairs Report On “Terrorists In Suits” https://4il.org.il Click to Download the Report.
By David Lange 17December2019 https://www.israellycool.com/2019/12/17/new-damning-report-exposes-the-dangerous-connection-between-bds-movement-and-jew-hatred/
The Zachor Legal Institute and StopAntisemitism.org have released a damning new reportThe Zachor Legal Institute and StopAntisemitism.org have released a damning new report that exposes the BDS faux ”civil rights” movement for what it is – a delegitimization campaign with genocidal aims, rather than the human rights movement that it purports to be.
Backed by a staggering 23 Jewish and Christian American non-governmental organizations, this report shows how hate groups on the Left and Right are joining forces, with the backing of designated foreign terror organizations, to inject this movement of intolerance and delegitimization into social justice campaigns, schools, government and society as a whole.
It is a long read but it is a vital resource in understanding exactly what we are dealing with. (I have dealt with some aspects of this phenomenon on this blog, but this report is next level).
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
Posted by Samantha Mandeles Monday, 13January2020 https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/01/new-research-study-faculty-promote-their-anti-israel-agenda-in-classes/#more-306128
AMCHA Initiative: “Distorting and blocking the flow of knowledge is a violation of the norms and standards of scholarly inquiry and undermines the university’s academic mission”
Faculty Promote Their Anti-Israel Agenda In Classes
In the years since our founding, Legal Insurrection has covered anti-Israel activism on our nation’s campuses. Though expressions of anti-Zionism on campus are often the work of radical student groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), behind many such groups and their anti-Israel messaging stands faculty support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.
Of particular concern are university faculty who use their classrooms as platforms for spreading anti-Israel propaganda.
Now, a new report released January 8th by the Santa Cruz-based AMCHA Initiative “provides the first-ever empirical evidence suggesting that faculty who support the academic BDS movement against Israel are actively promoting that political agenda directly to students in their classrooms.”
AMCHA-logo http://www.amchainitiative.org/
Founded by University of California academics Leila Beckwith and Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, the AMCHA Initiative monitors and combats anti-Jewish activity on hundreds of college campuses across the United States. The organization does excellent work; most recently, Legal Insurrection Foundation signed on to an AMCHA-authored letter expertly analysing and opposing a proposed anti-Israel public school curriculum in California (Legal Insurrection Foundation opposes proposed anti-Israel public school curriculum in California).
AMCHA’s newest report builds on the group’s prior studies, which we have covered in the following posts:
The study, which examined 50 syllabi at 40 public and private American colleges and universities, was undertaken by AMCHA founders Professor Beckwith (Professor Emeritus at UCLA, renowned scientist, researcher, and statistician with a background in psychology and child development) and Professor Rossman-Benjamin (expert on antisemitism and former faculty member in Hebrew and Jewish Studies at the University of California).
The study’s conclusions are disturbing; it found that:
Academic BDS-supporting instructors had an average of 78% of their course readings authored by BDS supporters, whereas non-BDS-supporting instructors had an average of 17% of their course readings authored by BDS supporters.
The two groups of instructors showed themselves to be qualitatively distinct from one another with respect to the selection of course readings, with almost no overlap of the groups: all of the academic BDS-supporting instructors had a majority of their readings authored by BDS supporters, whereas only 2 of the 35 syllabi of non-BDS-supporting instructors had a majority of their course readings authored by BDS supporters, and none more than 60%. These data demonstrate that the large quantitative difference between the groups is not just the result of a few outliers, but represents a qualitative difference between these two groups of instructors in terms of how they select course readings.
The stark differences between the average percentage of course readings with pro-BDS authors within the two groups leaves little doubt that instructors who support academic BDS make a calculated choice to heavily weight their course materials with readings authored by BDS supporters. These results, in turn, imply that not only are academic boycotting instructors actively including pro-BDS readings, they are also severely limiting or completely excluding readings that would provide a more balanced picture of Israel.AMCHA Initiative fully acknowledges that freedom of speech protects faculty’s right to sign petitions and make extramural statements in support of academic BDS and academic freedom generally protects their right to develop and teach courses as they see fit. However, the report notes the serious and harmful consequences of faculty bringing their support for academic BDS into the classroom.
Distorting and blocking the flow of knowledge is a violation of the norms and standards of scholarly inquiry and undermines the university’s academic mission. Furthermore, faculty who use their classrooms to give academic legitimacy to a wholly one-sided, anti-Israel perspective, in compliance with the guidelines of academic BDS, can engender among their students hostility not only towards Israel, but towards Israel’s on-campus supporters. Such sentiments can easily lead to acts targeting Jewish and pro-Israel students for harm, as AMCHA’s previous research has shown.
But there are ways universities can combat professor-propaganda if they so choose; helpfully, AMCHA’s report includes concrete action items for university leaders to pursue in order to address these problems:
Release public statement on the harm of academic BDS to U.S. students and faculty: University leaders should publicly acknowledge that while an academic boycott of Israel may ostensibly target Israeli universities and scholars, its implementation directly and substantively hurts students and faculty on their own campus, not only subverting their scholarly and educational opportunities and curtailing their academic freedom, but corrupting the entire academic mission of the university. Recently, chancellors and presidents at the University of California, University of Michigan, University of Massachusetts Amherst and Pitzer College issued strong statements acknowledging the harms of academic BDS for students and faculty, and condemning its implementation on their own campuses.
Establish policies against using the classroom for political advocacy: Universities should establish and publicly affirm policies that prohibit faculty from using their classrooms for political rather than pedagogical purposes.
Urge faculty to establish and enforce safeguards against classroom abuse: Faculty should be urged by university administrators to establish their own safeguards against the politicization of the academy. For example, following the refusal of a faculty member to write a letter of recommendation for a student wishing to study in Israel, a University of Michigan panel, appointed by the president, issued a report and recommendations emphasizing that faculty members must make judgments and act based solely on educational and professional reasons, not political motivations.
Ultimately, AMCHA’s report concludes that
…it is up to academic departments and faculty senates to determine whether the promotion of one-sided, highly politicized course content is deemed a legitimate use of academic freedom, or an abuse of it. However, given the clear and present harm that such politicization can cause to our schools, our students and society, it is time for tuition and taxpayers, as well as state and federal legislators, to demand that faculty address this question forthrightly, and to hold them accountable for their answer.
Posted by William A. Jacobson 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.
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.
State power to regulate economic activity includes the power to regulate the purely commercial conduct of a boycott, appellate court says.
Posted by Johanna Markind 22June2022 https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/06/full-8th-circuit-upholds-arkansas-law-barring-state-contracting-with-israel-boycotters-bds/
Arkansas’s anti-BDS law requiring state contractors to certify they don’t boycott Israel passes constitutional muster, according to the full Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The court’s decision in the highly watched case of Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, handed down this morning, affirmed the lower court decision upholding the state law.
Back in 2019, U.S. District Judge Brian S. Miller dismissed the case after finding that the state violated no constitutional right by requiring its vendors to certify that they don’t boycott Israel.
The case was appealed. A 2021 decision by the Eighth Circuit initially reversed the lower court and claimed the law violated the First Amendment, based on a tortured reading of the statute. The Eighth Circuit then vacated (i.e., rescinded) that decision and ordered the case reheard before all judges of the circuit, instead of just the three-judge panel who had decided it earlier.
The case was reargued on September 21, 2021. Judge Jonathan A. Kobes, who dissented from the vacated 2021 decision, wrote the majority opinion upholding the law. “The basic dispute in this case,” Kobes wrote, “is whether ‘boycotting Israel’ only covers unexpressive commercial conduct, or whether it also prohibits protected expressive conduct.” Briefly, the court upheld the state’s right to regulate boycotts as commercial conduct. While economic boycotts are often accompanied by expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, Kobes’ majority opinion concluded, the boycott itself is not protected by the First Amendment.
The opinion on this point corrected an absurd misreading of the statute’s so-called catch-all or garbage can provision in the vacated opinion. Frequently, laws will list examples of things that are covered by it, and then add in something like, ‘and other actions.’ That’s exactly what the Arkansas statute does. The court’s opinion explained:
The statute defines “boycott of Israel” as “engaging in refusals to deal, terminating business activities, or other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories, in a discriminatory manner.” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-1-502(1)(A)(i).
The vacated opinion had tried to read “other actions” as covering protected speech activities, but its context in the statute indicates that “other actions” refers to commercial activities. Furthermore, accepted canons of statutory construction require a court to interpret a statute as presumptively constitutional, and not to stretch its meaning to force an unconstitutional reading. The Eighth Circuit’s en banc opinion read the law in this limited, presumptively constitutional way. It held that the law only applies to commercial activities, and is constitutional.
Furthermore, the court’s opinion continued, the certification required of vendors is not unconstitutionally compelled speech. The majority opinion noted, “We are not aware of any cases where a court has held that a certification requirement concerning unprotected, nondiscriminatory conduct is unconstitutionally compelled speech.”
Although the majority opinion did not discuss this, government contractors are commonly required to provide certifications for many things, including their assurance that they do not discriminate. In fact, the paperwork government contractors are required to submit is frequently copious and oppressive. But, certifications of this nature have not been held to be unconstitutionally compelled speech.
Judge Jane L. Kelly, who wrote the subsequently-vacated opinion reversing Judge Miller’s original decision, wrote a dissent. She continued to argue that the term “other actions” in the statute reading
“Boycott Israel” and “boycott of Israel” means engaging in refusals to deal, terminating business activities, or other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel (emphasis added),
It’s unclear and therefore should be interpreted as potentially including expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.
This is the first federal appellate opinion to address the substantive issues of anti-BDS laws, which have not been specifically addressed by the Supreme Court. (The Fifth and Ninth Circuit appellate courts previously vacated district court opinions after the states involved amended their anti-BDS laws, but neither court addressed the merits of the cases below.) Another case, A&R Engineering and Testing, Inc. v. Paxton, is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. Circuit courts are not bound by the decisions of courts in other circuits, but as an en banc decision – that is, a decision by the entire circuit court and not just three judges from it – the Eighth Circuit’s Waldrip opinion is likely to carry a lot of persuasive authority.
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.”
By Jackson RichmanJanuary 24, 2019 / JNS 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
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.
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.
Last modified January 14, 2022-https://www.powerofpositivity.com/9-comebacks-dealing-rude-people/?fbclid=IwAR3b4xxYEEXXwcseRRr6k68iwWokrDJyfzGVPcBWvFgpI_YkVYA5VvPYvsM
When people are rude to you, they reveal who they are, not who you are. Don’t take it personally.
“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:
Uses the words “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”
Is specific about what one is apologizing for.
Makes clear that one understands the impact of one’s words or actions on others.
Makes clear how this won’t happen again.
Makes amends. Explanation of one’s actions can be illuminating but is more often risky, because it easily veers into excuse-making.
Please note that this website uses cookies. Continued browsing of the site constitutes consent to this use.
For more information, see the Privacy Policy.
Nefesh B’Nefesh: Live the Dream US & CAN 1-866-4-ALIYAH | UK 020-8150-6690 or 0800-085-2105 | Israel 02-659-5800 https://www.nbn.org.il/ info@nbn.org.il
“BDS is an anti-Semitic campaign led by supporters of terror with one purpose: the elimination of the Jewish state.” Download the reportMSA-report-Behind-the-Mask
Help support a needy Tzadik
Help support Jerusalem Cats
Ministry Of Strategic Affairs Report On “Terrorists In Suits” https://4il.org.il Click to Download the Report.
Common Palestinian surnames that confirm where ‘Palestinians’ originate from
Why Do All These Rabbis Warn Against Getting the Covid-19 Vaccine?
PRAYER TO BE SAVED FROM CORONAVIRUS
Master of Universe, who can do anything!
Cure me and the whole world of the Coronavirus, because redemption is near.
And through this reveal to us the 50th gate of holiness, the secret of the ibbur, and may we begin from this day onward to be strong in keeping interpersonal commandments (i.e. being kind to others).
And by virtue of this may we witness miracles and wonders the likes of which haven’t been since the creation of the world. And may there be sweetening of judgments for the entire world, to all mankind, men women and children.
Please God! Please cure Coronavirus all over the world, as it says about Miriam the prophetess, “Lord, please, cure her, please.”
Please God! Who can do anything! Send a complete healing to the entire world! To all men, women, children, boys and girls, to all humanity wherever they may be, and to all the animals, birds, and creatures. All should be cured from this disease in the blink of an eye, and no trace of the disease should remain.
And all will merit fear of Heaven and fear of God, O Merciful and Compassionate Father.
Please God, please do with us miracles and wonders as you did with our forefathers by the exodus from Egypt. And now, take us and the entire world out from this disease, release us and save us from the Coronavirus that wants to eliminate all mortals.
We now regret all the sins that we did, and we honestly ask for forgiveness. And in the merit of our repentance, this cursed disease, that does not miss men, women, boys, girls, and animals, will be eliminated.
Please God, as quick as the illness came it will go away and disappear immediately, in the blink of an eye, and by this the soul of Messiah Ben David will be revealed.
Please God, grant us the merit to be included in the level of the saints and pure ones, and bless anew all the fruit and vegetation, that all will be healed in the blink of an eye, and we will see Messiah Ben David face to face.
Please God, who acts with greatness beyond comprehension, and does wonders without number. Please now perform also with us miracles and wonders beyond comprehension and let no trace of this cursed disease remain. And may the entire world be cured in the blink of an eye.
Because Hashem did all this in order for us to repent, it is all in order for us to direct our hearts to our Father in Heaven, and by that He will send blessings and success to all of our handiwork.
הסערה הבאה שרת התרבות מירי רגב הורתה להכניס ללוגו הרשמי של חגיגות היובל לאיחוד ירושלים את המילה שחרור ירושלים במקום איחוד העיר נשלח על ידי איתמר אייכנר אחרי
Choisissez celle qui vous correspond et inscrivez-vous sur notre site Internet en cliquant ICI ou par téléphone, en appelant le Global Center au 0800 916 647
The Jewish Agency Global Service Center http://www.jewishagency.org/global_center
US 1-866-835-0430 | UK 0-800-404-8984 | Canada 1-866-421-8912
From the 1940s until the 1970s, and heightening with the founding of Israel in 1948, nearly million Jews were expelled from their homes across Arab countries such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Algeria and Iran.
Jews were frequently subjected to pogroms, systemic violence and religious persecution. Their exiles were largely attributable to Arab regimes increasing their hostility toward Jews because of the very existence of Israel.
Today, while stories abound of many Arab refugees, few are aware or even acknowledge this forgotten exodus of Jewish refugees. Only in Israel has Nov. 30, the day after the UN voted to approve the Jewish-Arab partition plan of Palestine, been marked to commemorate their plight.
Buy from Amazon.com
Inspirational Breslev teachings in emunah, bitachon and hitbodedut- today!
The Canary Mission database was created to expose individuals and groups that are anti-Freedom, anti-American and anti-Semitic in order to protect the public and our democratic values.
http://jerusalemcats.com Jerusalem Cats; All about Cats and life in Jerusalem Israel
Issuer Israel Issuing bank Anglo-Palestine Bank Limited Period State of Israel (1948-date) Type Standard banknote Years 1948-1952 Value 5 Palestine Pounds Currency Palestine Pound (1948-1949) Composition Paper Size 105 × 68 mm Shape Rectangular Demonetized 23 June 1952 Number N# 207999 References P# 16
March 2026
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Jerusalem-80-percent- Jewish-British-1864-Census
An important piece of evidence: The British Palestine Exploration Fund survey map – 1871-1877 – The PEF people delineated every wadi, every settlement, tree, and home. They crisscrossed the territory, and an examination of the map shows how empty and barren the land was, and how few people lived there.
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity… Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people… to oppose Zionism.” Zuheir Muhsein, the late Military Department head of the PLO and member of its Executive Council.; March 1977, Dutch daily Trouw
London cab driver’s answer to a request from a Muslim to turn off the radio. (You just got to love the Brits.)
A devout Arab Muslim entered a black cab in London .
He curtly asked the cabbie to turn off the radio because as decreed by his religious teaching, he must not listen to music because in the time of the prophet there was no music, especially Western music which is the music of the infidel.
The cab driver politely switched off the radio, stopped the cab and opened the door.
The Arab Muslim asked him, “What are you doing?”
The cabbie answered, “In the time of the prophet there were no taxis, so get out and wait for a camel.”
I wonder how many years (hundreds for sure) Jewish people have lived in Quebec. I don’t believe that they have ever demanded that pork be removed from the school’s menu where their children attend…
Excellent reply by the Mayor of Dorval, Quebec, to the demands of the Muslim population in his community.
Put some pork on your fork.
Too bad the USA doesn’t have the common sense to publish this nationwide, even if they have a muslim in the white house. Should also be posted on signs all along U.S. borders.
Let’s hear it for a Quebec mayor.
MAYOR REFUSES TO REMOVE PORK FROM SCHOOL CANTEEN MENU. EXPLAINS WHY
Muslim parents demanded the abolition of pork in all the school canteens of a Montreal suburb. The mayor of the Montreal suburb of Dorval, has refused, and the town clerk sent a note to all parents to explain why..
“Muslims must understand that they have to adapt to Canada and Quebec, its customs, its traditions, its way of life, because that’s where they chose to immigrate.
“They must understand that they have to integrate and learn to live in Quebec .
“They must understand that it is for them to change their lifestyle, not the Canadians who so generously welcomed them.
“They must understand that Canadians are neither racist nor xenophobic, they accepted many immigrants before Muslims (whereas the reverse is not true, in that Muslim states do not accept non-Muslim immigrants).
“That no more than other nations, Canadians are not willing to give up their identity, their culture.
“And if Canada is a land of welcome, it’s not the Mayor of Dorval who welcomes foreigners, but the Canadian-Quebecois people as a whole.
“Finally, they must understand that in Canada ( Quebec ) with its Judeo-Christian roots, Christmas trees, churches and religious festivals, religion must remain in the private domain. The municipality of Dorval was right to refuse any concessions to Islam and Sharia.
“For Muslims who disagree with secularism and do not feel comfortable in Canada, there are 57 beautiful Muslim countries in the world, most of them under-populated and ready to receive them with open halal arms in accordance with Shariah.
“If you left your country for Canada, and not for other Muslim countries, it is because you have considered that life is better in Canada than elsewhere.
“Ask yourself the question, just once, “Why is it better here in Canada than where you come from?”
“A canteen with pork is part of the answer.”
If you feel the same forward it on.
Judea and Samaria not West Bank
This reminds me of a Morty Dolinsky story from the time he was head of the Government Press Office:
When the late Morty Dolinsky was in charge of the Government Press Office in the 1980s, he once famously replied to a reporter, who asked for information about the West Bank, that he knew no West Bank as he banked at Leumi.
