Here in London we have had the Mayor (Ken Livingstone) making recently making appaling anti Jewish comments (while drunk !) for which he has refused to apologise.

Jews in many parts of the UK are living in fear of daily attacks. In Southampton Jewish children have been attacked on their way to school for the past 6 months, the local Police have done nothing so community groups (with help from the local Mosque) now operate a street patrol to look after them.

which political party benefits most from anti semitic attacks?

Livingstone's comments were not "appallingly anti-Jewish", they were just stupid.

Someone as right-on as "Red" Ken is hardly gonna be a secret frothing anti-semite, is he?

Fact is he was trying - yep, while a bit pissed - to have a go at his old enemy the Standard, whose publishers he accused of supporting facism (which is historically true).

When he found out that the hack to which he was directing his abuse was Jewish, the drink-befuddled mayor got himself in a right old tangle and said a load of clumsy nonsense which was not, however, anti-Jewish.

Read the actual transcript of what he said and you will see that this is the case.

Now let's stop with the knee-jerking, eh?

I wonder what contribution protests like the ones outside Marks and Spencers have made to this increase. The claim is they are in protest against Israel but they seem to look anti Jewish to most observers

35 000 racially motivated incidents were reported in 2003 - 2004

Source

Muslims were the victims of half the 44 cases of religiously aggravated crimes that went to court

Source

The CST website gives a breakdown of the "anti-semitic" and "anti-Israeli" crimes thus:

4 instances of "extreme violence"
79 instances of assault
53 instances of damage/desecration to property
93 instances of threats
272 instances of abusive behaviour
31 instances of "literature"

They do not define what constitutes "abusive behaviour", and the report is not available on their website.

CST

However, the Guardian today gives some background:

A CST spokeswoman said the "transfer of tensions" from the Middle East to Britain was fuelling the unprecedented levels of abuse.

She said incidents had risen "really significantly" at the end of September 2000 with the start of the second intifada. There were 150 incidents that month - the highest monthly figure on record - and incidents had remained high since then.

The assassination of Hamas's spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in March 2004 had also sparked a rise in attacks, she said. In the 48 hours following his death in an Israeli missile attack, the CST recorded 54 anti-semitic incidents.

"We can't say who is committing these attacks, but there is clear evidence of motivation," the CST spokeswoman said. "In 124 of them there was clear anti-Zionist or anti-Israel motivation."

So, according to the CST spookeswoman, roughly 25% of the incidents are clearly "anti-semitic" or "anti-Israeli" - presumably the other 75% are uncertain as to whether they were general crimes, or specific attacks on Jewish targets.

Guardian

Attacks on people fuelled by prejudice and race hatred are deplorable. However, in this instance, it is difficult to see, when the majority of cases are recorded as "abusive behaviour", and when the CST spokesperson says a quarter were clearly motivated by anti-seminitism or anti-zionism, that we have a race-hatred epidemic against Jewish people in this country.

And the Independent tells us:

""Some British-based supporters of the Palestinians chose to express their opposition to Israel by attacking British Jews," a report published by the CST yesterday said. "This overspill of international conflicts on to British shores is not always a short-term reaction to a specific event, however; sometimes it reflects a more general ideological hostility to Jews."



Which may, or may not be the case.....

In June 2002, Rabbi Sacks had this to say:

"I AM FRANKLY reluctant to speak about antisemitism. First, I never experienced it. To the contrary, I have received nothing but kindness from this, my country, the nation that, from John Locke to John Stuart Mill to Winston Churchill, has been the matrix and defender of tolerance in the modern world. Even my late father, who came to this country as a refugee fleeing persecution, used to make a joke about it. Every time we were driving and the traffic lights went red, he used to say, 'Antisemitic traffic lights!' For him, as for me, it was the past; it was over; in Britain, at least, it was not serious. Second, we are wrong to see all criticism of the state of Israel as anti-Zionism, let alone as antisemitism. No nation is perfect. No nation is above criticism. A democracy must welcome criticism—and Israel is a democracy."

Source

It seems clear that there has been a rise in attacks since the start of the second Intifada. However, whether the attacks are anti-zionist or "reflect a more general ideological hostility to Jews", is another question.

Whilst there is hatred, oppression and occupation, in Palestine and in Iraq, it seems unlikely that there will be respite from the attacks. Jewish people are being attacked, and so too are muslims in this country. The relatively small number of attacks against Jewish people gain headlines worldwide, whilst Islamophobic attacks receive little attention.

An end to the occupations in Palestine and Iraq, and a world based on justice and dignity are most likely to be the ways to reduce the number of attacks.

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2004/05/290977.jpg

Lots more here

It seems quite clear what the protests are about.....

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/05/290974.html

The definition used in this report for Anti-Semitism is racist as it excludes other Semitic peoples who have also been victims of racist attacks in Britain in the last year, for example Iraqi refugees. All racist attacks are unacceptable in a civilised society. By excluding Arab victims of racism and Anti-Semitism this report is meaningless, in that it fails to tell the whole story and racist because it denies Arab people their equal status as victims of Anti-Semitic violence.

What then is the difference between a revisionist who denies the Holocaust and a revisionist who defines only Jewish victims of racist attacks as legitimate victims of Anti-Semitism?

Isn't this institutionalised racism far more serious than the silly comments made by the Mayor?

Ken Livingstone is considered by the Board of Deputies of Jews to be highly insensitive and most Jews (myself included) believe that he has crossed the line and is anti Jewish.

The analogy he drew with a Camp Commandant was drawn soon after he was informed that the Journalist was Jewish.

Firstly he clearly has no idea what happened in the Nazi camps or he would not have drawn that analogy.

Secondly why did he even bother finding out if the journalist was jewish. It should make no difference. It is typical of Livingstone to do this, it is also a typical feature of many left wing papers where there is a profound obsession with judaism.

A businessman in the Guardian who happens to be jewish is never simply referred to as a businessman, rather a jewish businessman.

The first comment on this thread is disturbingly misplaced. Anti jewish attacks are largely linked to the situation with Israel.
The anti Israel protests have certainly inflamed this. When someone walks past they associate it with Jews (after all 1939 - ban Jewish goods, 2005 - ban Israeli goods) that is why there have been massive counter protests.
Many of the attacks reported to CST are linked to anti Israelis.

Moreover if anti semitic and anti israel attacks are not linked, why did it take no time whatsoever for everyone on this thread to start drawing comparisons.

I do not need some extremist leftie to tell me what anti semitism is - I have experienced it for being Jewish by birth and Israeli in my blood - more often than not, no distinction was drawn.

Well, thanks for automatically presuming to speak for "most Jews" - I bet you also thought that the Michael Howard hypnotist poster was meant to depict Fagin.

"Firstly he clearly has no idea what happened in the Nazi camps or he would not have drawn that analogy."

No, I bet he didn't. Me neither. What happened in the Nazi camps again? As a gay, gypsy socialist trade unionist with a disability, I have no idea.

"Secondly why did he even bother finding out if the journalist was jewish. It should make no difference. It is typical of Livingstone to do this, it is also a typical feature of many left wing papers where there is a profound obsession with judaism."

Livingstone didn't "bother finding out". He was informed by the reporter in question. As for your paranoid twaddle about "many left wing papers" - that's just balls.

"A businessman in the Guardian who happens to be jewish is never simply referred to as a businessman, rather a jewish businessman."

I strongly doubt this. Unless the article in question has something specifically to do with Jewishness or Israel its against the NUJ code of conduct to mention ethnicity when it has nowt to do with the story.

"I do not need some extremist leftie to tell me what anti semitism is - I have experienced it for being Jewish by birth and Israeli in my blood - more often than not, no distinction was drawn."

Oh boohoo, poor you. You clearly don't need anyone - "extremist leftie" or not - to tell you anything as you are clearly a highly opinionated bigot with a number of Fixed Ideas and Prejudices and Will Not Be Told about anything, I fear.

Finally I, and I suspect most people on this website, couldn't give a rat's arse whether you - or the Israeli government - are Jewish or not. Get over yourself.

When I posted this story I put up a piece of paper here in the office predicting the response ( I work for a Jewish Newspaper )

The first was that somebody would immediatly list a whole load of statistics to try and play down the figures
Secondly instead of condeming the attacks they would try and tell us it's worse for Muslims.
Finaly I have written here "Somebody will quote a moderate rabbi because he has said he has always been treated well in Britain."

The fact that ftp responded straight away was hardly a surprise, the fact that he was there with all the predictions is more than a little worrying.

For Go's sake man get some help, Jews are just like you. Try visitng a synagogue and speaking with some - we don't bite.

Kol Tuv

"The analogy he drew with a Camp Commandant was drawn soon after he was informed that the Journalist was Jewish."

He didn't call him a Commandant, he said "concentration camp guard"

"Firstly he clearly has no idea what happened in the Nazi camps or he would not have drawn that analogy."

I think the analogy was people doing unspeakably wicked things for money, like working for the substandard .......

"Secondly why did he even bother finding out if the journalist was jewish. It should make no difference."

It was the reporter who chose to tell him. ......... He didn't ask.
 http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/16539119?source=Evening%20Standard

"It is typical of Livingstone to do this,"

What? Get told by someone that they are jewish?

Ken Livingstone, in my view, is a complete and utter toerag, but theres no evidence of anti-semitism......

"it is also a typical feature of many left wing papers where there is a profound obsession with judaism.

A businessman in the Guardian who happens to be jewish is never simply referred to as a businessman, rather a jewish businessman."

Strangely enough, a search of the Guardian for "jewish businessman" shows 16 results - about 5 of them the case of the businesman who sued the rabbi, one about judhe allowing a child of secular jewish/muslim/catholic heritage to be adopted by an Orthodox businessman, the rest are Palestine/Holocaust related with the exception of a joke in a Simon Hoggart column from a book of Jewish jokes.

It would not be possible to find out who the newsworthy jewish businessmen in this country are by searching that term in the Guardian......

"The first comment on this thread is disturbingly misplaced. Anti jewish attacks are largely linked to the situation with Israel."

Do you mean the article of the first comment? Theres nothing in either that matches up to your comment.

"The anti Israel protests have certainly inflamed this. When someone walks past they associate it with Jews (after all 1939 - ban Jewish goods, 2005 - ban Israeli goods) that is why there have been massive counter protests.
Many of the attacks reported to CST are linked to anti Israelis. "

Its a perennial problem that zionism insists on equating itself with jewishness. The activists I know are all aware that not all jews are zionists, and not all zionists are jews. Regardless of that, the situation in Palestine is appalling and Marks and Spencer has a special relationship with the state of Israel, and sells goods produced in the Occupied territories - that is why the pickets are held there. I doubt that many people are aware of 1939, and the pictures I linked to above show that the placards are very clear about what the protest is about.

"Moreover if anti semitic and anti israel attacks are not linked, why did it take no time whatsoever for everyone on this thread to start drawing comparisons."

Did you not notice that it was the CST spokesperson who made the link:

""We can't say who is committing these attacks, but there is clear evidence of motivation," the CST spokeswoman said. "In 124 of them there was clear anti-Zionist or anti-Israel motivation." "

However, many of us have been repeatedly accused of anti-semitism, so you can bet your bottom dollar that we're aware of the issues. The term is flung around so much that its in danger of becoming meaningless.

"I do not need some extremist leftie to tell me what anti semitism is - I have experienced it for being Jewish by birth and Israeli in my blood - more often than not, no distinction was drawn."

You probably need someone to tell you what an extreme leftist is.....

Why don't you tell us what you think anti-semitism is, and whether you think that opponents of the occupation are anti-semitic by default?

whenever the labour party are in trouble (that's right now if you hadn't noticed) there are big reports in the labour party supporting press (guardian, mirror, bbc) about anti semitic violence. nazis are coming, nazis are coming, vote labour. it's an often used tactic. this in no way takes away from the seriousness of attacks on the jewish community which must be condemned outright.

Here's a test you take to find out if your feelings are truly anti Jewish or anti Israeli.

When you read the title of this article it mentioned Race attacks rising. Would your reaction have been the same if the story had related to the attacks being on Muslims or Black Africans or Japanese ?

" The definition used in this report for Anti-Semitism is racist as it excludes other Semitic peoples who have also been victims of racist attacks in Britain "

Anti-semitism is a word coined in Germany and refers exclusively to Jews..it was coined to replace "Judenhasse" Jew Hatred...as a kinder more gentle term...it has nothing to do with "other" semites, or those in the Semitic languwage group...

Judaism is not a race,(ask the ethiopian jews!) it's a faith which has tried to transform itself into a race with the 'mother has to be jewish' idea so as to protect itself from the same questioning as all other religions by being able to scream racist at any opposition.

It seems to be a pretty widely accepted fact that people that are victims of child abuse
become child abusers when they are adults.
I wonder if the same might not be true for groups of people who suffer from genocide
and other crimes against humanity. Holocaust survivors carry out a pogrom against ....

"Holocaust survivors carry out a pogrom against ....
"

Self defense is hardly a "pogrom". In the last four years of bloody failed intifada, Israel has been attacked 30,000 times! A closer approximation of a pogrom, is Black September, although in that case, the PLO tried to overthrow the Kingdom of Jordan.
With the construction of the security fence, and the death of Arafat, palestinins suicide bomber peace activists can't get in to israel, and the new governmnt may actually end the murder spree of Al Ajsa, and Fatah...
Abbas may also fall victim to Hamas... time will tell

"Fact is he was trying - yep, while a bit pissed - to have a go at his old enemy the Standard, whose publishers he accused of supporting facism (which is historically true)."

o0o

Oh, that's alright then. Why not send a delegation from Indymedia to find out who the Black and Muslim people are who work for that publishing group and racially abuse them too. I mean, if a Black or Muslim person works for that company then they must deserve to have racist invective thrown at them!

Honestly, sometimes I wonder how people's brains work! When did it suddenly become okay to call a Jewish reporter a "war criminal" and a "consentration camp guard" just because the newspaper he works for sucks? When did race-baiting EVER become an acceptable tool for progressive people??

Moshe Pitt (clearly not your real name and do not pretend to be Jewish by using it)

Since finding this site, that comment was without doubt the biggest demonstration of anti jewish sentiment I have read.

You dismiss genuine concerns about a man who the Jewish Board of Deputies condemns "his insensitiveness knows no bounds"

You dismiss out of hand concerns about an increase of attacks on Jews.

You should perhaps go and join the BNP where you belong.

I said that his remarks were drunken and STUPID. I believe that he should apologise. I think he's even more stupid to refuse to do so.

But I don't think Livingstone's a racist or that he was "race-baiting".

And stop with the spurious comparisons. Nobody here's suggesting doing what Livingstone did as a tactic or policy. For fucks sake calm down.

European socialist parties have historically had good relations with their counterparts here, and are regarded as mixing criticism of with general support for the Jewish state. A benign impression; and it would seem to be outdated as some leading members of these parties have, despite the dangers of rising anti-Semitism, become increasingly anti-Israel.

The controversy over an article by British Labour minister of Energy, Mike O'Brien, in the Muslim Weekly in December was instructive. His article appeared at a time when UK anti-Semitic violence – much of it from Muslims – is reaching almost French proportions.

O'Brien solicited Muslim votes for an as-yet unannounced parliamentary election. He asked what Michael Howard, the Conservative party's leader, will do for them.

Before referring to domestic issues he wrote: "Will his foreign policy aim to help Palestine?"

O'Brien mentioned that he had visited Yasser Arafat to convey that the UK, unlike the Americans, had not abandoned him. O'Brien also wrote that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was the first Western politician to condemn Israel's assassination of Hamas leaders.

The Conservatives called O'Brien's words despicable. Journalist Melanie Phillips wrote that he had implied Muslims should not vote for Howard because he is a Jew.

O'Brien, now on the defensive, stated he was not an anti-Semite, and mobilized the usual assistance in such situations: Jewish witnesses testifying to his support for their community. However, discussion of whether O'Brien's article was anti-Semitic sidetracked its essence.

Straw's behavior, of which he was proud, expressed extreme double standards against Israel. He reprimanded Israel for the assassination of Hamas inciters to murder civilians, but did not condemn frequent killings of civilians in Iraq by the allied forces for which the British Labour government bears co-responsibility.

Some other Labour politicians favor extreme anti-Semites to please Muslims. Last year the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, gave a cordial welcome and appeared jointly with Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who had praised Palestinian suicide bombings. In 2003 senior Labour MP Tam Dalyell claimed that a Jewish cabal of Zionists in the United States and Great Britain was driving their governments into war against Syria.

Manipulation of Middle East policy also exists elsewhere in Europe. Historian Jo l Kotek says that "The present leader of the Wallonian Socialists, Elio di Rupo, is... immersed in the pro-Arab wave. Until recently he denied that there is Arab anti-Semitism, not because he believes this, but rather because he thinks that it will help him to remain in power."

Socialist Hubert Vedrine, as foreign minister, implied an understanding of Muslim violence against Jews in his country. Before the 2002 elections an adviser to his party, Pascale Boniface, told it to become more pro-Arab because there were many more Muslims than Jews in France. In 2004, in a lecture in Alexandria, former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard called the creation of Israel a historic error.

Franco Cavalli, then parliamentary leader of the Swiss Social Democrats, said at a meeting in 2002 where Israeli flags were burned that Israel "very purposefully massacres an entire people" and undertakes "the systematic extermination of the Palestinians."

Socialist anti-Israel double standards are not only linked to election opportunism. The foundations of such stances was laid long before, in the early 1980s, by two prominent Socialist Holocaust distorters who demonized Israel with methods like those of classic anti-Semitism.

Swedish prime minister Olaf Palme and Greek prime minister Andreas Papandreou were the first leading European politicians to compare Israel's policies to those of the Nazis.

Fast forward to our time, and we see Anna Lindh, destined to become Sweden's prime minister before being murdered by a madman, who was known for her anti-Israeli bias. Her successor as foreign minister, Laila Freivalds, visited Yad Vashem in 2004 to honor murdered Jews. Thereafter she heavily criticized Israel and remained silent on the extensive anti-Semitism in Sweden, much of which is by Muslims.

Freivalds' silence was exposed by four former chairmen of the Swedish Jewish community, who wrote of how rampant racism and anti-Semitism had become.

Similarly in Greece, in March 2002, socialist parliamentary speaker Apostolos Kaklamanis referred to the Israeli "genocide" of the Palestinians. Government spokesman Christos Protopapas, rather than rejecting such comments, said that he was expressing the sentiments of the Greek parliament and the people. The daily Ethnos, close to the party, published what has probably been the most anti-Semitic cartoon to appear in a mainstream European paper, stating that the Jews were in Auschwitz and Dachau not to suffer, but to learn.

At last year's OCSE meeting in Berlin, Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center "exposed" a Socialist-terrorist collaboration – a fictitious congress on creative solutions for immigration into Europe in which Jean-Marie Le Pen and the Russian anti-Semite leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky would participate – to be financed by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, associated with the German Christian democrats. It caused an uproar.

Samuels apologized for his "mistake" and said he had intended to refer to a conference held in Beirut, funded by the German Socialist Friedrich Ebert Foundation, with speakers from the terrorist Hizbullah and Hamas.

This has been a small selection only. Attitudes toward Jews and Israel are often a prime indicator of societal phenomena – in this case, the further degradation of a mainstream political current that has long lost its humanist character.

If it was a black journalist and Livingstone compared him to a slave trader or plantation owner; would people jump to his defence so quickly?