German court calls synagogue torching an act to 'criticize Israel' [W:22]

Sherman123 said:

You don't have to push any view to find that attacking a synagogue because you're 'angry about Israel' is blatantly antisemitic. What would we call a right-wing extremist who tries to burn down a Mosque because he's angry about ISIS?

Click to expand...

An Islamophobe working on the same principles of racism that a burner of synagogues is.

Wait for the cries coming in of Muslims not being a race. Well, if one asks in overall Jewish society, neither are Jews.

Whatever the case, the parameters governing the hate towards "others" as a quantifiable and qualifi-able group are the same and they're the same as hate towards blacks or people of any colour other than one's own. Accompanied by the same action of denigration towards the objects of that hate in being deemed inferior, thus justifying those very same as being treated in manners precluded from being applied to "one's own".

The term "anti-semitism" is a fairly recent construct anyway, cooked up in 19th century Germany to find a seemingly more sophisticated replacement for the far more honest term of "Judenhass" (hatred of Jews).

Thus the favoured argument of hating Muslims not making one a racist on account of Muslims not being a race, is as much a cop-out as hating Jews not being racist on account of Jews not constituting a race. Slavs are as little a race as are Latin Americans, that didn't stop any interested party then and doesn't stop any now from applying the same fascist parameters that a racist makes (towards any of those listed).

Chagos said:

Okay, understood. Thanks for clarifying

Click to expand...

No problem

Neither is throwing fire bombs at a synagogue door when we agree that the difference between wanting to cause material damage and death to people is a matter of degree. Even where that difference is extremely serious.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that acts of arson/vandalism/criminal damage such as the one discussed here are more in keeping with what is accepted as being associated with protests ,whereas what you cited are more in keeping with terrorism/warfare

Well, if you're unwilling to see parallels, I guess you're unwilling to see parallels.

Click to expand...

I think it's a bit of a stretch , to say the least , to try and equate a minor arson attack that did hardly any damage , injured nobody , committed by drunken young men who appear to be regretful of their actions to an armed attack by a person/s living under a military occupation against the personnel of the occupying army

In the spirit of exchange of views and personal perceptions being quite ok here, I'll note you assumption but add that I perceive it to be pretty daft.

Click to expand...

Think it daft , that's okay , but I would be curious to know what options you believe should be open to those trying to shake of a foreign military occupation , gain freedom and enjoy their right to self determination

I suggest that in the controversy over separating anti-semitism from criticism of Israeli policy, it has everything to do with everything. But suggestions can be taken on board or dismissed at everyone's or anyone's pleasure.

Click to expand...

Adding into the mix events in Israel surrounding terrorism/resistance etc is supposed to help somehow in the task as set out in the above ? I think , for now at least , it might be more productive to just stick to incidents such as the one in the OP.

You can differ on this if you like...........as is your pleasure

oneworld2 said:

No problem



I disagree. I think that acts of arson/vandalism/criminal damage such as the one discussed here are more in keeping with what is accepted as being associated with protests ,whereas what you cited are more in keeping with terrorism/warfare

Click to expand...

I'll agree to the distinction but maintain the difference to be a matter of degree. Beyond which I truly sympathize with you if you live some place where arson/vandalism and criminal damage are accepted as being associated with protest.

I think it's a bit of a stretch , to say the least , to try and equate a minor arson attack that did hardly any damage , injured nobody , committed by drunken young men who appear to be regretful of their actions to an armed attack by a person/s living under a military occupation against the personnel of the occupying army

Click to expand...

I wasn't equating the two and alone on differing severity cannot. Thought I'd made that clear just as I mentioned difference to be a matter of degree.

Think it daft , that's okay , but I would be curious to know what options you believe should be open to those trying to shake of a foreign military occupation , gain freedom and enjoy their right to self determination

Click to expand...

It'll explode this here thing beyond necessary brevity to go back to to 1948 and missing the chances of agreeing to available partition. But both the PA and Hamas getting their act together sufficiently today to be able to return to the table as credible negotiation partners would be a start. The other side is obviously not going to be all that open to any such negotiations (or a direly needed return to them) while rockets rain down on it with clockwork frequency.

Contrary to what you appear to assume, I know Israel fairly well or at least used to. Even lived there, albeit by now many years ago. I first put in an appearance after the six day war and found an overall willingness to strike a deal with the Palestinians ("now that we've whipped Syria, Egypt and Jordan good and they surely must realize that no way can they ever destroy us"). Next stay was after Yom Kippur and I found that willingness to have decreased considerably on account of distrust having risen just as considerably. I don't much like soundbites but many of them have a grain of truth. Such as the Palestinian leaderships never having left out any chance to miss an opportunity.

Of course that's an over-simplification of affairs but the whole screwed up mess is nevertheless as much about Israel protecting its existence as it is about Palestine striving to gain that for itself. People tend to forget the feeling of the people in Israel herself, if they ever considered them at all.

I pretty much understand (and sympathize with) the cravings of both but that doesn't blind me to the fact that making a deal with those whose leadership in substantial part is still officially hell-bent on your destruction, doesn't do much for negotiating on equal footing.

Adding into the mix events in Israel surrounding terrorism/resistance etc is supposed to help somehow in the task as set out in the above ? I think , for now at least , it might be more productive to just stick to incidents such as the one in the OP.

Click to expand...

I had no intention of even going there (better said, here). It was your reference to acts towards Jewish communities OUTSIDE of Israel that led us here.

You can differ on this if you like...........

Click to expand...

I will and I do

as is your pleasure

Click to expand...

of course.

Redress said:

If it is not every one, then it is very possible that hatred of Jews was not the motivation. In that case, the courts who actually have information about the people who committed the act would be the best ones to make such a judgement, not random people on the internets like you or I.

Click to expand...

But surely by basing their actions on the assumption that the synagogue in question are somehow personally responsible for Israels actions, they are acting out of hatred towards a group. The only thing the buildings owners shared with the state of Israel was an ethnicity.

Chagos said:

I'll agree to the distinction but maintain the difference to be a matter of degree. Beyond which I truly sympathize with you if you live some place where arson/vandalism and criminal damage are accepted as being associated with protest.

Click to expand...

I don't really see what you are trying to say with all of this. Assault is violence against the individual , as is murder , they too are a the same thing to a matter of degree. Violence against the person. Is there a clear point you want to make here ?

I don't live anywhere that different from most people here I would imagine. Protests in many countries see accompanying acts of criminal damage/vandalism on many occasions. They happened at the Trump inauguration protests the other day. Maybe my phrasing was out

It'll explode this here thing beyond necessary brevity to go back to to 1948 and missing the chances of agreeing to available partition. But both the PA and Hamas getting their act together sufficiently today to be able to return to the table as credible negotiation partners would be a start. The other side is obviously not going to be all that open to any such negotiations (or a direly needed return to them) while rockets rain down on it with clockwork frequency.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't see anything irrational about the Palestinian Arabs antagonism to Zionism. I don't think turkeys vote for Christmas anywhere. That you don't appear to understand that is puzzling.

Thinking too that the two main Palestinian factions are somehow independent enough from Israeli manipulations of their positions/actions to steer their own ship properly also seems a tad odd to me. Surely you understand the concept of divide and conquer.

I would love to see the Palestinian factions form a unity government able to negotiate for most occupied Palestinians , I'm not so sure the Israeli leaderships think the same

All in all you appear to have a very one sided and predictable view on this subject. My view is that both parties are guilty of mistakes and/or poor policy choices. You appear to see only one side suffering from them

Contrary to what you appear to assume, I know Israel fairly well or at least used to. Even lived there, albeit by now many years ago. I first put in an appearance after the six day war and found an overall willingness to strike a deal with the Palestinians ("now that we've whipped Syria, Egypt and Jordan good and they surely must realize that no way can they ever destroy us"). Next stay was after Yom Kippur and I found that willingness to have decreased considerably on account of distrust having risen just as considerably. I don't much like soundbites but many of them have a grain of truth. Such as the Palestinian leaderships never having left out any chance to miss an opportunity.

Click to expand...

The only thing I think I assumed about you is that you haven't , like myself , lived all of your life under a foreign military occupation. A lot has happened since 1973 and I'm sure you would be the first to acknowledge that fact.

Of course that's an over-simplification of affairs but the whole screwed up mess is nevertheless as much about Israel protecting its existence as it is about Palestine striving to gain that for itself. People tend to forget the feeling of the people in Israel herself, if they ever considered them at all.

Click to expand...

There are two peoples involved and I think people should be aware of that when thinking about this conflict. All too often , imho , the focus here tends to be more or less completely on the needs and wishes of the Jewish people and not the Arab people. that's one of the biggest reasons why I post here in the first place

I pretty much understand (and sympathize with) the cravings of both but that doesn't blind me to the fact that making a deal with those whose leadership in substantial part is still officially hell-bent on your destruction, doesn't do much for negotiating on equal footing.

Click to expand...

I agree and think that the Palestinian leaderships need to publicly reverse/strike anything in their mandates concerning the commitment to destroy the Israeli state. It isn't going to happen and it gives the Israeli leaderships a completely legitimate reason not to negotiate a just settlement

I had no intention of even going there (better said, here). It was your reference to acts towards Jewish communities OUTSIDE of Israel that led us here.I will and I do of course.

Click to expand...

Nope , it was your reference to acts IN the state of Israel that has led us here. Read back

Red_Dave said:

But surely by basing their actions on the assumption that the synagogue in question are somehow personally responsible for Israels actions, they are acting out of hatred towards a group. The only thing the buildings owners shared with the state of Israel was an ethnicity.

Click to expand...

Should we really be surprised by this ?

I mean isn't this the case in a great many examples people could cite ?

How many innocent Japanese living in the US when the state of Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbour do you think got a kick up the bracket or their shop vandalized off the back of it ?

Without attempting to justify anything I think these sort of things are commonplace in all places and in all peoples. People lash out at an easy target to vent their spleen.

Unfortunately for Jewish people living outside of the state of Israel there are going to be those who , wrongly , take out their frustrations for what the Jewish state does on them.

oneworld2 said:

Should we really be surprised by this ?

I mean isn't this the case in a great many examples people could cite ?

How many innocent Japanese living in the US when the state of Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbour do you think got a kick up the bracket or their shop vandalized off the back of it ?

Without attempting to justify anything I think these sort of things are commonplace in all places and in all peoples. People lash out at an easy target to vent their spleen.

Unfortunately for Jewish people living outside of the state of Israel there are going to be those who , wrongly , take out their frustrations for what the Jewish state does on them.

Click to expand...

You're saying you're not attempting to justify anything but you're doing exactly that.
Antisemitism has no justification period, whatever your positions are (and as you know IMO they are wrong and immoral) on the policies of the state of Israel they are irrelevant to that reality.
Your comment is repulsive and abhorrent.[h=1][/h]

Apocalypse said:

You're saying you're not attempting to justify anything but you're doing exactly that
Antisemitism has no justification period, whatever your positions are (and as you know IMO they are wrong and immoral) on the policies of the state of Israel they are irrelevant to that reality.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. If I were trying to justify it I wouldn't be saying it was wrong .I also don't think it's as black and white as you try to make it

Antisemitism used to mean the disliking of Jewish people because they were Jewish people and the acts against them that resulted from that dislike being antisemitic acts

It was then used by Zionisms supporters as a blanket accusation to try to stifle any criticisms of Israeli state policy. The critics being accused of being antisemites ( still in use )

As I pointed out in the analogy of the Japanese person living in the USA at the time the Japanese state decided to bomb Pearl Harbour and them getting a backlash from an irate American.

What's true ?

Does the attacker of this man or woman hate all Japanese people because they are Japanese, or is the attack based on the actions taken by the Japanese state that are wrongly taken out on an innocent Japanese person who just presents an accessible and easy target ?

There's nothing " repulsive or immoral " about pointing this out either

I think what you are worried about is that the crimes committed by the Israeli state , your state , do present a real issue/danger for Jewish people living outside of the Jewish state. Wrong and sad , but true imho

oneworld2 said:

I don't think so. If I were trying to justify it I wouldn't be saying it was wrong .I also don't think it's as black and white as you try to make it

Antisemitism used to mean the disliking of Jewish people because they were Jewish people and the acts against them that resulted from that dislike being antisemitic acts

It was then used by Zionisms supporters as a blanket accusation to try to stifle any criticisms of Israeli state policy. The critics being accused of being antisemites

As I pointed out in the analogy of the Japanese person living in the USA at the time the Japanese state decided to bomb Pearl Harbour and them getting a backlash from an irate American.

What's true ?

Does the attacker of this man or woman hate all Japanese people because they are Japanese, or is the attack based on the actions taken by the Japanese state that are wrongly taken out on an innocent Japanese person who just presents an accessible and easy target ?

There's nothing " repulsive or immoral " about pointing this out either

I think what you are worried about is that the crimes committed by the Israeli state , your state , do present a real issue/danger for Jewish people living outside of the Jewish state. Wrong and sad , but true imho

Click to expand...

Calling for an understanding towards the motive of the people attacking Jews for being Jews is just as bad as calling for the attacks themselves.

It might be that they hate Israel and so they wanted to attack Jews, but in the end they were targeting a Jewish place for being Jewish, the attack was antisemitic in its nature, there's no denying this, there's no justyfing this.

I worry only about the fact that antisemites exist, and that there are those who seek to justify and promote their actions. People who target Jews and claim they do so because of Israel would be antisemitic regardless.
I think it's very ironic you're complaining about the use of the term anti-semite against those who oppose Israel when you prove the strong connection that exists in many cases between the anti-Israelis and an agenda against Jewish people, for attacks on Jews and for the antisemites.

Anyway that's all that is required to be said on that part - There's no justification for antisemitism, your comment was repulsive and abhorrent.

Apocalypse said:

Calling for an understanding towards the motive of the people attacking Jews for being Jews is just as bad as calling for the attacks themselves.

It might be that they hate Israel and so they wanted to attack Jews, but in the end they were targeting a Jewish place for being Jewish, the attack was antisemitic in its nature, there's no denying this, there's no justyfing this.

I worry only about the fact that antisemites exist, and that there are those who seek to justify and promote their actions. People who target Jews and claim they do so because of Israel would be antisemitic regardless.
I think it's very ironic you're complaining about the use of the term anti-semite against those who oppose Israel when you prove the strong connection that exists in many cases between the anti-Israelis and an agenda against Jewish people, for attacks on Jews and for the antisemites.

Anyway that's all that is required to be said on that part - There's no justification for antisemitism, your comment was repulsive and abhorrent.

Click to expand...

Calling something wrong seems like an odd way to " justify " it. I also don't think I am asking for people to " understand " much except for the realities that we see in this world

There's just no getting away from what I said though............... the court obviously thought that their actions were based on a genuine antagonism to Israeli actions in the ME , not that they hated Jewish people for being Jewish . Without any apparent evidence to support such a claim ( I would have thought the police would have checked social media accounts etc ) then I suppose innocent until proven guilty might well have been the only option it had wrt the verdict.

Without access to the evidence or a knowledge of German law concerning , what I believe they refer to as , politically motivated crime none of us can really be sure

Of course those who want to sing and shout about antisemitism and antisemites at every and any opportunity , whether real or the result of political expediency, will differ

AlbqOwl said:

It was deemed justified. Is that not the same as lawful?

Click to expand...

The court deemed the protest to be justified, not the burning of the synagogue. The three men who attacked the synagogue were Muslims, Palestinians living in Germany, NOT GERMANS. I don't think they needed any "cover" for their anti-Semitism. Their names would be clue enough, Muhammad, Ismail and Muhammad.

JohnPaul said:

The court deemed the protest to be justified, not the burning of the synagogue. The three men who attacked the synagogue were Muslims, Palestinians living in Germany, NOT GERMANS. I don't think they needed any "cover" for their anti-Semitism. Their names would be clue enough, Muhammad, Ismail and Muhammad.

Click to expand...

I think we're still talking past each other. The fact that the court ruled the protest at a Jewish synagogue was deemed justified as criticism of Israel is still anti semitism. But yes, the arson was deemed arson and therefore prosecutable.

I am still saying that if it was Israeli policy or action they were protesting, the judge should have ruled that a Jewish synagogue was not the place to do it. The synagogue is a place of worship, in this case a place where German Jews worshipped, and has nothing to do with Israeli policies or actions. And therefore the arson was an act born of anti-semitism--a hate crime if you will--instead of just simple arson. And I don't care what the names of the arsonists were. Anybody who committed arson at a synagogue to punish somebody, would be targeting German Jews and not Israel.

oneworld2 said:

Should we really be surprised by this ?

I mean isn't this the case in a great many examples people could cite ?

How many innocent Japanese living in the US when the state of Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbour do you think got a kick up the bracket or their shop vandalized off the back of it ?

Without attempting to justify anything I think these sort of things are commonplace in all places and in all peoples. People lash out at an easy target to vent their spleen.

Unfortunately for Jewish people living outside of the state of Israel there are going to be those who , wrongly , take out their frustrations for what the Jewish state does on them.

Click to expand...

Whats absurd is that Palestinians don't recognize Jews as a people, so according to their own philosophy they attacked Germans.

To just take these three paragraphs (rest edited by me for irrelevance)

oneworld2 said:

I honestly don't see anything irrational about the Palestinian Arabs antagonism to Zionism. I don't think turkeys vote for Christmas anywhere. That you don't appear to understand that is puzzling.

Thinking too that the two main Palestinian factions are somehow independent enough from Israeli manipulations of their positions/actions to steer their own ship properly also seems a tad odd to me.

All in all you appear to have a very one sided and predictable view on this subject. My view is that both parties are guilty of mistakes and/or poor policy choices. You appear to see only one side suffering from them

Click to expand...

I dunno whether you have difficulties reading my posts or whether it suits you more to misunderstand what I wrote.

Either way, it doesn't concern me all that much.

What I object to though is when what I've written is replaced by your assumptions on what I might actually be meaning. With you, in that process, trying to turn my statements around to something completely different.

Seeing how I don't have to put up with that, I won't. Common sense dictating that the best way to preclude further occurrences of this nature lies in ending any exchange with you, I'll go that path.

So bye and have a nice day.

ido_ said:

Whats absurd is that Palestinians don't recognize Jews as a people, so according to their own philosophy they attacked Germans.

Click to expand...

I'm quite sure that the people that carried out this arson attack knew they were targeting a Jewish institution. The fact that it was in Germany was down to their locality at the time and nothing more. imo

Chagos said:

To just take these three paragraphs (rest edited by me for irrelevance) I dunno whether you have difficulties reading my posts or whether it suits you more to misunderstand what I wrote.

Either way, it doesn't concern me all that much.

What I object to though is when what I've written is replaced by your assumptions on what I might actually be meaning. With you, in that process, trying to turn my statements around to something completely different.

Seeing how I don't have to put up with that, I won't. Common sense dictating that the best way to preclude further occurrences of this nature lies in ending any exchange with you, I'll go that path.

So bye and have a nice day.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your assumptions but if you don't want to carry on the discussion that's okay. FWIW I think your posts here have been a little strange from the first to the last but alas it's your choice

Have a nice day yourself

oneworld2 said:

I'm quite sure that the people that carried out this arson attack knew they were targeting a Jewish institution. The fact that it was in Germany was down to their locality at the time and nothing more. imo

Click to expand...

If they see a Jewish institute as a representation of Israel that means they see the Jews as a people, not just a religion.
And if they chose to attack random Jews because of their religion, it means they are anti-semite.

So ironically, their line of defense says they believe Jews are also a people.

JohnPaul said:

The court deemed the protest to be justified, not the burning of the synagogue. The three men who attacked the synagogue were Muslims, Palestinians living in Germany, NOT GERMANS. I don't think they needed any "cover" for their anti-Semitism. Their names would be clue enough, Muhammad, Ismail and Muhammad.

Click to expand...

Apparently German laws regarding " politically motivated crime " take into account the various circumstances wrt the defendants ethnicity/religious/political lean etc in relation to the crime they commit .

The court obviously thought the defendants ethnicity in this case was an understandable factor in their explanation of their actions.

Let's not forget when this happened , at the height of the latest Israeli shooting fish in a barrel bloodletting in Gaza

A final thought

Would first nation American violence towards European encroachment from the 16th century onwards be so easily explained away as "anti-Europeanism " or "anti- caucasianism " ?

Would we laugh if anyone seriously tried to make this case ?

If so why do we take " antisemitism " here it as a given ?

ido_ said:

If they see a Jewish institute as a representation of Israel that means they see the Jews as a people, not just a religion.
And if they chose to attack random Jews because of their religion, it means they are anti-semite.

So ironically, their line of defense says they believe Jews are also a people.

Click to expand...

The point being what ?

That some Palestinians are hypocritical ?

Good........ they can now claim to be just like every other people/nation in the world today including your own

oneworld2 said:

The point being what ?

That some Palestinians are hypocritical ?

Good........ they can now claim to be just like every other people/nation in the world today including your own

Click to expand...

In order to be called hypocrites they need to be intelligent enough to realize this point. Somehow I suspect that is not the case with those particular people.

ido_ said:

In order to be called hypocrites they need to be intelligent enough to realize this point. Somehow I suspect that is not the case with those particular people.

Click to expand...

Which " particular people " ?

oneworld2 said:

Which " particular people " ?

Click to expand...

these:

A German regional court in the city of Wuppertal affirmed a lower court decision last Friday stating that a violent attempt to burn the city's synagogue by three men in 2014 was a justified expression of criticism of Israel’s policies.

Click to expand...

ido_ said:

these:

Click to expand...

Okay , so what have we learned ?

That some Palestinians are hypocrites and some of them are stupid ( especially when drunk )

Seems like just about every group in the world you could cite