Support NeoGAF

[M.D]

German court rules that firebombing a synagogue is not anti-Semitic

This week a German regional court ruled that the 2014 firebombing of a synagogue in Wuppertal, a region just east of Düsseldorf, was an act of criminal arson, but not anti-Semitic. Instead, the court found it was a protest against Israel, even though the synagogue was obviously not in Israel and those who worship there are Jews, not Israelis.

The decision upheld that of a lower court, which stated the perpetrators, a trio of Palestinian-born German residents, wanted to ”call attention to the Gaza conflict" when they prepared and then lobbed Molotov cocktails at the synagogue one July night in 2014. No one was injured, but the attack caused €800 in damages. The men were ultimately given suspended sentences.

The case in Wuppertal was not an isolated act of blaming Jews for Israeli policy. It took place in the summer of 2014, during a bloody Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip designed to prevent Hamas militants there from continuing to rocket Israeli border towns. Images broadcast around the world were of children hurt or killed; anti-Israel protests were held across Europe. The violence ultimately claimed the lives of 70 Israelis and 2,205 Palestinians; the number wounded on both sides went far higher.

And, as the summer's conflict continued, anti-Semitic acts against Jews around the globe went up, enormously. According to a report jointly issued in April 2015 by the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry in Tel Aviv, and the European Jewish Congress, 766 acts of anti-Semitism were recorded in 2014, an increase of 38 percent from the previous year. These were, according to the report, ”with and without weapons, and by arson, vandalism or direct threats against Jewish persons or institutions such as synagogues, community centers, schools, cemeteries and monuments, as well as private property."

The Anti-Defamation League issued a report in August 2014 noting a ”dramatic surge" in attacks. The acts ranged in size and scope. In Paris, memorably, protesters trapped Jewish worshippers in a synagogue. Chants at rallies across Europe often swapped the word ”Jews" with that of ”Israel." In the United Kingdom, the Community Service Trust, which has monitored anti-Semitism in the UK since 1984, registered the highest number of anti-Semitic acts in the organization's history.

Edit:

Thanks to Irminsul for the clarification

Btw., that article doesn't really describe what actually happened. No court ruled anything this week.

The second-level court convicted two Palestinians in January last year, sentencing them to 23 and 24 months jail on parole, respectively. It wasn't explicitly deemed an anti-semitic act, but a harsher sentence than what the first-level court ruled. (Source, German)

In German law, both defence lawyer and prosecution can appeal the ruling and make their case what the ruling should be; on a higher-level court, the sentence can only go in the direction of the appeal (which is why often, both sides appeal a ruling). The prosecution wanted to get the Palestinians in jail without parole (with the same jail time) and the act deemed explicitly anti-semitic, but they withdrew their appeal shortly before the hearing on the higher-level court, probably because they made a deal with the defence lawyer. (Source, German)

Later last year, one of the perpetrators appealed the ruling. To be more precise, he used something called "Revision" in German law, which can only be used to go against errors of law in the ruling; there is no new hearing of evidence. In November 2016, a higher-level court ruled that this appeal was unfounded.

On 6 January, 2017 (now we're finally entering this year!), the second-level court simply stated the the ruling was final. (Source, German)

 

[Maleficence]

It seems like an odd decision though it is interesting to see this flipped on it's head, too often is anti-israeli sentiments conflated with anti--semitism. In this case though it seems like it was indeed anti-semitic, I mean unless there was any evidence that this synagogue in particular was supportive of Israeli policy.

 

[CoolOff]

Yeah, okay, that just seems wrong.

 

[ClosingADoor]

That sounds strange. I could see the point if they attacked the Israeli embassy or some other organisation associated directly with Israel, but just a synagogue is not targeting something at Israel, it is against the Jewish people.

 

[Haunted]

Reading up on it, this seems entirely plausible to me. Palestinian's way of protesting against Israeli policy as primary motivation.

That sounds strange. I could see the point if they attacked the Israeli embassy or some other organisation associated directly with Israel, but just a synagogue is not targeting something at Israel, it is against the Jewish people.

A random synagogue is a much easier target, probably.

 

[Zaru]

Why are we still using the word "anti-semitic" when not all semites are jews and in this case the attackers themselves are probably semites?

I know I know, that's pretty unimportant compared to firebombing someone, but I wonder why this stuck.

 

[CrunchyB]

That is total bullshit.

Firebombing a synagogue is textbook antisemitism. Whatever shitty thing Israel did should have no consequences for Jews living in another country, but these fuckers are dragging them into this just because they are Jewish.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

ugh there are so many better ways to protest israel's illegal occupations than fucking arson

That is total bullshit.

Firebombing a synagogue is textbook antisemitism. Whatever shitty thing Israel did should have no consequences for Jews living in another country, but these fuckers are dragging them into this just because they are Jewish.

basically

 

[KimiNewt]

That is total bullshit.

Firebombing a synagogue is textbook antisemitism. Whatever shitty thing Israel did should have no consequences for Jews living in another country, but these fuckers are dragging them into this just because they are Jewish.

I think the point is that the perpetrator's intentions were not anti-semetic and instead anti-Israel.

 

[KDR_11k]

The point here is motivation. The attackers may not have been terribly smart about picking their target but evidently it was motivated by politics, not religion.

Note that this doesn't mean they get away with it, just that they don't get an additional punishment for hate crimes on top of the one they're receiving for violence.

 

[hidys]

The court instead ruled that the perpetrators were experiencing a lot of economic anxiety.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

So basically, targeting Jews is not at all a hate crime if you claim you did it because of Israel.

Got it.

 

[danthefan]

That sounds strange. I could see the point if they attacked the Israeli embassy or some other organisation associated directly with Israel, but just a synagogue is not targeting something at Israel, it is against the Jewish people.

An embassy is going to have things like police, guards, gates, cameras, etc around it.

 

[Kurtofan]

So basically, targeting Jews is not at all a hate crime if you claim you did it because of Israel.

Got it.

geopolitic anxiety

 

[JordanN]

The point here is motivation. The attackers may not have been terribly smart about picking their target but evidently it was motivated by politics, not religion.

Note that this doesn't mean they get away with it, just that they don't get an additional punishment for hate crimes on top of the one they're receiving for violence.

Ok, I get it now. These are terrorists who failed Kindergarten

If you asked them to point out Israel on a map they'll say "It's in Brooklyn right?".

 

[KDR_11k]

Ok, I get it now. These are terrorists who failed Kindergarten

If you asked them to point out Israel on a map they'll say "It's in Brooklyn right?".

Possibly. How's the state of the educational system in Gaza?

 

[Captain Tuttle]

So basically, targeting Jews is not at all a hate crime if you claim you did it because of Israel.

Got it.

scary times

 

[KDR_11k]

scary times

Nah, it's still a crime.

 

[Langdon Alger]

So basically, targeting Jews is not at all a hate crime if you claim you did it because of Israel.

Got it.

Pretty much. This is terrifying.

 

[Sunster]

then what is a hate crime?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Reading up on it, this seems entirely plausible to me. Palestinian's way of protesting against Israeli policy as primary motivation.

A random synagogue is a much easier target, probably.

But the fact that they attack a synagogue because it is Jewish, is antisemitism. They attack it because it is Jewish. That you want to attack Israeli policy does not change the fact you attack an institution because of the racial and religious character of it.

Nah, it's still a crime.

It is still a crime, but it also shows that crimes against Jewish people are seen as attacks against Israel instead of against the Jewish people involved. It's not a good thing.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The fuck?

A bunch of German Jews have their place of worship firebombed, but it isn't anti-semitic because something something Israel?

 

[TheGameshark]

lol how is that not a hate crime? Even if they were protesting israel, it's pretty damn obvious they were targeted for being Jewish.

 

[His Majesty]

The decision upheld that of a lower court, which stated the perpetrators, a trio of Palestinian-born German residents, wanted to “call attention to the Gaza conflict” when they prepared and then lobbed Molotov cocktails at the synagogue one July night in 2014. No one was injured, but the attack caused €800 in damages. The men were ultimately given suspended sentences.

That's a shocking decision to me. Sane, rational people do not bomb religious infrastructure frequented by civilians. Yet they were given suspended sentences?

Not to mention that this seems like a textbook hate crime. A synagogue is a symbol of the Jewish faith, not of Israel.

 

[ClosingADoor]

That's a shocking decision to me. Sane, rational people do not bomb religious infrastructure frequented by civilians. Yet they were given suspended sentences?

Not to mention that this seems like a textbook hate crime. A synagogue is a symbol of the Jewish faith, not of Israel.

Welcome to Europe. We protect our criminals better then normal people a lot of times.

 

[Sinfamy]

SO PROGRESSIVE AND TOLERANT

They chose a synagogue not an embassy for a reason.

 

[Haunted]

But the fact that they attack a synagogue because it is Jewish, is antisemitism. They attack it because it is Jewish. That you want to attack Israeli policy does not change the fact you attack an institution because of the racial and religious character of it.

Seems like the courts (the lower court and now this one) found that the attackers thought of Israel as their target when attacking this synagogue, not the Jewish people.

Now these Palestinians might very well be (most likely are) also anti-semitic, but that doesn't change the fact that both courts during the course of their investigations found the attacker's primary motivation to be an attack of protest against Israeli policy of that time and wanting to call attention to the issue, by attacking one of Israel's perceived proxies in Germany.

Whether their target was appropriately chosen for that to be effective is not the issue, this decision concerns the motivation of the attackers.

It is still a crime, but it also shows that crimes against Jewish people are seen as attacks against Israel instead of against the Jewish people involved. It's not a good thing.

That is what the attackers thought, yes. An attack on a synagogue in Germany meant as a protest against Israel(i policy). The courts determined this to be the motivation of the attackers.

 

[Aiii]

The fuck?

A bunch of German Jews have their place of worship firebombed, but it isn't anti-semitic because something something Israel?

Because the firebomber didn't bomb it because they were Jews, but because he made the connection that Jews = Israel and he wanted to bomb something Israel.

That's dumb in itself, but it doesn't make his act anti-Semitic, I can't really find that much fault in the courts reasoning on that front.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

What an idiotic reasoning by the court. By that logic any hate crimes can be reinterpreted as a protest against something.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Seems like the courts (the lower court and now this one) found that the attackers thought of Israel as their target when attacking this synagogue, not the Jewish people.

Now these Palestinians might very well be (most likely are) also anti-semitic, but that doesn't change the fact that both courts during the course of their investigations found the attacker's primary motivation to be an attack of protest against Israeli policy of that time and wanting to call attention to the issue, by attacking one of Israel's perceived proxies in Germany.

Whether their target was appropriately chosen for that to be effective is not the issue, this decision concerns the motivation of the attackers.

But the motivation is attack something Jewish, because of Israel. How is that intent not antisemitic? They attack it because it was Jewish. What you intent with that attack is doesn't matter, if the attack itself is already antisemitic.

If someone is attacked because of their race or religion, how is that not a hate crime? That you want to call "attention" to some issue with that, doesn't change the nature of the attack.

Because the firebomber didn't bomb it because they were Jews, but because he made the connection that Jews = Israel and he wanted to bomb something Israel.

That's dumb in itself, but it doesn't make his act anti-Semitic, I can't really find that much fault in the courts reasoning on that front.

But if you attack it because you think Jews = Israel, then you attack it for being Jewish, thus it is antisemitic.

 

[legend166]

How do you get a suspended sentence for bombing a building?

 

[DrunkShogun]

It's anti Semitic. Might be due to issues with Israel but when your target is a synagogue, you've clearly chose Jewish people as the target.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Because the firebomber didn't bomb it because they were Jews, but because he made the connection that Jews = Israel and he wanted to bomb something Israel.

That's dumb in itself, but it doesn't make his act anti-Semitic, I can't really find that much fault in the courts reasoning on that front.

If someone bombs a mosque because because Muslims = Islamic State, what do we call it?

 

[Lucumo]

Because the firebomber didn't bomb it because they were Jews, but because he made the connection that Jews = Israel and he wanted to bomb something Israel.

That's dumb in itself, but it doesn't make his act anti-Semitic, I can't really find that much fault in the courts reasoning on that front.

I agree (apart from the fact that it was a group of three Palestinian-born German residents and not just one person) and the court ruling is perfectly fine.

 

[Haunted]

But the motivation is attack something Jewish, because of Israel. How is that intent not antisemitic? They attack it because it was Jewish. What you intent with that attack is doesn't matter, if the attack itself is already antisemitic.

If someone is attacked because of their race or religion, how is that not a hate crime? That you want to call "attention" to some issue with that, doesn't change the nature of the attack.


But if you attack it because you think Jews = Israel, then you attack it for being Jewish, thus it is antisemitic.

This is not about interpreting the nature of the attack, this is about determining the intent of the attackers. The attackers wanted to attack something standing for Isreal to protest against Israeli policy.

You could make the argument that they were being (unintentionally?) anti-semitic in their ignorance/stupidity by assuming Synagogue = Israel , but that didn't seem to be the primary focus of this investigation.


Seeing how it's a regional court (Wuppertaler Landgericht), there's still quite a few instances to go, maybe higher courts will be more inclined to see this incident in the grander scheme of things instead of narrowly focusing on the intent of the attackers, if the prosecution chooses to pursue this further.

 

[Nightbird]

Eh, even tough the attack was politically motivated, the act was still anti-semetic.

It's like a white european attacking a white south-african for being african.

You can't say it's not a racially motivated attack because the victim is white too.

I don't know what the court had in mind while making this decision, but i don't support it

 

[Kinyou]

I don't get the reasoning of the court at all. Maybe they were trying to protest israel, but how is it not a hate crime if they do this by targeting random jews?

 

[norinrad]

Well I'm no judge but in a democracy if you disagree with the court, you could always appeal.

Time to investigate whether all involved are members of the AFD.

 

[Violet_0]

Time to investigate whether all involved are members of the AFD.

unlikely

trio of Palestinian-born German residents

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

This is fucked up. Let's go bomb a mosque in New York because ISIS.

 

[Matt]

I would think that taking anger at Israel and conflating that with action against Jews would be an inherently anti-Semitic act.

 

[ClosingADoor]

This is not about interpreting the nature of the attack, this is about determining the intent of the attackers. The attackers wanted to attack something standing for Isreal to protest against Israeli policy.

You could make the argument that they were being (unintentionally?) anti-semitic in their ignorance/stupidity by assuming Synagogue = Israel , but that didn't seem to be the primary focus of this investigation.


Seeing how it's a regional court (Wuppertaler Landgericht), there's still quite a few instances to go, maybe higher courts will be more inclined to see this incident in the grander scheme of things instead of narrowly focusing on the intent of the attackers, if the prosecution chooses to pursue this further.

But by this line an attack on a Catholic church because you want to "protest" against the Vatican, or an attack on a mosque because you want to "protest" against Saudi Arabia is also not a hate crime, despite picking the targets based on their religious character. Seems to me the primary focus is attacking something based on religion, making it a hate crime.

I hope it gets overruled in a higher court.

 

[Irminsul]

Btw., that article doesn't really describe what actually happened. No court ruled anything this week.

The second-level court convicted two Palestinians in January last year, sentencing them to 23 and 24 months jail on parole, respectively. It wasn't explicitly deemed an anti-semitic act, but a harsher sentence than what the first-level court ruled. (Source, German)

In German law, both defence lawyer and prosecution can appeal the ruling and make their case what the ruling should be; on a higher-level court, the sentence can only go in the direction of the appeal (which is why often, both sides appeal a ruling). The prosecution wanted to get the Palestinians in jail without parole (with the same jail time) and the act deemed explicitly anti-semitic, but they withdrew their appeal shortly before the hearing on the higher-level court, probably because they made a deal with the defence lawyer. (Source, German)

Later last year, one of the perpetrators appealed the ruling. To be more precise, he used something called "Revision" in German law, which can only be used to go against errors of law in the ruling; there is no new hearing of evidence. In November 2016, a higher-level court ruled that this appeal was unfounded.

On 6 January, 2017 (now we're finally entering this year!), the second-level court simply stated the the ruling was final. (Source, German)

Well I'm no judge but in a democracy if you disagree with the court, you could always appeal.

Exactly, which is why the article is wrong.

 

[Haunted]

But by this line an attack on a Catholic church because you want to "protest" against the Vatican, or an attack on a mosque because you want to "protest" against Saudi Arabia is also not a hate crime, despite picking the targets based on their religious character. Seems to me the primary focus is attacking something based on religion, making it a hate crime.

I hope it gets overruled in a higher court.

Well yes, all I can tell you is that in those instances, just as they did in this case, the police and the courts would investigate if the perpetrators in their drunken stupor would actually have acted on political motivation for protesting against Israeli policy (or Vatican policy or Saudi-Arabian policy) and attacked a perceived proxy because there there were no objects of these states to protest and rule accordingly.

Btw., that article doesn't really describe what actually happened. No court ruled anything this week.

The second-level court convicted two Palestinians in January last year, sentencing them to 23 and 24 months jail on parole, respectively. It wasn't explicitly deemed an anti-semitic act, but a harsher sentence than what the first-level court ruled. (Source, German)

In German law, both defence lawyer and prosecution can appeal the ruling and make their case what the ruling should be; on a higher-level court, the sentence can only go in the direction of the appeal (which is why often, both sides appeal a ruling). The prosecution wanted to get the Palestinians in jail without parole (with the same jail time) and the ruling deemed explicitly anti-semitic, but they withdrew their appeal shortly before the hearing on the higher-level court, probably because they made a deal with the defence lawyer. (Source, German)

Later last year, one of the perpetrators appealed the ruling. To be more precise, he used something called "Revision" in German law, which can only be used to go against errors of law in the ruling; there is no new hearing of evidence. In November 2016, a higher-level court ruled that this appeal was unfounded.

On 6 January, 2017 (now we're finally entering this year!), the second-level court simply stated the the ruling was final. (Source, German)


Exactly, which is why the article is wrong.

Thanks for the clarification. Law is fucking confusing.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Germany learned nothing from the Holocaust it seems. Jews and Roma people are fair game both there and throughout most of Europe. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Germany learned nothing from the Holocaust it seems. Jews and Roma people are fair game both tgeir and throughout most of Europe. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The worst part is the Israeli government will use these kind of incidents to further justify their view that Israel has a right to do whatever it wants to guarantee its safety.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Well yes, all I can tell you is that in those instances, just as they did in this case, the police and the courts would investigate if the perpetrators in their drunken stupor would actually have acted on political motivation for protesting against Israeli policy (or Vatican policy or Saudi-Arabian policy) and attacked a perceived proxy because there there were no objects of these states to protest and rule accordingly.

But the political motivation makes it a hate crime already because of the target. You target people from a certain race or religion because you see that as a tie with that country. That should make it a hate crime. They are not attacking an object of that state, but people they see as being part of it.

And "drunken stupor" and "no objects of these states to protest". These guys threw a molotov cocktail. I feel that is kind of downplaying the crime.

 

[paperboywriter]

Germany learned nothing from the Holocaust it seems. Jews and Roma people are fair game both tgeir and throughout most of Europe. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

GO FUCK yourself. Just because one court ruled a specific thing a certain way doesnt mean everyone in Germany is agreeing with it.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Ummm..what? lol.

GO FUCK yourself. Just because one court ruled a specific thing a certain way doesnt mean everyone in Germany is agreeing with it.

 

[El Topo]

The political classification of crime in Germany has a rather long and unfortunate history. This is not *that* surprising. That said, for this particular case, see Irminsul's excellent post.