Anti-semitism hits record high in UK

Giz said:
2014 had the highest number of incidents on record:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11301583/British-anti-Semitism-set-to-hit-record-high.html

Apparently it was partly due to Gaza, so maybe this is the guardian's and bbc's relentless demonizing of Israel coming home to roost.
Click to expand...
What should they be saying? In what way are they encouraging readers or viewers to abuse Jews? Or are you saying that any criticism of Israel may reasonably be held responsible for attacks on Jews; therefore it is violent racism and should not be permitted?

Do you apply this reasoning to attacks on ISIS, assuming any Muslims or Arabs in the UK have been the victims of abuse by people who have read criticism of ISIS in the media?
 
I would certainly like to see some examples of the BBC or Grauniad demonizing Israel.
 
Criticism of Israel for doing at a much lower level to Gaza vs. what the Allies did to Germany in WWII somehow strikes me more than it might others. I understand why both happened and I have actually read the primary sets/agreements on Rules of Warfare.

Big point: neither violated those rules - so any complaints are not valid.
I will happily re-list the rules and why they were followed if someone is that curious - but the basic and most important is that A) persons acting as military must be wearing a military uniform and appropriate insignia (to prevent them being mistaken for civilians) and B) any location that is used for military support/storage/communication/transport (any military function including but not limited to the listed) in any location makes that location a legitimate target even if it is next to/near a civilian location. Cities included. Fire from a hospital, church/mosque, school, apartment building, store. disco etc. makes those targets. Legitimate targets. Non-WarCrime targets!!!!!!! The requirement is only that as far as is possible in the location and situation that the attempt is made to reduce/not have civilian casualties. Drones, btb are when properly used are the current best option for that
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
Criticism of Israel for doing at a much lower level to Gaza vs. what the Allies did to Germany in WWII somehow strikes me more than it might others. I understand why both happened and I have actually read the primary sets/agreements on Rules of Warfare.

Big point: neither violated those rules - so any complaints are not valid.
I will happily re-list the rules and why they were followed if someone is that curious - but the basic and most important is that A) persons acting as military must be wearing a military uniform and appropriate insignia (to prevent them being mistaken for civilians) and B) any location that is used for military support/storage/communication/transport (any military function including but not limited to the listed) in any location makes that location a legitimate target even if it is next to/near a civilian location. Cities included. Fire from a hospital, church/mosque, school, apartment building, store. disco etc. makes those targets. Legitimate targets. Non-WarCrime targets!!!!!!! The requirement is only that as far as is possible in the location and situation that the attempt is made to reduce/not have civilian casualties. Drones, btb are when properly used are the current best option for that
Click to expand...
And disagreement with what you write here is anti semitic demonisation, responsible for violence against Jews in the UK?
 
fuelair said:
Criticism of Israel for doing at a much lower level to Gaza vs. what the Allies did to Germany in WWII somehow strikes me more than it might others. I understand why both happened and I have actually read the primary sets/agreements on Rules of Warfare.

Big point: neither violated those rules - so any complaints are not valid.
I will happily re-list the rules and why they were followed if someone is that curious - but the basic and most important is that A) persons acting as military must be wearing a military uniform and appropriate insignia (to prevent them being mistaken for civilians) and B) any location that is used for military support/storage/communication/transport (any military function including but not limited to the listed) in any location makes that location a legitimate target even if it is next to/near a civilian location. Cities included. Fire from a hospital, church/mosque, school, apartment building, store. disco etc. makes those targets. Legitimate targets. Non-WarCrime targets!!!!!!! The requirement is only that as far as is possible in the location and situation that the attempt is made to reduce/not have civilian casualties. Drones, btb are when properly used are the current best option for that
Click to expand...

Please do.
 
Giz said:
Apparently it was partly due to Gaza, so maybe this is the guardian's and bbc's relentless demonizing of Israel coming home to roost.
Click to expand...

Also apparently, people who say that being against Israel doesn't mean that they're anti-semitic are lying through their teeth.

(Now, to be clear: One can, of course, be against Israel and not be anti-Semitic, and most of the Jews I know are in that category. But those who come up with this argument when someone points out their obvious Judenhass seem always to turn out, upon closer inspection, to be chock full of it.)
 
Craig B said:
And disagreement with what you write here is anti semitic demonisation, responsible for violence against Jews in the UK?
Click to expand...
Not exactly - the part that causes/helps to cause the problem is when the news sources publish information about places and people attacked without bothering to provide the ignorant with the fact that the actions are perfectly legal, not war crimes and just perhaps actually quote the rules as written in all the major versions. Note: if the news sources know what I do and have posted here and leave that out, then, yes, they are guilty of anti-Semitic demonization (etc.). If the news sources have taken the word of Palestinian (et al) sources rather than checking the rules themselves, they are guilty of willful ignorance.

Way too many people have badly and wrongly decided to understand the rules to say you can never attack civilians whatever the circumstances. They do not - they clearly state otherwise. For the non-astute who do not understand the why: Militaries are supposed to fight, civilians are not. Militaries who hide among their civilians and fight from where the civilians are endanger the lives of their civilians (which, in real life and the RsOW, makes them war criminals, by the by). The fact that they are war criminals anyway is in no way going to protect them from assault by the other side - the RsoW clearly accept and provide for that. The closest they come to saying anything like that civilians can't be attacked except...is where it is noted that as much care as POSSIBLE must be taken to avoid as much harm as POSSIBLE to the civilians consistant with military necessity..
 
angrysoba said:
Please do.
Click to expand...

I did - A) and B) If you have a different set, please let me know - mine were quite official the only difference is the actual rules listed more detail on all the facilities that could be bombed/attacked wherever they were located regardless of civilian presence. Short version: roads used by/for the military, airports used by/for the military, rail lines used by/for the military, water traffic areas used by/for the military, communications center/locations used by/for the military/ facilities/buildings used by/for the military, camps/barracks used by the military, supply storage, armories. training areas/used by the military, water/power sources serving the military.. Plants producing material for the military etc. The presence of anything that the military uses/is thought reasonably to use is a legal target during warfare. If such is located in a civilian area it is considered a war crime as it automatically makes civilians unintended but legitimate targets during military attacks.



By the by, you can thank the WWII Japanese for that to the extents certain modifications occurred - they decided to put most of their military productions. etc. into their big cities - both for convenience and because they thought the allies were paper tigers who would be too caring to attack where the military was hiding due to obvious dangers of civilian deaths. They lost that bet big time.
 
I guess someone is trying to deflect from trigger events which cause these fluctuations. They could easily check the trend lines and see when the biggest increases were. Easier to just blame the BBC though eh?
 
Anti-Israelism and anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism.

Okay, just kidding.
 
fuelair said:
Not exactly - the part that causes/helps to cause the problem is when the news sources publish information about places and people attacked without bothering to provide the ignorant with the fact that the actions are perfectly legal, not war crimes and just perhaps actually quote the rules as written in all the major versions. Note: if the news sources know what I do and have posted here and leave that out, then, yes, they are guilty of anti-Semitic demonization (etc.)
Click to expand...
Eh? If I criticise a war that is within rules of war, as you say, then I am guilty of racist demonisation of the people whose government waged the war?

OK, I'll think about that. Now, what about illegal settlement in occupied territory? Netenyahu's proposed Nationality Law? Can I object to that? Is this article in the New Yorker antisemitic?
... This [anti-liberal] reaction is the most powerful political force of our time, not just in terms of its electoral success but in its intellectual self-confidence and persuasiveness. And it has little in the way of comic value. It springs from diverse causes in different places and can take widely different forms—far from all of them Fascist, and some of them mutually hostile. We see versions of it in China’s reversion toward Maoism under Xi Jinping; in the rise of the National Front (most recently in Sunday’s local elections) and other European parties on the far right and far left; in the Islamist authoritarianism of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan; in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of a two-state solution in his triumphant campaign last week, and in the abandonment, by some of his American supporters, of Israeli democracy as a value; in the Iranian clerical leadership’s doctrinaire hostility to “Western” ideas; and, in this country, in the resurgence of American exceptionalism as a galvanizing force on the Republican right ...
Click to expand...
 
fuelair said:
I did - A) and B) If you have a different set, please let me know - mine were quite official the only difference is the actual rules listed more detail on all the facilities that could be bombed/attacked wherever they were located regardless of civilian presence. Short version: roads used by/for the military, airports used by/for the military, rail lines used by/for the military, water traffic areas used by/for the military, communications center/locations used by/for the military/ facilities/buildings used by/for the military, camps/barracks used by the military, supply storage, armories. training areas/used by the military, water/power sources serving the military.. Plants producing material for the military etc. The presence of anything that the military uses/is thought reasonably to use is a legal target during warfare. If such is located in a civilian area it is considered a war crime as it automatically makes civilians unintended but legitimate targets during military attacks.



By the by, you can thank the WWII Japanese for that to the extents certain modifications occurred - they decided to put most of their military productions. etc. into their big cities - both for convenience and because they thought the allies were paper tigers who would be too caring to attack where the military was hiding due to obvious dangers of civilian deaths. They lost that bet big time.
Click to expand...

Please show me where these rules are written.
 
fuelair said:
I By the by, you can thank the WWII Japanese for that to the extents certain modifications occurred - they decided to put most of their military productions. etc. into their big cities - both for convenience and because they thought the allies were paper tigers who would be too caring to attack where the military was hiding due to obvious dangers of civilian deaths. They lost that bet big time.
Click to expand...
So if the Israeli government kills thousands of civilians under the protection of these provisions, and I criticise that procedure (whether it be a war crime or not), then I am a racist demoniser of Jews (because the Israeli state is claimed by Zionists to be the state of Jews and only of Jews) and that makes me responsible for attacks by antisemites against Jews in the UK. Is that your stance in this matter?
 
Craig B said:
So if the Israeli government kills thousands of civilians under the protection of these provisions, and I criticise that procedure (whether it be a war crime or not), then I am a racist demoniser of Jews (because the Israeli state is claimed by Zionists to be the state of Jews and only of Jews) and that makes me responsible for attacks by antisemites against Jews in the UK. Is that your stance in this matter?
Click to expand...
Do you ever criticize the Palestinians? Do you think there's anything the Palestinians could do to end the conflict?
 
Giz, some people forget history.
Anti-Semitism in the UK in the 19th century was alive and well.
What passes for anti-semitism today is chicken feces.

No record has been set.
 
WildCat said:
Do you ever criticize the Palestinians? Do you think there's anything the Palestinians could do to end the conflict?
Click to expand...

I rather like how we have accusations of "disproportional attacks" being used by both sides, albeit in different circumstances :p .
 
WildCat said:
Do you ever criticize the Palestinians? Do you think there's anything the Palestinians could do to end the conflict?
Click to expand...
Yes I do; and in doing so I don't expect to be accused of being Islamophobic, or an anti-Arab racist, and I am not so accused.

Basically, the Palestinians here are the injured party, however. They are the objects of invasion and dispossession, and their aggressors justify themselves by saying, our people have been the victims of genocide. Problem is, the Palestinians are paying the price, not for crimes committed by Palestinians against Jews, but for crimes committed by Europeans against Jews. They are made to pay not because they're guilty, but because they're weak.
 
WildCat said:
Here's a primer: https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law1_final.pdf
Click to expand...

Some of fuelair's claims were about World War Two bombing in which he said that there was nothing illegal about Allied bombing, but on the other hand, the Axis powers put industrial and military infrastructure in their cities which made them culpable of war crimes.

I would like to know fuelair's source for these assertions, and that furthermore, if he is correct, and according to his other arguments, then books critical of aerial bombing are presumably racist books if they don't state the legality of such bombing and focus so narrowly on what they presumably consider to be moral failings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom