Why the Jews are afraid in Europe

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Actually, if he punched you first and you punched back in self defense you might walk. You met force with like force, he was very unlucky. Too bad.

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.

I see one way they could see it as anti-Israeli: They think all Jews are Israeli. I don't think that should give them an out on hate crime charges, though--the threat is just as real if they're targeting Israel and think all Jews are Israeli or if they are targeting Jews directly.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I don't see it as terrorism. They're not trying to scare anyone, just trying to destroy Jewish things.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Actually, if he punched you first and you punched back in self defense you might walk. You met force with like force, he was very unlucky. Too bad.

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.

I see one way they could see it as anti-Israeli: They think all Jews are Israeli. I don't think that should give them an out on hate crime charges, though--the threat is just as real if they're targeting Israel and think all Jews are Israeli or if they are targeting Jews directly.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I don't see it as terrorism. They're not trying to scare anyone, just trying to destroy Jewish things.

My views tend to be simplistic. If a person throws a bomb at someone and burns down a building and kills 10 people, the gravity of the crime is no less whether he did it for political, religious or as a hate crime.

If not, then anyone attacking Jews in Germany can now say I am doing this against Zionism.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Which one - yours or mine?

In the first place, nobody claimed trying to burn down a synagogue must be an antisemitic act

You need to pay attention. That was implicit in LP's question in post 11 “How can it possibly not be an antisemitic attack”?

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.

Yes it does. That requires the impossibility of separating out a disagreement with the policies of Israel with Jewishness. Even moderately sophisticated minds can distinguish that is not impossible.

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.

It only took one response for your usual rudeness to manifest itself.

Frankly, I think it most likely was an anti-Semitic act. Apparently the German court was unwilling to jump to that conclusion in the absence of more convincing evidence.

 

[laughing dog]

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

I agree that is most likely true (especially in this particular instance), but it is not necessarily the case.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

I don't see it as terrorism. They're not trying to scare anyone, just trying to destroy Jewish things.

Note the "if, then" structure of my statement. It's terrorism if the the "if" clause is true, and the claim that it wasn't an anti-Jewish hate-crime requires that the "if" clause is true. Either it was an emotional act of hate toward Jews (antisemitism), or it was a strategic attempt to use violence against random Jews as a method of political opposition to the policies of Israel (aka, terrorism). Or perhaps both.

But it has to be at least one of them, unless we make the very unreasonable assumption that it was pure coincidence and they had no idea the building had any connection to Judaism.

Note that the hate towards Jews may or may not be triggered by a presumed association between all and Israel. But that only explains the underlying source of the antisemitism, but its antisemitism either way.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's a very stupid argument.

Which one - yours or mine?

Yours -- specifically, post 32. But posts 12, 17, 22, and 43 were also stupid.

Post 31 was borderline -- what you wrote in that post was true, but you appear to have missed the previous poster's point.

Posts 19, 25, and 44 were not stupid.

I hope this guidance helps you learn to improve the quality of your posts.

In the first place, nobody claimed trying to burn down a synagogue must be an antisemitic act

You need to pay attention. That was implicit in LP's question in post 11 “How can it possibly not be an antisemitic attack”?

But LP was not asking about generic burnings down of synagogues. The antecedent of "it" in his question was this particular crime. Obviously if a synagogue owner torches his synagogue for the insurance money it's not antisemitic.

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.

Yes it does. That requires the impossibility of separating out a disagreement with the policies of Israel with Jewishness. Even moderately sophisticated minds can distinguish that is not impossible.

The above paragraph from post #43 is a stupid argument. Of course they can be separated out; but a synagogue does not have to be a symbol of Jewishness in the minds of the attackers in order for burning one to be an antisemitic act. What you keep missing is that one and the same act can be simultaneously both anti-Israel and antisemitic. The two are not mutually exclusive. An act can be antisemitic for reasons other than the symbolism of the act. Duh!

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.

It only took one response for your usual rudeness to manifest itself.

I am rude to people who are rude first. You were rude to whichphilosophy in posts 17 and 22. For you to be rude and then gripe about others being rude to you is pathetic.

 

[laughing dog]

Which one - yours or mine?

Yours -- specifically, post 32. But posts 12, 17, 22, and 43 were also stupid. ...

Ah, more content-free insults.

I hope this guidance helps you learn to improve the quality of your posts.

You flatter yourself.

But LP was not asking about generic burnings down of synagogues. The antecedent of "it" in his question was this particular crime.

There must be reason for this pointing out of the obvious.

Obviously if a synagogue owner torches his synagogue for the insurance money it's not antisemitic.

I see. The reason was pointless pedantry.

The above paragraph from post #43 is a stupid argument. Of course they can be separated out; but a synagogue does not have to be a symbol of Jewishness in the minds of the attackers in order for burning one to be an antisemitic act. What you keep missing is that one and the same act can be simultaneously both anti-Israel and antisemitic. The two are not mutually exclusive. An act can be antisemitic for reasons other than the symbolism of the act. Duh!

Of course it can. No one claimed otherwise. But the fact that it can be anti-semitic does not mean that is necessarily was anti-semitic. Apparently you do not understand the simple difference between potential (i.e "can") and actuality ("is"). For example, you can make a convincing argument does not mean that you are actually making a convincing argument.

The entire point is that the Geman court did not determine it was anti-semitic because it found no specific evidence in this case that it was anti-semitic. The fact that the arson may have been (or even most likely) motivated by anti-semitism is not sufficient to find that it WAS motivated by anti-semitism.

I am rude to people who are rude first. You were rude to whichphilosophy in posts 17 and 22.

That is untrue. whichphilosophy was rude to me in post 15, but you did nothing.

For you to be rude and then gripe about others being rude to you is pathetic.

I was not griping - your boring and ridiculous insults reflect the lack of reason in your position. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.

 

[LordKiran]

Aww come on guys, there's no reason to bicker over tit-for-tat "He started it" nonsense. If anything, bicker over things that matter, like who's god is wrong, or who's skin tone is inferior.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

How can it possibly not be an antisemitic attack?

See my reply to... Loren Pechtel:

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/intern...iticize-israel

Trying to torch a synagogue is anti-Israel rather than anti-Jew????

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.

And just because they are incompetent arsonists doesn't seem to me to warrant no jail time.

Again the article doesn't provide the details necessary to assert that the absence of jail time was justified by the incompetence of the arsonists. 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 German law requires in such cases -- i.e. due process.
EB

All criminals ought to receive due process. Different juridictions don't categorise antisemitic acts in the same way and don't necessarily assess circumstances in the same way. In this case, there has been a judgement in a German court and you cannot pick and choose where to try people who committed a crime. You could criticise German law but you cannot second-guess what the German judge decided on the basis of German law (and of circumstances) unless you'd have access to the details of the trial, which doesn't seem to be the case, and good knowledge of German law, which is probably not the case either. Again, the article you quoted doesn't provide the level of detail required for that.


Also, an arson attack against a synaguoge hasn't necessarily an antisemitic motivation, for example if the synaguoge hosted a fund-raising event in support of the State of Israel or legal or illegal colonies in the West Bank, and if the author of the arson attack could be shown to be himself associated with the resistance against the occupation of Palestine by Israel etc.

Second, assuming that an antisemitic act would receive a harsher sentence in German law than a straightforward arson attack, the German judge couldn't just assume the act was antisemitic. He would have needed positive evidence that the attack had been motivated by antisemitism, such as verbal declaration or graffiti made by the author of the attack etc.
EB

 

[whichphilosophy]

How can it possibly not be an antisemitic attack?

See my reply to... Loren Pechtel:

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/intern...iticize-israel

Trying to torch a synagogue is anti-Israel rather than anti-Jew????

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.

And just because they are incompetent arsonists doesn't seem to me to warrant no jail time.

Again the article doesn't provide the details necessary to assert that the absence of jail time was justified by the incompetence of the arsonists. 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 German law requires in such cases -- i.e. due process.
EB

All criminals ought to receive due process. Different juridictions don't categorise antisemitic acts in the same way and don't necessarily assess circumstances in the same way. In this case, there has been a judgement in a German court and you cannot pick and choose where to try people who committed a crime. You could criticise German law but you cannot second-guess what the German judge decided on the basis of German law (and of circumstances) unless you'd have access to the details of the trial, which doesn't seem to be the case, and good knowledge of German law, which is probably not the case either. Again, the article you quoted doesn't provide the level of detail required for that.


Also, an arson attack against a synaguoge hasn't necessarily an antisemitic motivation, for example if the synaguoge hosted a fund-raising event in support of the State of Israel or legal or illegal colonies in the West Bank, and if the author of the arson attack could be shown to be himself associated with the resistance against the occupation of Palestine by Israel etc.

Second, assuming that an antisemitic act would receive a harsher sentence in German law than a straightforward arson attack, the German judge couldn't just assume the act was antisemitic. He would have needed positive evidence that the attack had been motivated by antisemitism, such as verbal declaration or graffiti made by the author of the attack etc.
EB

The Germans use the Roman Law system with the Judges allowed to rule on a case by basis according to the circumstances.
The severity of the act is exactly the same whether the person was anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.
By this reason if someone shoots and kills a Jew in the street he gets 30 years for murder if he says he hates Jews. (Minimum sentence is 15 years). If he says he doesn't hate Jews he gets 15 years the minimum means the logic is nonsensical. Likewise too was that in the bombing.

In some earlier posts I mentioned what would happen in English law which I think is more appropriate
Conspiracy
Bomb Making
Attempted Arson (which applied in this case
Arson
Murder (arising out of the act.

To me that sounds more rational.

However the article itself is pretty sketchy.

 

[laughing dog]

The Germans use the Roman Law system with the Judges allowed to rule on a case by basis according to the circumstances.
The severity of the act is exactly the same whether the person was anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

The purpose of a hate crime extends beyond the harm to the direct victim: it is also intended to strike fear into that particular group. Hence the severity of the act is not the same whether the perpetrator was anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

 

[Jayjay]

The Germans use the Roman Law system with the Judges allowed to rule on a case by basis according to the circumstances.
The severity of the act is exactly the same whether the person was anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

The purpose of a hate crime extends beyond the harm to the direct victim: it is also intended to strike fear into that particular group. Hence the severity of the act is not the same whether the perpetrator was anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

Why not? Are Zionists somehow a lesser group than Jews, not worthy of same protections?

 

[LordKiran]

The purpose of a hate crime extends beyond the harm to the direct victim: it is also intended to strike fear into that particular group. Hence the severity of the act is not the same whether the perpetrator was anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

Why not? Are Zionists somehow a lesser group than Jews, not worthy of same protections?

I mean, its established precedence that the German government has the right and authority to ban or discourage political movements based on ideology no? So no. No they are not.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Germans use the Roman Law system with the Judges allowed to rule on a case by basis according to the circumstances.
The severity of the act is exactly the same whether the person was anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

The purpose of a hate crime extends beyond the harm to the direct victim: it is also intended to strike fear into that particular group. Hence the severity of the act is not the same whether the perpetrator was anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

The crime in law is determined by the outcome of the criminal act and the intent of the perpetrator.
If a person throws a bomb at a Synagogue and causes 800 euros damage it is a crime. The reason for the intent does not alter the cost of the damage.

 

[Jayjay]

Why not? Are Zionists somehow a lesser group than Jews, not worthy of same protections?

I mean, its established precedence that the German government has the right and authority to ban or discourage political movements based on ideology no? So no. No they are not.

How does using the political motivation as a reason to make an already-criminal act more severe "ban or discourage" any political movement or ideology? Torching synagogues or any other buildings is not protected political speech.

 

[Jayjay]

The purpose of a hate crime extends beyond the harm to the direct victim: it is also intended to strike fear into that particular group. Hence the severity of the act is not the same whether the perpetrator was anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

The crime in law is determined by the outcome of the criminal act and the intent of the perpetrator.
If a person throws a bomb at a Synagogue and causes 800 euros damage it is a crime. The reason for the intent does not alter the cost of the damage.

It might, if you factor in the risk of it happening again.

 

[LordKiran]

I mean, its established precedence that the German government has the right and authority to ban or discourage political movements based on ideology no? So no. No they are not.

How does using the political motivation as a reason to make an already-criminal act more severe "ban or discourage" any political movement or ideology? Torching synagogues or any other buildings is not protected political speech.

I was just answering your question.

Zionism is a political movement/ideology informed by Judaism. Judaism is a faith with ethnic connotations. As far as Germany is concerned, they are not protected equally.

 

[laughing dog]

The purpose of a hate crime extends beyond the harm to the direct victim: it is also intended to strike fear into that particular group. Hence the severity of the act is not the same whether the perpetrator was anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

The crime in law is determined by the outcome of the criminal act and the intent of the perpetrator.
If a person throws a bomb at a Synagogue and causes 800 euros damage it is a crime. The reason for the intent does not alter the cost of the damage.

So?

 

[laughing dog]

The purpose of a hate crime extends beyond the harm to the direct victim: it is also intended to strike fear into that particular group. Hence the severity of the act is not the same whether the perpetrator was anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish.

Why not? Are Zionists somehow a lesser group than Jews, not worthy of same protections?

According to the report, the judge determined the attack was a protest against Israel (i.e. an anti-Zionist attack to use whichphilosophy's phrase) not against anti-Zionists.

 

[Jayjay]

How does using the political motivation as a reason to make an already-criminal act more severe "ban or discourage" any political movement or ideology? Torching synagogues or any other buildings is not protected political speech.

I was just answering your question.

Zionism is a political movement/ideology informed by Judaism. Judaism is a faith with ethnic connotations. As far as Germany is concerned, they are not protected equally.

True, Germany grants people of Jewish faith special protections for understandable historical reasons. But in a general case, the severity of the crime being motivated by anti-religious sentiment should not be any different from crimes being motivated by a political sentiment. A person should not have to fear acts of violence, vandalism or terror because of his political beliefs (e.g. zionism) any more than he should because of his religious beliefs. Or ethnic background for that matter.