View allAll Photos Tagged rejecting
Another reject. Took this picture this morning before work. These are my SCRAPS magazines that I am going to break down and sell on ebay. I need money and I don't really use them any more.
How is it I can have 8 1/2 hours of sleep and still have bags under my eyes???
i was really surprised to see that someone let this Yank Sing dumpling go to waste. depending on the type you get, they're at least $2 each!
story behind the photo here: jetlagrnr.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/five-on-friday-dim-sum...
All American Rejects - Sito
opening Blin182
04 Luglio 2012 - Lucca Summer Festival 2012
follow me on
website | liveshot-site | tumbler | HIPSTAPHOTOBLOG
© 2012 sebastiano bongi toma - Ramingo-
All rights reserved
Please don't use photos without my permission
Reject for Day 283 of 365
Nothing special for tonight. Kathy is finally home from OK / TX and her family reunion. Spending time with her so had to squeeze in a shot when I got a free moment. Just lil' ol' me in my eagle T that Savanah got me for this past Father's Day.
My 283 SP acidified
Nous avons rencontré REJECTED lors de deux dates les 10 et 11 septembre à Fromentel et à Bressuire.
Ces trois gars là sont de fabuleux et gentils garçons, quel bonheur de croiser de tels gens sur la scène et de pouvoir partager du temps avec eux.
www.myspace.com/yourapersonnotanumber
Salle Emeraude
Concert organisé par le Complomatsa
Photographed a punk covers band for The Old Crown pub. Two of The Cockney Rejects done a few of their own songs at the end.
Dang...that was quick! What's your name? Man...I gotta stop wearing the Speedo! Come back...I have cats! Tender and Juicy!
Now I am gonna get hate mail from cat lovers LOL
Four trips to woods to find the right fallen branches. I thought it would be a snap to find what I needed to hang one five foot drape and one ten footer. Not as easy as I had envisioned.
All American Rejects - Sito
opening Blin182
04 Luglio 2012 - Lucca Summer Festival 2012
follow me on
website | liveshot-site | tumbler | HIPSTAPHOTOBLOG
© 2012 sebastiano bongi toma - Ramingo-
All rights reserved
Please don't use photos without my permission
day 33 reject. first acceptable beach day of the year.
this was my view all afternoon... be jealous.
I was going to use this as my 365, i really couldnt decide... haha I hate when that happens.. im still not really sure.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/if-palestinians-don-t-have-a...
If Palestinians don’t have a home, Israelis won’t have a home, says leading Israeli author David Grossman
Video duration: 18 minutes
www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-the-antisemitism-a...
Opinion: The Antisemitism Awareness Act is bad for American Jews — here’s why
Opinion by Miko Zeldes-Roth, opinion contributor
Public attention remains focused on the ongoing ceasefire negotiations in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, as well as the Israeli military’s operations in Rafah and the continued crackdown on pro-Palestinian student protestors. What’s fallen through the cracks, however, is a dangerous new bill on antisemitism that undermines American Jewish safety.
The legislation in question is the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which passed the House of Representatives last Wednesday with majority support from both Republicans and Democrats. While innocuous in name, the bill threatens First Amendment rights and reinforces a connection between Jewishness and Zionism in a manner that is misaligned with American Jewish interests. It’s incumbent now on the Senate to reject the bill accordingly.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act attempts to address antisemitism on school campuses. To do that, it first defines antisemitism and then gives the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) the ability to suspend funding if it determines a school does not act against students who violate that definition. Essentially, the bill gives the DOE new tools to threaten or punish schools that don’t take the department’s definition of antisemitism seriously.
But here’s the rub: In giving the DOE these new powers, the bill codifies a definition of antisemitism that is hostile to both Palestinian rights and Jewish safety.
The bill adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which has been criticized for “conflat[ing] Judaism with Zionism in assuming that all Jews are Zionists.” In fact, many scholars in Jewish studies (and related fields) have since advanced an alternative definition of antisemitism, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, in order “to strengthen the fight against antisemitism by clarifying what it is … and to protect a space for an open debate about the vexed question of the future of Israel/Palestine.”
For those who see antisemitism and anti-Zionism as synonymous, or who are trying to use the IHRA definition to undermine opposition to the State of Israel, passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act could be an important victory. But the new bill has been opposed by the ACLU, which rightly sees it as an attack on First Amendment rights. One would think that establishment American Jewish leaders, even if they do not agree with the demands of pro-Palestinian student protestors, would subordinate their support for Israel to their support for American democracy, especially in a time of rising authoritarianism.
Instead, establishment Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Conference of Presidents have praised the bill. And as Slate’s Emily Tamkin adroitly shows, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, is more broadly “insisting on conflating anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and it has made this conflation central to the ADL’s work.” Although not focused on the Antisemitism Awareness Act, Tamkin argues that Greenblatt’s approach subverts the safety of Jews who do not identify with Zionism.
But this legislation should worry any American Jew who takes their American and Jewish identities seriously.
One implication of the bill is that it strengthens the legal relationship between Jewishness and Zionism, building upon a decades-long process that scholar Shaul Magid terms the “Zionization of American Jewry.” Here, American Jewish identity is increasingly bound up in a connection with the State of Israel. As Tamkin’s analysis suggests, making a connection to the State of Israel critical to American Jewish identity may be exactly what some American Jewish leaders desire. But I don’t think these members of the Jewish community are taking seriously how such efforts — particularly when they are legally enshrined — risk undermining the community’s position in the U.S. and, by extension, our safety.
Collapsing Jewishness into Zionism implicitly accepts the precept that Jewishness is a nationality — and, by extension, that Israel is the state of the Jewish people (as codified by the 2018 Israeli nation-state law). In presuming that all Jews are either Israeli nationals or Israeli nationals in-waiting, efforts to synonymize Jewishness and Zionism risk provoking questions of dual loyalty in the U.S. — the idea that Jews aren’t really loyal to the country in which they reside. Given the long history of antisemitism, the Jewish community should be extraordinarily wary of supporting any kind of legislation that intimates, however remotely, the notion that Jews are not true Americans.
In the past, leading American Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Committee took a non-Zionist stance precisely because they rejected the premise that Jews were a nation. In his review of Geoffrey Levin’s new book on American Jewish dissent against Israel, Magid notes that this stance meant the AJC “was not in principle against the Israeli state, even as it was harshly critical of the treatment of the Palestinian minority inside Israel; but the organization was opposed to Jewish nationalism being the raison d’etre of American Jews.” Establishment Jewish leaders would do well to remember those positions and return to them now.
As a graduate student studying race and citizenship in American and Jewish politics, I find it troubling that so many in our community refuse to distinguish Jewishness from Zionism. This refusal scares me because it lends support for Israel’s horrific assault on Palestinians in Gaza. It also raises the risk — however remote — that at some point, Jews might not be seen as true or equal Americans in the eyes of our neighbors.
I know this may sound misguided or alarmist. But those supporting the Antisemitism Awareness Act would do well to more deeply interrogate the presuppositions behind their positions, and the risk that comes with indelibly identifying oneself with a country (Israel) where we do not live, where we are not citizens, and which is presently engaged in a horrific campaign of mass violence against Palestinians.
I have seen personally how scared some are by the current pro-Palestinian protests on campus. But supporting patently illiberal bills that reinforce a connection between Jewishness and Zionism will not make us safer. Instead, we should renew our coalitions with non-Jewish Americans and seek equitable partnership with Palestinians.
Our communal safety in the U.S. is inextricably connected with that of our neighbors, not the State of Israel. I hope that our community can recognize this, and tell their senators to oppose the Antisemitism Awareness Act.
Miko Zeldes-Roth is a Jewish American doctoral student in political theory studying the intersections of race, sovereignty and citizenship in American and Jewish politics.
www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/8/will-the-us-adopt-ihras-a...
Will the US adopt IHRA’s anti-Semitism definition? What’s the controversy?
IHRA claims its definition has been adopted by 43 governments, but the US has entered uncharted territory by introducing it into federal law.
The United States House of Representatives passed a bill on May 1 that could expand the federal definition of anti-Semitism, and the Senate – the upper house of Congress – is now expected to debate and vote on the legislation.
The Democratic Party’s Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Thursday that the bill faced objections from some Democrats and Republicans, but that “we’re going to look for the best way to move forward”.
At the heart of the debate and controversy over the bill is the definition of anti-Semitism that it seeks to adopt – despite opposition from several civil liberties groups.
The bill codifies a definition drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) that has been accused of conflating criticism of the state of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.
Critics of the bill warn the non-legally binding working definition was developed as a tool for monitoring anti-Semitic incidents worldwide and was never intended to serve as a legal framework.
As protests against Israel’s war in Gaza continue to roil US campuses, concern is rising over the possible use of a new definition to stifle dissent and curb academic freedom.
What is the IHRA definition?
The IHRA is an intergovernmental body established in Stockholm in 1998 and comprised of 35 member nations and eight observers. Its stated purpose is to enhance “Holocaust education, remembrance and research”.
The organisation adopted a working definition of anti-Semitism during a plenary meeting in Bucharest on May 26, 2016 as a non-legally binding statement.
The IHRA definition consists of a four-line description as follows: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
It goes on to provide 11 “contemporary examples of anti-Semitism” to illustrate its application, seven of which deal with the State of Israel.
One of the examples states that anti-Semitism is embodied in “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, i e, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”.
It is also anti-Semitic to apply “double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”.
Which countries adopted the IHRA definition?
IHRA claims its definition has been adopted by 43 governments, including all European Union states except for Malta and Ireland.
However, there is no fixed rule on what adoption entails.
The United Kingdom was the first country to endorse it as a “non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism” to be used by public bodies and agencies. Others have followed suit in setting the definition as a guideline for public institutions.
The US was tallied as having formally adopted the definition in December 2019, when former President Donald Trump ordered executive departments and agencies charged with enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and national origin – to “consider the definition”.
The US is now entering uncharted territory by attempting to introduce it into federal law, through the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2023,” which incorporates the IHRA definition into Title VI. The bill was passed by a margin of 320 to 91 in the House of Representatives on May 1.
In a letter sent to US senators on May 3, the non-profit Middle East Studies Association argued the bill “endangers the constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech as well as academic freedom at this country’s institutions of higher education”.
“We believe that requiring the federal government to define anti-Semitism so broadly and vaguely will have a chilling effect on scholarly and public discussion of international affairs and current events in this country,” it said.
“Indeed, it is likely to have the perverse effect of defining as anti-Semitism even criticism of Israeli policies advanced by Israeli scholars, or by Jewish students and faculty in the United States.”
Why is the definition controversial?
Several Middle East experts and prominent lawyers have argued it expands the definition of anti-Semitism beyond its traditional meaning of hatred against Jews to encompass all criticism of Jewish institutions, including Israel.
The slogans “Free Palestine” or “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are considered anti-Semitic under the definition. As a result, monitoring organisations in several countries in the US and Europe warned of a rise in anti-Semitic incidents since the beginning of the war in Gaza on October 7.
A statement issued in 2022 by 128 scholars, including leading Jewish academics at Israeli, European, United Kingdom and United States universities, said the definition had been “hijacked” to protect the Israeli government from international criticism.
Former UN Special Rapporteur on racism, E Tendayi Achiume, said it was being “wielded to prevent or suppress legitimate criticisms of the State of Israel, a State that must, like any other in the United Nations system, be accountable for human rights violations that it perpetrates”.
“Those primarily harmed as a result are Palestinians, as well as human rights defenders advocating on their behalf,” Achiume added in a 2022 report.
In the UK, where two-thirds of academic institutions adopted the definition, studies have found it had a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
The British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES) and the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) analysed 40 cases where UK university staff or students in 14 institutions were accused of anti-Semitism. The report, published last year, found that none of these accusations resulted in legal action, except two that had yet to be substantiated.
Despite that, “those falsely accused have felt their reputations to have been sullied, and they are anxious about possible damage caused to their education and careers”.
Israeli Professor Neve Gordon, vice president of BRISMES and professor of international law and human rights at Queen Mary University in London, told Al Jazeera that by conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, the IHRA definition may result in the paradoxical branding of critical Jewish voices as anti-Semitic.
“If I were to teach in a class the Human Rights Watch report stating that Israel is an apartheid state, I could be accused of anti-Semitism,” Gordon said.
In one recent example, renowned British Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu-Sittah was branded an anti-Semite for a post on social media equating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, the main architect of the Holocaust.
Abu-Sittah, who spent 43 days tending to the wounded in Gaza City last year, was refused entry into Germany to speak at a conference and forbidden from appearing on video link. Then, last week, he was also barred from entering France, where he was visiting to address the upper house of Parliament.
“The idea that comparing policies carried out by Israel with policies carried out by the Nazi regime is anti-Semitic is crazy,” Gordon said. “What the definition tries to do is to silence legitimate critique of Israel and the genocide it is carrying out in Gaza.”
holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-ant...
Eleven “contemporary examples of anti-Semitism" by IHRA
✗ 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.