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

[Seastallion]

I did not "admit" to anything.

When I make my mind up on someone's opinions it is usually after having prolonged exposure to what he expresses on relevant topics. Usually try not to jump to conclusions, unless its too obvious to interpret otherwise. What I meant was simply, that relying on such comparisons is often indicative of antisemitic bias. It may not always be the case, it may be less pronounced or less obvious, but its there. If someone wishes to simply criticize Israel, there is no specific need to allude to the Nazis - many more fitting examples for comparison. The extra bonus of resorting to the Nazi comparison is aimed at robbing Jews of their right to say anything when antisemitism raises its head.

http://www.truetorahjews.org/issues/haaretzopinion

'Israel and the Diaspora Jewish establishment automatically tag any criticism as anti-Semitic. It’s an old trick – the burden of guilt is shifted from those who perpetrated the Gaza horrors to those who are tainted with so-called anti-Semitism. It’s not us, it’s you, anti-Semitic world. No matter what Israel does, the whole world is against it.

This is nonsense, of course.'

Taking phony offence at even a teensy-weensy bit of 'antisemitism' is the height of hypocrisy, coming from those busily whitewashing the brutal murder, torture and land theft of innocent and helpless civilians. That the whole propaganda PR apparatus would elevate this 'crime' above the treatment of 'non-human' Palestinians speaks volumes about some Jewish values. Non-Jews showing just a 'hint' of anti-Jewish feeling, are the lowest of the low, yet the Israeli State quite happily elevates Jewish citizens above all others.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.” http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/

Other Rabbis and political leaders have made similar racist and supremacist statements.

Are Nazi comparisons unfair?

The Nazis called themselves 'The Master Race'. How is this different to Jews calling themselves 'The Chosen Ones'?

If you want to do something about how Jews in general are perceived, make a start by putting your own 'anti-Goy' house in order.

The first link is an opinion piece by Gideon Levy of Haaretz (not sure what was the point of linking it through the truetorahjews.org website, does not add much credibility), a well known holder of radical position on things Israeli. Not the most balanced perspective there.

I don't know that people are taking "phony offence" - that's your opinion, and some of the incidents detailed are hardly "teensy-weensy bits of antisemitism" (obviously, still didn't bother having a look at the report itself). It is not clear if you mean that the people the report mentioned as being targeted by antisemitic incidents or posters on this forum - but either way, the criticism is a deflection. There is no indication of the political activity and position of the people mentioned in the report as for posters in this forum, their positions are hardly uniform. The notion that denouncing one wrong comes at the expense of another is an imaginary construct, and this fake balance, or comparison does not really exist.

The second link is aptly titled "5 of Ovadia Yosef's most controversial quotations" - by itself a little hint that this is not necessarily a general position, unless one truly believes that all Israelis and Jews follow these views (which even then, does not make this a reality). Do many UK Jews adhere to these notions?

The difference between "master race" and "chosen people" is that for starters, one would have to be a religious Jew of a certain creed in order to take "chosen people" seriously. Another difference would be that it does not necessarily denote control over the rest of humanity, in many interpretations it is depicted as more of a burden - albeit one to be appreciated.

His 'balanced perspective' has already been confirmed by an Israeli ex-minister (...as if the 'trick' isn't already well understood).

Calling someone 'anti-semitic' who isn't, IS phony.

The 'teensy-weensy' comment was in response to your post... '...relying on such comparisons is often indicative of antisemitic bias. It may not always be the case, it may be less pronounced or less obvious, but its there.'

How far do you take this? Is calling a Jew, a 'Jew' indicative of 'anti-semitism'? Apparently so. I've met those who have to use 'Israeli' because they fear saying 'Jew'. Or a British MP stating a 'Jewish Lobby' exists. Everyone knows it exists. Yet saying so is 'anti-semitic'... http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/10/13/tory-mps-anti-semitic-slur/ The smear of the MP, at the start of the article, is shabby character assassination.

Suppressing dissent and smearing critics is anti-free speech as well as a cause of resentment.

The Rabbi made no religious distinction and his party has influence in government. It isn't whether Jews adhere to these views or not. It is the effect of such views on non-Jews, who don't have the benefit of a forum lawyer, explaining away the Rabbi's views. I am glad you are principled enough to assert that Jews in general should not be blamed for the extremist views of a few and look forward to you offering similar challenge to those who smear all Muslims.

In fact, there is a lot of demonstrable phoniness. There is also a lot of exaggeration.

It's like (some) black Americans pulling the race card every time they get stopped by the police or fail a job interview. Some of them are so deeply indoctrinated with the idea that they are persecuted, every action that goes against them is automatically construed as racism. No matter that another job candidate had better qualifications, it was a racist interviewer. No matter that they were driving at 2 am with no headlights, it was a racist rousting.

And then there are the conniving ones that pull the race card as a ploy. That's the real phoniness.

Both groups of black Americans have support groups that listen to their complaints and promulgate them as racist events.

Same as some farang in Thailand..... get lousy service in a restaurant..."Thainess anti-farang attitude!".....well, no, you were rude and uncouth when you entered, and you stink, and so the staff want to avoid you. They'd treat a Thai exactly the same if he was as rude and as smelly. Some "antisemitism" is simply reacting to a person (but the person happens to be Jewish).

The (cough cough) "charity" that published the OP report is the same, and caters to the same sort of people, except they're UK Jews, not black Americans.

No matter that the hoodlums who harassed them with swear words do the same to every passerby, they were Jews, so the harassment must have been antisemitic.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Seastallion

[Jingthing]

The energy being put into denying an obviously real problem continues to impress just as the obvious motivation for the denials nauseates.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited February 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[SheungWan]

If that is an attack on me, you are spouting garbage. I left London because I retired, not because I "failed" or it "beat" me somehow.

Bkk is far more vibrant and exciting than London, and is far better all around than a dingy place with the chewing gum of millions plastering every pavement.

If you love the UK so much, why are you even on a Thai forum anyway?

Maybe you lived in a dingy part of town (and there are a few... ) Anyway, some us haven't burned all their boats and like to go back for a bit of culture now and then, notwithstanding being in abject fear traveling on the London Underground with only a copy of the London Evening Standard to protect us from the roaming hordes of the Undead. Life is tough in Zone 1.

Would this be the culture you allude to ?

Police release footage of pensioner mugging in Soho, London

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31488600

70% if not more of London is now a dungheap.

Look up the phrase non sequitur and have another try at referencing the cultural aspects of London (or crime for that matter). And next time you are in Soho maybe call in on Ronnie Scotts or Bar Italia any night of the week. Or maybe you can't get past the first floor lovelies. As for 70% being a dungheap, well I don't venture out much to the zones you are seemingly more familiar with. Either way educated youngsters flock to London for careers and a more exciting life and better still get away from the provincial grumpies nursing their anti-London resentments from as far away as...oh....Bangkok.

[chuckd]

I saw your "list" as a sneaky provocation, a crafty way to publish here (for the 100th time) "reasons" that "other people / not me!" hate Jews. There are no "reasons" for irrational racism. Period ... end of story.

Of course there are no reasons for irrational racism. But when there are rationales, it becomes rational.

What's that word you always use? That's it...."Duh".

Are you stating that if one has rationales to excuse racism, then irrational racism becomes rational and is, therefore, acceptable?

Can you provide some examples of what would constitute reason enough for an individual or group of individuals to become rational racists?

[thaibeachlovers]

Maybe you lived in a dingy part of town (and there are a few... ) Anyway, some us haven't burned all their boats and like to go back for a bit of culture now and then, notwithstanding being in abject fear traveling on the London Underground with only a copy of the London Evening Standard to protect us from the roaming hordes of the Undead. Life is tough in Zone 1.

Would this be the culture you allude to ?

Police release footage of pensioner mugging in Soho, London

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31488600

70% if not more of London is now a dungheap.

Look up the phrase non sequitur and have another try at referencing the cultural aspects of London (or crime for that matter). And next time you are in Soho maybe call in on Ronnie Scotts or Bar Italia any night of the week. Or maybe you can't get past the first floor lovelies. As for 70% being a dungheap, well I don't venture out much to the zones you are seemingly more familiar with. Either way educated youngsters flock to London for careers and a more exciting life and better still get away from the provincial grumpies nursing their anti-London resentments from as far away as...oh....Bangkok.

Ah yes, Soho. People call Pattaya sleazy, but Soho is far far more sleazy than Pattaya ever was with it's clip bars.

Or maybe you can't get past the first floor lovelies.

Lovelies, in London? LOL. I've seen more "lovelies" riding m'bikes past the internet café in the Thai backwater I live in than ever I saw in London. If I ever feel the need to see "lovelies", I'll take a trip to a shopping mall in Chiang Mai where they are commonplace.

educated youngsters flock to London for careers and a more exciting life

Well, even I went there for my "career" ( actually because they pay more as they have to include London weighting in the wages so ordinary people can afford to live there ), otherwise there were plenty more amenable places to live in the UK than the big grime.

More exciting- if you lived in some dismal village in the middle of nowhere of course it's going to be more exciting, so that's not a reason to elevate it into some sort of paradise. You're not talkin' to someone that lived in Nakon Nowhere all his life- I've lived in 7 countries and spent time in several more, and I can't think of a single reason to miss the big dirty, but I miss Thailand every day I'm not there.

[Choctastic]

I saw your "list" as a sneaky provocation, a crafty way to publish here (for the 100th time) "reasons" that "other people / not me!" hate Jews.

You would. I made it clear I was talking about the criminal elements.

There are no "reasons" for irrational racism. Period ... end of story.

There are always reasons. Exercising censorship because you don't like being faced with them, won't make them go away.

Jewish paranoia is understandable considering the decades-long, Zionist, fear-based campaign to drive Jews to Israel and bind the 'tribe' together in mutual security. I don't hate Jews. I pity them. Having to go through life manipulated by fear, is no way to live a life.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Choctastic

[Seastallion]

I saw your "list" as a sneaky provocation, a crafty way to publish here (for the 100th time) "reasons" that "other people / not me!" hate Jews. There are no "reasons" for irrational racism. Period ... end of story.

Of course there are no reasons for irrational racism. But when there are rationales, it becomes rational.

What's that word you always use? That's it...."Duh".

Are you stating that if one has rationales to excuse racism, then irrational racism becomes rational and is, therefore, acceptable?

Can you provide some examples of what would constitute reason enough for an individual or group of individuals to become rational racists?

I don't think anybody is trying to excuse racism. Nor is anybody even hinting at racism being acceptable.

Now, go back and read the dialogue again, also look up the definition of "rationale" and "rational".

[Scott]

I am inches away from giving suspensions.

Stay on topic and stop with the personal remarks.

Numerous posts and replies have been removed.

[SheungWan]

Ah yes, Soho. People call Pattaya sleazy, but Soho is far far more sleazy than Pattaya ever was with it's clip bars.

Or maybe you can't get past the first floor lovelies.

Lovelies, in London? LOL. I've seen more "lovelies" riding m'bikes past the internet café in the Thai backwater I live in than ever I saw in London. If I ever feel the need to see "lovelies", I'll take a trip to a shopping mall in Chiang Mai where they are commonplace.

educated youngsters flock to London for careers and a more exciting life

Well, even I went there for my "career" ( actually because they pay more as they have to include London weighting in the wages so ordinary people can afford to live there ), otherwise there were plenty more amenable places to live in the UK than the big grime.

More exciting- if you lived in some dismal village in the middle of nowhere of course it's going to be more exciting, so that's not a reason to elevate it into some sort of paradise. You're not talkin' to someone that lived in Nakon Nowhere all his life- I've lived in 7 countries and spent time in several more, and I can't think of a single reason to miss the big dirty, but I miss Thailand every day I'm not there.

The correct term is clip joints, not clip bars and the wonderful places in question would normally serve 'near-beer' as they were unlicensed. There are still one or two around but Soho like a lot of London is changing beyond what a few tired old fascist memories of old have lodged in their past memories of Rupert Court and the Raymond Revue Bar. Racists and anti-semites never quite like places like Soho even in the past with their multi-cultural feel and mostly have kittens over Old Compton Street which has become a firmly established gay area both for Londoners and visiting tourists in the evening and afternoons. It might be even on the list of places for 'cleansing' in some nutters bedsit. For those who do visit the area, however, I do recommend The Algerian Coffee Stores located on Old Compton Street where I usually load up on great Vietnamese coffee to bring to Thailand and then cross over Shaftesbury Avenue into Chinatown for a bite to eat or even just a cup of Chinese tea and a custard tart. I guess if you want amenable rather than dynamic there is always Eastbourne.

[Morch]

I did not "admit" to anything.

When I make my mind up on someone's opinions it is usually after having prolonged exposure to what he expresses on relevant topics. Usually try not to jump to conclusions, unless its too obvious to interpret otherwise. What I meant was simply, that relying on such comparisons is often indicative of antisemitic bias. It may not always be the case, it may be less pronounced or less obvious, but its there. If someone wishes to simply criticize Israel, there is no specific need to allude to the Nazis - many more fitting examples for comparison. The extra bonus of resorting to the Nazi comparison is aimed at robbing Jews of their right to say anything when antisemitism raises its head.

http://www.truetorahjews.org/issues/haaretzopinion

'Israel and the Diaspora Jewish establishment automatically tag any criticism as anti-Semitic. It’s an old trick – the burden of guilt is shifted from those who perpetrated the Gaza horrors to those who are tainted with so-called anti-Semitism. It’s not us, it’s you, anti-Semitic world. No matter what Israel does, the whole world is against it.

This is nonsense, of course.'

Taking phony offence at even a teensy-weensy bit of 'antisemitism' is the height of hypocrisy, coming from those busily whitewashing the brutal murder, torture and land theft of innocent and helpless civilians. That the whole propaganda PR apparatus would elevate this 'crime' above the treatment of 'non-human' Palestinians speaks volumes about some Jewish values. Non-Jews showing just a 'hint' of anti-Jewish feeling, are the lowest of the low, yet the Israeli State quite happily elevates Jewish citizens above all others.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.” http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/

Other Rabbis and political leaders have made similar racist and supremacist statements.

Are Nazi comparisons unfair?

The Nazis called themselves 'The Master Race'. How is this different to Jews calling themselves 'The Chosen Ones'?

If you want to do something about how Jews in general are perceived, make a start by putting your own 'anti-Goy' house in order.

The first link is an opinion piece by Gideon Levy of Haaretz (not sure what was the point of linking it through the truetorahjews.org website, does not add much credibility), a well known holder of radical position on things Israeli. Not the most balanced perspective there.

I don't know that people are taking "phony offence" - that's your opinion, and some of the incidents detailed are hardly "teensy-weensy bits of antisemitism" (obviously, still didn't bother having a look at the report itself). It is not clear if you mean that the people the report mentioned as being targeted by antisemitic incidents or posters on this forum - but either way, the criticism is a deflection. There is no indication of the political activity and position of the people mentioned in the report as for posters in this forum, their positions are hardly uniform. The notion that denouncing one wrong comes at the expense of another is an imaginary construct, and this fake balance, or comparison does not really exist.

The second link is aptly titled "5 of Ovadia Yosef's most controversial quotations" - by itself a little hint that this is not necessarily a general position, unless one truly believes that all Israelis and Jews follow these views (which even then, does not make this a reality). Do many UK Jews adhere to these notions?

The difference between "master race" and "chosen people" is that for starters, one would have to be a religious Jew of a certain creed in order to take "chosen people" seriously. Another difference would be that it does not necessarily denote control over the rest of humanity, in many interpretations it is depicted as more of a burden - albeit one to be appreciated.

Are there many "anti-Goy" (if such a concept even exists) related incidents in the UK?

It's anti-Goy every time the label of "antisemite" or the allegation of "antisemitic" is abused and falsely applied. This happens on this forum a lot, so I have no doubt it happens everywhere else.

As we have established, there are odds (on) that some, if not many, of the incidents referred to in the OP's report are simply using anti-Zionist or anti-Israel comments to appear to be antisemitic.

"We" have not established anything. Cherry picking is not establishing. I can only urge people making claims regarding the incidents detailed in the report to actually bother and have a look, instead of making up their own versions.

Are there many violent incidents involving this faux "anti-Goy" construct? How does the Self-Hating-Jew claims seat with this notion?

Spade.

[Morch]

I did not "admit" to anything.

When I make my mind up on someone's opinions it is usually after having prolonged exposure to what he expresses on relevant topics. Usually try not to jump to conclusions, unless its too obvious to interpret otherwise. What I meant was simply, that relying on such comparisons is often indicative of antisemitic bias. It may not always be the case, it may be less pronounced or less obvious, but its there. If someone wishes to simply criticize Israel, there is no specific need to allude to the Nazis - many more fitting examples for comparison. The extra bonus of resorting to the Nazi comparison is aimed at robbing Jews of their right to say anything when antisemitism raises its head.

http://www.truetorahjews.org/issues/haaretzopinion

'Israel and the Diaspora Jewish establishment automatically tag any criticism as anti-Semitic. It’s an old trick – the burden of guilt is shifted from those who perpetrated the Gaza horrors to those who are tainted with so-called anti-Semitism. It’s not us, it’s you, anti-Semitic world. No matter what Israel does, the whole world is against it.

This is nonsense, of course.'

Taking phony offence at even a teensy-weensy bit of 'antisemitism' is the height of hypocrisy, coming from those busily whitewashing the brutal murder, torture and land theft of innocent and helpless civilians. That the whole propaganda PR apparatus would elevate this 'crime' above the treatment of 'non-human' Palestinians speaks volumes about some Jewish values. Non-Jews showing just a 'hint' of anti-Jewish feeling, are the lowest of the low, yet the Israeli State quite happily elevates Jewish citizens above all others.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.” http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/

Other Rabbis and political leaders have made similar racist and supremacist statements.

Are Nazi comparisons unfair?

The Nazis called themselves 'The Master Race'. How is this different to Jews calling themselves 'The Chosen Ones'?

If you want to do something about how Jews in general are perceived, make a start by putting your own 'anti-Goy' house in order.

The first link is an opinion piece by Gideon Levy of Haaretz (not sure what was the point of linking it through the truetorahjews.org website, does not add much credibility), a well known holder of radical position on things Israeli. Not the most balanced perspective there.

I don't know that people are taking "phony offence" - that's your opinion, and some of the incidents detailed are hardly "teensy-weensy bits of antisemitism" (obviously, still didn't bother having a look at the report itself). It is not clear if you mean that the people the report mentioned as being targeted by antisemitic incidents or posters on this forum - but either way, the criticism is a deflection. There is no indication of the political activity and position of the people mentioned in the report as for posters in this forum, their positions are hardly uniform. The notion that denouncing one wrong comes at the expense of another is an imaginary construct, and this fake balance, or comparison does not really exist.

The second link is aptly titled "5 of Ovadia Yosef's most controversial quotations" - by itself a little hint that this is not necessarily a general position, unless one truly believes that all Israelis and Jews follow these views (which even then, does not make this a reality). Do many UK Jews adhere to these notions?

The difference between "master race" and "chosen people" is that for starters, one would have to be a religious Jew of a certain creed in order to take "chosen people" seriously. Another difference would be that it does not necessarily denote control over the rest of humanity, in many interpretations it is depicted as more of a burden - albeit one to be appreciated.

His 'balanced perspective' has already been confirmed by an Israeli ex-minister (...as if the 'trick' isn't already well understood).

Calling someone 'anti-semitic' who isn't, IS phony.

The 'teensy-weensy' comment was in response to your post... '...relying on such comparisons is often indicative of antisemitic bias. It may not always be the case, it may be less pronounced or less obvious, but its there.'

How far do you take this? Is calling a Jew, a 'Jew' indicative of 'anti-semitism'? Apparently so. I've met those who have to use 'Israeli' because they fear saying 'Jew'. Or a British MP stating a 'Jewish Lobby' exists. Everyone knows it exists. Yet saying so is 'anti-semitic'... http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/10/13/tory-mps-anti-semitic-slur/ The smear of the MP, at the start of the article, is shabby character assassination.

Suppressing dissent and smearing critics is anti-free speech as well as a cause of resentment.

The Rabbi made no religious distinction and his party has influence in government. It isn't whether Jews adhere to these views or not. It is the effect of such views on non-Jews, who don't have the benefit of a forum lawyer, explaining away the Rabbi's views. I am glad you are principled enough to assert that Jews in general should not be blamed for the extremist views of a few and look forward to you offering similar challenge to those who smear all Muslims.

An ex-minister who belonged to a left-wing party rather close in its view to those of said reporter (although he's grown to seeing them as fig leafs). Doesn't exactly confirm much regarding him having a balanced perspective, nor does he claim to have one, by the way.

The quoted late Rabbi's party was not part of the current government, and recently split into two hostile factions. Your notion that some of his views (which even at the linked article are refereed to as "controversial") are representative of general views among Jews is nothing more than the usual attempts at insinuating that the roots of antisemitism are to be blamed on the Jews themselves. I daresay most Europeans never heard of said Rabbi nor were they aware of his views (yes, not even the ones quoted). Rather than trying to paint my views on Muslim in a certain manner, how's about checking my posting history, where you would not find much generalizations of the sort you seem to assume.

And once again, instead of dreaming up what incidents the report might be referring to, one could simply have a look and check.

[Morch]

In fact, there is a lot of demonstrable phoniness. There is also a lot of exaggeration.

It's like (some) black Americans pulling the race card every time they get stopped by the police or fail a job interview. Some of them are so deeply indoctrinated with the idea that they are persecuted, every action that goes against them is automatically construed as racism. No matter that another job candidate had better qualifications, it was a racist interviewer. No matter that they were driving at 2 am with no headlights, it was a racist rousting.

And then there are the conniving ones that pull the race card as a ploy. That's the real phoniness.

Both groups of black Americans have support groups that listen to their complaints and promulgate them as racist events.

Same as some farang in Thailand..... get lousy service in a restaurant..."Thainess anti-farang attitude!".....well, no, you were rude and uncouth when you entered, and you stink, and so the staff want to avoid you. They'd treat a Thai exactly the same if he was as rude and as smelly. Some "antisemitism" is simply reacting to a person (but the person happens to be Jewish).

The (cough cough) "charity" that published the OP report is the same, and caters to the same sort of people, except they're UK Jews, not black Americans.

No matter that the hoodlums who harassed them with swear words do the same to every passerby, they were Jews, so the harassment must have been antisemitic.

The (cough cough) "charity" that published the OP report is the same, and caters to the same sort of people, except they're UK Jews, not black Americans.

No matter that the hoodlums who harassed them with swear words do the same to every passerby, they were Jews, so the harassment must have been antisemitic.

Coughing does not an explanation make. Still awaiting a reasoned explanation as to why this organizations is repeatedly deemed by some posters as lacking credibility, without providing any evidence to support the claim.

Let me venture a guess that you do not possess any information that people involved in the incidents documented "do the same to every passerby" etc. Once again, may want to have a look at the report itself before posting opinions based on nothing much.

[Morch]

I saw your "list" as a sneaky provocation, a crafty way to publish here (for the 100th time) "reasons" that "other people / not me!" hate Jews.

You would. I made it clear I was talking about the criminal elements.

There are no "reasons" for irrational racism. Period ... end of story.

There are always reasons. Exercising censorship because you don't like being faced with them, won't make them go away.

Jewish paranoia is understandable considering the decades-long, Zionist, fear-based campaign to drive Jews to Israel and bind the 'tribe' together in mutual security. I don't hate Jews. I pity them. Having to go through life manipulated by fear, is no way to live a life.

Because there was no antisemitism prior to Zionism. Right.

[Seastallion]

http://www.truetorahjews.org/issues/haaretzopinion

'Israel and the Diaspora Jewish establishment automatically tag any criticism as anti-Semitic. It’s an old trick – the burden of guilt is shifted from those who perpetrated the Gaza horrors to those who are tainted with so-called anti-Semitism. It’s not us, it’s you, anti-Semitic world. No matter what Israel does, the whole world is against it.

This is nonsense, of course.'

Taking phony offence at even a teensy-weensy bit of 'antisemitism' is the height of hypocrisy, coming from those busily whitewashing the brutal murder, torture and land theft of innocent and helpless civilians. That the whole propaganda PR apparatus would elevate this 'crime' above the treatment of 'non-human' Palestinians speaks volumes about some Jewish values. Non-Jews showing just a 'hint' of anti-Jewish feeling, are the lowest of the low, yet the Israeli State quite happily elevates Jewish citizens above all others.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.” http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/

Other Rabbis and political leaders have made similar racist and supremacist statements.

Are Nazi comparisons unfair?

The Nazis called themselves 'The Master Race'. How is this different to Jews calling themselves 'The Chosen Ones'?

If you want to do something about how Jews in general are perceived, make a start by putting your own 'anti-Goy' house in order.

The first link is an opinion piece by Gideon Levy of Haaretz (not sure what was the point of linking it through the truetorahjews.org website, does not add much credibility), a well known holder of radical position on things Israeli. Not the most balanced perspective there.

I don't know that people are taking "phony offence" - that's your opinion, and some of the incidents detailed are hardly "teensy-weensy bits of antisemitism" (obviously, still didn't bother having a look at the report itself). It is not clear if you mean that the people the report mentioned as being targeted by antisemitic incidents or posters on this forum - but either way, the criticism is a deflection. There is no indication of the political activity and position of the people mentioned in the report as for posters in this forum, their positions are hardly uniform. The notion that denouncing one wrong comes at the expense of another is an imaginary construct, and this fake balance, or comparison does not really exist.

The second link is aptly titled "5 of Ovadia Yosef's most controversial quotations" - by itself a little hint that this is not necessarily a general position, unless one truly believes that all Israelis and Jews follow these views (which even then, does not make this a reality). Do many UK Jews adhere to these notions?

The difference between "master race" and "chosen people" is that for starters, one would have to be a religious Jew of a certain creed in order to take "chosen people" seriously. Another difference would be that it does not necessarily denote control over the rest of humanity, in many interpretations it is depicted as more of a burden - albeit one to be appreciated.

Are there many "anti-Goy" (if such a concept even exists) related incidents in the UK?

It's anti-Goy every time the label of "antisemite" or the allegation of "antisemitic" is abused and falsely applied. This happens on this forum a lot, so I have no doubt it happens everywhere else.

As we have established, there are odds (on) that some, if not many, of the incidents referred to in the OP's report are simply using anti-Zionist or anti-Israel comments to appear to be antisemitic.

"We" have not established anything. Cherry picking is not establishing. I can only urge people making claims regarding the incidents detailed in the report to actually bother and have a look, instead of making up their own versions.

Are there many violent incidents involving this faux "anti-Goy" construct? How does the Self-Hating-Jew claims seat with this notion?

Spade.

When both you and I agree that "the odds are" (your words), then "we" have indeed established something. Where's the cherries?

One well-known incident of violence against a "goy" blamed for being antisemitic when in fact he isn't would be the attack on George Galloway.

[Morch]

The first link is an opinion piece by Gideon Levy of Haaretz (not sure what was the point of linking it through the truetorahjews.org website, does not add much credibility), a well known holder of radical position on things Israeli. Not the most balanced perspective there.

I don't know that people are taking "phony offence" - that's your opinion, and some of the incidents detailed are hardly "teensy-weensy bits of antisemitism" (obviously, still didn't bother having a look at the report itself). It is not clear if you mean that the people the report mentioned as being targeted by antisemitic incidents or posters on this forum - but either way, the criticism is a deflection. There is no indication of the political activity and position of the people mentioned in the report as for posters in this forum, their positions are hardly uniform. The notion that denouncing one wrong comes at the expense of another is an imaginary construct, and this fake balance, or comparison does not really exist.

The second link is aptly titled "5 of Ovadia Yosef's most controversial quotations" - by itself a little hint that this is not necessarily a general position, unless one truly believes that all Israelis and Jews follow these views (which even then, does not make this a reality). Do many UK Jews adhere to these notions?

The difference between "master race" and "chosen people" is that for starters, one would have to be a religious Jew of a certain creed in order to take "chosen people" seriously. Another difference would be that it does not necessarily denote control over the rest of humanity, in many interpretations it is depicted as more of a burden - albeit one to be appreciated.

Are there many "anti-Goy" (if such a concept even exists) related incidents in the UK?

It's anti-Goy every time the label of "antisemite" or the allegation of "antisemitic" is abused and falsely applied. This happens on this forum a lot, so I have no doubt it happens everywhere else.

As we have established, there are odds (on) that some, if not many, of the incidents referred to in the OP's report are simply using anti-Zionist or anti-Israel comments to appear to be antisemitic.

"We" have not established anything. Cherry picking is not establishing. I can only urge people making claims regarding the incidents detailed in the report to actually bother and have a look, instead of making up their own versions.

Are there many violent incidents involving this faux "anti-Goy" construct? How does the Self-Hating-Jew claims seat with this notion?

Spade.

When both you and I agree that "the odds are" (your words), then "we" have indeed established something. Where's the cherries?

One well-known incident of violence against a "goy" blamed for being antisemitic when in fact he isn't would be the attack on George Galloway.

That's an instance of me using a figure of speech and you reading too much into it, repeatedly.

Oh, wow.....Galloway. Could this incident be re-hashed a few times more? Galloway was not attacked for being a "Goy", and his attacker (seems like an over-zealous convert) was actually sentenced to 16 months prison time. Is the assertion that this incident is indicative of many similar incidents occurring all over the UK? Do "Goy" communities (that would make about 99.9% of the population) come under verbal and physical abuse by them nasty "anti-Goys"?

And that's after claiming that the OP and the report mentioned are exaggerating things.

[up-country_sinclair]

In fact, there is a lot of demonstrable phoniness. There is also a lot of exaggeration.

It's like (some) black Americans pulling the race card every time they get stopped by the police or fail a job interview. Some of them are so deeply indoctrinated with the idea that they are persecuted, every action that goes against them is automatically construed as racism. No matter that another job candidate had better qualifications, it was a racist interviewer. No matter that they were driving at 2 am with no headlights, it was a racist rousting.

And then there are the conniving ones that pull the race card as a ploy. That's the real phoniness.

Both groups of black Americans have support groups that listen to their complaints and promulgate them as racist events.

Same as some farang in Thailand..... get lousy service in a restaurant..."Thainess anti-farang attitude!".....well, no, you were rude and uncouth when you entered, and you stink, and so the staff want to avoid you. They'd treat a Thai exactly the same if he was as rude and as smelly. Some "antisemitism" is simply reacting to a person (but the person happens to be Jewish).

The (cough cough) "charity" that published the OP report is the same, and caters to the same sort of people, except they're UK Jews, not black Americans.

No matter that the hoodlums who harassed them with swear words do the same to every passerby, they were Jews, so the harassment must have been antisemitic.

Yes, these shysters choose to live an existence of perpetual victimhood and will find any and every excuse to cry out and seek sympathy, attention and remuneration.

[Seastallion]

(previous quote in full here, from Morch...wouldn't fit as a normal quote but is important to the current dialogue)

"The first link is an opinion piece by Gideon Levy of Haaretz (not sure what was the point of linking it through the truetorahjews.org website, does not add much credibility), a well known holder of radical position on things Israeli. Not the most balanced perspective there.

I don't know that people are taking "phony offence" - that's your opinion, and some of the incidents detailed are hardly "teensy-weensy bits of antisemitism" (obviously, still didn't bother having a look at the report itself). It is not clear if you mean that the people the report mentioned as being targeted by antisemitic incidents or posters on this forum - but either way, the criticism is a deflection. There is no indication of the political activity and position of the people mentioned in the report as for posters in this forum, their positions are hardly uniform. The notion that denouncing one wrong comes at the expense of another is an imaginary construct, and this fake balance, or comparison does not really exist.

The second link is aptly titled "5 of Ovadia Yosef's most controversial quotations" - by itself a little hint that this is not necessarily a general position, unless one truly believes that all Israelis and Jews follow these views (which even then, does not make this a reality). Do many UK Jews adhere to these notions?

The difference between "master race" and "chosen people" is that for starters, one would have to be a religious Jew of a certain creed in order to take "chosen people" seriously. Another difference would be that it does not necessarily denote control over the rest of humanity, in many interpretations it is depicted as more of a burden - albeit one to be appreciated.

Are there many "anti-Goy" (if such a concept even exists) related incidents in the UK?"

(end previous quote)

...........

It's anti-Goy every time the label of "antisemite" or the allegation of "antisemitic" is abused and falsely applied. This happens on this forum a lot, so I have no doubt it happens everywhere else.

As we have established, there are odds (on) that some, if not many, of the incidents referred to in the OP's report are simply using anti-Zionist or anti-Israel comments to appear to be antisemitic.

"We" have not established anything. Cherry picking is not establishing. I can only urge people making claims regarding the incidents detailed in the report to actually bother and have a look, instead of making up their own versions.

Are there many violent incidents involving this faux "anti-Goy" construct? How does the Self-Hating-Jew claims seat with this notion?

Spade.

When both you and I agree that "the odds are" (your words), then "we" have indeed established something. Where's the cherries?

One well-known incident of violence against a "goy" blamed for being antisemitic when in fact he isn't would be the attack on George Galloway.

That's an instance of me using a figure of speech and you reading too much into it, repeatedly.

Oh, wow.....Galloway. Could this incident be re-hashed a few times more? Galloway was not attacked for being a "Goy", and his attacker (seems like an over-zealous convert) was actually sentenced to 16 months prison time. Is the assertion that this incident is indicative of many similar incidents occurring all over the UK? Do "Goy" communities (that would make about 99.9% of the population) come under verbal and physical abuse by them nasty "anti-Goys"?

And that's after claiming that the OP and the report mentioned are exaggerating things.

My, my how you twist things. You asked if there is such a thing as "anti-goy". I suggested that every time someone is falsely accused of antisemitism, that it is anti-goy. You asked are there many incidences of violence associated with it, I gave you one example that did hit the news. That, the perp is spending time inside for it indicates just how violent he was.

Most likely (odds are) that most false accusations of antisemitism and the violence that accompanies it are not newsworthy....because most Britons don't flash the victim card at the drop of a hat, and I daresay "anti-goyism" is not yet recognised. When it is, full credit to you for coining the term, and I predict we'll then start hearing news stories of the violence.

[Seastallion]

OK Morch, having read the report referred to in the OP it is abundantly clear that my position on this thread was well founded, ie that the interpretation of what is antisemitic often includes what is actually political with regard to Israel and it's actions against Gaza. It is also clear that my suggestion that some incidents were classed as antisemitic purely because the victim was Jewish with no evidence of the intent of the "attacker/abuser".

The report describes quite a few of the incidents, but nowhere near all 1168 cases. It's reasonable to suppose that the listed incidents are examples of the worst kind of antisemitism recorded. (And before I go on, I am disgusted by some of the bogans that do what are clearly antisemtic attacks...there certainly is antisemitism alive and active in the UK, but my point is the report exaggerates the number of incidents)

As an example of an incident allegedly antisemitic but actually only possibly antisemitic is the listed one of "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.". An assumption. This report uses assumptions to bolster the figures.

Then there's this from the report, "The political discourse used in an incident may also influence why the incident is deemed antisemitic or not. Incidents equating Israel to Nazi Germany would normally be recorded as antisemitic, but those comparing Israel to, for instance, apartheid South Africa, normally would not. While the charge that Israel practises apartheid upsets many Jews, it does not contain the same visceral capacity to offend Jews on the basis of their Jewishness as does the comparison with Nazism, which carries particular meaning for Jews because of the Holocaust. ".

So intent has no bearing, but perception does. Unlike ineffectual Gazan rockets, where intent is all important,(according to you), a political statement that has no intent to be antisemitic but references something that "carries particular meaning for Jews" will be deemed antisemitic.

From the report, " 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 “<deleted> 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".

Here we have the mere suggestion of intimidation, based on geography, will be construed as antisemitic even though the message is political against Israel. The same graffiti vandal walking around town with his political message sprayed everywhere is antisemitic as soon as he wandered into a neighbourhood with a large Jewish community. Once again, the report uses assumptions, not facts, with no regard to intent.

The report backs up my position quite well.

[Morch]

"We" have not established anything. Cherry picking is not establishing. I can only urge people making claims regarding the incidents detailed in the report to actually bother and have a look, instead of making up their own versions.

Are there many violent incidents involving this faux "anti-Goy" construct? How does the Self-Hating-Jew claims seat with this notion?

Spade.

When both you and I agree that "the odds are" (your words), then "we" have indeed established something. Where's the cherries?

One well-known incident of violence against a "goy" blamed for being antisemitic when in fact he isn't would be the attack on George Galloway.

That's an instance of me using a figure of speech and you reading too much into it, repeatedly.

Oh, wow.....Galloway. Could this incident be re-hashed a few times more? Galloway was not attacked for being a "Goy", and his attacker (seems like an over-zealous convert) was actually sentenced to 16 months prison time. Is the assertion that this incident is indicative of many similar incidents occurring all over the UK? Do "Goy" communities (that would make about 99.9% of the population) come under verbal and physical abuse by them nasty "anti-Goys"?

And that's after claiming that the OP and the report mentioned are exaggerating things.

My, my how you twist things. You asked if there is such a thing as "anti-goy". I suggested that every time someone is falsely accused of antisemitism, that it is anti-goy. You asked are there many incidences of violence associated with it, I gave you one example that did hit the news. That, the perp is spending time inside for it indicates just how violent he was.

Most likely (odds are) that most false accusations of antisemitism and the violence that accompanies it are not newsworthy....because most Britons don't flash the victim card at the drop of a hat, and I daresay "anti-goyism" is not yet recognised. When it is, full credit to you for coining the term, and I predict we'll then start hearing news stories of the violence.

*posts removed to allow reply*

You may suggest whatever you like, and I may decline to accept your premise - which is not actually supported by much other than your opinion. In the same way, the attempt do draw parallels with antisemitism (which is not a myth) and the made up construct of "anti-goy" is simply ridiculous. Again - is the overwhelming majority of non-Jews in the UK being harassed by Jews?

That there are some people who see prosecution around every corner does not mean that there is no antisemitism. It also does not amount to anything resembling antisemitism.

You bring up a single incident, and claim it is representative. Representative of what? Of your assumptions that there are "false accusations of antisemitism and the violence that accompanies" and that these are not reported, and not even complained about. So, to sum it up, you have nothing. Except for a creative imagination, that is.

I daresay you are making things up, building whole castes in the air, and expect them to be treated as real. Predictions are fine, how's about having some facts to go along with them?

And it bears to pay attention - I was not the one "coining the term", rather the one doubting it even exits - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/797746-uk-anti-semitic-incidents-hit-record-in-2014-says-charity/?p=9073189 (bottom line). But you were saying something about twisting thing?

[Jingthing]

You're a much better (Morch better?) man than me Morch to even reply to that anti-goy malarkey as if it was worth taking seriously.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Seastallion]

When both you and I agree that "the odds are" (your words), then "we" have indeed established something. Where's the cherries?

One well-known incident of violence against a "goy" blamed for being antisemitic when in fact he isn't would be the attack on George Galloway.

That's an instance of me using a figure of speech and you reading too much into it, repeatedly.

Oh, wow.....Galloway. Could this incident be re-hashed a few times more? Galloway was not attacked for being a "Goy", and his attacker (seems like an over-zealous convert) was actually sentenced to 16 months prison time. Is the assertion that this incident is indicative of many similar incidents occurring all over the UK? Do "Goy" communities (that would make about 99.9% of the population) come under verbal and physical abuse by them nasty "anti-Goys"?

And that's after claiming that the OP and the report mentioned are exaggerating things.

My, my how you twist things. You asked if there is such a thing as "anti-goy". I suggested that every time someone is falsely accused of antisemitism, that it is anti-goy. You asked are there many incidences of violence associated with it, I gave you one example that did hit the news. That, the perp is spending time inside for it indicates just how violent he was.

Most likely (odds are) that most false accusations of antisemitism and the violence that accompanies it are not newsworthy....because most Britons don't flash the victim card at the drop of a hat, and I daresay "anti-goyism" is not yet recognised. When it is, full credit to you for coining the term, and I predict we'll then start hearing news stories of the violence.

*posts removed to allow reply*

You may suggest whatever you like, and I may decline to accept your premise - which is not actually supported by much other than your opinion. In the same way, the attempt do draw parallels with antisemitism (which is not a myth) and the made up construct of "anti-goy" is simply ridiculous. Again - is the overwhelming majority of non-Jews in the UK being harassed by Jews?

That there are some people who see prosecution around every corner does not mean that there is no antisemitism. It also does not amount to anything resembling antisemitism.

You bring up a single incident, and claim it is representative. Representative of what? Of your assumptions that there are "false accusations of antisemitism and the violence that accompanies" and that these are not reported, and not even complained about. So, to sum it up, you have nothing. Except for a creative imagination, that is.

I daresay you are making things up, building whole castes in the air, and expect them to be treated as real. Predictions are fine, how's about having some facts to go along with them?

And it bears to pay attention - I was not the one "coining the term", rather the one doubting it even exits - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/797746-uk-anti-semitic-incidents-hit-record-in-2014-says-charity/?p=9073189 (bottom line). But you were saying something about twisting thing?

(Post removed, space, blah blah)

Who claimed the Galloway incident was representative? Not me. Why do you say I did? You asked if it happens, I gave you an example of the FACT that it indeed does happen. Who ever mentioned "the overwhelming majority of non-Jews in the UK being harassed by Jews" ? Again, not me.

Yet again you twist, spin, and fabricate.

And again....by suggesting the term (anti-goy) might not be a "thing", you in fact coined the term, as far as I am aware. If you said it first, you coined it. I will give you credit for it. Unless you can point me to where it was said prior.

Read my previous post to adjust your thoughts on what is real and what is my imagination.

[Seastallion]

You're a much better (Morch better?) man than me Morch to even reply to that anti-goy malarkey as if it was worth taking seriously.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Don't be too smug, JT. It is getting more and more obvious that Semitic forces are culturing and cultivating the antisemite blame "thing".

I say that falsely accusing someone of a nasty thing such as antisemitism, in a premeditated and disingenuous way is a form of abuse equivalent to antisemitism itself. Anti-goy, as Morch has coined it.

Just as with my recent "black American racial card" analogy. (which, incidentally, nobody wanted to touch...deafening silence on the analogy...it was quite apt and accurate).

[Morch]

OK Morch, having read the report referred to in the OP it is abundantly clear that my position on this thread was well founded, ie that the interpretation of what is antisemitic often includes what is actually political with regard to Israel and it's actions against Gaza. It is also clear that my suggestion that some incidents were classed as antisemitic purely because the victim was Jewish with no evidence of the intent of the "attacker/abuser".

The report describes quite a few of the incidents, but nowhere near all 1168 cases. It's reasonable to suppose that the listed incidents are examples of the worst kind of antisemitism recorded. (And before I go on, I am disgusted by some of the bogans that do what are clearly antisemtic attacks...there certainly is antisemitism alive and active in the UK, but my point is the report exaggerates the number of incidents)

As an example of an incident allegedly antisemitic but actually only possibly antisemitic is the listed one of "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.". An assumption. This report uses assumptions to bolster the figures.

Then there's this from the report, "The political discourse used in an incident may also influence why the incident is deemed antisemitic or not. Incidents equating Israel to Nazi Germany would normally be recorded as antisemitic, but those comparing Israel to, for instance, apartheid South Africa, normally would not. While the charge that Israel practises apartheid upsets many Jews, it does not contain the same visceral capacity to offend Jews on the basis of their Jewishness as does the comparison with Nazism, which carries particular meaning for Jews because of the Holocaust. ".

So intent has no bearing, but perception does. Unlike ineffectual Gazan rockets, where intent is all important,(according to you), a political statement that has no intent to be antisemitic but references something that "carries particular meaning for Jews" will be deemed antisemitic.

From the report, " 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 “<deleted> 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".

Here we have the mere suggestion of intimidation, based on geography, will be construed as antisemitic even though the message is political against Israel. The same graffiti vandal walking around town with his political message sprayed everywhere is antisemitic as soon as he wandered into a neighbourhood with a large Jewish community. Once again, the report uses assumptions, not facts, with no regard to intent.

The report backs up my position quite well.

To put the opening remark in perspective - the topic been running over two weeks, and you made over 30 posts up until now, this being the first actual reference to the content of the report itself. Now that's progress! Congratulations are in order.

How does the report support your position?

The very page you quoted from (P.32, titled Antisemitic or Anti-Israel?) clearly states that the report includes 1168 incidents considered antisemitic, while 498 which were deemed to be anti-Israel and lacking antisemitic references were not included.

That the report's methodology does acknowledge this issue is something that was previously denied by certain posters (perhaps "assumed" is a better word?) and from the bits quoted it would actually seem that the methodology used to classify incidents is even moderate relative to some of the views posted on this topic.

Spraying an anti-Israel slogan on a wall in town is expressing a political position. Spraying it on the Israeli embassy even more so. Doing the same on a private Jewish residence, synagogue, or at a predominantly Jewish neighborhood could easily be construed as mixing political and antisemitic views. Choosing a Jewish-related location makes the connection. To the best of my knowledge, this is similar to how some organizations dealing with anti-Muslim incidents classify reports, as well.

Let me refresh your memory (less "assumptions" this way) - my comment regarding intent on the long gone topic you refer to, was related to how things were considered by the ICC, as a part of the legal process involved. It was not "according to me", but if anything, "according to the ICC". Thought we've gone through this specific point at length, guess the Penny hasn't dropped yet. What possible connection would dragging this old (and obviously, still misunderstood) exchange have with the quote? The report is not a binding legal system, it simply details its methodology as such reports do. The report's methodology, the ICC legal procedures and my own personal views are unrelated to each other.

Not seeing how any of this even remotely supports your positions.

[Morch]

That's an instance of me using a figure of speech and you reading too much into it, repeatedly.

Oh, wow.....Galloway. Could this incident be re-hashed a few times more? Galloway was not attacked for being a "Goy", and his attacker (seems like an over-zealous convert) was actually sentenced to 16 months prison time. Is the assertion that this incident is indicative of many similar incidents occurring all over the UK? Do "Goy" communities (that would make about 99.9% of the population) come under verbal and physical abuse by them nasty "anti-Goys"?

And that's after claiming that the OP and the report mentioned are exaggerating things.

My, my how you twist things. You asked if there is such a thing as "anti-goy". I suggested that every time someone is falsely accused of antisemitism, that it is anti-goy. You asked are there many incidences of violence associated with it, I gave you one example that did hit the news. That, the perp is spending time inside for it indicates just how violent he was.

Most likely (odds are) that most false accusations of antisemitism and the violence that accompanies it are not newsworthy....because most Britons don't flash the victim card at the drop of a hat, and I daresay "anti-goyism" is not yet recognised. When it is, full credit to you for coining the term, and I predict we'll then start hearing news stories of the violence.

*posts removed to allow reply*

You may suggest whatever you like, and I may decline to accept your premise - which is not actually supported by much other than your opinion. In the same way, the attempt do draw parallels with antisemitism (which is not a myth) and the made up construct of "anti-goy" is simply ridiculous. Again - is the overwhelming majority of non-Jews in the UK being harassed by Jews?

That there are some people who see prosecution around every corner does not mean that there is no antisemitism. It also does not amount to anything resembling antisemitism.

You bring up a single incident, and claim it is representative. Representative of what? Of your assumptions that there are "false accusations of antisemitism and the violence that accompanies" and that these are not reported, and not even complained about. So, to sum it up, you have nothing. Except for a creative imagination, that is.

I daresay you are making things up, building whole castes in the air, and expect them to be treated as real. Predictions are fine, how's about having some facts to go along with them?

And it bears to pay attention - I was not the one "coining the term", rather the one doubting it even exits - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/797746-uk-anti-semitic-incidents-hit-record-in-2014-says-charity/?p=9073189 (bottom line). But you were saying something about twisting thing?

(Post removed, space, blah blah)

Who claimed the Galloway incident was representative? Not me. Why do you say I did? You asked if it happens, I gave you an example of the FACT that it indeed does happen. Who ever mentioned "the overwhelming majority of non-Jews in the UK being harassed by Jews" ? Again, not me.

Yet again you twist, spin, and fabricate.

And again....by suggesting the term (anti-goy) might not be a "thing", you in fact coined the term, as far as I am aware. If you said it first, you coined it. I will give you credit for it. Unless you can point me to where it was said prior.

Read my previous post to adjust your thoughts on what is real and what is my imagination.

I asked if there are many such incidents in the UK. You came up with one. Either this is a single case or it is supposed to show/indicate/represent (pick whatever suits) that there are more of the same. The assertion that this "happens" (rather than "happened") is not supported.

Jews are a tiny minority in the UK, facing a certain amount of antisemitic incidents. If one wishes to postulate the bogus existence of an opposite concept, it stands to reason (such as it is...) that the "aggressors" would be the Jews (again, a tiny minority) while the receiving end would be anyone not belonging to their community (which would be the overwhelming majority). A bit clearer now, I hope.

By rejecting a bogus term dreamed up up by another poster, I'm coining it? The whole point was that I did not say it first - hence the paying attention comment.

[Seastallion]

OK Morch, having read the report referred to in the OP it is abundantly clear that my position on this thread was well founded, ie that the interpretation of what is antisemitic often includes what is actually political with regard to Israel and it's actions against Gaza. It is also clear that my suggestion that some incidents were classed as antisemitic purely because the victim was Jewish with no evidence of the intent of the "attacker/abuser".

The report describes quite a few of the incidents, but nowhere near all 1168 cases. It's reasonable to suppose that the listed incidents are examples of the worst kind of antisemitism recorded. (And before I go on, I am disgusted by some of the bogans that do what are clearly antisemtic attacks...there certainly is antisemitism alive and active in the UK, but my point is the report exaggerates the number of incidents)

As an example of an incident allegedly antisemitic but actually only possibly antisemitic is the listed one of "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.". An assumption. This report uses assumptions to bolster the figures.

Then there's this from the report, "The political discourse used in an incident may also influence why the incident is deemed antisemitic or not. Incidents equating Israel to Nazi Germany would normally be recorded as antisemitic, but those comparing Israel to, for instance, apartheid South Africa, normally would not. While the charge that Israel practises apartheid upsets many Jews, it does not contain the same visceral capacity to offend Jews on the basis of their Jewishness as does the comparison with Nazism, which carries particular meaning for Jews because of the Holocaust. ".

So intent has no bearing, but perception does. Unlike ineffectual Gazan rockets, where intent is all important,(according to you), a political statement that has no intent to be antisemitic but references something that "carries particular meaning for Jews" will be deemed antisemitic.

From the report, " 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 “<deleted> 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".

Here we have the mere suggestion of intimidation, based on geography, will be construed as antisemitic even though the message is political against Israel. The same graffiti vandal walking around town with his political message sprayed everywhere is antisemitic as soon as he wandered into a neighbourhood with a large Jewish community. Once again, the report uses assumptions, not facts, with no regard to intent.

The report backs up my position quite well.

To put the opening remark in perspective - the topic been running over two weeks, and you made over 30 posts up until now, this being the first actual reference to the content of the report itself. Now that's progress! Congratulations are in order.

How does the report support your position?

The very page you quoted from (P.32, titled Antisemitic or Anti-Israel?) clearly states that the report includes 1168 incidents considered antisemitic, while 498 which were deemed to be anti-Israel and lacking antisemitic references were not included.

That the report's methodology does acknowledge this issue is something that was previously denied by certain posters (perhaps "assumed" is a better word?) and from the bits quoted it would actually seem that the methodology used to classify incidents is even moderate relative to some of the views posted on this topic.

Spraying an anti-Israel slogan on a wall in town is expressing a political position. Spraying it on the Israeli embassy even more so. Doing the same on a private Jewish residence, synagogue, or at a predominantly Jewish neighborhood could easily be construed as mixing political and antisemitic views. Choosing a Jewish-related location makes the connection. To the best of my knowledge, this is similar to how some organizations dealing with anti-Muslim incidents classify reports, as well.

Let me refresh your memory (less "assumptions" this way) - my comment regarding intent on the long gone topic you refer to, was related to how things were considered by the ICC, as a part of the legal process involved. It was not "according to me", but if anything, "according to the ICC". Thought we've gone through this specific point at length, guess the Penny hasn't dropped yet. What possible connection would dragging this old (and obviously, still misunderstood) exchange have with the quote? The report is not a binding legal system, it simply details its methodology as such reports do. The report's methodology, the ICC legal procedures and my own personal views are unrelated to each other.

Not seeing how any of this even remotely supports your positions.

My position has been that some antisemitism allegations are not antisemitism at all, and that thus the report exaggerates the problem.

Despite the methodology of the report, it's clear that it uses assumptions of antisemitism amongst the actual clear cases. It also uses perceived antisemitism despite lack of evidence of intent.

That 498 cases were discarded as falling outside their definition has no bearing on my position, but does highlight that reporting of "antisemitism" often is not antisemitism, even by the report's authors' standards (thus bolstering my position even further, thanks for pointing it out); Around 30% of reported incidents were discarded. In other words, a third of all UK Jews cries of antisemitism are false. Victim card much?

I am not seeing how you can not see the relationship between my position and the examples of either assumption or perception that the report uses as "actual" antisemitism to increase the numbers. The report has used cases of assumed or perceived antisemitism in it's overall summation that there has been an increase in antisemitism in the UK. This is deceptive and false. There may have been an increase (or not), but certainly not to the extent it claims.

[Morch]

OK Morch, having read the report referred to in the OP it is abundantly clear that my position on this thread was well founded, ie that the interpretation of what is antisemitic often includes what is actually political with regard to Israel and it's actions against Gaza. It is also clear that my suggestion that some incidents were classed as antisemitic purely because the victim was Jewish with no evidence of the intent of the "attacker/abuser".

The report describes quite a few of the incidents, but nowhere near all 1168 cases. It's reasonable to suppose that the listed incidents are examples of the worst kind of antisemitism recorded. (And before I go on, I am disgusted by some of the bogans that do what are clearly antisemtic attacks...there certainly is antisemitism alive and active in the UK, but my point is the report exaggerates the number of incidents)

As an example of an incident allegedly antisemitic but actually only possibly antisemitic is the listed one of "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.". An assumption. This report uses assumptions to bolster the figures.

Then there's this from the report, "The political discourse used in an incident may also influence why the incident is deemed antisemitic or not. Incidents equating Israel to Nazi Germany would normally be recorded as antisemitic, but those comparing Israel to, for instance, apartheid South Africa, normally would not. While the charge that Israel practises apartheid upsets many Jews, it does not contain the same visceral capacity to offend Jews on the basis of their Jewishness as does the comparison with Nazism, which carries particular meaning for Jews because of the Holocaust. ".

So intent has no bearing, but perception does. Unlike ineffectual Gazan rockets, where intent is all important,(according to you), a political statement that has no intent to be antisemitic but references something that "carries particular meaning for Jews" will be deemed antisemitic.

From the report, " 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 “<deleted> 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".

Here we have the mere suggestion of intimidation, based on geography, will be construed as antisemitic even though the message is political against Israel. The same graffiti vandal walking around town with his political message sprayed everywhere is antisemitic as soon as he wandered into a neighbourhood with a large Jewish community. Once again, the report uses assumptions, not facts, with no regard to intent.

The report backs up my position quite well.

To put the opening remark in perspective - the topic been running over two weeks, and you made over 30 posts up until now, this being the first actual reference to the content of the report itself. Now that's progress! Congratulations are in order.

How does the report support your position?

The very page you quoted from (P.32, titled Antisemitic or Anti-Israel?) clearly states that the report includes 1168 incidents considered antisemitic, while 498 which were deemed to be anti-Israel and lacking antisemitic references were not included.

That the report's methodology does acknowledge this issue is something that was previously denied by certain posters (perhaps "assumed" is a better word?) and from the bits quoted it would actually seem that the methodology used to classify incidents is even moderate relative to some of the views posted on this topic.

Spraying an anti-Israel slogan on a wall in town is expressing a political position. Spraying it on the Israeli embassy even more so. Doing the same on a private Jewish residence, synagogue, or at a predominantly Jewish neighborhood could easily be construed as mixing political and antisemitic views. Choosing a Jewish-related location makes the connection. To the best of my knowledge, this is similar to how some organizations dealing with anti-Muslim incidents classify reports, as well.

Let me refresh your memory (less "assumptions" this way) - my comment regarding intent on the long gone topic you refer to, was related to how things were considered by the ICC, as a part of the legal process involved. It was not "according to me", but if anything, "according to the ICC". Thought we've gone through this specific point at length, guess the Penny hasn't dropped yet. What possible connection would dragging this old (and obviously, still misunderstood) exchange have with the quote? The report is not a binding legal system, it simply details its methodology as such reports do. The report's methodology, the ICC legal procedures and my own personal views are unrelated to each other.

Not seeing how any of this even remotely supports your positions.

My position has been that some antisemitism allegations are not antisemitism at all, and that thus the report exaggerates the problem.

Despite the methodology of the report, it's clear that it uses assumptions of antisemitism amongst the actual clear cases. It also uses perceived antisemitism despite lack of evidence of intent.

That 498 cases were discarded as falling outside their definition has no bearing on my position, but does highlight that reporting of "antisemitism" often is not antisemitism, even by the report's authors' standards (thus bolstering my position even further, thanks for pointing it out); Around 30% of reported incidents were discarded. In other words, a third of all UK Jews cries of antisemitism are false. Victim card much?

I am not seeing how you can not see the relationship between my position and the examples of either assumption or perception that the report uses as "actual" antisemitism to increase the numbers. The report has used cases of assumed or perceived antisemitism in it's overall summation that there has been an increase in antisemitism in the UK. This is deceptive and false. There may have been an increase (or not), but certainly not to the extent it claims.

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.

[Seastallion]

To put the opening remark in perspective - the topic been running over two weeks, and you made over 30 posts up until now, this being the first actual reference to the content of the report itself. Now that's progress! Congratulations are in order.

How does the report support your position?

The very page you quoted from (P.32, titled Antisemitic or Anti-Israel?) clearly states that the report includes 1168 incidents considered antisemitic, while 498 which were deemed to be anti-Israel and lacking antisemitic references were not included.

That the report's methodology does acknowledge this issue is something that was previously denied by certain posters (perhaps "assumed" is a better word?) and from the bits quoted it would actually seem that the methodology used to classify incidents is even moderate relative to some of the views posted on this topic.

Spraying an anti-Israel slogan on a wall in town is expressing a political position. Spraying it on the Israeli embassy even more so. Doing the same on a private Jewish residence, synagogue, or at a predominantly Jewish neighborhood could easily be construed as mixing political and antisemitic views. Choosing a Jewish-related location makes the connection. To the best of my knowledge, this is similar to how some organizations dealing with anti-Muslim incidents classify reports, as well.

Let me refresh your memory (less "assumptions" this way) - my comment regarding intent on the long gone topic you refer to, was related to how things were considered by the ICC, as a part of the legal process involved. It was not "according to me", but if anything, "according to the ICC". Thought we've gone through this specific point at length, guess the Penny hasn't dropped yet. What possible connection would dragging this old (and obviously, still misunderstood) exchange have with the quote? The report is not a binding legal system, it simply details its methodology as such reports do. The report's methodology, the ICC legal procedures and my own personal views are unrelated to each other.

Not seeing how any of this even remotely supports your positions.

My position has been that some antisemitism allegations are not antisemitism at all, and that thus the report exaggerates the problem.

Despite the methodology of the report, it's clear that it uses assumptions of antisemitism amongst the actual clear cases. It also uses perceived antisemitism despite lack of evidence of intent.

That 498 cases were discarded as falling outside their definition has no bearing on my position, but does highlight that reporting of "antisemitism" often is not antisemitism, even by the report's authors' standards (thus bolstering my position even further, thanks for pointing it out); Around 30% of reported incidents were discarded. In other words, a third of all UK Jews cries of antisemitism are false. Victim card much?

I am not seeing how you can not see the relationship between my position and the examples of either assumption or perception that the report uses as "actual" antisemitism to increase the numbers. The report has used cases of assumed or perceived antisemitism in it's overall summation that there has been an increase in antisemitism in the UK. This is deceptive and false. There may have been an increase (or not), but certainly not to the extent it claims.

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.

[Jingthing]

It's a definition. Use a dictionary. Why insist on wasting everyone's time 100 times denying the well established definition of antisemitism? You're not ever going to change the definition of that word on an internet forum. For those irrationally obsessed with that, why not start a movement and lobby the dictionary publishers? In any case, a word is needed to specifically describe hatred of Jews. That word already exists. That word is antisemitism. If some day a new word is generally used for that, such as Judeophobia. so be it, but that has not happened yet and may never happen. This is an English language forum where established definitions of words need to accepted for basic communication. Are the obsessive deniers of the established definition of antisemitism going to object to the established definitions of other words and clog up this forum with off topic garbage 100 times with many other words? Funny, weird, the one word people seem obsessed about denying the definition of happens (coincidence? ) to be a word about Jews.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[Morch]

My position has been that some antisemitism allegations are not antisemitism at all, and that thus the report exaggerates the problem.

Despite the methodology of the report, it's clear that it uses assumptions of antisemitism amongst the actual clear cases. It also uses perceived antisemitism despite lack of evidence of intent.

That 498 cases were discarded as falling outside their definition has no bearing on my position, but does highlight that reporting of "antisemitism" often is not antisemitism, even by the report's authors' standards (thus bolstering my position even further, thanks for pointing it out); Around 30% of reported incidents were discarded. In other words, a third of all UK Jews cries of antisemitism are false. Victim card much?

I am not seeing how you can not see the relationship between my position and the examples of either assumption or perception that the report uses as "actual" antisemitism to increase the numbers. The report has used cases of assumed or perceived antisemitism in it's overall summation that there has been an increase in antisemitism in the UK. This is deceptive and false. There may have been an increase (or not), but certainly not to the extent it claims.

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.