UK anti-Semitic incidents hit record in 2014, says charity

[Seastallion]

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.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Seastallion

[Morch]

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.

[Ulysses G.]

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

You are not, but you are arguing with people who will never concede that you are right, no matter how much evidence you present that they are just nitpicking and making things up. You have the patience of a saint.

[ggold]

I find it interesting that anti-Simites are complaining about the missrepresentation of anti-Semitic incidents. That is a true anti semite for you!

[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.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Seastallion

[ggold]

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.

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.

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

Twisted logic, Contradiction, or just plain stupid. Try sticking to the facts, your idea if imagined scenarios does you no credit and certainly doesn't make your argument valid.

[Steely Dan]

Here are the results of a journalist filming his walk through Manchester and Bradford, two culturally enriched areas. It seems he got much more on film than his counterparts in Germany, Sweden or France got. Let's see the anti-Zionists try and spin this one.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/uk-video-youre-a-jew-not-a-muslim-jew-jew-jew-run

[Chicog]

Here are the results of a journalist filming his walk through Manchester and Bradford, two culturally enriched areas. It seems he got much more on film than his counterparts in Germany, Sweden or France got. Let's see the anti-Zionists try and spin this one.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/uk-video-youre-a-jew-not-a-muslim-jew-jew-jew-run

Have you only just discovered that Muslims don't like Jews?

[Seastallion]

Here are the results of a journalist filming his walk through Manchester and Bradford, two culturally enriched areas. It seems he got much more on film than his counterparts in Germany, Sweden or France got. Let's see the anti-Zionists try and spin this one.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/uk-video-youre-a-jew-not-a-muslim-jew-jew-jew-run

Was that filmed by the same people who did the Paris walk-around? The one in which, trying to be deliberately provocative, TEN HOURS of footage came up with less than two minutes of sometimes doubtful "proof" and sometimes definitely not "proof"?

Not exactly powerful stuff.

Nobody denies antisemitism exists. But videos such as the Paris one, and the report of the OP do indeed highlight, somewhat ironically, that the accusation of antisemitism is indeed used more than is appropriate.

[Ulysses G.]

Nobody denies antisemitism exists.

Actually, a lot of Jew/Israel haters do and they don't go far from it on this very thread.

[mania]

Was that filmed by the same people who did the Paris walk-around? The one in which, trying to be deliberately provocative, TEN HOURS of footage came up with less than two minutes of sometimes doubtful "proof" and sometimes definitely not "proof"?

Not exactly powerful stuff.

Nobody denies antisemitism exists. But videos such as the Paris one, and the report of the OP do indeed highlight, somewhat ironically, that the accusation of antisemitism is indeed used more than is appropriate.

I have not watched the new vid but did see that Paris walk around & agree with you

it was nothing more than an attempt to inflame.

That aside I also think most folks for better or worse interchange Jews with Israel

Same as many use a blanket statement of Muslims or Americans

But the bottom line is I think most, myself included, are never directing disappointment

at a class of citizens but at the government/politicians who commit horrendous acts in their name.

Many today in the world feel the same about the USA including US citizens themselves

That in no way means they hate Americans in fact it is usually the true Americans who hate the

bad actions committed in their names the most.

What I am saying is obviously much of what is called Antisemitism is in reality distaste for the

actions/crimes/hypocrisy of the Israeli government.Of course I fully expect the junior JDL types to now run

forward screaming don't you remember this & that...Yes we all remember

Blacks remember slavery...Americans remember a king that taxed them into near oblivion...Americans remember

Pearl Harbor...9/11 etc etc etc. Yes I know it can never compare with "their" hurt but that does not excuse their current

crimes nor will it ever be a viable shield from the truth of their actions. The world has woken up to any group that has

used any excuse as a sympathy crutch. Especially when it has been played like as a constant card/excuse/violin

[Chicog]

Irrational hatred of Jews is no different to irrational hatred of Blacks, Muslims, Asians, Christians, Buddhists, Women, etc.

I don't even think it merits its own thread to be honest.

However, the Jewish publicity machine makes sure that it always gets top billing.

They even hijacked a word for it.

[Ulysses G.]

However, the Jewish publicity machine makes sure that it always gets top billing.

Thanks for being so obvious.

[Chicog]

However, the Jewish publicity machine makes sure that it always gets top billing.

Thanks for being so obvious.

May be obvious to you but there are plenty of people out there that don't realise just how brilliant the whole setup is.

[Jingthing]

Michael Douglas explains it all for you:

Anti-Semitism, I've seen, is like a disease that goes dormant, flaring up with the next political trigger.

...

A second root cause of anti-Semitism derives from an irrational and misplaced hatred of Israel.

...

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0315-douglas-anti-semitism-20150315-story.html

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies removed.

[Jingthing]

Food for thought.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31765970

Being hated is part of being Jewish, argues author and broadcaster Michael Goldfarb, speaking from his personal experience over the past 50 years.

...

Thankfully, most of this Jew-targeted hatred takes the form of verbal aggression rather than physical violence. But because many critics of Israel make no distinction between citizens of the Jewish state and the worldwide Jewish community, the J-word has been the focus. You won't see "Kill Israelis" scrawled on London synagogue walls. What you see on walls is "Kill the Jews", and on banners "Hitler was Right".

[Seastallion]

Food for thought.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31765970

Being hated is part of being Jewish, argues author and broadcaster Michael Goldfarb, speaking from his personal experience over the past 50 years.

...

Thankfully, most of this Jew-targeted hatred takes the form of verbal aggression rather than physical violence. But because many critics of Israel make no distinction between citizens of the Jewish state and the worldwide Jewish community, the J-word has been the focus. You won't see "Kill Israelis" scrawled on London synagogue walls. What you see on walls is "Kill the Jews", and on banners "Hitler was Right".

The point is clear that some anti-Israeli rhetoric uses "the J word", and that is misguided. So it's not antisemitism per se because, albeit the J word is used, the intention is purely a verbal attack on Israel.

The report in the OP, although it makes attempts to separate anti-Israeli acts from real antisemitism, it doesn't properly distinguish intent and relies solely on word use.

We have to keep in mind that the ignorant masses aren't always clever enough to distinguish the differences either, and there will be plenty of people who are outraged at Israel's crimes yet have no animosity towards Jews in general, but choose the wrong words. They are not antisemites.

[Ulysses G.]

They are not antisemites.

Most of them ARE, but they are not clever enough to substitute the word "Zionists" for "Jews" as many anti-Semites do these days.

[chuckd]

It's amazing to me that some can discern the intent of an individual posting graffiti simply by reading between the lines.

"Kill the Jews" actually means "Kill Israel"?

Graffiti artists say what they mean...apologists say what they want the artists to mean.

[BKKBobby]

Michael Douglas explains it all for you:

Anti-Semitism, I've seen, is like a disease that goes dormant, flaring up with the next political trigger.

...

A second root cause of anti-Semitism derives from an irrational and misplaced hatred of Israel.

...

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0315-douglas-anti-semitism-20150315-story.html

Michael Douglas. Saw he was in Israel. Getting old and ponders about the chance of a life after death and suddenly becomes religious. Most people outside the US dont even know he is jew and the familys real surname. Who cares what he has to say, hes an actor, not a spokesman for UN.

Anti-semitism among people in the UK are because of Israel, not because of jews per se, its a error in thinking. That is true, yes.

Edited March 17, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Seastallion]

It's amazing to me that some can discern the intent of an individual posting graffiti simply by reading between the lines.

"Kill the Jews" actually means "Kill Israel"?

Graffiti artists say what they mean...apologists say what they want the artists to mean.

I am sure that "Kill the Jews" is antisemitic in most cases.

I am also sure that you are confused about what I am actually talking about.

Either that, or you're deliberately baiting.