Synagogue set alight during rise in anti-Semitic attacks in London

[oberliner]

THE number of anti-Semitic attacks in London has risen sharply following Israel's land assault on Gaza, Jewish community groups said today.

Their leaders have compiled a dossier of attacks against Jews which will be handed to seniors officers in the Metropolitan police.

The attacks include claims of:

● An attempt to burn down a synagogue in north-west London.

● An assault on a Jewish motorist who was pulled from his car and punched.

● A gang of youths chanting anti-Semitic slogans as they tried to enter restaurants and shops in Golders Green.

The Community Security Trust, which is responsible for the safety of Jews in Britain, has also noted the emergence of anti-Semitic graffiti in Jewish areas across London. Slogans sprayed on walls include: "Kill Jews" and "Jews are scumbags."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23612225-details/Synagogue+set+alight+during+rise+in+anti-Semitic+attacks+in+London/article.do

[aquart]

1. From the British. What a surprise.

York.

[dipsydoodle]

8. That is not a common event in the UK.

and may not necessarliy be directly associated with current events in the Middle East - more likely opportunistic nuicances.

For those unfamiliar with our UK newspapers The Evening Standard is a Monday - Friday, twice daily printed in the daytime, London paper with a circulation of c. 300,000 : not a national paper. That paper is owned by the USA's Associated Press along with the Daily Mail aka the Daily Lie.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

62. you do get attacks on Synagogues by fascists now and again

[dipsydoodle]

64. We do indeed here in the UK.

Generally speaking they are localised crackpots.

In part of Finchley, which is north London, there is a Synagogue next to a church and they share the same hall for social functions. Some years ago the Synagogue found it necessary to install security cameras around its perimeter which I found really sad. Similarly the Synagogue in Pinner has two "guards", which I find even more sad, outside on Saturday mornings with whom I chat occasionally while waiting for my daughter at her chiro appt.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Actually, it's far from being a 'normal' event in Britain

As I've said in other posts, antisemitism is a problem in the UK, but better than in many other parts of Europe - and I would suspect that it's at least as bad in the USA.

[madrchsod]

24. it rears it`s ugly white face frequently

i worked with a guy who thought the entire middle east should be turned into glass. he did`t like any of the sand people

[MellowDem]

103. anti-semitism isn't "white"

but your bigotry is "obvious"

[know_your_enemy]

2. This is Spreading

Greece, France, London, etc.

These are frightening times for all of us.

[cali]

3. what a shame.

People should not be using Israel's attack on Gaza as an excuse to indulge in anti-semitic behavior.

[ellisonz]

5. That's what's prompted Israel's action in the first place...

...antisemitism is essential to Hamas's political survival. They use hate as a political tool.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4877_62.htm

[cali]

6. oh, please. Even if true, that's NO justification

for the Israeli massacre in Gaza.

[ellisonz]

17. It's just the damn truth. People talk about Israel perpetuating a cycle of violence...

...but all the things you need for creating militancy are already there and won't really be affected by anything Israel does at this point.

Furthermore, I don't think you can accurately call this a massacre. It's not like Hamas is completely unarmed. Civilian deaths are absolutely regrettable. But this is war...and Hamas does nothing to prevent most of these deaths. As soon as the Palestinians truly want peace and prosperity they will have it...

What damn purpose does it serve for Hamas to launch missiles into Southern Israel other than to oppress their own people for selfish purposes?

Enough excuses.

[JNelson6563]

25. I dunno, they might be getting a bit cramped

on their ever shrinking parcel of land.

[ellisonz]

34. And then several Arab armies attempted to wipe them off the face of the earth...

Moreover, most of the land in the first frame is extremely arable and therefore valuable...

Furthermore, the last frame of your maps is extremely misleading. Plus the Negev isn't exactly prime real estate and so it distorts settlement patterns. Visual tricks.

/image_view_fullscreen

[JNelson6563]

36. Sorry, I don't live and breathe this issue

Please explain what is inaccurate about that last map.

Julie

[ellisonz]

39. Look at my link to the Taba proposal.

Your map shows areas to be immediately turned over the Palestinian Authority. Not the total proposal for land transfer.

[JNelson6563]

55. Ok, I looked at map you linked to

Still not seeing my original point being addressed. Is your point that Israel is not taking quite as much land, quite as quickly as the map I posted shows? That's what I'm getting out of it. Your first reply you say that the first map in the series I posted includes lots of land that's valuable (to justify taking it I guess??) and then you claim that last map in series includes crappy real estate--like that shows Israel wouldn't take it from Palestine?

I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I am trying to get your point but you seem to be a bit ambiguous. Give it to me in 101 form.

Julie

[ellisonz]

93. They've on at least two occasions since 2000 offered a path to Palestianian statehood...

...with 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza.

Most of the land in the first frame was purchased at fair market prices. Hence they bought the most productive land while not buying hillier areas.

I'm just pointing out that the Negev isn't exactly Jerusalem.

[Mosby]

115. The last frame of your "map"

is a map of Oslo II. Everything inside the black line is Palestinian land. The map is showing the areas of control (a, b and c). Areas a and b are under full PA control.

Link to the map:
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/Oslo-II.pdf

Link explaining the interim agreement (oslo II):
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_oslo_accords_2.php

[MadHound]

28. Let's see here,

Cutting off people from their work place, cutting off access to water and food, along with other goods and services. Building a large fence, which turned Gaza into what is essentially a prison. Having settlers carry out the dirty work of seizing land and property. Nah, no provocation there. Tell youo what, let's do the same to you and yours and lets see how you react. I'm betting you would be fighting back with everything you have within a week.

Sorry, but Israel brought this on themselves, again. When you continue to heap outrage upon outrage, when you continue to squeeze people who are already on living on the edge, you will get a violent reaction. I think that Israel was counting on this so they could carry out this little massacre of theirs, and yes, it is a massacre. Five hundred Palestinians dead vs. what, five dead Israelis? Sorry, but this poor widdle Israel shit simply doesn't fly.

[ellisonz]

35. So where do you think a Jewish State should be? Antarctica?

You deny any Palestinian responsibility for this mess?

80% of the dead are fighters.

The ignorance of history on this forum is astounding.

There's a reason that it's just Gaza that Hamas controls and not the West Bank. You might want to think a little bit about why that political fissure exists...

Nobody is saying poor widdle Israel. But we're also not saying let Hamas wipe the "Zionist entity" off the face of the Earth...

[MadHound]

38. First of all, I find that creating a country out of thin air

Simply to provide a religious group with a home, as well as alleviate the world's collective guilt complex to be a poor reason for creating a country. Israel should have never been created to begin with, it was a solution that was fraught with more problems than solutions from the very beginning.

That said, we can't unring that bell, and we have to deal with the solution as is, and that means that Israel and the Palestinians both have to compromise. Israel seems more than reluctant to do this, as evidenced by their willingness to cut Gaza off with a wall, to cut off water, food and other basic necessities. These aren't the actions of a government that wants to compromise, but rather one that wants to wipe Gaza and the Palestinians off the face of the planet. This needs to stop, the wall needs to come down, and Israel needs to compromise.

Hamas was a democratically elected government, however it is one which neither Israel nor the US wants to deal with. Tough shit, many people didn't want to deal with the Bush administration or other hostile governments around the world, but you deal with what is dealt to you and move on.

And frankly, given the almost complete lack of foreign, objective, credible reporters on the ground in Gaza, how you can say that "80% of the dead are fighters" is beyond me. In fact the most credible reports coming out of the area directly contradict what you're saying, but rather that most of the dead and wounded are indeed innocent civilians, mostly children.

However I do agree with you on one thing, the ignorance of history on this forum is astounding, as is the spread of bullshit, propaganda and outright lies.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

40. Speaking of ignorance of history...

Why single out Israel as a state that never should have been created, rather than all of the arbitrarily carved-up nations that resulted from the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire? Surely many of them were just as arbitrarily defined as Israel.

[MadHound]

41. Oh geez, false outrage because I didn't include a comprehensive review of all the artificial states

Typical, just typical, don't like what I'm saying and you go and try to clutter the matter up.

Look, we're talking about Israel here, our comments are on the Israeli states. If we start talking about Iraq, or the UAE, of Africa, whatever, and it is relevant, then yes indeed I will bring up the fact that these states are artificial creations. But since we're talking about Israel here, I'm trying to remain focused, why don't you?

Oh, and Israel is in a fairly unique position. While countries like Iraq and Sudan had lines drawn around the people already living there, and then a state was declared, Israel is the only modern state to have people of one particular group, in this case a religious group, come into an area and then have lines drawn around them, declaring them a nation.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

50. I'm not outraged.

I was simply pointing out that your definition of Israel as arbitrary was, well, rather arbitrary.

Look, we're talking about Israel here, our comments are on the Israeli states. If we start talking about Iraq, or the UAE, of Africa, whatever, and it is relevant, then yes indeed I will bring up the fact that these states are artificial creations. But since we're talking about Israel here, I'm trying to remain focused, why don't you?

Because it's directly relevant to your comments about whether or not Israel ought to exist. Unless you're suggesting that all of the arbitrarily created states shouldn't exist, I'm curious as to what in particular makes Israel special, which you addressed here:

Oh, and Israel is in a fairly unique position. While countries like Iraq and Sudan had lines drawn around the people already living there, and then a state was declared, Israel is the only modern state to have people of one particular group, in this case a religious group, come into an area and then have lines drawn around them, declaring them a nation.


Several problems with this statement. First of all, if we take Iraq as an example, the line was drawn around several groups together who in no way had a national identity at that point, so I think we're getting into a very hazy area when it comes to how to correctly partition a geographical region.

Second, you're ignoring the ethnic component of Judaism when you refer to it as simply a "religious group."

Third, you're ignoring the fact that legal Jewish immigration to the are had been growing for quite some time before the Mandate, and would have continued, but perhaps not at the same pace, regardless of the Mandate.

As I said, I think you're being extremely arbitrary in your definitions.

[MadHound]

54. So you think that since there is a large, legal immigration of Mexicans into California

We should return it to Mexico? Sorry, but the immigration argument simply falls flat(and there was a lot of illegal immigration into Palestine also).

As far as the ethnic component of Judaism, well given the wide ranging ethnicity of Jews these days, that simply falls flat. First off, are you really going to tell me that the millions of Russian Jews that have immigrated to Israel are actually Semitic? Secondly, even if we're going to assert that Jews are Semitic, an ethnic group, then guess what, they are of the same ethnic group as the people who were already living in Palestine, the only difference between them and their neighbors in Gaza lies solely in their religion, not in their ethnic background.

And while Iraq had its lines drawn around people who were already living in the area, Israel had the borders drawn around a group of people who were, for the most part, recent arrivals. That is indeed pretty arbitrary.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

60. By all means, let's discuss the right of the United States to exist.

For if ever there were a country that wouldn't have that right according to your definition, it would be the good old USA, a land stolen wholesale from its original inhabitants upon whom genocide was committed. THAT is why I don't agree with your arguments about whether Israel has a right to exist. With few exceptions (perhaps Iceland and a few others) there isn't a country in the world whose existence was not born of war, immigration, and many other forms of conflict. I do not accept that as a valid premise for deciding whether a state has a right to exist.

[JerseygirlCT]

49. Exactly

Given those terms, the Palestinians do have a home - we now call it Jordan.

Throughout history, borders and countries have been shaped by war and by immigration. Israel is nothing new. And, to those who rail against its creation as if they were planted somewhere like Antartica, Israel was and now is again the home of this people. Ignoring that history, or setting some sort of arbitrary start point for when countries are legitimate is just silly.

[MadHound]

56. The trouble is, Israel wasn't created by wars or immigration

It was created by Zionist pressure, British stupidity and UN mandate.

Oh, and can you point out another modern state that was created for the sole benefit of a single religious group? No, I didn't think so.

[LeftishBrit]

61. Other countries were created by pressure from their own people, combined with colonial 'stupidity'

'can you point out another modern state that was created for the sole benefit of a single religious group?'

First of all, it's not a single 'religious' group but an ethnic group. Jews didn't have to be religious to be murdered by Hitler. Other ethnic groups that have been persecuted and stateless in the past now do have states (Armenia) or arguably should (the Kurds).

And perhaps 'benefit' isn't the word - but India was partitioned between modern India and Pakistan to create separate Hindu and Muslim states; and the ethnic cleansing and bloodshed associated with that partition was extreme.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

66. Once again, you're being completely arbitrary.

As has been pointed out to you, the partition of India and Pakistan and Bangladesh was primarily along religious lines. We can also find strong parallels in the Balkans where partition occurred along both ethnic and religious lines. There was also a strong religious (Catholic) component present in East Timor's struggle for independence. In fact, I think it's valid to say that religion played more of a role than ethnicity in East Timor's case. And despite your protestations there is an ethnic component to Judaism which was certainly taken into consideration upon the creation of Israel.

Furthermore, you've given no reason why a state created along religious lines (which you continue to incorrectly state as the only justification for the creation of Israel) should be any more or less valid than a state created out of war, or because of immigration, or because of ethnicity. You've given no reason why "modern" states (a term you used, but which you have not defined) created along these lines should be any more or less valid that older states formed in the same way. Vatican City comes to mind.

So once more, I have to say that you have created an arbitrary distinction amongst states that you (incorrectly) believe only applies to Israel, and you have furthermore provided no justification for why your arbitrary distinction should be used to conclude that a state either does or does not have the right to exist. I can probably point out ten countries that have been created as a result of "British stupidity" and probably a handful more that have come about at least in part because of a UN mandate or similar construct. Of your arguments this leaves only Zionism, and so it must be concluded that you take issue with Zionism specifically, instead of the aforementioned constructs. Yes, obviously Israel is the only state that has been created as a result of Zionism. But I see no reason why Zionism in particular should be singled out, other than that it allows you to create your particular arbitrary construct for why Israel is somehow different than any other state. The same could be done for any state. Again, a totally arbitrary construct you have reverse-engineered from your belief that Israel doesn't have a right to exist.

[KamaAina]

70. Vatican City

can you point out another modern state that was created for the sole benefit of a single religious group?

A small one, to be sure, but it's internationally recognized, and is even looking into disassociating itself from Italian law (as has been the practice for decades).

[JerseygirlCT]

74. Pakistan comes first to mind, actually.

And the disputed parts of Israel were indeed created by war. They were attacked in '67, and despite all expectations, not only beat back all of their attackers, but won territory in doing so.

You do remember that when Israel was formed, the Palestinians were also offered their own country? And turned it down, encouraged by their surrounding Arab "friends", who hoped to wash Israel into the sea instead?

[ellisonz]

42. "Israel should have never been created to begin with"

Israel launched its offensive on Dec. 27 in a bid to halt repeated Palestinian rocket attacks on its southern towns. After a weeklong air campaign, Israeli ground forces invaded Gaza over the weekend. More than 500 Palestinians have been killed, including more than 100 civilians, according to United Nations figures. Nine Israelis have died since the operation began.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-gaza-fighting6-2009jan06,0,3790945.story

That's the AP citing the UN. Pretty credible.

Hamas has rejected Abbas's proposal to set further elections. Not exactly democratically spirited...what are they afraid of?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-07-18-abbas-palestinians_N.htm

[MadHound]

44. Let's look deeper into that article you referenced

Further down in the LA times article is this quote: "The army says it has dealt a harsh blow to Hamas, killing 130 militants in the past two days and greatly reducing the rocket fire." Hmm, 500-130 is aprox. 370 civilians dead, which certainly puts to rest your claim that 80 percent of the dead were fighters:eyes:

As far as the rejection of elections, why should Gaza hold elections? After all, they recently had a democratic election and Hamas won. Just because the Israelis and the US doesn't like Hamas doesn't mean that Gaza should be forced to hold another election:shrug: Darn those democracies, electing people who we disagree with:eyes:

[ellisonz]

95. You're misreading. The 500 number references the whole ten days.

That quote only references two days predating January 6th. Air strikes began Dec. 27.

They won't even agree to schedule them...

[leftynyc]

46. If you took a poll in the US

about who would support our government dealing with Hamas, just how many do you think would say yes? If you think it's more than 10%, you're delusional.

Tough shit indeed.

[MadHound]

51. Yeah, that's it, the US should only deal with democratically elected governments that we support

Otherwise what, we should force them to change governments to ones we find more amendable? Hmm, we've done that forever in Central and South America and look at how well that worked out:eyes:

Sorry, but there are many, many governments around the world that, while we might find it disagreeable, we have to deal with anyway. Otherwise the only other options are "spreading democracy" as we did in Iraq, or simply ignoring the problem, letting it get worse. Bush tried that with N. Korea and they wound up with the bomb.

Like I said, you deal with the hand dealt to you. Anything else is wishful or foolish thinking.

[leftynyc]

58. You're putting words in my mouth

What I said was we have no OBLIGATION to deal with governments that we don't agree with. And I stand by that. We don't owe a Hamas led government in Gaza a thing.

[MadHound]

59. "We have no OBLIGATION to deal with governments that we don't agree with" LOLOLOLOL!

Of course we have an obligation, better yet, a duty to deal with governments that we don't agree with. It's called foreign relations, diplomacy, foreign affairs, and being the leading power in the world, if we don't deal with governments that we don't agree with, then the world goes to hell in handbasket. Gee, Bush punted on dealing with N. Korea, and look what that got us, another nuclear power:eyes:

Your grasp of how foreign relations work is minimal at best. We're years and decades past the point where the US can be an isolationist country. We absolutely HAVE to deal with all governments, whether we like them or not.

[leftynyc]

63. You live in a fantasy world

where what should be true is true. That's your problem.

[TahitiNut]

65. That's an interesting articulation of a "good neighbor policy."

In effect, then, you demand hegemony, not peaceful coexistence. Yikes. :puke:

[leftynyc]

68. Peaceful coexistence?!!

Do let me know when Hamas clears the destruction of Israel from their charter. Until then - you must be fucking kidding.

[TahitiNut]

69. That's the specious 'logic' of pathological codependency..

The constant blame (on all 'sides') of wrongful behavior on "the Devil made me do it" is insanity. When combined with the brutishness of overwhelming force, it's the equivalent of an abusive spouse battering his wife and blaming her for "whining."

It's detestable. :puke:

[leftynyc]

71. That you think only one is to blame

for this madness is all I need to know about conversing with you. And, in case you're interested (not that I really care), some people find the use of those moronic smilies in every post to be juvenile, sophmoric and even infantile.

[TahitiNut]

75. Project much? You obviously haven't a clue about what I think ... and merely attempt to smear.

There's nobody wearing a white hat but the disproportionate KILLING and SLAUGHTER most certainly carries with it commensurate responsibility.

As for your asinine sensibilities regarding the use of emoticons ... tough fucking shit.

"Some people" can't seem to pull their dysfunctional heads out of their codependent asses and smell the roses.

[leftynyc]

80. LOL - about what I was expecting

I deal with children all the time.

[TahitiNut]

90. Well, it's a pity that your communication skills don't qualify you to deal with adults.

After I clearly posted a comment characterizing behavior "on all 'sides'" you engaged in playground taunts and smears about my being "one-sided" under the condescending pretense of being a mind-reader ... when it's obvious you didn't even read the post to which you responded. You've posted like a pre-adolescent ass, uable to interact like an adult.

:shrug: Pitiful.

[Thorandmjolnir]

76. A serious question here

Do you really think Hamas is capable of destroying Israel?
Do you seriously think that the rocket attacks launched by Hamas threatens the very existence of Israel?

[leftynyc]

83. Not trying to be smart here

but in what context are you using "destroy"? If it's in the traditional context of obliterating the country, then of course not. If you care about the emotional wellbeing of Israeli's, the economic wellbeing (emigration, tourist dollars), then the answer is yes.

That said, I've always wanted a Palestinian state peacefully side by side with Israel but the last time I had real hope for that was when Rabin was alive. When people feel threatened you wind up with people like Netanyahu and Hamas in charge - not good for anyone. I don't know what the answer is - if I did, I'd run for G-d.

[Hippo_Tron]

110. I agree with your sentiments in this post

Given our actions after one terrorist attack (9/11), America probably would have acted with far less restraint than Israel has.

But I think that you are wrong about negotiating with Hamas. It is going to have to happen eventually whether we like it or not and I think that Rabin would know that better than anyone. Even Sharon who was a rabid right winger saw the righting on the wall and realized that continued violence wasn't going to solve the problems.

And I do think that many critics of Israel assume that all Israelis think alike on these matters and don't realize just how dangerous Netanyahu is. I do think that part of the reason the current government is bombing Gaza is because of the upcoming elections. But I also can't help but think that it may be worth it to keep Netanyahu out of office. If Carter had just dropped a few bombs on Tehran we would've been spared Raygun. Add to that the fact that we might have also been spared Bush I and Bush II and a few bombs dropped on Tehran seems like nothing.

Additionally if Netanyahu wins it kills any chance for Obama to broker some sort of peace deal because Netanyahu and Likud aren't interested in peace. Like Hamas, they thrive on conflict.

[Thorandmjolnir]

73. Would you mind supplying a link

to you claim that 80% of the dead are fighters?

And also, please add your definition of a "fighter", cause I might suspect that is why your number is so high.

Thanks.

[qwertyMike]

82. Not Antarctica - Brooklyn

http://newsbiscuit.com/article/jews-withdraw-from-israel-admitting-its-not-really-worked-out-350

[JerseygirlCT]

47. Rockets fired into your country are, though

Do you really think we'd not respond if that happened here? Why expect something entirely different from the Israelis?

Hamas is a terrorist organization. They're not interested in peace, they're not interested in the best interests of the Palestinian people. (I'm beginning to think very few Arab countries are, really. They and their suffering serve a good purpose for them.)

[MadHound]

57. And do you not think

That if, oh, say Canada started building a wall that not only shuts off the border to the US, but also is an incursion into our territory and enables Canada to seize thirty percent of our water resources, along with killing our economy, we wouldn't react? Hell, we'd be throwing rockets around before the second brick was laid.

As far as Hamas goes, they are the legally elected, legitimate government in Gaza. What, we don't deal with governments we don't like and try to kill them off instead? Like that's really worked out well in Iraq, Vietnam, Guatemala, etc. etc.:eyes:

[JerseygirlCT]

72. Well, your analogy doesn't really hold up for me

as I disagree that the terrority being disputed is Palestinian. By that same token, we ought to be handing Texas back to Mexico, right?

I agree that they would have been better served to offer much more humanitarian aid over the years to the Palestinians - not because they were necessarilly obligated to do so, but because it would have been smart. Without the depravation suffered by most Palestinians, thugs like Hamas would never have taken power there.

And yes, if Canada felt threatened by US terrorists, I'd feel they had every right to block the border. Israel doesn't owe the Palestinians jobs or commerce. It will be an immensely stronger region when/if there is peace and the two countries exist and can live together and work together. But it's awfully hard to do that when you live under constant threat of being washed into the sea.

Hamas is not a partner for peace. They're not interested in peace; it's their road out of power. So no, I don't see them as any sort of effective partner in those negotiations. And it's pointless to negotiate with someone who isn't interested in negotiating.

The Palestinians have had a pretty rough history in the last century or so. But they've been abused by their Arab brethren right along the way. They're a handy focus to take the spotlight off the internal problems in other ME countries. They're talked up as the poor freedom fighters, but real help (not just arms and lectures) isn't often forthcoming. A peaceful state, living alongside Israel, wouldn't really further the aims of Syria or Saudi Arabia. Who would be the bad guy then?

[TahitiNut]

78. I guess it all depends on when one starts the clock on "In the beginning..."

[JerseygirlCT]

79. It always does.

Which is why I find this line of argument just plain silly.

We've got to deal with the situation at hand. Hashing through history, setting the clock at whatever time is convenient for whoever is arguing, really devolves into nonsense quickly.

[oberliner]

94. These maps are total lies

The second one is the Partition Plan that was never implemented because it was rejected by the Arab side.

The third one is the time that the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt.

There are Palestinians living all over the land labeled in white as "Israeli land" in the fourth map.

And the first map represents a time frame when the land was administered by the British.

[uppityperson]

87. That is the truth. Don't use Israel's actions now as an excuse to indulge in anti-semitic behavior.

[know_your_enemy]

4. We have to keep in mind...

Noting the influx of muslims to these countries, the rate of anti-semitism is already high. All it needed was a catalyst.

I don't think this is our traditional European style.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Not the 'traditional Europaean style'?

Err, I believe there was a certain amount of antisemitism in Europe about 70 years ago...

And in fact going back a lot longer.

Bad old, sad old tradition. Can't blame it all on furriners.


Britain has never had as much antisemitism as some countries, but it's always had a fair bit. Here's a link to a very interesting article by George Orwell in the 1940s.

http://orwell.ru/lit?a=e&doc=/library/articles/antisemitism/english/e_antib

Some may be interested in this link:

www.axt.org.uk

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Urgh

Britain has fewer problems that way than some other parts of Europe, especially Eastern Europe. But antisemitism will never die it seems, and with some hard-line Islamic fundies, and a rather larger number of local neo-Nazi fuckers, it gets worse whenever there's a war in the Middle East.

Racism in general gets worse when there's an economic crisis.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

11. sadly, you are conflating BRITISH JEWS with Israeli troops

No, British Jews did not bomb Mosques. They didn't bomb anyone. YOU are excusing bigotry with your comment.

Sadly, you are blind.

[malaise]

14. And Muslims thrown off aircraft

for being Muslims didn't hurt anyone either. And the Brazilian murdered by British police for looking like a Muslim was minding his own business just like the British Jews.

Put simply when innocents are slaughtered, expect a response.

[cali]

15. They're all wrong. duh.

And excusing hate is sick.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. Huh?

Are you actually saying that the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes was somehow justified by the 7/7 tube bombings because "when innocents are slaughtered, expect a response?"

[malaise]

32. Not at all

Who could justify that wanton execution, but wasn't that the establishment position.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. You're the one who said...

...and I quote, "Put simply when innocents are slaughtered, expect a response."

Does that only apply to certain innocents, and not others?

[malaise]

53. It applies to all innocents n/t

[LeftishBrit]

18. Look

There is lots of Islamophobia in Britain. In fact, and I'm speaking as a British Jew, it's worse at present than antisemitism.

But how does one justify the other? At most, the examples you give could be reasons for Muslims being anti-British. They are not *Jewish* actions. The police who killed Menezes were not Jewish. The thugs who attack Muslims are mostly not Jewish; in fact, they are often antisemites. The tabloids that whip up hate against Muslims are not run by Jews. The Prime Minister who collaborated with Bush in bombing Iraq was not Jewish.

Jews are less than one per cent of the British population. We have in all our history had ONE ethnically Jewish Prime Minister: a Christian convert in the days of Good Queen Victoria. To put it in plainer English - WE DON'T RUN THE WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRY!

And there is an assumption being made here that all antisemitic attacks in London are being perpetrated by Muslims. No doubt some of them are - but the majority are perpetrated by the local neo-Nazi thugs, just like the attacks on Muslims.

[malaise]

31. Good post

And I never blamed Jews. It is the establishment that has promoted and encouraged all this hate. That said when governments support evil, citizens (including thugs) will respond the only way they know.

[uppityperson]

89. hurting people that have nothing to do with it is wrong, no matter what the characteristic is.

I don't care if it is skin color, age, sex, sexual identity, religious belief or lack of, nationality, country, etc. Hurting others because someone is hurting someone else (?) is wrong.

Engaging in acts of anti-semitism in London because of Israel's acts is wrong. A person getting killed for "looking" muslim is wrong. Running a man down with your car because he has dark skin is wrong.

When innocents are slaughtered, the response of doing nasty things to other innocents who share a defining (or not) characteristic with the slaughterer is wrong.

[LeftishBrit]

13. Which mosques have British Jews been burning?

[JNelson6563]

20. A nasty cycle.

Israel plays the oppressive bully and people around the world lash out at Jews within reach. It reminds me of our torture policy. We have lots of right wing simpletons who applaud the nasty business, eating up crap like "it's like frat house initiation stuff" haha. But what they don't understand (and will no doubt be outraged about) is that when an enemy gets our soldiers in their hands we've pretty much set the paradigm on torture.

I sure wish evolution would kick back in, we seem to be devolving.

Julie

[cali]

22. There is simply no excuse for this crap- anymore than there was any excuse

for anti-Muslim hate after 9/11.

[JNelson6563]

26. Sure there is, it's called "stupidity"

and the world's full of it.

Julie

[cali]

27. stupidity may, in part, explain it, but it does not excuse it.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madrchsod]

21. are the these attacks by "arabs" or "aryans"

i do know stormfront has a large membership in the england and ireland. most of the attacks on jews and muslims are from the aryan nations thugs

[cali]

23. the attacks could well be perpetrated by neo-nazi types.

[Dorian Gray]

43. Awful awful awful

I hope those crimes are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don't know if the UK has hate laws on the books, but these are obviously examples of those and should be prosecuted as such.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. Oh great.

Disgusting, really. And so very sad.

[mmonk]

48. Unfortunately, any heavy handedness by Israel leads to attacks

on Jewish communities in other countries and sparks resurgences in anti-Semitic violence. Someone needs to tell Tel Aviv their actions sometimes leads to violent acts outside the state of Israel due to the sometimes myoptic views they take when enacting escalated policy.

[cali]

52. did you react this way when Muslims were attacked after 9/11?

you're blaming this on Israel? pathetic. truly. the blame lies squarely on the bigots who use this as an excuse for their anti-semitism. It's amazing to me how many people like you are running around. disgusting.

[mmonk]

98. Actually, the Jewish group called Peace Now! would probably

agree that this is heavy handedness (made up of both Israelis and Americans). You're pretty loose with the bigot accusation. Is that really a discussion of the issue? I'm not defending or excusing the attacks.

[LeftishBrit]

105. Yes they would. But not that it justifies attacks on Jews elsewhere.

That is the topic of the thread - an attack on a synagogue in Britain.

[mmonk]

111. I don't make the claim it does.

[Gwendolyn]

67. Yes, that's a brilliant assessment.

If only people had started pulling Americans living in Australia or Canada out of their cars and beat on them, set fire to their homes, we would've learned our lesson years ago and pulled out of Iraq immediately. After all, it's the fault of Americans scattered worldwide that we went into Iraq in the first place and continued on with our heavy handed policies.

[mmonk]

100. I'm saying given the historical anti-Semitism in Europe,

the heavy handed actions by the Israelis usually leads to violence against Jews such as this there. It is a reasonable observation, not a blame the Jews comment.

[Gwendolyn]

102. Oh, well this post...

... plus this comment "Someone needs to tell Tel Aviv their actions sometimes leads to violent acts outside the state of Israel' does sound like a blame the jew view.

There are those of us who don't ever find it understandable, or acceptable, which is the word people really want to use (and mean in their hearts). It's not acceptable when muslims get booted off planes, were beaten up after the 911 attacks, when the japanese were herded off to internment camps, or when jews are targeted for violence because people don't like what's going on elsewhere. Not. Ever. Those who excuse it only an inch away from being the animals that perpetrate the violence.

[mmonk]

104. Actually I'm saying the Israeli government does not consider the Jews in the diaspora

and what they may encounter when it's actions are excessive (or certainly seem not in porportion to what they are responding to) given historical persecution elsewhere. I know their job is only centered around the country they are in charge of but it would be nice if they could think of something more measured. They certainly are not responsible for the anti-Semitic attacks in London or anywhere in the world. I just don't think their current policy is smart or helpful.

[Gwendolyn]

114. That's rather silly and no country on our planet makes policy decisions...

... based on the potential blackmail of violence against its citizens living elsewhere. It's laughable, really, to suggest it. Or perhaps you're only proposing that Israel be held to a higher standard than other countries?

[LeftishBrit]

107. Agree 100%

[Taverner]

77. Hate. Arson. Great. Just what we need more of...

[snooper2]

81. violence begats violence...

funny how that works eh?

[cali]

85. grab a fucking clue

Jews in England and France didn't perpetrate any violence on anyone. The blame lies with the hateful cretins who do this shit. duh.

[Forkboy]

86. And yet anyone with a clue could easily see this kind of backlash coming.

The poster didn't say it was right. Duh.

Did you get breast fed through a straw or something?

[Karenina]

88. Indeed!

:cry:

[cali]

91. no, did you?

and I didn't breast feed using a straw either. how about you?

[Odin2005]

84. The Anti-Semitism in this thread is disgusting.

:puke:

[Gwendolyn]

96. Yes, it's quite repulsive.

[rockymountaindem]

97. Well, "we" need to stop starting trouble

Because apparently we've all got the vote in Israeli elections. Or something.

[Behind the Aegis]

92. There will be more to come.

[goforit]

99. Wow!!!! The British rising up??? They'll all be lockedup in their Orwellian society.

The people against the redcoats

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

101. What the fuck asinine bullshit are you spouting.

Explain.

[LeftishBrit]

106. What the hell are you talking about?

Do you actually consider British neo-Nazis and their supporters to be some sort of admirable rebel group? Or did you just not read the OP?

[Behind the Aegis]

108. The "redcoats" are the Jews.

"Do you actually consider British neo-Nazis and their supporters to be some sort of admirable rebel group?" Yes.

[steaa]

112. redcoat = british army

[LeftishBrit]

113. They attacked a synagogue, not an army base

[steaa]

116. I know..

I am just mentioning because I have never heard of redcoat to refer to Jewish people before and he also mentioned 'Orwellian society' in the original post, just putting two and two together.

[Behind the Aegis]

109. As it was, so shall it be....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2424728