German court calls synagogue torching an act to 'criticize Israel'

[Khaza-R]

Well, I've pointed out before that antisemitism probably had a part in this, but honestly... it's insignificant to the political agenda they tried to achieve. That one kinda overrules the antisemitism, because if you're against Israel because of their perceived crimes against what you consider your people, your whole politics is antisemitic on account of being against Israel. That's kind of part of the definition when you have a nation that basically is Jewdom by definition.

So your essentially arguing that all Jews are zionists and politically a hive mind with Israel and universally are responsible for its actions. And thus retaliation, such as highlighted in this thread, is politically defensible and not a hate crime?

Hopefully you can see the parallels that can be drawn between ISIS and Muslims following your same logic and why it's not only erroneous but dangerous

[ranzino]

That doesn't change the fact that the only link between a synagogue and Israel is religion. And attacking something on the basis of religion is discrimination. ...

Hmm, problem is: you ARE entitled to discriminate people on behalf of religion. Government is not entitled by virtue of upholding freedom of religion, but the very same rule is perfect for individuals to disavow religions an its followers. That's freedom from religion and freedom of speech.
Of course you are not entitled to set their homes on fire and throw the followers under the bus. But harsh critics is fine, unpleasant but legal.

[Jingoism]

The tanned Germans are at it again! Those rapscallions.

[Slant]

So your essentially arguing that all Jews are zionists and politically a hive mind with Israel and universally are responsible for its actions. And thus retaliation, such as highlighted in this thread, is politically defensible and not a hate crime?

Hopefully you can see the parallels that can be drawn between ISIS and Muslims following your same logic and why it's not only erroneous but dangerous

I'm not saying that at all. It doesn't matter what Israelis are or what they themselves think they are. What matters is how Israel is viewed from the outside. To many parts of the Arabic world, Israel is the manifestation of a Jewish nation and represents everything Jewish in the world. Regardless of the many, many Muslims living in Israel, even. And many people in the Arabic world align with the Palestinians and show solidarity, this is purely political at this stage. It's the question about land and ownership rather than "your god vs. my god".

If you want to speak about hate crimes, you need to speak about motivation and subjective perception. Not about absolute and objective facts. Is it politically defensible? No, it's not. And it wasn't. They were punished according to the law in an appropriate fashion. The question of "hate crime" merely suggests that there may have been a higher punishment.

See, what the court is saying is "this is a regular minor case of arsony and it'll get treated that way." What you're saying is "This is hate crime, they should get extra punishment for that."

You are the one deviating from the norm. That means the burden of proof is on your side of the argument. And I'm pointing out that if all you had to do was say "Synagogue is Jewish, ergo antisemitism, ergo harsher punishment", which is essentially your angle, you'd open a box of pandora that wouldn't make sense, legally.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, problem is: you ARE entitled to discriminate people on behalf of religion. Government is not entitled by virtue of upholding freedom of religion, but the very same rule is perfect for individuals to disavow religions an its followers. That's freedom from religion and freedom of speech.
Of course you are not entitled to set their homes on fire and throw the followers under the bus. But harsh critics is fine, unpleasant but legal.

This wasn't harsh critic. This was arsony. A crime. There was nothing legal about this. The question is if it can be judged "more illegal" than merely "just illegal".

[shrunken]

Thats exactly what i meant by taking a news out of context. No, there are no nazi germans burning down synagogues. It's about three palestinensians which inflicted 800€ damage to a synagogue in wuppertal, where the judge said, its not a typical antisemitic reason. For that reason, it is being taken to the next instance, as it surely is antisemitic. But thats also not said in the opening post. Instead, we see a connection created to nazi germany.

Germany's Nazi regime had strong ties to anti-Semitic middle eastern & islamic cultures. Who do you think purged the Balkans for them?

Just Germany getting back to more comfortable roots, some might say. Very triggering day for you I'm sure.

[Spectral]

Yeah, your core values.
If you would just tell the guys this who started a fire in those 100 mosques in the last few years.

I don't personally know them, but I'm happy to condemn anyone that burns other people's property.

[Khaza-R]

I'm not saying that at all. It doesn't matter what Israelis are or what they themselves think they are. What matters is how Israel is viewed from the outside. To many parts of the Arabic world, Israel is the manifestation of a Jewish nation and represents everything Jewish in the world. Regardless of the many, many Muslims living in Israel, even. And many people in the Arabic world align with the Palestinians and show solidarity, this is purely political at this stage. It's the question about land and ownership rather than "your god vs. my god".

If you want to speak about hate crimes, you need to speak about motivation and subjective perception. Not about absolute and objective facts. Is it politically defensible? No, it's not. And it wasn't. They were punished according to the law in an appropriate fashion. The question of "hate crime" merely suggests that there may have been a higher punishment.

See, what the court is saying is "this is a regular minor case of arsony and it'll get treated that way." What you're saying is "This is hate crime, they should get extra punishment for that."

You are the one deviating from the norm. That means the burden of proof is on your side of the argument. And I'm pointing out that if all you had to do was say "Synagogue is Jewish, ergo antisemitism, ergo harsher punishment", which is essentially your angle, you'd open a box of pandora that wouldn't make sense, legally.
.

Perceptive ignorance isn't an excuse. You don't get to target autonomous organizations or their property as effigies for your hatred of nation. You don't get to treat Judaism as a monolith and turn around and claim that Islam isn't one.

There are a plethora of minority groups persecuted by Islam in the Middle East. Are we going to sit here and argue if they attempt to fire bomb a mosque it's politically inspired protest and not a hate crime? The underlining motivation behind either example should be punished. It's sole motivation of the action is to create discord and hate

[Kryos]

I think Israel is very wrong with their illegal settlements, but that does not give anybody the right to burn down a jewish synagogue. That's a total crazy logic. I can't burn down a presbyterian church because I think Trump is wrong and a danger and because Trump is a presbyterian that would be ok? Makes no sense at all.

[shrunken]

I think Israel is very wrong with their illegal settlements, but that does not give anybody the right to burn down a jewish synagogue. That's a total crazy logic. I can't burn down a presbyterian church because I think Trump is wrong and a danger and because Trump is a presbyterian that would be ok? Makes no sense at all.

Israel wouldn't have claimed that territory if they hadn't been attacked by all of their neighbors and subsequently won those wars. Twice.

As the old Jewish saying goes, "you win some; you win some".

[Deleted]

Israel wouldn't have claimed that territory if they hadn't been attacked by all of their neighbors and subsequently won those wars
.

So Israel do claim the territory? You do now, if you take the land you take the poppel to, or you advocate ethnic cleansing?

[ranzino]

....

This wasn't harsh critic. This was arsony. A crime. There was nothing legal about this. The question is if it can be judged "more illegal" than merely "just illegal".

I was on a reply about "thou shalt not flame religions of others because that's discrimination". Burning down the synagoge is destroying property, but still not discrimination. Individuals are simply not able to discriminate religion.

- - - Updated - - -

Israel wouldn't have claimed that territory if they hadn't been attacked by all of their neighbors and subsequently won those wars. Twice.

As the old Jewish saying goes, "you win some; you win some".

Wellll.... Palestine is then very well entitled to burn down Israel too unless Israel leaves those territories. Be careful what you wish for....

[Noradin]

Maybe it was an act to criticize Israel but it's still a crime that shouldn't be tolerated. Let them carry signs that say "down with Israel" or something typical like that, setting fire to a building is wrong.

You talk as if they were let off.
That is just what the OP wants you to think and not the actal truth.
They were sentenced for attempted arson motivated by hate against a religion. They appealed. They got a harsher sentence the second time.
The attempted arson wasn't dismissed as "criticism"/"expression free speech".

- - - Updated - - -

If you fire a gun at someone, miss, and damage his car window, is it vandalism?

It would be assault and attempted murder, just like this was attempted arson and was deemed such by the court.

[Khaza-R]

I was on a reply about "thou shalt not flame religions of others because that's discrimination". Burning down the synagoge is destroying property, but still not discrimination. Individuals are simply not able to discriminate religion.

Except you were replying to my post, and I never said you can't criticize or scrutinize religion.

And I'd love to hear about how you think that you cant discriminate against religion.

[Noradin]

Sounds more like a convenient excuse to avoid being prosecuted for a hate crime.

Why do you want them to be prosecuted for a "hate crime" instead of arson?
Do you think that would affect their sentence?
It wouldn't, their sentences were harsher after the appeal despite it being deemed a "hate crime"the first time around but not the second time.

[Slant]

Perceptive ignorance isn't an excuse. You don't get to target autonomous organizations or their property as effigies for your hatred of nation. You don't get to treat Judaism as a monolith and turn around and claim that Islam isn't one.

There are a plethora of minority groups persecuted by Islam in the Middle East. Are we going to sit here and argue if they attempt to fire bomb a mosque it's politically inspired protest and not a hate crime? The underlining motivation behind either example should be punished. It's sole motivation of the action is to create discord and hate

The underlying motivation is being judged and punished. The court merely ruled that it wasn't antisemitic by nature but that the political aspect of it overweighed. You seem to be hellbent on making this an antisemitic issue. Based on what? That it was a Synagogue? As usual, people have trouble reading a court decision properly. They make up their mind about what should be done... your judgement was felled the second you read "synagogue" and "molotov". And now that the court did not decide how you feel they should decide, you deem their ruling wrong and argue as if they had ruled them innocent.

They have been found guilty. The motivation was ruled political. Due to the nature of the crime, they have received a low penalty.

There is no "hate crime" law per se in Germany. And these guys did not call anyone else to throw fire bombs or made grand speeches against Jews. The Attorney did research social media of these criminals and found no evidence for general antisemitism.

Could it be that you're a bit stubborn?

[Noradin]

Its about a court case and the words of a judge.

Which you have misrepresented.

[Slant]

I was on a reply about "thou shalt not flame religions of others because that's discrimination". Burning down the synagoge is destroying property, but still not discrimination. Individuals are simply not able to discriminate religion.

This is correct. It's also worth pointing out that for some people, no court ruling will ever be enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you want them to be prosecuted for a "hate crime" instead of arson?
Do you think that would affect their sentence?
It wouldn't, their sentences were harsher after the appeal despite it being deemed a "hate crime"the first time around but not the second time.

There is no crime called "hate crime". You can't be prosecuted for "a hate crime". I know you are aware of this, but I'm repeating this so everyone else can get on the same page. People need to stop acting as if there's some ominous "hate crime" paragraph in any lawbook of the world.

[Noradin]

Merkel didnt open the borders due to "leftist dreams", but just due to the fact she felt the urge to help people in need, from a christian point of view.

That and the German constitution and the international treaties all member states of the EU have signed demanded it.

[Slant]

That and the German constitution and the international treaties all member states of the EU have signed demanded it.

Uh, nope. No treaties nor the constitution demanded that she open the borders. Legally speaking she could have let them rot in Turkey.

[Noradin]

Becuse the prosecutor failed to prove it was a hate crime, hence the offenders was only sentenced to jail for attempting arson.

"Only". They got a harsher time after the appeal.