Seastallion

Not assumed but clearly antisemitic; "XXX the XXX Jews". "I'm gonna kill....." etc. All nasty stuff, and rightly included in the report.

However.....

"A visibly Jewish boy was cycling in an area with a large Jewish community, when a woman wearing a niqab threw a stone that hit him on his cycle helmet.".

So, based on the boy's appearance and the girl's appearance, do we KNOW or assume the stone throwing was antisemitic? Did the boy just goose her or nearly run her over, or say something anti-Muslim and she was simply retaliating? We don't know, do we?

The compilers of the report are at once displaying their own bias based on a girl's attire (she MUST be antisemitic, she wears the niqab!), and also showing that the report itself uses presumption of guilt to make the bottom line more impressive. Consider, too, that the compilers are very likely to have only published the most compelling or dramatic examples of "antisemitism". If that example based on the girls headdress is the best they've got, then the report is certainly based on shaky figures.

Then there's their methodology, again using assumption; If literature condemning Israel is sent to a business or house not owned by Jews, they take it as political, but if that same leaflet happens to get sent to a Jewish business, home, or synagogue, it becomes antisemitic. Are mailing lists compiled with the religion of the addressee as a data field that political organisations can filter out all the Jewish addresses? Why should they filter Jews out? Or would the letterbox-droppers know that a particular house was Jewish, and would they have been told not to put the leaflet in Jewish letterboxes?

(Why can't an activist or political group give their anti-Israel message to any Jew? Actually, it would be antisemitic if they discriminated; "We're NOT giving you this leaflet because you're a Jew". Ironic.)

So, the report employs presumption of guilt. It also uses assumptions. That is clear.

The 30% of allegations of antisemitism that were rejected by the report shows that the compilers did have some scruples, but it also shows that 30% of all allegations of antisemitism in the UK are false or baseless.

The claim that the 30% of the incidents reported but not included were "allegations of antisemitism" is your misguided interpretation, nowhere does it say that all of the incidents reported were such. The CST deals with a range of security issues concerning Jews in the UK, not all of them related to antisemitism. There is nothing to support that all of the reports were "allegations of antisemitism", or even that defining the incidents as antisemitic was initiated by those reporting them. Once again, assumptions and making things up.

In the incident description picked to support discrediting the report, the aggressor is a woman and not a "girl" (which would imply more equal terms between herself and the victim). The wording of incident descriptions is not coincidental, but consistent and there is a clear reference to age groups when it applies. The stone throwing is probably deemed antisemitic as the incident involved an adult and a boy (hopefully we will not need to argue the logic of a Jewish boy in the UK not being a representative of Israeli government policy), and that the incident took place in "an area with large Jewish community" (this would be in line with the report differentiating between incidents taking place within Jewish neighborhoods etc.) - one may not agree with this part of the methodology, but need to assert why. There is nothing to indicate that the boy "just goose her or nearly run her over, or say something anti-Muslim and she was simply retaliating" - making up stuff, again.

The woman's attire does not seem to be the decisive factor in classifying the stone throwing as antisemitic. There are sections of the report dealing with how such connections are not always supportive regarding claims of antisemitic incidents. The only one who made the woman's attire a central argument is you. Having, supposedly, read the report - does this incident description represents the "best they've got"? Again, nothing to support the suggestion that the classification of the incident was based on the woman's attire - more "creativity" by yourself.

As for the learned comment on methodology and literature - must have accidentally skipped the relevant section while reading the report (pages 22-23). The differentiation between antisemitic and anti-Israel incidents is upheld in a consistent manner with previous categories. Not clear if the example given was the fruit of a vivid imagination or a reference to one of the incident descriptions appearing in the report - in short, no - there is nothing to suggest that sending a leaflet criticizing Israel (without any antisemitic references) would be considered as an antisemitic incident.

Not hard to compile a mailing list including Jewish organizations, synagogues, Rabbis and certain Jewish surnames. A bit more effort required to get to mailing lists of Jewish organizations themselves, etc. The follow up musings about what might have been are more of the same creative imagination. The literature section of the report deals with unsolicited antisemitic literature which targeted Jews as recipients. Nothing to do with your assumptions.

Very strawmanish Morch.

Misguided imagination? Not at all. P32; "CST received reports of 498 potential incidents during 2014 that, after investigation, did not appear to be antisemitic and were therefore not included in the total of 1,168 antisemitic incidents. These 498 potential incidents included examples of anti-Israel activity directed at organisations involved in pro-Israel work, which did not involve explicitly antisemitic language or imagery and were therefore not classified by CST as antisemitic. ". You're suggesting that those discarded 498 reports were not reported as antisemitc incidents. If that was the case, they would not (properly) be mentioned in this report, nor would the report make a decision on them as "therefore not classified.... as antisemitic". Nothing misguided with my logical conclusion, nor very imaginative. Reasonable, logical conclusion....imperative, even. To say it's "making things up" is a gross distortion.

Your argument regarding woman vs girl.....ok, I used the wrong descriptor. Makes no difference. Do you KNOW the woman threw the stone as an act of antisemitism? NO you do not. Neither do the compilers of the report, otherwise they would have stated why they KNEW. As it stands we have visibly Jewish, Jewish community, niqab, stone. Nothing more.

Again, I'm not making things up, but you are certainly twisting things when you say that I am, in reference to my QUESTION of "Did the boy just goose her...etc" And my following statement "We don't KNOW do we?". And we still don't. And we still don't know what intent or reason the woman had. But the incident remains in the report....and nobody can show us that it was an antisemitic act. Whether it was the woman's attire, the boys visible Jewishness, or the Jewish area that led the compilers to assume it was an act of antisemitism, we do not know. What we do know from the information given in the report is that the incident IS an assumption. There is no information to say it is a fact. Your deflections change nothing.

You have failed to grasp my point with regard to leaflets and mass mailings.

P32; " Sometimes the targeting of a particular incident can suggest an intention to intimidate or offend Jews on the part of the offender. For example, graffiti reading “ Israel” would probably be classified as an antisemitic incident if it appears to be targeted at an area known for having a large Jewish community, but would probably not be counted as antisemitic if it appears in an area where few Jews live. Similarly, anti-Israel material that is sent unsolicited to a synagogue at random may be recorded as an antisemitic incident (because the synagogue was targeted simply because it is Jewish and the offender has failed to distinguish between a place of worship and a political organisation), when the same material sent unsolicited to specifically pro-Israel organisations would not be"

Here, the report states that if an anti-Israel leaflet that is otherwise not deemed antisemitic finds it way into a RANDOM synagogue letterbox, it is to be deemed antisemitic, regardless that the synagogue was not targeted per se (as per a mass mailing with no filtering out of Jewish institutions).

Again, I ask the question; Why can anti-Israel literature or words not be directed towards a Jew?

Your only valid point was pointing out that I said "girl" not "woman". Valid, but entirely redundant. It that makes absolutely no difference to my point. The rest of your post was disingenuous deflecting. I say disingenuous because you debating skills and perception are generally much better....I feel you're clutching at straws, not to mention a strawman.

The CST deals with a range of incidents pertaining to security issues related to Jews in the UK - some are antisemitic in nature and some are not. This report deals with antisemitic incidents and therefore non-antisemitic incidents are excluded. The point made was that the classification of incidents is not done by those calling in the incidents (as you seem to be suggesting), but rather is a product of later analysis by CST according to set guidelines and standards. I am not "suggesting that those discarded 498 reports were not reported as antisemitic incidents" - but that in general, incidents are not necessarily called in as antisemitic.

No idea where the notion that these incidents deemed non-antisemitic ought to not have been mentioned, and why this omission should be considered "proper". It is common practice to include details regarding the sample involved, and to indicate cases which were excluded. For reference, one of the issues raised earlier on the topic was that of the 1168 incidents included some (or many) had nothing to do with antisemitism. One obvious relevance of mentioning the total sample (prior to exclusion) is to give an idea regarding the proportions of the actual sample used. Establishing what sample was dealt with and how it was defined are basic requirements for publications of this sort.

"In total, there were 1,666 incidents, including antisemitic incidents and those of a non-antisemitic security-related nature, which required a response from CST staff and volunteers during 2014" (Page 8).

"Irrespective of whether or not these incidents are classified as antisemitic by CST, they are still relevant to CST’s security work as they often involve threats and abuse directed at Jewish people or organisations who work with, or in support of, Israel, and therefore have an impact on the security of the UK Jewish community." (Page 32).

Woman vs. girl makes difference. A girl throwing a stone at a boy is a non-story, and in all probability would not even find its way to the report. An adult doing the same is attaches a different quality to the incident. Your argument basically seems to be that the measures applied by the report to evaluate whether an incident is classified as antisemitic are unacceptable. The level of clarity you seem to demand exceeds normally required standards for such publications, nor is it readily attainable. The report makes its methodology rather clear, and as far as I am aware it does not deviate from the acceptable norms used by similar efforts (across various groups, not specific to Jews and antisemitism). While other reports may employ alternative definitions, measures and classification systems (no shortage of these), the common ground is that there are accepted methods within social sciences to assert their validity and reliability. If, indeed, there was an obvious fallacy with the report's methodology, it would have been ripped apart and thoroughly discredited by now (and this is not the first, nor the second year it is published).

Routinely (not limited to this topic) indulging in imagined possible scenarios supportive of your position, to which there are absolutely no mention in the OP (or in the report), expanding on these musings as if they had factual value - does not make any argument stronger. Can't say I see it as a conductive addition to discussion. If you feel strongly that it does not amount to making things up, well....make up a name for it . Where in the report do you find support for the notion that the appearance (or attire) of the aggressor is used to determine whether the incident was antisemitic?

As for the leaflet example, the text in the report does not actually say that "it is to be deemed antisemitic", but rather that it "may be recorded as an antisemitic incident" - a difference which suggests an approach which is not quite as straightforward and conclusive as you seem to assert. The bit you quoted continues as follows:

"On the other hand, if a particular synagogue has been involved in public pro-Israel advocacy, and subsequently is sent anti-Israel material, it may not be classified as antisemitic unless the content of the material dictates otherwise" (Page 32).

My own reading of "random" here is that it refers to a random synagogue being sent such material whether or not it is involved with pro-Israel activity, but simply by virtue of being a synagogue. For example, sending such material to an orthodox affiliated synagogue, with a congregation that does not support Israel or Israeli policies, etc. would amount to making a misguided (or uncalled for, whatever term fits) connection between Jews and Israel. Sending such messages as "Stop murdering Palestinian children" to several synagogues (Page 23), is not political - the members of the congregations are hardly doing anything of the sort.

This too, goes back to the same premise which you seem to reject, namely, that the target (or location) of an incident bears upon the incident being classified as antisemitic. Once again, the main demand raised is for precise knowledge of motivations behind the incidents to be provided, else conclusions are to be considered faulty. This might serve well in an ideal world, but I do not believe that most real world systems (barring certain legal procedures) dealing with social sciences issues are actually expected to be held to such lofty standards. There are accepted norms which apply to such publications, and so far, it has not been demonstrated that the report strays from this accepted path. The claim raised, that the knowledge therein is not absolute goes with the territory, and normally is not grounds for discrediting (unless the methodology and tools can be decidedly shown to be off) - If you consider your criticism sufficient grounds for doing so, my guess would have to be that a certain lack of relevant experience is involved. It takes more than opinionated posts to achieve something of the sort.

But don't take my word for it, by all means, go ahead and compare how similar reports are presented all over the world, and which methodologies they use. Or, one could consider that if things were as obviously messed up as claimed, someone would pay attention. Considering the report was endorsed by the Police and the government - being supportive of a dodgy report would have been a field day for anyone wishing to attack them (no shortage).

I don't think I'm the one clutching at straws here.

We're not even going in circles here. I'm presenting you with undeniable reasoning and truth and you are attempting to deny it with deflection.

For the last time; Jewish boy + Jewish neighbourhood + Woman (or girl, it makes no difference to my point. If she was 6 foot six with the shoulders of a Russian shot-putter it still makes no difference to my point) + niqab + stone. One can assume antisemitism, but one does not know. I'll say it again, slowly....one can assume antisemitism, but one does not know.

If the person in the niqab said something to show her attitude, that would be different, either way. If she said "Piss off you crazy driver" we'd know the stone throwing was not antisemitic, if she'd shouted "Piss off Jew!" we'd know that it was antisemitic. BUT, from the information we've got, we do not know. That's a truth and no amount of woman/girl, imagined scenarios, straw clutching, page 32 this, deflecting will alter the truth.

Leaflets....let me put it slightly differently; If I ran an activist organisation that wanted to inform the public of my view of Israel's crimes. I publish a leaflet with my views, and none of the wording is antisemitic in Security Trust's view. I purchase a mailing list, and send my leaflets out. One leaflet ends up at a synagogue. Suddenly, even though I did not target the synagogue specifically, my leaflet is considered antisemitic and my intention is labelled "misguided". Actually, calling my leaflet antisemitic is what is misguided.

Imagined scenarios are not presented as facts, they are given to illustrate a point.

Boy goosing girl was never a fact. That boy goosing girl was given with "Do we know IF.." and was followed by "No we do not know" and is clearly not given as a fact and is clearly analogous to "Woman wears niqab and throws a stone....do we know she's antisemite, no, we do not.". And so on with the other illustrations. That you fail to understand what is being written tells me I will have to make the illustrations even clearer and simpler in future.

It's not PC gone mad at all. All religions are affected., and in this particular case A&F are being disingenuous.

If this practice is to stop, the small minority of Orthodox Jews that think it is mandated are going to have to change their minds. Don't worry, that is sure to happen in the next few thousand years or so!

The health department has said countless times in the past that its own epidemiological studies, as well as similar studies in Canada and Israel, prove a link between MBP and neonatal herpes. Leading medical associations, including the Centers for Disease Control and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, support the city’s position. Asked on the conference call why the city does not ban the practice, an administration official said a ban would force it underground. “They will not stop practicing [MBP] no matter what we say,” the official said.

http://forward.com/articles/215428/new-york-city-changes-policy-on-controversial-circ/#ixzz3SmWIw4AX

To add, in case you think herpes virus is rare. Chance are, you, yes, you, have got it!

They also could not say what the policy would be in cases where a mohel tests positive for herpes — prevalent in more than 70% of the population — but not for the strain that infected the baby.

Some interesting historical background as to when this practice was first linked to spreading disease:

Jews obeyed this health directive for generations. But by the 19th century, science had acknowledged the microscopic agents of disease, the theory of the four humors was contested and the science of medicine began to change.

A turning point came in 1836, when an outbreak of sickness was observed among newborn Jewish babies in Vienna.

Rabbi Elazar Horowitz observed that all the infants, some of whom died from the illness, had all been circumcised by the same mohel. Moreover, all exhibited the same symptoms - an outbreak on their skin that progressed from their penis to the rest of the body.

http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/215450/how-ancient-circumcision-rite-sparked-modern-schis/?

So, the deaths and illness are also known to occur in Canada. One has to assume it is wherever Orthodox Jews carry out the practice of MBP.

So, Jews themselves have known about the connection for over 150 years.

To say prohibition will only drive it underground is not an excuse. To rescind the requirement for parental consent is outrageous! The negotiator for the Mayor's office ought to be sacked because he walked away from those negotiations having given the Rabbis all that they wanted and gained nothing for future babies.

If you, as a representative of society are going to submit to the will of a religious group to continue MBP, informed parental consent is the minimum requirement. At least some parents might value their baby's life over the desire of a mohel to do the procedure.

I have to admit that I'm stunned that some here are attempting to play down the fact that grown men are putting baby's penises in their mouths.

"Oh, it's not a big deal"

"Oh, it doesn't happen a lot"

"Oh, there are bigger problems in the world".

I don't care what the reason/excuse is. It's flat out wrong and I'm embarrassed to know that this type of depravity is legal in my country of birth. In my opinion they should put these degenerates in jail immediately so as to protect other children from these sick paedos. Or maybe some think it's just a coincidence that these guys have sucked thousands of baby penises. It's just part of the job, right?

I haven't been on the issue of penis in old men's mouths. Although I find it disconcerting, to say the least, I'm prepared to accept that there may be nothing sexual in it.

I've been on the issue of dead and brain damaged babies....but you're right that it's worriesome how any of the issues are "excused".

I think the worst is the latest..."oh, there are bigger issues in the world to worry about". THAT is disgusting in the face of poor little Jewish babies dying from preventable disease.

Seems like there are bigger issues in the world today putting a lot more people at risk. Like ISIS.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

???? Really? Lets just discard the topic at hand because it's too hard to bear thinking about that Jewish clergy insist on performing this, lets say "primitive" practice regardless of the death of Jewish babies.

Islam is worse....of course.

Any other time a (non-Jewish) person is responsible for the death of a Jewish baby, and the whole of Israel might mobilise. In fact, a whole bunch of the alleged baby-killer's race's babies might die in retribution.

Keeping it real, if the practice was made illegal, some of the Orthodox mohels would still do it anyway. They are fundamentalists. They don't care about the law of the land compared to the law of the way they read Torah.

Like some people in some countries want to make all circumcisions illegal even for Muslims and Jews. That would not stop Muslims and Jews from doing circumcisions ... it would just force it underground and make it more unsafe, like banning abortions.

Also Jews don't have a Pope. Rather there are different sects (called movements). So if there was a Jewish Pope for all Jews, he could say, just stop it everybody, God says so, but with Jews it doesn't work that way.

Yes, I said that I thought that prohibition wouldn't stop it completely too.

But that does not excuse the authorities from prohibiting it.

Again, I say...do you wait for another Jewish baby to die? Or is the thought of a rabbi put in gaol for breaking the law too much?

A core value of American culture is religious freedom. However, the USA has a secular government (happily). This is just another case of balancing religious freedom with life in a modern secular society. I guess we'll see how this turns out. If there are no more cases of suspected mohel to baby disease transmission, then this ruling will probably stand. If not, the issue will come up again in the legal system. Was politics a factor in this probably too liberal compromise? Sure, of course. If Blasio had gone harsh on the Orthodox Jews then they would have mobilized against him. There was little politically to gain by banning this practice entirely as only one demographic, Orthodox Jews, really cares much about this issue.

I am essentially in agreeance with you, however where we part ways is your blase attitude towards waiting for another Jewish baby to die before something is done.

So you support boycott of Israel indicated in your link. Is that support for boycotting all of Israel, including when Israeli musicians tour abroad, Israeli academic boycott, or only west bank products? As you don't like "terrorists", would you also support boycotting any Palestinian products if they had any for export? You still didn't really answer the question in a practical way about support or opposition for the existence of Israel. In my reading, its clear to me a significant percentage of those supporting the BDS movement oppose the very existence of Israel. The code for your "stop the apartheid" provocative rhetoric is support that Israel include all of the population of Gaza and West Bank into their citizenship and I'm sure it is well known that means the end of Israel. BTW, Israel is not a racist apartheid state. 20 percent of her citizens are Arabs and they enjoy civil rights of citizenship. Also Palestinian leaders have made it clear many times if they ever achieve full statehood whether in reasonable borders (which I happen to support) or the more radical goals of overturning all of Israel NO JEWS will be allowed. So which side is less tolerant / more racist, do you reckon? People can play fairy tales about Palestinian innocence but surveys have shown that the rate of Jew hatred among Palestinians is the highest on the planet. There are no pie in the sky easy solutions to this ... period.

Stop perpetuating the lie. Israel DOES have different rules for Arab Israelis, and government sponsored benefits available for Israeli Jews only. That is apartheid.

The origin of this eccentric oral suction practice was ancient and at the time reflected the best medical knowledge of the time as far as benefiting the baby getting the circumcision. They were wrong but the intentions were good. Now there is no logical reason to continue the practice because science has advanced. Fundamentalists of all type of religions show resistance to scientific advancement. This case is no different.

Yet NYC has made a deal with them so they can continue their dick sucking practice. Why is that? Should be outlawed and no comprises made.

I agree it should be fully prohibited. But your description of the practice is just silly. That's how you describe a sex act. They are not having sex acts. I am not saying some mohels aren't pedophiles, like any population surely some are, but what they are doing in these religious rituals is not an expression of pedophilia.

I'm not so sure that the practice is all that "eccentric". It seems to happen a lot just in NYC. One Orthodox Jew even proclaimed that if the oral suction method was not used, the parents could not be Orthodox...ie, he was claiming that all true Orthodox Jews are/should be doing it.

The video clip that was deleted showed it happening.....the mohel certainly looked like he relished his task, and as you say, there are bound to be peadophile mohels.

Best just to prohibit it...but how can a civic body go against Jewish Orthodoxy?

News from Drudge today:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran opposition unveils 'secret' Tehran nuclear site

9 hours ago

Washington (AFP) - An exiled Iranian opposition group Tuesday accused Tehran of running a "secret" uranium enrichment site close to Tehran, which it said violated ongoing talks with global powers on a nuclear deal.

"Despite the Iranian regime's claims that all of its enrichment activities are transparent ... it has in fact been engaged in research and development with advanced centrifuges at a secret nuclear site called Lavizan-3," said Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).

He said the site was hidden in a military base in the northeastern suburbs of Tehran.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-opposition-unveils-secret-tehran-nuclear-202325011.html

" The NCRI is a political umbrella of five Iranian opposition groups, the largest of which is the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, which was once banned in Europe and the United States as a terror group."

So, do you think this "news" is credible? Obviously you must do to have posted it.

Idiots, all of them. Running drug tests which include unsafe sex.

Yeah I was a bit shocked at the ethics seeming to say, "Go forth and multiply (the virus)".

But then I realised, the men in the study would do whatever they were doing whether they were in the study or not, so there was no increase in risk for them. They were also counselled about safe sex being the best option. The study made some very good observations and seemingly prevented most of the participants from contracting the disease.

Your position, to begin with, was that the report did not differentiate between incidents classed as antisemitic and anti-Israel. This position was reiterated several times, even without reading the report.

The report actually addresses and expands on this issue, to the effect of excluding about 30% of the total incidents which were initially documented. The report's approach is even more cautious that some of the views posted on this topic. Yet, this does not seem to satisfy. It seems that whether the report would have excluded or included these incidents is immaterial - as both courses of actions would be, according to your reasoning, supportive of your position.

The CST does not limit itself to documenting antisemitic incidents, and also deals with non-antisemitic security related issues effecting the Jewish community in the UK. The assumption that all 1666 incidents reported were initially described as antisemitic is not supported.

As for claims regarding playing the victim card (page 5):

It is likely that there is a significant under-reporting of antisemitic incidents to both CST and the Police, and that the number of antisemitic incidents that took place is significantly higher than the number recorded in this report. A 2013 survey of Jewish experiences and perceptions of antisemitism in the EU found that 72 per cent of British Jews who had experienced antisemitic harassment over the previous five years had not reported it to the Police or to any other organisation; 57 per cent of British Jews who had experienced antisemitic violence or the threat of violence had not reported it; and 46 per cent of British Jews who had suffered antisemitic vandalism to their home or car had not reported it. The same survey also found that, over the previous 12 months, 21 per cent of British Jews had suffered antisemitic harassment, 3 per cent had suffered antisemitic violence or the threat of violence and 2 per cent had experienced antisemitic vandalism to their home or car. Similarly, the Crime Survey for England and Wales estimated that around 40 per cent of all hate crimes come to the attention of the Police.

The claim that classification of antisemitic incidents is made based on assumptions etc. - this is a pretty weird notion for anyone familiar with measurement of attitudes, political and social positions. Not quite sure which standards you imagine would be applicable here? Wearing a "I'm antisemitic and proud of it" T-shirt? Carrying a member card? Are standards different when measuring anti-Muslim incidents? Anti-any-group incidents? It would seem that the demand for application of rigorous standards depends on your position regarding an issue, rather than being global. Guessing that had the report indicated a reverse trend, no such objections would have been raised.

Faulting the report with allegations of being based on assumptions and inflating figures, and doing so by means of making a lot of assumptions and ignoring figures does not a strong argument make.

Not assumed but clearly antisemitic; "XXX the XXX Jews". "I'm gonna kill....." etc. All nasty stuff, and rightly included in the report.

However.....

"A visibly Jewish boy was cycling in an area with a large Jewish community, when a woman wearing a niqab threw a stone that hit him on his cycle helmet.".

So, based on the boy's appearance and the girl's appearance, do we KNOW or assume the stone throwing was antisemitic? Did the boy just goose her or nearly run her over, or say something anti-Muslim and she was simply retaliating? We don't know, do we?

The compilers of the report are at once displaying their own bias based on a girl's attire (she MUST be antisemitic, she wears the niqab!), and also showing that the report itself uses presumption of guilt to make the bottom line more impressive. Consider, too, that the compilers are very likely to have only published the most compelling or dramatic examples of "antisemitism". If that example based on the girls headdress is the best they've got, then the report is certainly based on shaky figures.

Then there's their methodology, again using assumption; If literature condemning Israel is sent to a business or house not owned by Jews, they take it as political, but if that same leaflet happens to get sent to a Jewish business, home, or synagogue, it becomes antisemitic. Are mailing lists compiled with the religion of the addressee as a data field that political organisations can filter out all the Jewish addresses? Why should they filter Jews out? Or would the letterbox-droppers know that a particular house was Jewish, and would they have been told not to put the leaflet in Jewish letterboxes?

(Why can't an activist or political group give their anti-Israel message to any Jew? Actually, it would be antisemitic if they discriminated; "We're NOT giving you this leaflet because you're a Jew". Ironic.)

So, the report employs presumption of guilt. It also uses assumptions. That is clear.

The 30% of allegations of antisemitism that were rejected by the report shows that the compilers did have some scruples, but it also shows that 30% of all allegations of antisemitism in the UK are false or baseless.

The claim that the 30% of the incidents reported but not included were "allegations of antisemitism" is your misguided interpretation, nowhere does it say that all of the incidents reported were such. The CST deals with a range of security issues concerning Jews in the UK, not all of them related to antisemitism. There is nothing to support that all of the reports were "allegations of antisemitism", or even that defining the incidents as antisemitic was initiated by those reporting them. Once again, assumptions and making things up.

In the incident description picked to support discrediting the report, the aggressor is a woman and not a "girl" (which would imply more equal terms between herself and the victim). The wording of incident descriptions is not coincidental, but consistent and there is a clear reference to age groups when it applies. The stone throwing is probably deemed antisemitic as the incident involved an adult and a boy (hopefully we will not need to argue the logic of a Jewish boy in the UK not being a representative of Israeli government policy), and that the incident took place in "an area with large Jewish community" (this would be in line with the report differentiating between incidents taking place within Jewish neighborhoods etc.) - one may not agree with this part of the methodology, but need to assert why. There is nothing to indicate that the boy "just goose her or nearly run her over, or say something anti-Muslim and she was simply retaliating" - making up stuff, again.

The woman's attire does not seem to be the decisive factor in classifying the stone throwing as antisemitic. There are sections of the report dealing with how such connections are not always supportive regarding claims of antisemitic incidents. The only one who made the woman's attire a central argument is you. Having, supposedly, read the report - does this incident description represents the "best they've got"? Again, nothing to support the suggestion that the classification of the incident was based on the woman's attire - more "creativity" by yourself.

As for the learned comment on methodology and literature - must have accidentally skipped the relevant section while reading the report (pages 22-23). The differentiation between antisemitic and anti-Israel incidents is upheld in a consistent manner with previous categories. Not clear if the example given was the fruit of a vivid imagination or a reference to one of the incident descriptions appearing in the report - in short, no - there is nothing to suggest that sending a leaflet criticizing Israel (without any antisemitic references) would be considered as an antisemitic incident.

Not hard to compile a mailing list including Jewish organizations, synagogues, Rabbis and certain Jewish surnames. A bit more effort required to get to mailing lists of Jewish organizations themselves, etc. The follow up musings about what might have been are more of the same creative imagination. The literature section of the report deals with unsolicited antisemitic literature which targeted Jews as recipients. Nothing to do with your assumptions.

Very strawmanish Morch.

Misguided imagination? Not at all. P32; "CST received reports of 498 potential incidents during 2014 that, after investigation, did not appear to be antisemitic and were therefore not included in the total of 1,168 antisemitic incidents. These 498 potential incidents included examples of anti-Israel activity directed at organisations involved in pro-Israel work, which did not involve explicitly antisemitic language or imagery and were therefore not classified by CST as antisemitic. ". You're suggesting that those discarded 498 reports were not reported as antisemitc incidents. If that was the case, they would not (properly) be mentioned in this report, nor would the report make a decision on them as "therefore not classified.... as antisemitic". Nothing misguided with my logical conclusion, nor very imaginative. Reasonable, logical conclusion....imperative, even. To say it's "making things up" is a gross distortion.

Your argument regarding woman vs girl.....ok, I used the wrong descriptor. Makes no difference. Do you KNOW the woman threw the stone as an act of antisemitism? NO you do not. Neither do the compilers of the report, otherwise they would have stated why they KNEW. As it stands we have visibly Jewish, Jewish community, niqab, stone. Nothing more.

Again, I'm not making things up, but you are certainly twisting things when you say that I am, in reference to my QUESTION of "Did the boy just goose her...etc" And my following statement "We don't KNOW do we?". And we still don't. And we still don't know what intent or reason the woman had. But the incident remains in the report....and nobody can show us that it was an antisemitic act. Whether it was the woman's attire, the boys visible Jewishness, or the Jewish area that led the compilers to assume it was an act of antisemitism, we do not know. What we do know from the information given in the report is that the incident IS an assumption. There is no information to say it is a fact. Your deflections change nothing.

You have failed to grasp my point with regard to leaflets and mass mailings.

P32; " Sometimes the targeting of a particular incident can suggest an intention to intimidate or offend Jews on the part of the offender. For example, graffiti reading “ Israel” would probably be classified as an antisemitic incident if it appears to be targeted at an area known for having a large Jewish community, but would probably not be counted as antisemitic if it appears in an area where few Jews live. Similarly, anti-Israel material that is sent unsolicited to a synagogue at random may be recorded as an antisemitic incident (because the synagogue was targeted simply because it is Jewish and the offender has failed to distinguish between a place of worship and a political organisation), when the same material sent unsolicited to specifically pro-Israel organisations would not be"

Here, the report states that if an anti-Israel leaflet that is otherwise not deemed antisemitic finds it way into a RANDOM synagogue letterbox, it is to be deemed antisemitic, regardless that the synagogue was not targeted per se (as per a mass mailing with no filtering out of Jewish institutions).

Again, I ask the question; Why can anti-Israel literature or words not be directed towards a Jew?

Your only valid point was pointing out that I said "girl" not "woman". Valid, but entirely redundant. It that makes absolutely no difference to my point. The rest of your post was disingenuous deflecting. I say disingenuous because you debating skills and perception are generally much better....I feel you're clutching at straws, not to mention a strawman.

There was a recent news item in the US along similar lines. Two or 3 young teens of Somalian descent, who were living with their families, were clandestinely being groomed by baddies in Syria. The girls got hold of $2,000 and scooted while supposedly on their way to school. The dad of two of them (sisters) quickly went looking at their emails (which he hadn't seen before). He alerted authorities, and the girls were stopped in Germany (expecting to switch planes) and sent back to their homes.

Perhaps authorities could set a few 'honey traps' to bust the baddies who are arranging the trafficking.

Honey traps...good idea. Take their money and waste their time....also find out who is local helping.

Great idea.

Jingthing post # 51

Let him speak for himself. I would like people spouting rabid anti-Israelism to reveal how radical they are. After all, get real a large percentage of Palestinians really do want to push the Jews into the sea.

Let us speak for ourselves I would like people spouting rabid anti-Palestinian comments to reveal how radical they are. After all, get real a large percentage of Zionists really do want to push the Palestinians into the sea.

nice to see you know your geography!

The palestinians are in the west bank, entirely the wrong place to push them into the sea. Into Jordan will do just fine. That way they are still alive to enjoy their lives. Unlike Israeli's being pushed into the sea!

still don't let me spoil your anti Israel retoric.

I think you are ignoring the Likud Party's manifesto which stated "From the river to the sea". Palestinians also live in Gaza....over a million of them. Best brush up on your geography.

I have stated many times my support for a two state solution. I reject that a large percentage of Zionists have genocidal intentions towards Arabs.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Good for you supporting a 2 state solution. It's the only way, really, for Israel's continued success.

Good on you too for accepting that some Zionists have genocidal intentions towards Arabs. Unfortunately, it seems that it is the Zionists in power.

Business Insider JUL. 22, 2011, 2:57 PM

"One-third of the Obama re-election campaign's record-breaking second-quarter fundraising came from sources associated with the financial sector, the Washington Post reports.

That percentage is up from the 20% of donations that came from Wall Street donors in 2008, and contradicts reports that a growing Wall Street animosity towards the Obama administration may jeopardize his re-election bid."

Emphasis mine.

LINK

What a strange logic.

The big money changes the horses in elections - or more precisely: jumps on the winning horses - at the moment when it is obvious that the Rep-horses cannot win the race.

Guess why? But for the answer you need some logic.

Obamas call for tougher standards is fair and justified in order to protect the interests of the inexperienced clients. As proven in the past the ethos of those brokers isn't at it's best. The outcry of this lobby group shows that Obama is right to hit them on their fingers.

Look at the graph in #5. As @Pinot said:

The Republicans will fight all attempts to put in reasonable rules for a couple of reasons. The GOP is bought and sold by the financial industry. No regulations on anything is their motto. They hate social security. They want that money handled by Wall Street for their take. The other reason the GOP will fight the rules is that they never want to let Obama pass anything.

Speaking of horses....I watched this the other day and it is very interesting and very much to the topic at hand.

Good news that the truth has been exposed. The Palestinians are supporting terrorism to this day and not just Hamas.

If my lands had been stolen from me by foreign terrorists such as Begin, and then successive superpowers backed these terrorists over the years to subjugate and humiliate me and my people, destroy my way of life and steal my land, I think I would be inclined to inflict ill upon these aggressors. Sow and you will reap.

http://boycottisrael.info/

So you don't accept the existence of Israel at all?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

So quick to bring that claim up...By mention of M. Begin he's obviously referring to events since 1967.

Fantastic! Isn't payback a bitch. Perhaps Abbas will reflect on the wisdom of trying to expose someone else's dirty laundry when his own is heavily soiled. I guess some terrorist enabler entity will make up the shortfall, provided its spent on weapons, whilst the Palestinians can work on dropping a notch or two down the obesity league.

The PA didn't deny their guilt....Netanyahu will deny, deny, deny forever. Bald-faced liar that he is.

They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke.

The U.S. says it will not allow them to build a nuke.

Obama is hashing out a deal right now.

Still not good enough for the chronic cases here.

"They don't have a nuke.

They have not decided to build a nuke."

These are wide sweeping comments without basis in fact. Provide some proof of your allegations.

Or you could contradict him with your own proof.

But you don't have that do you?

The evidence to date is that Netanyahu lied about Iran's weapons ambitions, and there is no evidence to say that Iran does have weapons ambitions.

I don't need to provide any proof. Your side did that when they made the link to begin with.

Why do I need to hammer one's toes when they have already shot themselves in the foot?

My suggestion is if somebody is going to use a document for a "gotcha" moment, they should probably read all the way through to the end of the document to see what else it says.

Your "proof" ("The key words being..." allow renewal of the activity necessary to produce weapons immediately when the Iranian leadership decides to do so.""), says it nicely. Iran does NOT have nukes albeit they could resume ambition IF they decided to.

So, when a poster says that they do not, and have not decided to, and you assert he has no "basis in fact" and then point out that he DOES have basis in fact on both counts..........Where are you going with this?

My suggestion is if somebody is going to quote a document for a "gotcha" moment, they should comprehend the words before asserting something entirely different to what they are quoting.

Tzipi Livni, joint leader of the new Zionist Union, has impeccable credentials for both interpretations of the word Zionist. Her parents were members of the Jewish extremist Irgun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

..and she herself, an ardent nationalist, is a leading voice for the two state solution.

I suppose she can see that her parents brand of Zionism helped establish Israel, but now she foresees that continued occupation and domination of 4 million Palestinians offers no future for Israeli Jews... just more isolationism, and a perpetual state of war.

She can now see that to save the Jewish State there will have to be a surrendering of land taken in 1967 and a separation of the two peoples. The alternative ,a one state solution, will inevitably involve the absorption of 4 million Palestinians as equal citizens.

I don’t like the name Zionist Union because of all its connotations, but I can see her logic. Her brand of Zionism will be the only one that can save Israel and retain a predominantly Jewish character.

Her background and life story are epitomized in Winston Churchill’s advice

In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Good Will.

Her parents’ generation won the wars with the old style Zionism, now it’s time for the new generation to spread some magnanimity and goodwill.

The fact that her party is running neck and neck with Likud proves there are many Israelis who want a peaceful resolution of the 100 year old conflict too.

As the OP says the occupation is unsustainable.

Hear hear.

The only thing a bit sad (but nonetheless true) about what you posted is the need for magnanimity.....it implies that Israel is indeed a conqueror, as indeed it unjustly, immorally, and illegally is.

I dont agree with the posts above.

If these girls have been groomed, they are victims of a sort.

They are going to end up as sex slaves, not warriors.

I wonder who is doing the grooming? The local mosque?

Yes.

It's the groomers.

Back in my day, and maybe still today, Catholic girls were the prime targets for sex because we all knew that their repressed family/religious background made them readily amenable to sweet-talk.

These girls are easily groomed, and they are victims.

The authorities need to act to counter the grooming. So do the families.

It's harder for the families because (just as in Thailand) sex education and all the peripheral subjects (such as grooming) are taboo.

Don't blame the girls, don't blame the parents...and to an extent, don't blame the authorities. Blame the groomers.

I feel very sad for these girls.