Blume was embroiled in a small scandal after he referred to Jüdische Stimme as “ostensibly Jewish” on Twitter
Blume demurred, claiming that, while he was happy to accept anyone’s self-definition as Jewish as a matter of personal religious freedom, he was not sure whether the group’s members counted as members of the Jewish religious communities that are legal partners of the German state
In Germany, membership in religious communities is regulated by state-designated institutions, meaning that to be officially Jewish, one must join the Jüdische Gemeinde, the state-affiliated Jewish community
Thanks. So he explicitely was not talking about whether individual persons are jewish or not.
Instead he was questioning if an organisation (that mobilized to a “Glory to the resistance” demonstration on 7th of October 2024) is actually involving a significant amount of people from jewish communities. Which is still shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism, but also different from trying to decide if individual people are jewish or not. And he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take.
The last paragraph is factually wrong though. There are religious communities who are Öffentlich-rechtliche Religionsgesellschaften, but you don’t have to adhere to these regulations.
You could perhaps read the first part as that, a matter of % of Jewish people in an organization rather than one of ‘true’ Jewishness of the members identifying as Jews. Your reading is very generous to him.
But from the second commend it’s obvious it’s the latter. He is attacking the Jewishness of Jewish members of that organization. That he does it en mass does not make it better.
I don’t have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion. It is not relevant that it is wrong. The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.
Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.
I don’t have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion.
Understandable. But when the discussion is about German law, German sources are to be expected.
It is not relevant that it is wrong.
If it’s not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.
The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.
Yes, as I said: the “Jewishness” of the people should not matter when you’re attacking their arguments. And yes, he is very obvioulsy trying to defend this instead of admitting that he shouldn’t have said that.
Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.
OP’s claim was that official call anti-zionist Jews ‘allegedly Jewish’ (ostensibly actually, a synonym) and that they decided if they are “bad” or “good” Jews. It seems obvious to me from the choice of words as well as the punctuation he is not referring to official acts but bias of the official. Which may well affect their official decisions.
If it’s not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.
Are the communities not the ones referred to by the commissioner in his defense? That makes them relevant. If the article is wrong that you have to be part of such a community to be “officially” Jewish it’s irrelevant, the issue is that the commissioner tried to defend his position by appealing to them.
You are much quicker to attack the OP, the article, me than the commissioner.
You are much quicker to attack the OP, the article, me than the commissioner.
OP makes a claim, I asked for a source. That’s not an attack.
And how is on the other hand “he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job)” and “shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism,” and “he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take” not an “attack” against the commissioner?
Thanks. So he explicitely was not talking about whether individual persons are jewish or not.
Instead he was questioning if an organisation (that mobilized to a “Glory to the resistance” demonstration on 7th of October 2024) is actually involving a significant amount of people from jewish communities. Which is still shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism, but also different from trying to decide if individual people are jewish or not. And he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take.
The last paragraph is factually wrong though. There are religious communities who are Öffentlich-rechtliche Religionsgesellschaften, but you don’t have to adhere to these regulations.
You could perhaps read the first part as that, a matter of % of Jewish people in an organization rather than one of ‘true’ Jewishness of the members identifying as Jews. Your reading is very generous to him.
But from the second commend it’s obvious it’s the latter. He is attacking the Jewishness of Jewish members of that organization. That he does it en mass does not make it better.
I don’t have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion. It is not relevant that it is wrong. The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.
Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.
Understandable. But when the discussion is about German law, German sources are to be expected.
If it’s not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.
Yes, as I said: the “Jewishness” of the people should not matter when you’re attacking their arguments. And yes, he is very obvioulsy trying to defend this instead of admitting that he shouldn’t have said that.
OP’s claim was that official call anti-zionist Jews ‘allegedly Jewish’ (ostensibly actually, a synonym) and that they decided if they are “bad” or “good” Jews. It seems obvious to me from the choice of words as well as the punctuation he is not referring to official acts but bias of the official. Which may well affect their official decisions.
Are the communities not the ones referred to by the commissioner in his defense? That makes them relevant. If the article is wrong that you have to be part of such a community to be “officially” Jewish it’s irrelevant, the issue is that the commissioner tried to defend his position by appealing to them.
You are much quicker to attack the OP, the article, me than the commissioner.
OP makes a claim, I asked for a source. That’s not an attack.
And how is on the other hand “he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job)” and “shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism,” and “he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take” not an “attack” against the commissioner?
edit: anyway, I have spend enough time on this.