Just in case you needed more evidence that Wikipedia is an antisemitic, anti-indigenous shithole lol. Btw here is the opinion piece that they used as a "source" saying that Israel has no right to self-defense
This is the article that they decided to reference (which is not a SOURCE, it's an OPINION. It's not ANYTHING, lmao. It's not peer reviewed. It's not science. It's SOME GUY'S OPINION.) when there is a CEASEFIRE.
For the record, he is wrong. Because of fucking course he is, he's not a fucking lawyer. "Huhhrrhhh duhhh sum lEgAl ScHolArZ sAy" ass mf. In international law it is perfectly legal to occupy territory if you are the defending party.
This is how Israel gained most of its land post-1948, which it then used to trade for peace multiple times with Egypt and Jordan. Name me a single genocide where the party committing the genocide agreed to a peace deal and prisoner exchange for hostages, lmao.
Their primary source is some motherfucker named Dr. McDoom. You can't make this shit up, lol. He belongs with all those other "genocide scholars" Adolf Hitler and Sheev Palpatine who paid $30 to become a "genocide scholar." e_e
Not only was US president Franklin Roosevelt perfunctory about rescuing Jews from the Nazis, but he obstructed rescue opportunities that would have cost him little or nothing, according to Holocaust historian Rafael Medoff.
FDR’s role in preventing the rescue of European Jewry is detailed in a new book called, “The Jews Should Keep Quiet: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust.”
Published in September, Medoff’s book includes new archival materials about the relationship between Roosevelt and Rabbi Stephen Wise, who the author sees as a sycophantic Jewish leader used by Roosevelt to “keep the Jews quiet.”
Wrote Medoff, “Franklin Roosevelt took advantage of Wise’s adoration of his policies and leadership to manipulate Wise through flattery and intermittent access to the White House.” In return for visits to the White House and Roosevelt calling him by his first name, Wise undermined Jewish activists who demanded the administration let more Jewish refugees into the US.
According to Medoff, Roosevelt’s policies toward European Jews were motivated by sentiments similar to those that spurred him to intern 120,000 Japanese Americans in detention camps as potential spies.
“Roosevelt used almost identical language in recommending that the Jews and the Japanese be forcibly ‘spread thin’ around the country,” Medoff told The Times of Israel. “I was struck by the similarity between the language FDR used regarding the Japanese, and that which he used in private concerning Jews — that they can’t be trusted, they won’t ever become fully loyal Americans, they’ll try to dominate wherever they go.”
During the 1920s, when Roosevelt was already a seasoned politician and a vice presidential candidate, he expressed racist views in editorials and interviews. Regarding new immigrants — and Asians in particular — he bemoaned the creation of ethnic “colonies” in major cities.
...During these key years before Roosevelt entered the White House, he also wrote and spoke about “the mingling of white with Oriental blood” and preserving other forms of “racial purity.” According to Medoff, all of this was part of a long-held worldview that later guided Roosevelt during his three terms in office.
“Roosevelt’s unflattering statements about Jews consistently reflected one of several interrelated notions: that is was undesirable to have too many Jews in any single profession, institution, or geographic locale; that America was by nature, and should remain, an overwhelmingly white, Protestant country; and that Jews on the whole possessed certain innate and distasteful characteristics,” wrote Medoff.
...“It wasn’t the public mood that set Roosevelt’s immigration policy; he could have quietly allowed the quotas to be filled without anybody knowing it,” said Medoff. “His harsh policy was a choice that he made, which emanated from his vision of what he thought America should look like.”
...According to Medoff, the USHMM exhibition “distorts and minimizes Roosevelt’s abandonment of Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.” The president is depicted as having been virtually powerless to enact rescue efforts, despite overwhelming evidence the administration worked to torpedo rescue plans at nearly every opportunity, explained the author.
“[Roosevelt] would not have had to incur substantial political risks had he permitted immigration up to the limits set by US law, admitted refugees temporarily to a US territory, utilized empty Liberty ships to carry refugees, or authorized dropping bombs on Auschwitz or the railways from planes that were already flying over the camp and its environs,” wrote Medoff.
The Holocaust museum’s portrait of Roosevelt is particularly problematic, believes Medoff, because the president’s torpedoing of Jewish rescue efforts has been well-documented for several decades. Specifically, Medoff pointed to David Wyman’s seminal 1984 book, “The Abandonment of the Jews,” as well as research conducted by historians Henry Feingold and Monty Penkower.
...Asked for a response to Medoff’s take on “Americans and the Holocaust,” USHMM communications director Andrew Hollinger said...
“[Rescuing Jews] was not a priority for President Roosevelt or virtually anyone else in the government, which the exhibition lays out,” Hollinger told The Times of Israel. “The exhibition clearly shows President Roosevelt led the effort to prepare America to enter the war, but never made rescuing the victims of Nazism a priority.”
The installation, said Hollinger, asks a key question: “If Americans knew so much about Nazi Germany’s persecution of Jews, why didn’t rescue become a priority?” The installation poses that question not only with regard to Roosevelt but to various sectors of the American public, said Hollinger.
...During the 1930s, Roosevelt maintained trade with Nazi Germany, and his administration even helped the Germans evade the boycott against German goods that many Americans were practicing.
...Even after the Kristallnacht pogrom in November of 1938, Roosevelt refused to criticize the leaders of Nazi Germany. His statement about the slaughter merely called the night’s events “unbelievable,” and he declined to name the victims or perpetrators. Indeed, FDR did not issue a single statement critical of the Nazis during the first five years of Hitler’s rule.
In 1939, as the world went to war, Hitler broadcast his intentions to annihilate European Jewry. Simultaneously, FDR refused to support a bill that would have let 20,000 Jewish German adolescents into the US. Anne Frank and her sister Margot could have qualified to be included, since they were German citizens and under age 16, said Medoff.
Roosevelt’s determination to keep Jews away from America knew few limits, as probed in several chapters of Medoff’s book. Although it is well-known that Roosevelt turned away the St. Louis ship packed with German Jewish refugees, the president took other steps that have been omitted by most of his biographers.
For example, when the Dominican Republic made a public offer to take in 100,000 Jews on visas, the administration undermined the plan. From Roosevelt’s point of view, explained Medoff, that country was too close to home, and Jews deposited there would inevitably come to America. Officials in the US Virgin Islands, too, were willing to rescue Jews by letting them into the country, but Roosevelt halted the plan, wrote Medoff.
...“Where we can really see the impact of remorse over the Holocaust is in the rise of the Soviet Jewry protest movement and pro-Israel activism by American Jews,” said Medoff. “Many of the key figures in those efforts have said they were driven by a determination not to repeat the failure of their parents’ generation to speak out during the Shoah.”
In the 1920s and 1930s, it looks like Columbia found a loophole. Sifting through old newspaper articles and University records from this time, I come across dozens of permits and permit applications, all to allow the University to obtain alcohol during prohibition by sending it to a college within the University—a college called Seth Low Junior College. With further research, I find that the college had a premedical program—this explained the alcohol, since science classrooms would need alcohol to clean lab equipment. The true loophole took further digging—while the college was not created to obtain illicit liquor during prohibition, it did prevent Jewish students from attending Columbia College.
SLJC, a community college attached to Columbia through a shared administration, was established in 1928 in Brooklyn Heights by the board of trustees and then President Nicholas Butler as fundamentally a place where Columbia would send Jewish applicants. While the University has changed within the past century—Columbia today has a vibrant Jewish life on campus—the anti-Semitism that led to the establishment of Seth Low Junior College persisted past the college’s closing, but its memory hasn’t.
By the 1920s, Columbia College experienced some significant changes: The Core Curriculum had just been introduced, Baker Field Stadium finalized its construction, and Columbia’s academic life expanded from Manhattan to the greater state of New York, accumulating schools such as Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson under the University umbrella. Located in the same building as Brooklyn Law School, Seth Low Junior College was ostensibly a preprofessional school for students hoping to attend law or medical school. According to Leeza Hirt, a former writer for The Current, a Jewish publication at Columbia, and a member of Columbia College’s class of 2018, students weren’t offered a degree because the idea was that they would go on to earn a degree at a professional school. Historical evidence today, based on research by Barnard history professor and Columbia historian Robert McCaughey and documentation from the early 20th century, suggests that SLJC was created with the explicit goal of reducing the amount of Jewish students on the Morningside campus. In Stand, Columbia: A History of Columbia University, McCaughey notes that enrollment of Jewish students at Columbia College after Seth Low Junior College’s opening dropped from 40 to 25 percent.
...According to McCaughey, while half of the Columbia College applicants in total were accepted, only one in six Jewish applicants were admitted during the early 20th century. McCaughey tells me that though there was no specific quota, Jewish students, when interviewed, were advised to look toward NYU or CCNY, schools with larger public school graduates—which included many Jewish students—at the time.
The tension between the the two schools extended across the East River. The editor of SLJC’s undergraduate newspaper “condemn[ed] Columbia’s attitude of scorn toward its branches in general and Seth Low in particular.” The segregation was upsetting, and some students didn’t hesitate to express their dismay. Will Katz, who left Seth Low before he could graduate, wrote in a letter, “I can see only one reason for this action of the entrance board of Columbia College in rejecting me—even after I offered to throw away my Seth Low credits and enter as a freshman again.” Katz revealed his sadness and disappointment with Columbia, and wrote, “My pride was hurt at the insult that Seth Low throws to the Jewish race.”
There were many disadvantages to attending SLJC: It didn’t provide a degree, there wasn’t any guarantee that students could go to Columbia professional schools, and the school existed within Brooklyn Law School rather than holding classes within its own space—and yet tuition was just as expensive as that of Columbia College, according to The Current. Compared to Brooklyn College—a public college with no tuition at the time—SLJC seemed much less attractive. In 1936, after eight years of segregation and discrimination of Jewish students, a New York Times article made public Columbia’s intention to close down the college, citing financial hardships. Both students and faculty at SLJC were against this decision. Students thought this would lead to a “loss of identity as a separate unit,” and faculty were concerned that they might be fired. But in addition to Brooklyn College, CUNY opened its doors in Brooklyn directly following the closing of SLJC, and many students went on to attend those schools. Other students who were still at SLJC became absorbed into University Extension, another undergraduate school at Columbia, which would later become the School of General Studies.
I sit down to talk to Dr. Robert Pollack, professor of biology and former dean of Columbia College from 1982 to 1989, to talk about coeducation at Columbia, but our conversation shifts to SLJC. After his discovery of SLJC, he decided to research some of its graduates, and came across acclaimed science fiction writer and one of Pollack’s personal favorites, Isaac Asimov, who attended but never graduated from SLJC.
Pollack invited Asimov to his own office to give him an honorary diploma. But first, Pollack made Asimov complete a few Columbia College requirements, including the swim test. Rather than taking him down to Dodge Fitness Center, he got creative. “I invited him to my office. I had a bucket of water and I said, ‘Take off your shoe and put your foot in it,’” Pollack tells me, and I try to imagine his organized office with bucket on the floor, water spilling out of the sides. “He did, and I said, ‘You just passed the swim test,’” Pollack recalls. It was as simple as that.
And to Pollack, it was one small thing he could do after discovering the history of SLJC. “That, I think, is the low point of Columbia's self-regard as protecting some ideal of humanity from the lesser people,” Pollack says.
So how did Columbia get from the discrimination of Jewish students to a campus that promotes diversity and inclusion? Change certainly didn’t come quickly. Schoolwide discussions of the “Jewish Problem” were still held regularly through the 1940s. New York City held a rally for Hitler in 1939. As the 20th century progressed, more Jewish students began attending Columbia College. There were no longer publicized discussions about a “Jewish Problem.” Jewish students were allowed to miss class on Jewish holidays starting in the 1950s...
As I speak with Hirt over the phone, we talk about the legacy of Seth Low Junior College—or lack thereof. That may be one of the key factors in how Columbia has come to be seen as having a great community of Jewish students; Columbia has forgotten about the past. It isn’t necessarily that it has been covered up. If it had been named “Seth Low Jewish College, right?” she tells me, “then I think people would remember, but the fact that the kind of anti-Semitism aspect of it is a little more subtle, it makes it more difficult to, you know, isolate like this dark period in Columbia’s history.”
Hirt reminds me that, without making a conscious effort to remember Seth Low Junior College, its existence could easily slip through the cracks. “Unless there’s effort made to memorialize something,” she says, “then it’s not going to be remembered.”
...Diana Clarke, 27, is a history Ph.D. candidate at the University of Pittsburgh whose research focuses on Ashkenazi Jews (Jews of [Central and Eastern] European descent) in the United States and their relationship to whiteness and systems of oppression. Clarke is one of many arguing that the ideology of alleged [Tree of Life] shooter...draws on centuries of myths and stereotypes about Jewish people that continue to animate and support oppressive ideologies.
Clarke interprets the shooting through the constructs of white supremacy and anti-Semitism that “give Jews contingent access to whiteness and safety and power and then blame them for all the systemic violence in the world.”
...[The shooter] appears to have viewed the congregation’s partnership with HIAS as evidence supporting an age-old anti-Semitic myth that Jewish people have control of the world and sinister intentions to weaken or eliminate white Christians. [The shooter’s] posts on social media in the weeks preceding the shooting broadcast his fear of “white genocide” at the hands of non-white Americans and immigrants in a plot masterminded by Jews.
Explosions of anti-Semitic violence like the Tree of Life shooting can sometimes appear to come out of the blue. And many people reference only the Holocaust in Hitler’s Germany when discussing anti-Semitic violence.
But in reality, anti-Semitism functions as a system of oppression that goes beyond these violent acts. Understanding the pattern of discrimination against Jews is a crucial step toward processing the trauma of violent incidents like the one that occurred at Tree of Life.
...Ben Case, an activist and Ph.D. candidate in sociology at Pitt, has studied and written extensively on how anti-Semitism functions in relation to other systems of oppression.
“A lot of us assume that because we understand other forms of racism that anti-Semitism is kind of like that but not as bad… it’s actually just different,” he said. “Jews don’t fit well into the frameworks that we use to understand race and racism.” As a result, “we end up trying to shoehorn the Jewish experience into” existing categories like ‘white’ and ‘non-white,’ when neither is accurate. “That sort of lack of fitting in either camp is part and parcel to the way Jewish identity has developed in an anti-Semitic system.”
The nature of anti-Semitism is unique compared to other forms of oppression, such as anti-black racism, in at least two ways. According to scholars studying it, anti-Semitism functions cyclically and also by pushing Jews into an intermediate position between the ruling class and other oppressed groups.
The cyclical pattern of anti-Semitism is defined by recurring explosions of anti-Semitic violence followed by periods of perceived safety. Those safe periods allow some Jews to accrue real but limited privilege in between heightened anti-Semitic violence.
Unlike anti-Semitism, anti-black racism functions through a fixed racial hierarchy that constantly enacts physical, economic, political and spiritual violence against black people. There are no “safe periods” during which this systemic racism seems to disappear. (To be sure, some Jewish people are black and may experience both levels of prejudice.)
Some Jewish people say anti-Semitism’s cyclical pattern inflicts a state of constant low-grade anxiety.
...Dafna Bliss, a 25-year-old social worker who is Jewish and living in Squirrel Hill [explains,] “No matter how well things seem to be doing, the Jewish community never feels completely secure. There’s always this little inkling, this little seed of fear.”
In contrast to anti-black racism, which situates black people at the bottom of a fixed racial hierarchy, anti-Semitism allows Jewish people some amount of power and privilege over others.
Historian Aurora Levins Morales writes in her essay on the subject: “The whole point of anti-Semitism has been to create a vulnerable buffer group that can be bribed with some privileges into managing the exploitation of others, and then, when social pressure builds, be blamed and scapegoated, distracting those at the bottom from the crimes of those at the top.”
The dynamic of Jewish people as an intermediary between marginalized groups and the white ruling class still exists today and can be seen in the history of redlining. “Because of racist economic policies like redlining you get Jews becoming landlords in a lot of poor neighborhoods,” Case said.
...As author Ta-Nehisi Coates writes in an essay on Jews and redlining in Chicago, many Jewish property owners took this opportunity to rent to black families whose housing options were otherwise severely limited. Some Jewish landlords were kind and helpful, and others were oppressive and manipulative. Regardless of their behavior as landlords, Jewish people were only permitted to have power over black people because of the confluence of structural anti-Semitism and anti-black racism.
...Christian vilification of Jews as heretical nonbelievers and “Christ-killers” became institutionalized in European Christendom. The construction of the “Jew as enemy” trope took on a supernatural component as the medieval European Catholic Church began to teach that Jews were united with the devil in his quest to destroy Christ and Christians. To spread that message, Christians often relied on specific stereotypes and myths to illustrate Jews’ supposed spiritual corruption.
One of the most well-known negative stereotypes is that of the greedy Jew.
Jews are often seen as financially untrustworthy or “good with money,” whether that be for good or ill. Negative representations of Jewish people that emphasized greed and corruption have followed Jews throughout centuries of transcontinental migrations, making Jewish communities more vulnerable to violence.
Historians argue that anti-Jewish stereotypes like this one are the result of structural anti-Semitism. In other words, they believe anti-Semitic laws and societies created conditions that pushed Jewish people into financial work and then punished them for it.
The Catholic Church taught that money-lending was a sin and tax-collecting distasteful. Therefore, in the faith-based societies of the Middle Ages, only non-Christians were permitted to lend money or collect taxes. As a result of laws and restrictions that funneled Jews into work as money lenders and tax collectors, among other professions, Jewish communities gained financial expertise.
Later laws that barred Jews from specific professions and land ownership kept Jewish people employed in work that was undesirable to the church and ruling elites, but nevertheless essential to Christian states.
...The example of the greedy Jew stereotype shows how anti-Semitic laws pushed European Jews into the intermediate position described by Morales, where some were allowed to prosper if they managed the taxpayers on behalf of those in power. The dynamic put them in a position vulnerable to scapegoating and violence.
“Jews bec[a]me this face of capitalism,” Clarke said, and that “can create a discourse [among] more marginalized people that Jews are the ones oppressing them.”
In this situation, Clarke explained, the ruling class is “rendered invisible by the visibility of Jews,” which sets the stage for Jews to be blamed for the economic misfortune of others.
The stereotypes are often mobilized before and during periods of sustained anti-Semitic violence to blame Jewish people for the exploitation of the masses. The Third Reich, for example, disseminated vast amounts of anti-Jewish propaganda, often in educational materials for children, that emphasized anti-Semitic lies like “The God of the Jews is money.”...
There is a deep correlation between hatred of the media/the elite/journalism and antisemitism. This is maybe a bit of a harsh statement, so let me explain it a little better using one of ridiculous tweet President Trump tweeted out this weekend. It’s a video by this wondrous Reddit user “HanAssholeSolo.” (I first became aware of this from Jared Yates Sexton’s tweets (1,2,3), but it’s pretty much all over the news now. He's now being called Jewish, receiving antisemitic harassment, or being called a race-traitor for daring to speak out against antisemitism while being non-Jewish, and receiving death threats for pointing this out.)
That asinine video Trump posted on Twitter? Of him wrestling “CNN” to the ground? The same Reddit user made the following infographic.
[Image: A grid of photographs of CNN hosts and contributors who are purportedly Jewish with a Star of David overlaid on each headshot.
The caption under the grid reads: If Jews just represent 2% of the U.S. population, would it be odd for a media organization (whose parent company has a Jewish president and Jewish-majority of C-level executives) to also have a Jewish President and Jewish Vice-President, a Jewish majority of Executive Vice Presidents, and a Lead Political Anchor, Chief Political Correspondent, Chief Political Analyst, Chief Political Director, Chief National Correspondent, and Chief Washington Correspondent–all 6 of its “chief” anchor positions–who are all Jewish, as well as a majority–at least 13–of the network’s currently-running shows having Jewish hosts? It’s almost as if…“ ]
This is what these people believe: Real America (read white and Christian) should not trust the media and news because it’s fake, fraudulent, dishonest, and “not indicative of real America.” The media and news are run by, staffed by, and owned by Jews. Real America shouldn’t trust Jews. Real America does not include Jews and Jews are trying to destroy that real America. This is what these people believe.
Unsurprisingly, many of the people in the grid are not Jewish, but that doesn’t really matter because the idea that Jews control the media and journalism (and finances and the government) is so ingrained in our culture, people just nod along and accept that all of these companies and industries are run by Jews. I'm really hoping we won't end up with another white supremacist terrorist murder like that of Alan Berg by members of "The Order." (Eric Bogosian's play/movie "Talk Radio" is based on Berg's life and murder.)
Ok, let’s say antizionism isn’t antisemitism, antizionists. Then why are you antizionists being antisemitic?
Sorry I'm not answering this in good faith because you're clearly being aggresive in my inbox
antisemitism is very tempting it's like saying "If not ACAB then why are most cops racist? Clearly it's because being a cop is an inherently racist ideology"
BECAUSE ANTISEMITISM IS INSTITUTIONALIZED AND NORMALIZED, MY BRAINROTTED FRIEND!
…For observant Jews, Kol Nidre represents the liturgical kickoff for Yom Kippur (opening services are named for the prayer, which means “All vows”), a repetitive and crescendoing piece of Aramaic recited before sunset on the Day of Atonement. For anti-Semites, it’s evidence that Jews are duplicitous and two-faced. The trouble has to do with a misconstrued doctrine of pre-emption…
As stand-alone statement, divorced of its context and Talmudic source material, it does seem to suggest that there’s no such thing as a promise or oral contract affirmed in Judaism. But, of course, context is everything, and the prayer refers only to personal vows—those made by man in relation to his own conscience or to God, not interpersonal ones made by man to his fellow man…
Judaism goes to great lengths to legislate social behavior, both within and without the community. As Rabbi Gil Student describes it in his primer on the arcana of vow annulment, the Talmud “dedicates one sixth of itself to detailing the Jewish court system which adjudicates based on the sworn testimony of witnesses.” Why expend so much ink on the rules and procedures for dealing with betrayal and injustice if a yearly invocation affords an easy get-out-of-jail-free card? The Talmud says that if a person wishes to free himself from a vow made to a second party, he has to plead his case before a religious court in the presence of that person, who must then consent to the vow’s nullification. It doesn’t matter if the petitioner is beholden to an adult, a child, or a gentile; the same standard applies.
The arduous and prohibitive process by which one can be freed from a personal vow eventually led to the adoption of Kol Nidre in the first place… Kol Nidre was introduced in the 10th century, and transcribed in the Seder Rav Amram Gaon, the first comprehensive Jewish prayer book, as a convenient umbrella policy.
The original version encompassed the preceding year, “from the last Day of Atonement until this one.” Then, in the 12th century, Meir ben Samuel, the son-in-law of the revered French rabbi Rashi, altered the wording to reflect the year to come, arguing that pre-emptive annulment was more in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Nedarim, the Talmudic treatise on vows. Ben Samuel also added to the prayer the phrase “we do repent [of them all],” which aligned it more closely with purpose of atonement. His version has been taken up by the bulk of the Ashkenazim, while the Sephardim continue to prefer the older, retroactive one.
…The prayer was cited as justification for the Oath More Judaico, a humiliating and sadistic legal vow Jews were for centuries forced to swear before testifying in European courts. It wasn’t until the middle of the 19thcentury that most of the Continent began revising or removing it in earnest. (Romania’s remained on the books until 1902.) Perhaps in response to this history of vulgar misinterpretation, Jews themselves have had a hard time deciding what to do with the prayer. A rabbinical conference in Brunswick in 1844 ruled unanimously that Kol Nidre was superfluous and should be eliminated from the entire religious tradition. This decision led numerous congregations in Western Europe and many more Reform congregations in the United States to do just that, or to replace the words of the prayer with a Hebrew psalm while retaining its elegiac melody. Orthodox and Conservative congregations still recite the words.
Whichever way one sides in this antique dispute, it’s obvious that the line separating conviction and rhetoric in human discourse has always been blurry. “Lord, if you let the harvest come, I’ll marry my neighbor’s lazy-eyed daughter” was no more feasible or enforceable in the Dark Ages than “If Bush wins, I’m moving to Canada” was in 2000. Modern parlance has a host of throat-clearing clauses to cancel whatever sentiment follows, often in the same sentence, from “Don’t hold me to this” to “Dude, I’m not saying, I’m just saying.” And it’s hard to imagine how the long, proud history of recreational Yiddish cursing would have progressed had Judaism not afforded this wiggle room with respect to anathemas (“May all the teeth fall out of your head except one, and may that one turn brown and rot.”)…
jewish-privilege I want to take a moment to say just how fucking done I am with this ‘Jewish Privilege’ bullshit.
I’m an american and as many american I got Jury Duty, now I got my notice last year. So I called them and explained politely that I am a student and I will have class that day.
They where very understanding and kind and they told me they would postpone it a year.
A year later I get my notice and I see it lands on Shavout. So once again I call and politely explain that I am an observant Jew and that day is a religious Holiday which means that I can not drive and etc.
Except this time I get huffed out and spoken to very rudely when up to the point I said I was Jewish the rest of conversation was going smoothly and equally politely. I am told that this is last time because you only get a limited amount of postponements and I must show up at my next Jury date.
So here we are today must first day of classes and I go to the court house. I explain I have classes and they tell me I should have spoken to them earlier even though I was told last time that no I can’t call and change.
So I’m sitting waiting for my name to be called shaking and a anxious mess because I’m going to miss my first day of class and then the next time my class meets I’m gonna miss it again cause Rosh Hashana.
Finally after an hour and half of this I decide you know what I’ve done nothing wrong and I go to talk to someone.
And once again super polite to them and them back to me until I explain that I am Jewish. They tell me that everyone gets to postpone two times.
You know what I get that, but I think I can’t it a religious holiday and I can’t drive and being able to my first amendment right should not count as one of my two postponements.
I tell them I understand, but missing the first class really sets you back and it is not like I can make it up because the Jewish New Year is on the day of my second time my class meets.
I’m told they need to speak to management. They come back and tell me that I’m lucky the manager said I could postpone it, but this is the last time and that I should really schedule my things in a more convenient manner.
Yes, because I chose what days the Jewish Holidays land on because I have that much power. /sarcasm/
No, but seriously I am so tired and done with this stupid bullshit about Jewish privileged especially in context of that freaking gif where ‘Jewy, but not too Jewy’ has more privilege then fucking Scientology.
Cause I would like to know where my so called Jewish privilege was. Was it on vacation? I don’t know because I most certainly did not have any ‘Jewish privilege’, here.
