Why the Jews are afraid in Europe

[Jayjay]

Is there an actual point to your tautology?

Stating a different reason for the same criminal act somehow makes it less severe or not severe is somewhat lacking in objectively.

I disagree. Crimes that are committed due to pervasive political, religious or some other organized motive are in my opinion worse than crimes of passion or crimes committed by personal motives, because there is a greater risk that they will be repeated, if not by the same assailant then by others.

 

[laughing dog]

Is there an actual point to your tautology?

Stating a different reason for the same criminal act somehow makes it less severe or not severe is somewhat lacking in objectively.

Throwing a small bomb in an empty field is a different criminal act than throwing firebombs at empty buildings which is different than throwing actual bombs at people. I said early, it is called thinking and you should try it some time.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Stating a different reason for the same criminal act somehow makes it less severe or not severe is somewhat lacking in objectively.

Throwing a small bomb in an empty field is a different criminal act than throwing firebombs at empty buildings which is different than throwing actual bombs at people. I said early, it is called thinking and you should try it some time.

True there are different circumstances (that could alter a judgement on a particular case). I am going on the article which I quoted before as follows:

Court says it could not find any anti-Semitic motives in firebomb attack by three Palestinian men

A failed 2014 arson attack on a synagogue in the western German city of Wuppertal was not motivated by anti-Semitism, but a justified expression of criticism of Israel, a local German court confirmed on Friday, according to a report by the Jerusalem Post.

Three German Palestinians threw homemade Molotov cocktails at the Jewish house of prayer in July, 2014 to draw "attention to the Gaza conflict" with Israel.
A local Wuppertal court panel said in a 2015 decision the defendants claim was credible, deciding that the attack was not motivated by anti-Semitism.
Three men, identified only as 31-year-old Mohamad E., 26 year-old Ismail A. and 20-year-old Mohammad A., were handed suspended sentences.

Wuppertal's Jewish community has roughly 2000 members, making up less than one percent of the city's population of nearly 344,000.
Volker Beck, a leading Green Party MP and outspoken supporter of Israel, harshly criticized the 2015 sentencing, saying the “attack on the synagogue was motivated by anti-Semitism," the Jerusalem Post wrote.

“This is a mistaken decision as far as the motives of the perpetrators are concerned,” he said.
“What do Jews in Germany have to do with the Middle East conflict? Every bit as much as Christians, non-religious people or Muslims in Germany, namely, absolutely nothing," Beck said.

"The ignorance of the judiciary toward anti-Semitism is for many Jews in Germany especially alarming, ” he added.


Another article states there was EU800.00 damage as follows.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/13/...pertal-anti-semitism-anti-zionism-anti-israel


This week a German regional court ruled that the 2014 firebombing of a synagogue in Wuppertal, a region just east of Düsseldorf, was an act of criminal arson, but not anti-Semitic. Instead, the court found it was a protest against Israel, even though the synagogue was obviously not in Israel and those who worship there are Jews, not Israelis.

The decision upheld that of a lower court, which stated the perpetrators, a trio of Palestinian-born German residents, wanted to “call attention to the Gaza conflict” when they prepared and then lobbed Molotov cocktails at the synagogue one July night in 2014. No one was injured, but the attack caused €800 in damages. The men were ultimately given suspended sentences.

Looking at UK laws and past cases (quoted a few posts before this one) would mean that they could be convicted and serve a few years for

Owning a Bomb Making Manual, making a bomb and using a bomb are enough of a crime.
Some do argue that political reasons are a special circumstance and though the German court accepted it, I think this was wrong because now someone can attack any Jew and say I was doing this against Zionism. There are things about Zionism not everyone agrees but accepting this as an a political reason opens a loophole to allow firebombing with low penalties and no doubt this could escalate to other types of assault and perhaps robbery and murder.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Stating a different reason for the same criminal act somehow makes it less severe or not severe is somewhat lacking in objectively.

I disagree. Crimes that are committed due to pervasive political, religious or some other organized motive are in my opinion worse than crimes of passion or crimes committed by personal motives, because there is a greater risk that they will be repeated, if not by the same assailant then by others.

I would think the nature of the crime would be the same as this would not alter the intent of the perpetrators and the impact of the act. Excusing these of course as you imply will encourage others.

 

[laughing dog]

Throwing a small bomb in an empty field is a different criminal act than throwing firebombs at empty buildings which is different than throwing actual bombs at people. I said early, it is called thinking and you should try it some time.

True there are different circumstances (that could alter a judgement on a particular case). I am going on the article which I quoted before as follows:

Court says it could not find any anti-Semitic motives in firebomb attack by three Palestinian men

A failed 2014 arson attack on a synagogue in the western German city of Wuppertal was not motivated by anti-Semitism, but a justified expression of criticism of Israel, a local German court confirmed on Friday, according to a report by the Jerusalem Post.

Three German Palestinians threw homemade Molotov cocktails at the Jewish house of prayer in July, 2014 to draw "attention to the Gaza conflict" with Israel.
A local Wuppertal court panel said in a 2015 decision the defendants claim was credible, deciding that the attack was not motivated by anti-Semitism.
Three men, identified only as 31-year-old Mohamad E., 26 year-old Ismail A. and 20-year-old Mohammad A., were handed suspended sentences.

Wuppertal's Jewish community has roughly 2000 members, making up less than one percent of the city's population of nearly 344,000.
Volker Beck, a leading Green Party MP and outspoken supporter of Israel, harshly criticized the 2015 sentencing, saying the “attack on the synagogue was motivated by anti-Semitism," the Jerusalem Post wrote.

“This is a mistaken decision as far as the motives of the perpetrators are concerned,” he said.
“What do Jews in Germany have to do with the Middle East conflict? Every bit as much as Christians, non-religious people or Muslims in Germany, namely, absolutely nothing," Beck said.

"The ignorance of the judiciary toward anti-Semitism is for many Jews in Germany especially alarming, ” he added.


Another article states there was EU800.00 damage as follows.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/13/...pertal-anti-semitism-anti-zionism-anti-israel


This week a German regional court ruled that the 2014 firebombing of a synagogue in Wuppertal, a region just east of Düsseldorf, was an act of criminal arson, but not anti-Semitic. Instead, the court found it was a protest against Israel, even though the synagogue was obviously not in Israel and those who worship there are Jews, not Israelis.

The decision upheld that of a lower court, which stated the perpetrators, a trio of Palestinian-born German residents, wanted to “call attention to the Gaza conflict” when they prepared and then lobbed Molotov cocktails at the synagogue one July night in 2014. No one was injured, but the attack caused €800 in damages. The men were ultimately given suspended sentences.

Looking at UK laws and past cases (quoted a few posts before this one) would mean that they could be convicted and serve a few years for

Owning a Bomb Making Manual, making a bomb and using a bomb are enough of a crime.

Which is fascinating trivia, because Germany is not the UK.

Some do argue that political reasons are a special circumstance and though the German court accepted it, I think this was wrong because now someone can attack any Jew and say I was doing this against Zionism. There are things about Zionism not everyone agrees but accepting this as an a political reason opens a loophole to allow firebombing with low penalties and no doubt this could escalate to other types of assault and perhaps robbery and murder.

Whether or not this decision is a wise or just one is a different issue than the one which started this particular discussion. One can understand why this is not necessarily anti-semitic without passing judgment on the wisdom or justice of the decision.

 

[whichphilosophy]

True there are different circumstances (that could alter a judgement on a particular case). I am going on the article which I quoted before as follows:

Court says it could not find any anti-Semitic motives in firebomb attack by three Palestinian men

A failed 2014 arson attack on a synagogue in the western German city of Wuppertal was not motivated by anti-Semitism, but a justified expression of criticism of Israel, a local German court confirmed on Friday, according to a report by the Jerusalem Post.

Three German Palestinians threw homemade Molotov cocktails at the Jewish house of prayer in July, 2014 to draw "attention to the Gaza conflict" with Israel.
A local Wuppertal court panel said in a 2015 decision the defendants claim was credible, deciding that the attack was not motivated by anti-Semitism.
Three men, identified only as 31-year-old Mohamad E., 26 year-old Ismail A. and 20-year-old Mohammad A., were handed suspended sentences.

Wuppertal's Jewish community has roughly 2000 members, making up less than one percent of the city's population of nearly 344,000.
Volker Beck, a leading Green Party MP and outspoken supporter of Israel, harshly criticized the 2015 sentencing, saying the “attack on the synagogue was motivated by anti-Semitism," the Jerusalem Post wrote.

“This is a mistaken decision as far as the motives of the perpetrators are concerned,” he said.
“What do Jews in Germany have to do with the Middle East conflict? Every bit as much as Christians, non-religious people or Muslims in Germany, namely, absolutely nothing," Beck said.

"The ignorance of the judiciary toward anti-Semitism is for many Jews in Germany especially alarming, ” he added.


Another article states there was EU800.00 damage as follows.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/13/...pertal-anti-semitism-anti-zionism-anti-israel


This week a German regional court ruled that the 2014 firebombing of a synagogue in Wuppertal, a region just east of Düsseldorf, was an act of criminal arson, but not anti-Semitic. Instead, the court found it was a protest against Israel, even though the synagogue was obviously not in Israel and those who worship there are Jews, not Israelis.

The decision upheld that of a lower court, which stated the perpetrators, a trio of Palestinian-born German residents, wanted to “call attention to the Gaza conflict” when they prepared and then lobbed Molotov cocktails at the synagogue one July night in 2014. No one was injured, but the attack caused €800 in damages. The men were ultimately given suspended sentences.

Looking at UK laws and past cases (quoted a few posts before this one) would mean that they could be convicted and serve a few years for

Owning a Bomb Making Manual, making a bomb and using a bomb are enough of a crime.

Which is fascinating trivia, because Germany is not the UK.

Some do argue that political reasons are a special circumstance and though the German court accepted it, I think this was wrong because now someone can attack any Jew and say I was doing this against Zionism. There are things about Zionism not everyone agrees but accepting this as an a political reason opens a loophole to allow firebombing with low penalties and no doubt this could escalate to other types of assault and perhaps robbery and murder.

Whether or not this decision is a wise or just one is a different issue than the one which started this particular discussion. One can understand why this is not necessarily anti-semitic without passing judgment on the wisdom or justice of the decision.

I was drawing a comparison. My point is that I don't think it is important whether the crime is anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist because the court should evaluate the nature of the crime and the damage. A political or religious reason is not valid.

Is it right for to bomb a Christian church or a family house because of the attacks on US policy in Iraq. It is not of course. However for bombing the Church or house, the offence would be the same even if Iraq was not mentioned.

The German court was wrong in this respect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How can it possibly not be an antisemitic attack?

If this is found to be some sort of protest against the gov't of Israel, then it is not necessarily an anti-semitic act.

But I think people who throw Molotov cocktails as an act of protest should perform some sort of restitution/community service and/or jail time depending on the severity of the effects.

A synagogue is not something that's part of the government of Israel. It's purely a religious thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If it's not an antisemitic act then assessing the fairness of the sentencing should be by comparison with other arson attacks, the specifics of the case, and what the law requires in such cases.
EB

In the UK (unless EU Law superseded it) it is quite straightforward under the following

In the UK it’s a no brainer. The men made and used two bombs and intended to cause a fire by nature of the fact it was ignited when thrown.

Made the bomb: It illegal to make or possess an incendiary Fire Arm Act 1968
1. Possessing a bomb making manual carried a 3 ½ year jail sentence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ed-for-42-months-over-bomb-making-manual.html
2. Possessing a bomb– Firearms Act 1968 (as inserted by section 287 Criminal Justice Act 2003)
Mandatory Five year jail sentence
3. Throwing a firebomb. An indeterminate sentence with a minimum of six and a half years jail sentence per a report in .
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/03/man-jailed-firebomb-attacks-police.

In the Sentences are done on a case by case basis taking into account any differences in circumstances.

The politics doesn't matter in the UK and it should not. If someone throws a fire bomb at a building, he throws a fire bomb at a building.

So according to the German court (based on the news report) its less of an offence if the bomb thrower says he is not anti-Jewish but anti-Zionist its less of an offence. I was not aware that Germany is not at war with the state of Israel.
.

That's how I see it, also. I can't see throwing a firebomb not warranting jail unless you only threw it at your own property where fire wouldn't be a problem. (Say, you used a molotov to light a bonfire.)

What this case was about was whether the fact that it was a synagogue warranted hate crime charges in addition to the firebomb charges. Does the UK not have hate crime laws?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How can it possibly not be an antisemitic attack?

The point is it does not matter, as the crime is just as bad whatever justifications are used. My point is that even if the person was not antisemitic the severity of the crime based on the actions is identical.

So you're objecting to hate crime laws in general, that doesn't address whether this was a hate crime.

As I see it:

I doubt there's a person in the world that wouldn't commit a serious crime given sufficient provocation. The question comes down to how much provocation it takes to reach that point. (Many of you are now thinking of the fact that most people never commit a serious crime. This is simply because for most people the threshold is beyond the worst provocation they will encounter in their life.)

The chance of a crime is thus a matter of how often someone will encounter something that pushes them past their limit.

In some cases the odds are very rare (for example, the guy in England who got probation for first degree murder--mercy killing his wife and he then turned the gun on himself but it didn't work. Deterrence: No. he didn't expect to survive anyway. Reoccurrence: He's well past 90, what are the chances he will have another seriously ailing wife?), in some cases it's common (for example of those guys who dragged a black guy to death. They're basically certain to encounter lots more black men.)

Even though the crime is the same in both cases (someone was deliberately killed) but the risk is very, very different. More risk, more punishment.

 

[Bomb#20]

Is there an actual point to your tautology?

Stating a different reason for the same criminal act somehow makes it less severe or not severe is somewhat lacking in objectively.

I don't see why, as long as the law spells out what reasons for the act are mitigating circumstances, and as long as investigators are objective in figuring out why someone acted. It's entirely normal to take motive into account in criminal prosecutions. If you punch someone in the face and he falls over and hits his head and dies, you're guilty of manslaughter. But a court is undoubtedly going to take into account why you punched him in determining the severity of the charges and sentence. If you punched him because he punched you first, they'll go easier on you than if you punched him because you demanded his wallet and he didn't hand it over.

That said, the notion that burning a synagogue to protest Israel doesn't count as antisemitism is ludicrous. The perps didn't target their victims because their victims were part of the Israeli government. They targeted them because they were Jews. If the perp's thought process connecting his victim to the target of his protest passes through a "because he's a Jew" step, then, irrespective of whatever dumbass garbage comes before that step or after that step in his reasoning process, it's antisemitism. This is not rocket science. One might as well claim beating up a Jew because the Jews killed Christ doesn't count as antisemitism, provided the purpose was to protest the Crucifixion.

 

[laughing dog]

If this is found to be some sort of protest against the gov't of Israel, then it is not necessarily an anti-semitic act.

But I think people who throw Molotov cocktails as an act of protest should perform some sort of restitution/community service and/or jail time depending on the severity of the effects.

A synagogue is not something that's part of the government of Israel. It's purely a religious thing.

It is possible that it symbolizes Israel to some people.

 

[laughing dog]

That said, the notion that burning a synagogue to protest Israel doesn't count as antisemitism is ludicrous. The perps didn't target their victims because their victims were part of the Israeli government. They targeted them because they were Jews. If the perp's thought process connecting his victim to the target of his protest passes through a "because he's a Jew" step, then, irrespective of whatever dumbass garbage comes before that step or after that step in his reasoning process, it's antisemitism. This is not rocket science. One might as well claim beating up a Jew because the Jews killed Christ doesn't count as antisemitism, provided the purpose was to protest the Crucifixion.

One can claim anything one wishes. One would have to know what was in the minds of the arsonists to determine their intent. Perhaps the court got it wrong. Then again, maybe not. The notion that trying to burn down a synagogue must be an anti-semitic rests on the false premise that a synagogue can only be symbol of Jewishness in the minds of the attackers.

 

[Bomb#20]

One might as well claim beating up a Jew because the Jews killed Christ doesn't count as antisemitism, provided the purpose was to protest the Crucifixion.

One can claim anything one wishes. One would have to know what was in the minds of the arsonists to determine their intent. Perhaps the court got it wrong. Then again, maybe not. The notion that trying to burn down a synagogue must be an anti-semitic rests on the false premise that a synagogue can only be symbol of Jewishness in the minds of the attackers.

That's a very stupid argument. In the first place, nobody claimed trying to burn down a synagogue must be an antisemitic act; the claim is that this particular case of fire-bombing a synagogue was an antisemitic act. And in the second place, the claim that this particular case of fire-bombing a synagogue was an antisemitic act does not in any way rest on the premise that a synagogue can only be symbol of Jewishness in the minds of the attackers. You pulling out of your ass some idiotic way to reach a conclusion does not qualify as a reason to think anybody else who reaches the same conclusion did it by using your stupid ass-output. This was an antisemitic act regardless of what the attackers feel is a symbol of what. What the claim rests on is called "thinking" -- you should try it some time.

 

[Bomb#20]

The difference between being anti-Israel and being antisemitic has to be in the motive of the arsonists' act. The article doesn't provide the level of detail that could justify you in making a claim of antisemitic motive. I would agree that trying to torch a synagogue suggests antisemitism rather than a protest against the state of Israel but the judgement has to be made on the basis of judiciary principles not on the basis of a poll of public opinion. As it happens, the article does say that the court see the act as "a justified expression of criticism of Israel", which seems to rule out a charge for antisemitic act. The court may well be wrong in that but again you would need details that are not in the article to be able argue that.

You appear to be taking for granted that a motive of protest against the state of Israel and a motive of antisemitism are mutually exclusive. Why on earth would expressing criticism of Israel rule out a charge for an antisemitic act? If you read about the latest horror perpetrated by Robert Mugabe and you decided to protest his oppressive policies by picking some random black guy and beating him up, the sincerity of your outrage at Mugabe would in no way clear you of having committed a racist attack.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Certainly looks like it is motivated by anti-jew hatred to me. But I do find it interesting that zionists push Israel pushes as the "Jewish State", and declare any criticism of Israel as anti-jew for years on end, but then when these thugs do the same thing, suddenly we hear them say how important it is to distinguish the two.

 

[ronburgundy]

A synagogue is not something that's part of the government of Israel. It's purely a religious thing.

It is possible that it symbolizes Israel to some people.

If a random building used by random German Jews to practice Judaism "symbolizes Israel" to someone, then any and all things Jewish are equated to Israel in that persons mind. That makes anti-Israel and anti-Semitic one in the same thing for that person. Their is only a distinction between the two for people who don't view something as symbolic of Israeli government policy just because it has a connection to Jews.

BTW, if they firebombed a building as a political act against the state of Israel, then it wasn't just a hate-crime, it was also terrorism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hmm.. could the bombing of a Catholic Church be considered a protest attack on the Vatican?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Aunty Semantic would be a great name for a linguist.

 

[TSwizzle]

The arsonists (terrorists really) are Palestinian Muslims. And for some reason Muslims must be treated with kid gloves (they don't even get deported) in Europe, no matter what kind of crime they commit.

Indeed. in contrast, there was a case in the UK where a guy got jail time for lobbing a packet of bacon onto the steps of a mosque. Europe is fucked.

 

[ronburgundy]

Hmm.. could the bombing of a Catholic Church be considered a protest attack on the Vatican?

It could be, but it would also be an act of violence where the target was chosen because it was Catholic, so its also an attack on Catholics generally. And that's despite the fact that there is actually a real connection between individual Catholic Churches and the Vatican. They are in fact, formally part of the same organization and the Vatican has ultimate control over who preachers there, what they preach, and what is done with the church itself and any assets it acquires. In a strict legal sense the bishop of the diocese is a coporation who owns all the churches in his diocese, but any bishop that doesn't abide by the wishes of the Vatican would be excommunicated and those would no longer be Catholic churches.

No such centralized power structure or control exists in Judaism, and its certainly not centered in Israel.