This man needs to be banged up

[EFLImpudence]

...and do you think it is correct or a conflation of unrelated terms construed for other reasons?

You are allowed to think for yourself.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The problem with that definition is that modern Jews have very little connection with the ancient people of Israel.
The vast majority of todays jews are of European descent.
You also have Chinese jews who unsurprisingly look Chinese, you have Indian cochin jews who look like their fellow Indians, you have the black Falasha and Lemba jews who tend to look like their fellow blacks.
So the claim of direct descent from an ancient people doesn't seem plausible and maybe should be amended.
I hope what i have written above doesn't sound antisemitic, just pointing out a few anomalies to the accepted story which has been used to justify the confiscation of other people's property.

That is why there is more than one way to be considered a Jew.
Re-read the definition, and take each as a separate way of being a Jew. Or it could be a combination of any two or all three.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Strange that Bobby is quoting Biblical references when he does not like Victorian definitions.

Strawman argument. I haven't quoted any biblical references. I have referred to the biblical reference of Israel and Judah, as distinct from modern day Israel, and other countries.
You'll know if I quote any biblical references, I'll add book, chapter and verse after it.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I'll just quote a .Gov website, it has a full definition of what term is considered appropriate for the "situation referred to in this thread" but like I said call it whatever you want......
A definition of antisemitism
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-definition-of-antisemitism

It's been quoted several times before, but EFLImpudence refuses to accept it, for his own private reasons, something to do with what he read in a newspaper.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

...and do you think it is correct or a conflation of unrelated terms construed for other reasons?

Do you think Acts of Parliament are "a conflation of unrelated terms construed for other reasons?"
Or do you see them as the law of the land and to be respected, even though you might disagree with them?

 

[Vinty]

I'll just quote a .Gov website, it has a full definition of what term is considered appropriate for the "situation referred to in this thread" but like I said call it whatever you want......
A definition of antisemitism
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-definition-of-antisemitism

Under this new definition i guess every one in the UK will be guilty of anti semitism at some time or other, even though they may not be aware that they are being anti semitic.
Apparently a non jew can be anti semitic to another non jew under this new dictat.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Apparently a non jew can be anti semitic to another non jew under this new dictat.

How do you work that out?

 

[EFLImpudence]

They could both be Muslim.

 

[Vinty]

How do you work that out?

Britain will be one of the first countries to adopt the definition, agreed by the IHRA, an intergovernmental body made up of 31 member countries, in May this year. It states:

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

They could both be Muslim.

Then their actions would not be antisemitic.
Unless they were Jews by one of the other definitions.
But the scenario quoted both were not Jews.
Do I really need to quote the definition of antisemitism again?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Then their actions would not be antisemitic.

One or both might be Semitic Arab Muslims.

You're not very good at this, are you?



Why don't they just call it 'anti-Jewish'? Oh, I know.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Britain will be one of the first countries to adopt the definition, agreed by the IHRA, an intergovernmental body made up of 31 member countries, in May this year. It states:

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities

If someone has a certain perception of Jews, and they perceive someone else to be a Jew, and they act in a antisemitic way, then, yes, it could be construed as antisemitism, because they thought the non-Jew was a Jew.

Similarly, if you behave in a racist way toward, say a mediterranean person, because you perceive them to be black, then it's racism, because of your perception, not because of reality.
The fact that you were mistaken does not alter the intention or the action.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

One or both might be Semitic Arab Muslims.

You're not very good at this, are you?



Why don't they just call it 'anti-Jewish'? Oh, I know.

If they're not Jews, and not perceived as Jews, then it's not antisemitism.
I will repeat the definition again for you because you obviously cannot grasp it.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”​

If you need anything explaining, please do ask.

 

[EFLImpudence]

How has the heritage of a Semitic Arab been removed or altered because of a flawed definition of antisemitism?

Not all Jews are Semitic; not all Semites are Jewish.


You're not very good at this, are you?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

How has the heritage of a Semitic Arab been removed or altered because of a flawed definition of antisemitism?

Not all Jews are Semitic; not all Semites are Jewish.


You're not very good at this, are you?

You're making the same mistake of taking apart a whole word and assuming that its constituent parts added together to mean the conjoined meaning..
That is the same as pretending that manholes are purely for men, or that womanhood is a hat for a woman, or that understand is to stand under something.
Semitic, as a label for an ethnicity is largely obsolete now. I did explain that before and provided evidence to support it. If you refuse to believe it, I can't change that.

Semites, Semitic peoples or Semitic cultures was a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. The terminology is now largely obsolete outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics.​

Antisemitism has been defined numerous times. if you refuse to accept it, I can't change that. But you are the one that is out of step, not everyone else.