Lies, Lies and Damned Statistics

Is there really a rise in anti-Semitism or is this just sophistry? Anti-Semitism has long been used as a convenient accusation to throw at all critics of Zionism, but now this slander is wearing thin and anti-Semitism has but disappeared, organisations like the CST would have us believe that it is once more on the rise. They attribute this largely to the rise in radical Islam but is there any evidence to support their accusations?

certainly there has been desecration of a hundred gravestones in a Jewish cemetery in Manchester earlier this year, which was keenly seized upon by Zionist politicians and the media as evidence for the rise of anti-Semitism (or more accurately Judeo-phobia). Detective Inspector Simon Collier of Greater Manchester Police stated: “I think it is a racist incident”, despite having no evidence to support this conclusion. For all the Greater Manchester Police know it might have been a Zionist organisation who carried out the attacks to promote their cause - this has happened before.

This crime, which is utterly appalling, may or may not been an incident of Judeo-phobia; it rather depends upon the motives of the person or persons who committed this crime. Even, if it was an act of Judeo-phobia there is no reason to suppose the motive was racial, the motive could just as easily been religious or political.

This is not a pedantic point; the law treats these crimes very differently. It could have also been a random act; most grave desecrations are considered to be random acts of desecration, although there have been exponentially more desecrations of Muslim graves post the 11 September 2001 than there have been of Jewish graves. Moreover, there have been several occasions where the perpetrators of alleged Judeo-phobic crimes have been discovered themselves to have been Jewish.

Indeed, if one looks at most of the “incidents” of Judeo-phobia in Europe over the last few years, one finds that these “incidents” are usually legitimate political or religious criticism, rarely would such “incidents” constitute criminal offences, hence the term “incident” rather than “crime”. Yet the European Union has been at pains to promote the myth of a rise in Judeo-phobia and to equate the same with racism, yet simultaneously failing to acknowledge the provable rise in Islamophobia.

In Britain, the Government is clearly complicit in the conflation of Judeo-phobic incidents and crimes; whilst both are proportionately low, the latter is virtually non-existent. The British government maintains national records of and publishes the number of alleged racially and religiously aggravated crimes reported to the Police, those that result in prosecution and those that result in a successful conviction and those that are discontinued or result in an acquittal. Consequently, the British Government has sufficient available data from the Crown Prosecution Service, to identify both the race and religion of victims in all successful prosecutions of racially and religiously aggravated crime, yet unfortunately they have thus far not be prepared to reveal these figures. So we are unable to say how many successful convictions there have been for racially or religiously aggravated crimes perpetrated against Jews. This notwithstanding, there has not been a single conviction for a racially or religiously aggravated assault against a Jewish person in the UK in 2004 reported by the BBC.

Yet the Government did very little to contest the assertions made by the Jewish organisation “Community Security Trust”, which were widely repeated in the British media that there had been a dramatic rise in the number of Judeo-phobic incidents occurring in Britain during 2004: the CST reported a total of 532 incidents, a rise of over a third from the previous year, of these incidents 79 were described as assaults and 4 as serious assaults, the most prolific incident were abusive behaviour of which they reported 272. The police dismissed the figures as merely a rise in the number of incidents that were reported to the CST but to date neither the Government nor the police have pointed out that not all 532 reported incidents would meet the legal definition of a crime, as the CST defines an “anti-Semitic” incident as "any malicious act aimed at the Jewish community or Jewish individuals".

In fact, if one looks at the Metropolitan Police Service’s official figures of the 12,637 recorded allegations of racist incidents for the year 2004, only 323 allegations were made where the alleged victim was Jewish. Conversely, one can reliably surmise from that in the majority of these cases the alleged victim was Muslims, if one accepts that at least ninety percent of the Arabs, Egyptians, Iranians, Turks, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indonesians, Afghanis, Albanians and Kurds living in London are Muslims. Hence, Jews who constitute 2.1 percent of London’s population (according to the 2001 census) account for 2.5 percent of recorded racist incidents whereas Muslims who constitute 8.5 percent of London’s population (according to the 2001 census) account for well over fifty percent of all racist incidents, possibly over eighty percent. Therefore, if all 323 alleged incidents were proved, which are course they are not, this would still hardly give rise to the assertion that Judeo-phobic crime is a significant problem: clearly it is not.

However most of these recorded racist incidents would not be so regarded by a court: more allegations of racial and religiously aggravated crimes are rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service than are proceeded with. Moreover, the CST also acknowledges that “Reports are received from the victims themselves, third parties, the Police and from the media” thus its figures are clearly padded out and are unverifiable, which is exacerbated by the British government affording this dubious organisation with third-party reporting status; thus it is able to report incidents on behalf of an alleged victim, without that persons identity ever being revealed. Yet the CST, is not only a data recording service, it also briefs the media on security matters affecting Jews living in Britain, which includes largely attributing its unsubstantiated claims of an increase in Judeo-phobic incidents and assaults to a rise in “Islamic extremism”.

The CST annual national figure of 532 Judeo-phobic incidents is extraordinarily low, so low in fact that the continued existence of the organisation is clearly unnecessary. The organisation’s raison d'être is to promote the fallacy that Jews are a victimized religious minority in Britain are to correlate that with anti-Zionism and Islam. Therefore the integrity of the CST is somewhat in question, all the more so, given that its figure for Judeo-phobic motivated crime is exponentially at odds with corresponding criminal convictions.

Moreover, the evidence in the vast majority of recorded Judeo-phobic crimes is by no means substantiated. In many cases the only evidence of Judeo-phobic malice is that the victim is Jewish, and in other cases there is nothing more than the alleged victim’s word that a crime even took place. Indeed, it is extraordinary that the CST have not complained about the non-existent conviction rate for Judeo-phobic assaults, particularly, as four of these assaults were described as “life threatening”. Nor has the CST taken account of the fact that at least some of its recorded incidents are undoubtedly malicious allegations, made for political motives as well as personal motives. After all, the CST is in no position to check the veracity of an allegation before recording it, which the organisation fails to acknowledge.

There are in fact good reasons to believe that many of the CST recorded Judeo-phobic incidents are fabricated, it is the declared position of the Zionist government that European criticism of Zionism is motivated out of “historic anti-Semitism”, which is in resurgence, particular where there are large Muslim minorities. Therefore it is not unreasonable suppose that those with connections to the Zionist regime would fabricate Judeo-phobic incidents to promote the Zionist cause. This has proved to be the case in France, where Alexandre Moïse, president of the Zionist Federation of France, was arrested and convicted, after having sworn out warrants because of numerous threats, that he had sent himself, in order to appear a "Jewish victim".

Contrary to Jewish claims, hardly any of the recorded incidents of “anti-Semitism” involve the vilification of Jews because of their Jewish ancestry or perceived ethnicity, yet they are still recorded as racist incidents. This is inherently dishonest; vilification of a group because of their religious or ideological beliefs is manifestly different from racism. The French government attributes its alleged rise in Judeo-phobia, mainly to disaffected young Muslims and correlates this with anti-Zionism. Therefore such incidents would have to be considered politically motivated rather than racially motivated. However, this is politically inconvenient because the majority of so called “anti-Semitic incidents” are in reality non-violent political or intellectual expression; so if they were to be defined as anti-Zionist or anti-Judaic rather than anti-Semitic they could no longer be perceived as contravening the anti-vilification laws of either country. Instead, they would be legitimate acts of dissent.

It is also significant that despite claims of a rise in French Judeo-phobia, the US State Department in its Human Rights report on France cites only fifteen criminal convictions for anti-Jewish racist assaults for the year 2003, none for the year 2004 and only one murder in the last ten years. Therefore it is entirely fraudulent to pretend that Judeo-phobia is a significant phenomenon in either France or Britain. Yet, alas, both governments are complicit in this wilful deception.

However, it suits Jewish propaganda that Jews are always portrayed as the victim rather than victimiser; yet in truth, Jews, as a religious group, have been both victim and victimiser during the Twentieth Century and are unquestionably the victimiser in the Middle East today. Hence, one should be very wary of claims of Judeo-phobia because they are grossly overstated and invariably used as a means of deflecting criticism from Zionist acts of religious persecution, ethnic cleansing and genocide against Arabs and Muslims. Moreover, Judeo-phobia is being used as the pretext to proscribe legitimate Muslim organisations and to curb free speech.