Not every anti-Semite goes around with a sign declaring the fact, but when someone acts against Jews without any reason, it generally states that very truth. That is, unless he is wearing the uniform of a police officer!
When a gang of minority people (Arabs) assaults an innocent 47-year-old Jew, beats him to a bloody pulp in a dark woods, leaving him wounded and bleeding, this is undoubtedly an anti-Semitic crime. But this is not what a Haifa court thought when it ruled that this was not a terrorist act as is defined by law, because it was perpetrated at night, in a deserted place and without any outward signs of signs of terror. How are such symbols defined? Only the court knows.
But those violent rioters were sentenced a mere fifty months in jail, despite the fact that their victim was brought to a hospital in severe condition, remaining there for many long days, suffering from critical wounds from the beating exacted on him only because of his bad luck of passing by that ill-fated spot where evil people were looking for a victim to attack for no reason whatsoever.
But there is something reassuring about this: that the punishment assigned to the violent band from the north is more severe than the sentence passed by a court in France on an Algerian care giver who attempted to poison the members of the family who employed her. She worked for this Jewish family for a long time, becoming almost a member — until the day of the massacre on Jews when her relationship towards them changed significantly and she decided to poison them by inserting poisonous cleaning ingredients into their food and drink.
In court, the family insisted that she acted thus from anti-Semitic motives as witnessed by the anti-Semitic phrases which she spouted after her arrest. Notwithstanding, the French court decided not to define her attempt of poisoning as such and sentenced this woman who sought to kill a whole family with a mere two and a half years of imprisonment.
It seems that the juridical systems in Israel and across the sea labor under identical lines. It is not sufficient that an Arab seeks to kill a Jew for no reason whatsoever in order that it be defined as an anti-Semitic act. If this is the case in an Israeli court, there is no reason why in France, the court should decide differently.
