Posted on 02/18/2005 7:59:31 AM PST by quidnunc
As a first time visitor to England many decades ago, the thing that impressed me most was how incredibly polite everybody was. By the time an Englishman approached within ten feet, he was already calling out, "Excuse me."
Civility is not the first thing a visitor to England would be likely to note today. Indeed if there is one thing in which the English, particularly the educated classes, seem to excel today it is vituperation.
All the old taboos against expressions of hatred have fallen. On the verbal level at least, the manners of soccer hooligans have been adopted by the chattering classes. Two days after 9/11, Philip Lader, former United States ambassador to the Court of St. James, was reduced to tears on the BBC's Question Time as the studio audience chanted anti-American slogans, while the BBC moderator sat there impassively.
Carol Gould, an ex-patriate American living in England for many years, describes a seen on a London bus, in which a tweedy Englishwoman, accompanied by a son in his public school uniform, set upon a hapless, elderly American tourist, telling her, "I rejoice every time I hear of another American soldier dying! You people all deserve to die in another 9/11." When the elderly American began to cry, her assailant grabbed her and started shaking her.
When the taboos start to fall, the weakest and shortest-lived taboo — that against open expressions of Jew-hatred — will be the first to go. Penelope Wyatt reported in the Spectator a few years back, a liberal lord's relief that, "Thank G-d, we can once say what we want about the Jews." …
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
The total number of incidents in Britain rose to 304 from 163 a year earlier when verbal assaults, damage to property and swastikas daubing were taken into account. The report has been relased as Israel focuses on anti-semitism to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1397723,00.html Guardian 1/25/05
LONDON, England (AP) -- The number of anti-Semitic attacks in Britain rose sharply and reached record levels in 2004, a report says.
The report compiled by Community Safety Trust, a group representing Britain's Jewish community, said there had been 532 anti-Semitic incidents, defined as malicious acts toward the Jewish community, in 2004.
The incidents -- which included physical attacks, name calling, hate mail and the desecration of property, such as the vandalism of synagogues with swastikas -- represented a 42 percent increase on 2003 figures and were well above the previous high of 405 in 2000.
Michael Whine, a spokesman for the trust, which has tracked anti-Semitic crime in Britain since 1984, said the increase was alarming.
"The transfer of tensions in the Middle East to the streets of Britain has resulted in an unprecedented level of anti-Semitic incidents," Whine said.
The report, released on Thursday, found attacks had increased in three successive years and identified a growing threat to Jews in Britain.
It found 100 incidents had been recorded in March 2004 alone.
Cases of extreme violence reported in 2004 included the beating of a Jewish woman by three of her neighbors who accused her of being Israeli when they noticed some of her mail was written in Hebrew.
In another attack, a Jewish teenager's jaw was shattered in three places by a gang that subjected him to a tirade of anti-Semitic abuse.
"These figures give cause for concern," Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said. "The single most important thing is for our community to enlist others to join in the protest against the attacks. Jews must not be left to fight anti-Semitism alone."
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/11/britain.antisemitism.ap/
LONDON — It may sometimes seem that British Jews display upper lips as stiff as their non-Jewish countrymen’s, preferring to suffer quietly or downplay prejudice directed against them.
But new official statistics have revealed that antisemitic incidents in Britain have reached new heights.
According to the Community Security Trust, the body that monitors threats to British Jewry, a total of 532 antisemitic incidents were recorded last year, marking a 42 per cent increase from 2003.
There also was a 54 per cent increase in assaults, with 83 attacks recorded last year, including four in which the victim’s life was endangered.
Britain historically has been a generally tolerant and calm society, but in recent years life has become more uncomfortable for the country’s 290,000 Jews, most of whom live in London.
http://www.ajn.com.au/pages/current-paper/inter-02.html
UK Anti-Semitism up Since Start of Intifada By Douglas Davis Jerusalem Post, 4 April, 2001
LONDON- The incidence of anti-Semitism in Britain has risen dramatically since the onset of the intifada, according to the director-general of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the representative organization of the Jewish community.
Writing in the current issue of the quarterly media magazine, The Journalist’s Handbook, Neville Nagler said there is “a direct correlation between the level of violence in the Middle East and the volume of anti-Semitic incidents in Britain.”
He said that the volume of anti-Semitic incidents reported last October – the intifada erupted in late September – “was four times the level reported a year earlier.”
He suggested that the level of anti-Semitism was affected by the media’s treatment of the conflict, which “can have a direct impact on the level of attacks on British Jews.”
Nagler launched a bitter attack on the British media for their coverage of the intifada and he suggested that some journalists and commentators are “being driven by ideology and plain prejudice.”
“In the interests of dramatic television pictures,” wrote Nagler, “scant attention was paid to questions of why Palestinian children were on the front line of a confrontation with armed troops and even fewer pictures emerged of the Palestinian gunmen operating behind the youngsters.”
He asserted that the negative portrayal of Israel in many sections of the media has “emboldened some editors to print opinion pieces that they could never have defended in earlier days.
“Articles appeared in the national broadsheets rejecting Israel’s right to exist…their tone was even more rejectionist than some of the opinions being expressed by the Arab media and the Palestinians themselves.”
This negative coverage had left some members of the Jewish community “frustrated and confused,” and his organization has been inundated with calls from people who were “unable to comprehend what they were seeing on television and reading in their newspapers.”
Nagler said yesterday it is “vital that opinion-formers in the media realize the danger of unbalanced, biased news coverage. The way in which they portray events in Israel has clearly had a direct impact on the level of anti-Semitic attacks on British Jews.”
http://www.kh-uia.org.il/Crisisnew/archiev/English/EnApr05.htm
ANTISEMITIC ACTIVITIES
Violence, Vandalism, Threats and Insults
The CST recorded a total of 375 antisemitic incidents during 2003, a 7 percent increase over the previous year (350 incidents). Violent assaults rose by 15 percent (54 incidents) over 2002 (47 incidents).
Damage and desecration of communal property increased by 31 percent from 55 incidents in 2002 to 72 in 2003. These included 22 synagogue and 7 cemetery desecrations. >p>Verbal and written threats to members of the community increased by 22 percent, from 18 incidents in 2002 to 22 incidents in 2003. Abusive behavior declined by 2 percent, from 216 incidents in 2002 to 211 in 2003. This category encompasses the full range of low-level, often spontaneous, antisemitic abuse and is usually taken as an indicator of the level of antisemitism in society. The number of such incidents has risen in recent years, but the likelihood of under-reporting in this particular category makes analysis difficult.
The targeted distribution of antisemitic literature continues at low levels, rising from 14 in 2002 to 16 incidents in 2003.
It should be noted that 57 incidents overall were recorded during October 2003, the second-highest monthly total ever recorded, and the catalyst for this was thought to be a major suicide attack in Haifa followed by Israel’s bombing of a terrorist training facility in Syria. Forty-eight incidents were recorded during March 2003, the month that the Iraq war began, almost double the number of incidents recorded during March 2002 (26). Of the 375 antisemitic incidents in 2003, 75 showed specific anti-Zionist motivation compared with 53 incidents indicating far right motivation.
Sixty-seven incidents overall appeared to be opportunistic attacks, both physical and verbal, on members of the community, including women and children, and these constituted the most common type of incident. The second largest category of incidents (63 incidents) targeted Jewish communal organizations including old people’s homes, cultural organizations and representative bodies. Fifty-four incidents were attacks on synagogue buildings and a further 11 incidents were directed against synagogue congregants on their way to or from prayers, which may also have been opportunistic.
Over 500 gravestones were smashed in the east London cemetery at Plashet at the beginning of May, the largest such desecration ever recorded. A group of youths of varying religious backgrounds were subsequently convicted.
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/uk.htm
The Second OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism (28-29 April 2004, Berlin) A report by Jonathan Horowitz
VI. SESSION 4: ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE MEDIA Berlin Declaration
1. The OSCE participating States commit to: Combat hate crimes, which can be fuelled by racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda in the media and on the Internet;
Session three drew state attention to the role of the media in anti-Semitism in Europe. Former New York City Major Edward Koch opened the discussion stating that the media can do “enormous good and enormous harm.” The EUMC Perspectives Report found that the Jews interviewed thought media contributed to antisemitism. Representatives from the Netherlands reported that there had been a particular increase in anti-Semitic expressions on the Internet. But more specifically, many states highlighted the media as a forum for a “new” antisemitism that is coming from Middle Eastern communities and surfacing out of the conflict in the Middle East and Iraq. The Netherlands noted that a large portion of the anti-Semitic expressions found on the Internet were “found on Muslim web sites” and that there have been reports of broadcasts that feed anti-Semitic sentiments by stating that all Jews unconditionally support the state of Israel.
‘snip’
o The Palestinian/Israel conflict in the Middle East.
In this session, and during the conference generally, states and other participants placed particular emphasis on the need to recognize the rise in anti-Semitism as a corollary effect of the conflict in the Middle East. In talking about the media and antisemitism, participants repeatedly cautioned that while political criticism is an essential component of thriving democracies there is a line that should not be crossed that lies between political criticism of Israel’s policies and anti- Semitic statements and actions. Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League noted that the Berlin conference broke the taboo that criticizing Israel cannot be anti-Semitic. An Israel delegate commented that “Israel welcomes criticism … both from within and from without.” He continued by offering a “three ‘D’ test” to demark when legitimate political criticism becomes antisemitism: The three “Ds” were 1) Demonization (e.g., comparing Israel to Nazi Germany or comparing the Occupied Territories to Auschwitz); 2) Double-standards (subjecting Israel to a different standard compared to other statesi.e., criticising Israel more than other states); 3) Denying the legitimacy of the Jewish state.
In the sessions and workshops several suggestions and recommendations were put forth on how to deal with anti-Semitism in the media. Participants stressed that the media should not rely on and advance stereotypes in their reporting. The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Miklos Haraszti, referring to a cartoon that appeared in a British newspaper depicting Sharon killing a child, commented on the menace that blood libel accusations in the media pose: “They can kill, almost literally, by supporting violence-ready sentiments both in the Middle East and Britain.”
Participants also stressed that the media’s reporting should be fair and balanced, that the media should use precise data in its presentations, that people should speak out when there is a misuse of media, that studies should be conducted on antisemitism in the Middle East media, and that the media owners and organizations should have codes of conduct and offer professional training. The U.S. delegation specifically recommended: “Educate the media on what anti-Semitism is, how stereotypes hurt both individuals and society as a whole, and how anti-Zionism frequently equates with anti-Semitism.” The E.U. recalled the positive step by the EUMC to encourage E.U. member states to enact or reinforce legislation aimed at preventing the dissemination of racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic material. One attendee turned participants’ attention to the “Forum of Internet Rights” and suggested that there be discussions to come up with a declaration that parties can subscribe to and can use to reach out to civil society. The homepage to the forum reads,
The development of discussion forums has been one of the Internet’s greatest innovations, benefiting freedom of expression and of communication. However, they have also been used to publish illicit (racist, revisionist) content and defamatory material injurious to private individuals…. Emerging from many exchanges between the actors and the consensus they reached, the recommendations below take this complex situation into account. They are bound to evolve in the future.22
The discussions also brought out ideas for harnessing the media’s potential to combat antisemitism. There were suggestions that anti-Semitic incidents should be brought to the media’s attention. One participant noted that the press focuses mostly on the dramatic and violent issues and for this reason the press should be made aware of the violence of antisemitismwhich tends to go unnoticed in the press. As stated in other sessions, speakers stressed that the work to combat antisemitism in the media should not be left to Jews alone. In the most comprehensive contribution to this topic the OSCE Representative of Freedom of the Media presented a “tentative checklist against bias.” This can be found in Appendix B to this report.
‘snip’
APPENDIX B: OSCE REPRESENTATIVE ON FREEDOM OF THE MEDIA: “A TENTATIVE CHECKLIST AGAINST BIAS”
A Tentative Checklist Against Bias, by Miklos Haraszti (Extracted from a “Non-Paper for circulation to participants on the Berlin Conference on Anti-Semitism,” 29 April 2004.)
“New anti-Semitism”, if it exists, would supposedly consist of generalizations about “Zionism” and “the Jews”, or biased Israel-bashing. All this would be disguised as legitimate, politically correct criticism. So when devising media strategies to counter contemporary anti-Semitism, or its semblance, the first task is to differentiate it from the legitimate criticism of the policies of the Government of Israel. Here is a first possible “checklist”:
• Does our coverage obscure the fact that the Israeli Government, like any other democratically elected government, is not only deserving of criticism but is actually living with it in every political aspect? Is it made clear to the readers of our comment that most of our legitimate critical points against the Government of Israel are originally produced within Israel’s passionately pluralistic political and media scene, notwithstanding the state of war there? Furthermore, is it recognized that Jewish people all over the world are taking different sides in the debate over Israel’s policy questions? • In the light of the above, the allegation that “Israel” or the “Jews” “reject every criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism could safely be identified as one of the “new” forms of anti- Semitic prejudice.
• One could safely detect some latent anti-Semitism in the hypothesis that anti-Semitism is “caused” by “the Jews”, by “Israel”, or for that matter by anything else on Earth. Faulting the Jews for anti-Semitism is perhaps the oldest anti-Semitic prejudice, and is today, just as it was in the past, the only common feature of all forms of anti-Semitism.
• The same goes for finding excuses for anti-Semitism. Poverty, the Middle East conflict, Israel’s illegal settlers, its illegal executions of terrorists, and the still ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories are each as bad an excuse as some older excuses used to be in Europe: Germany’s humiliation in the peace treaties after WW1, the sufferings of the working classes under capitalism, or the overrepresentation of Jews in trade and journalism.
• Also, the word “but” should figure on our checklist. Check if otherwise commendable condemnations of anti-Semitism are not followed by a “but . . .”. When checking for involuntary bias, the press could ensure that it does not make false equations; not even out of a sense of striving for objectivity.
• To start with, objectivity is not reciprocity. None of Israel’s numerous faults could lead to a labelling of Israeli democracy as totalitarianism, nor to relating its present day violence to genocide, or, as too often happens, to “a” or to “some” Holocaust. Avoiding such harsh equations could simply be a matter of style and taste. In order to preclude charges of prejudice, editors could apply the tools, which the modern liberal press has developed to use when handling minorities.
• When the Star of David is equated with the swastika, or any use is made of that ancient religious symbol in caricatures, especially for the purposes of marking Israeli brutality, it can hardly be explained away to the Jewish readers of European mainstream journals, not even by pointing to Israel’s state symbols. Editors must know that the pride felt in the existence of Israeli democracy has become an integral part of today’s European Jewish identity, and such visuals are unavoidably perceived as a deliberate trampling on those peoples’ own feelings.
• Similarly, when the imagery of “the Zionists” is presented in the manner of the traditionally caricatured Jew, it is hard to avoid a frightening resemblance to past propaganda. I am not only referring here to right-wing propaganda. In my own childhood, when Soviet-bloc countries did not recognise the state of Israel the Communist dailies used the same images, and that was not benign either.
• When African, Arab, Muslim, or other non-Jewish minority principals in Europe or America are correctly described as “community leaders”, while Jewish ones are often termed “lobbyists”, that approach deserves scrutiny that goes beyond linguistics. As data collected by the Stephen Roth Institute at Tel Aviv University, and other researchers, make clear, the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe coincided with the beginning of the Second lntifada and Israel’s military and political response. Therefore the quality of the conflict’s coverage is crucial, if we seek a press approach that is conscious of the possible fall-out. Editors could check if it is clear to their audiences that the lntifada war they are watching (the terrorist attacks on civilians, and Israel’s heavy-handed responses) was actually started not to force a peace or to end the illegal occupation, but rather to stop the promising negotiations over the ending of the occupation, the Palestinian State, and Jerusalem. Of course, that fact does not alter the need for an Israeli peace strategy, but it does present a more accurate picture of the difficulties.
http://www2.essex.ac.uk/human_rights_centre/publications/paper37/paper37.pdf
and
Hillary Clinton did smooch Suha Arafat. Clinton invited Arafat to the White House more than any other world leader. Not just our problem, old boy.
And it was one episode and she took considerable flack for it. If you think politicians in US are comparable, check out the thread on Howard Dean:
Be honest, can you imagine this being a political issue with any party in the UK? Ridiculous. Your stance is ironic since the UK and Europe routinely fault the US for being lopsided in their support of Israel. So which is it?
As to Clinton having Arafat in, UK would have done the same if Arafat wanted to come. But the US not the UK was the power broker so Arafat came here. Are you seriously suggesting that the UK scorned Arafat? It was the US under Pres Bush, to the protests of Europe and UK, that made Arafat a pariah.
How about the fact that post 9/11 Britain MP’s and Mayor Livingstone welcomed and honored Yusuf al Qaradawi the Islamist who preaches Jew and Christian hatred, supported terror in Iraq and Israel, was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and was banned entry in US, Canada and Egypt.
Also you have the lovely Mr Galloway who if Oil-for-Food ever unravels will be shown to have quite the motive for being such a Saddam-o-phile.
A little honesty here. I credit you with not necessarily agreeing with these positions since you are on this forum.
You said:
Montag said that the UK as a whole was going down in flames. Quidnunc is on an anti-British crusade. I can certainly agree the BBC and the Guardian are crap - but to extrapolate from that an indictment of the entire country is just plain wrong, particularly when our lads are doing so much good. Media bias is small potatoes compared to heroism, blood is more important than propaganda. Montag and quidnunc have lost sight of that.
I don’t want to speak for others.
For myself, I am a fan of the UK and do not believe it is “going down in flames.” I see some excellent things coming out of UK like Blair’s and citizen support for Iraq war. I am a believer in the importance of the Atlantic Alliance and the existence of unique relationships in the Anglosphere. Also UK has a totally different situation with its Muslim population than France or Belgium.
But there are problems and UK would do well to get a grip. Brits are betwixt and between Europe and US. I favor UKIP as I despise the EU. And there are as I have noted huge problems at the BBC and with anti-US and anti-Israel government positions. I would hate to see UK go with appeasement minded Europe or debase its relationship with the US.
What do you think of this article:
New York, NY, March 24, 2004 … The number of anti-Semitic incidents remained at a consistent and disturbing level in 2003, according to newly released statistics from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The annual ADL Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, issued today, counted a total of 1,557 anti-Semitic incidents across the United States in 2003, as compared with 1,559 incidents reported in 2002.
As such, the United States is hardly free of anti-Semitism. In fact, in terms of incidents per capita, according to 2000 figures, you're only a bit better off than we.
To lay into Britain in particular for a problem that appears to be shared by the United States is disingenuous. As for CNN, it appears that you and I haven't been watching the same channel. You can read more about CNN's anti-Israel bias here.
The point is this - we share problems. To sit in judgement of Britain on high and saying things are going to hell in a handbasket when the same problems are knocking at your door is intellectually unsustainable.
Regards, Ivan
New York, NY, March 24, 2004 … The number of anti-Semitic incidents remained at a consistent and disturbing level in 2003, according to newly released statistics from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The annual ADL Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, issued today, counted a total of 1,557 anti-Semitic incidents across the United States in 2003, as compared with 1,559 incidents reported in 2002.
1) My point was major increase in number of UK incidents. The statistics you posted show the reverse about the US, no increase. Also the numbers you cite in US are from 2002 and 2003. The worst increase in UK was in 2004.
2) You are comparing absolute numbers not proportions. What percent is the Jewish population of London compared to that of LA or NYC, or UK to US total Jewish population? Your comparison is absurd.
3) You keep changing the topic. You questioned the UK increase in incidents. I verified it. Now you want to say, “so what.”
4) Might I remind you that the US does not have Europe’s sordid past with regards to anti-Semitism. Thus cause for alarm is greater when things escalate in Europe.
If you can not even acknowledge that there has been a large and significant increase in UK and European incidents of anti-Semitism, there is no basis for this discussion. I provided the substantiation and you are equivocating.
As to CNN, your link is from 1998. And the BBC has much worse grades from Jewish watchdog groups recently if you follow such things. In addition the 1998 link is about CNN International which is, as I acknowledged earlier, worse than the US CNN. You get CNN I in UK. Nevertheless BBC is still worse than CNN I. Further are you following the recent “housecleaning at CNN?”
And I already said the UK is not going to “hell in a handbasket.” So stop mischaracterizing what I did say.
Horse excrement - all you are intending to do is beat Britain with the anti-semitism stick and you're not enjoiyng it when I point out that there is a problem in the States as well. If you're going to talk about the UK, climb off your high horse before you do so.
Might I remind you that the US does not have Europe’s sordid past with regards to anti-Semitism. Thus cause for alarm is greater when things escalate in Europe.
Britain did not fall to Nazism, and the Fascists in the UK were a fringe element. There have been British heroes of Jewish origin extending from Benjamin Disraeli to Harold Abrahams that few countries in Europe can lay claim to.
As to CNN, your link is from 1998. And the BBC has much worse grades from Jewish watchdog groups recently if you follow such things. In addition the 1998 link is about CNN International which is, as I acknowledged earlier, worse than the US CNN. You get CNN I in UK. Nevertheless BBC is still worse than CNN I. Further are you following the recent “housecleaning at CNN?”
Yes I am. However I sincerely doubt you are going to continue to find anything less than hostile to Israel attitudes out of the likes of Peter "I dated Hanan Asrhawi" Jennings, and the American press. I refuse to accept that this is just a BBC problem - yes, it is a problem they have, but to ignore the fact that it is a Mainstream Media problem is dishonest.
And I already said the UK is not going to “hell in a handbasket.” So stop mischaracterizing what I did say.
I'll believe you're honest if you stop referring to anti-Semitism as a particular problem for the UK - it's a problem for many countries, including the United States.
Ivan
hmm one more point. Can you imagine any reason that CNN International shown in UK would be more anti-Israel than the CNN shown in the US?
and Peter Jennings is mild compared to the UK press.
Have you forgotten the BBC's very own "Brooklyn born Israeli settlers should be shot" Tom Paulin. No, I'm happy to say we have nothing comparable even in the worst of our MSM.
Check this out:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Dishonest_Reporting_-Award-_for_2001.asp
http://www.bbcwatch.com/old.html
Jews are the canary in the coal mine.
Well said.
You haven't provided any evidence apart from your anecdotal impressions that CNN International is worse than CNN. In any event, instead of blaming the audience, why don't you blame the media's inbuilt biases throughout the world.
and Peter Jennings is mild compared to the UK press.
In your opinion. He was just an example of the ties the American press has to the Palestinian terrorists.
Have you forgotten the BBC's very own "Brooklyn born Israeli settlers should be shot" Tom Paulin. No, I'm happy to say we have nothing comparable even in the worst of our MSM.
In that dishonest reporting link you posted, 6 out of 10 are American reporters or organisations. You're in denial.
Ivan
Western Europe Jews in the United Kingdom 302,207
North America Jews in the United States 5,914,682
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_by_country
UK stats provided by me:
“According to the Community Security Trust, the body that monitors threats to British Jewry, a total of 532 antisemitic incidents were recorded last year, marking a 42 per cent increase from 2003. “
US stats provided by you:
“The number of anti-Semitic incidents remained at a consistent and disturbing level in 2003, according to newly released statistics from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The annual ADL Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, issued today, counted a total of 1,557 anti-Semitic incidents across the United States in 2003, as compared with 1,559 incidents reported in 2002.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
UK has Six times the rate per these numbers.
see numbers above -- who's in denial?
Yes, but the BBC 'won' the contest of most biased?
I certainly would like to see the US MSM improve and I'm very critical of them as well. But the BBC is worse in content and in their reach around the world.
See post and numbers in post above for a look at which one of us is in denial.
I went to the Community Security Trust site - apparently 2004 was abnormally high - the prior years were around the 300 incident level. If 2005 proves to be around the 500 level, then I'll accept it as being a long term trend.
In any event, you continue to miss the point that it is a problem on both sides of the Atlantic, no matter the severity. The ADL link describes incidents such as the following:
* In Terre Haute, Indiana, a Holocaust museum memorializing children who were victims of Nazi medical experimentation was destroyed by arson (November).
* In Wildwood, New Jersey, a bullet was fired through the front door of a synagogue. No one was injured (July).
* In Arizona, at a Jewish community center outside Phoenix, swastikas and expletives were spray-painted on the walls, driveway and a congregant's car (April).
* In Allentown, Pennsylvania, a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a synagogue by three youths (July).
* In Long Island, New York, "Heil Hitler," F--- the Jews" and pornographic images were drawn on property of a Jewish center (August).
Again, get off your high horse. We both have problems.
Ivan
So what, you tried to pin an anti-Israeli press as a particularly British problem - as that list showed, it's a Mainstream Media problem on both sides of the Atlantic. Are you going to admit this or run around in circles?
I certainly would like to see the US MSM improve and I'm very critical of them as well. But the BBC is worse in content and in their reach around the world.
Compared to CNN and the Associated Press? Excuse me?
See post and numbers in post above for a look at which one of us is in denial.
You refuse to accept anything that punctures your theory that Britain is an inherently anti-Semetic country and shows that America and Britain have problems in common. I call that denial. I would respect you more if you actually admitted the truth of at least some of what I'm saying. I am perfectly willing to accept that things aren't perfect here and things can and should be better. I am not willing to accept that we are alone in this, and that people sitting on their high horse, looking down on us from the ends of their noses like a bunch of Frenchmen are in any way a productive answer to the problem.
Ivan
Of course severity matters. It matters tremendously even though reduction should always be the goal on both sides of the Atlantic.
Let me defend the UK properly. In contrast to France which has imposed pathetically light sentences on anti-Semitic perpetrators (lefty judges feeling sorry for underpriviledged Muslim youth) despite huge increases in such crimes, UK just imposed a very strong sentence, six years, on a youth who desecrated Jewish graves. Such a sentence sends an important and welcome message of no tolerance to counter the increase in episodes.
You are not alone. Half of Europe is with you.
You are not alone. Half of Europe is with you.
So you are calling Mr Rosenblum a liar? This is not the BBC, it is JWR.
Cooking the books once again? As we discussed in a different thread, Britain has more than 250% as many Muslims per capita as does the United States. And Britain has 10 times fewer Jews. Politicians are more than happy to bash Jews to gain Muslim votes. You can keep your head in the sand and say every article is a lie, and use the "insulting the veterans" canard repeatedly, but clearly something bad is happening in good old England.
I suggest you get a copy of Fahrenhype 9/11, the counterblast to Michael Moore, and look at the segment where they show Al Qaeda cells in the States and get a good look at the numbers of red dots indicating cells, all over the country. For you to deny that you are clutching just as many vipers to you is disingenuous at best, dangerous at worst.
Do we have a problem with Muslims? Yes. That's why Abu Hamza was locked up and we do profiling at our airports (something you aren't allowed to do). But we're not alone in this - it may bring you momentary, smug relief to think that you're doing better than we are, but in reality, we share the same problem, and it is of the same severity.
As for politicians pandering to the Muslims - you have the Howard Dean Democrats doing that just nicely for you. For you to suggest that it's a problem that is more widespread in Britain than in America is ridiculous.
Ivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.