You invited my response. And now you are basically telling me, in very polite terms, to fuck off. I don't take it as an offense, and I don't mind fucking off when asked as politely as you did.
But your arguments do not stand up to the standards I proposed. Nor do they stand up to the standards you are proposing. Your proposition is, and I quote: "Not all intel said to be for internal use really is". While you claim your statement to constitute the single exclusion that renders the whole report invalid, it does nothing of the sort. On the contrary, your statement presumes a multitude of interpretations. Those interpretations include a whole range of options, including most of intel being what it is said to be, some of intel being what it is said to be, and none of intel being what it is said to be. The latter, by your own admission, is by no means single or exclusive. Your statement neither precludes the report from being valid, nor does it preclude the report from being invalid. A rather strange justification for summarily rejecting the report.
Having said the above, there is never a mention that the report was meant exclusively for internal use. On the contrary, the report was presented in the context of a public forum. Nevertheless, it was presented to members of Israeli government and was accompanied by collected data, all made available for verification by the general public.
The mentions other probable sources of antisemitic incidents, while missing from the article, are not necessarily missing from the report. They may have simply not be merited a mention in comparison to other, more significant sources.Something tells me the number of thosesources would fill a book, not just a newspaper article.
I hope the above will entertain you for a minute or so. That's plenty for a reasonable person to see the flaws in your logic. Oh, and I do resent the insinuation that my perspective contains lies.
= new reply since forum marked as read