Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

I had problems with the thirteen points

Here's why: it implies that a criticism of a given group of people, when forming a nation, and taking a specific political course (in that nation), is (by way of criticism) an indictment of the people of the nation. That would imply that americans are anti-native, jewish people are anti-gentile, or that criticising nazi germany is anti-german. While I agree with some of the 13 points, in totality, the points argue that if Israel murdered every non-jew in it's borders, and was criticised for doing as such, the criticism would be "anti-semitic", rather than "anti-current-Israeli-policy". Ronabop 09:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It does not imply so, just the opposite. From the removed text: "...none of this is intended to suggest that Israel is somehow above the law, or that Israel is not to be held accountable for any violations of law. On the contrary — Israel is accountable for any violations of international law or human rights like any other state." Cotler is an authority enough to be quoted in an encyclopedia. Let's have a serious discussion if possible, simply removing the section doesn't fly. --Humus sapiens|Talk 18:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What about point 2: Political anti-Semitism (a): the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the Jewish people's right to self-determination? This seems to mean that a non-zionist is an anti-semite. Point 3 makes this even more clear. If you go against the core of Jewish self-definition at any moment in time, which according to the author includes Israel, you are an anti-semite. Besides, point 3 is incredibly broad. For instance, it is hard to deny that the current Jewish self-definition includes the belief that the Messias has not yet come. Therefore, any Christian would go against the core of Jewish self-definition and is therefore an anti-semite. On the other hand, some of the points are not political and very good indicators of 'old' anti-semitism (1 and 10-13). However, the other points simply employ the doublespeak of 'new' anti-semitism. Instead of simply arguing about Israel's politics in terms of fairness, legality, etc, a word with nasty implications is used to attack the opponent. It reeks very much of the word 'anti-revolutionary,' which was used by Stalin to eliminate all opposition, simply by associating someone or something with it (or communism with McCarthy). 'New' anti-semitism is similarly malleable, especially when defined by these 13 points. The result is that the meaning of 'anti-semitism' becomes part of the debate and it becomes very difficult to claim that everyone should be against anti-semitism. The reason is that the word has been disassociated from it's original meaning and reduced to a political tool to score easy points.

The statement by Cotler that he doesn't want to deny people the right to criticize Israel is a sham. When he feels that you are unfair towards Israel (which happens very quickly), he will start accusing you of anti-semitism. At that point you can no longer have a meaningful debate. This is described very well by Klug in The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism (page 2).

As a general aside, in todays society, it seems very common for criticism versus the policy of a state to be considered personal. As an example, people who disagree with the policies of the American government are often called anti-American, with the assumption that that person also hates Americans. Similarly, certain actions by the French government are often taken personally against the French people. In such a dishonest climate, it is not surprising that criticism of Israel is considered to be anti-Jewish. --Wfzelle 15:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The right to self-determination is a human right. If you deny this right to Jews, you deny it to Palestinians as well. Moreover, self-determination need not mean statehood (this is an issue concerning Kurds for example, vis a vis Turkey and Iraq). Also, I wouldn't read no. 3 as saying that Christianity is inherently anti-semitic, although most Jews think it is -- or is anti-Jewish or something for which we do not have a good name (because Christianity claims a universality while refusing to recognize different people's right to be distinct). In any event, to respect someone's core beliefs does not mean that you have to agree with them, right? Slrubenstein

Self-determination does not mean that you have the right to expel others from their lands.

You state that Israel does not have a right to expell others from their lands. So you do agree that Jews do have a right to self-determination, in general or in principle? Slrubenstein
In principle & in general (is there a difference?), I don't believe that people of a certain faith (Jewish, Christian, Muslim or whatever) have a right to their own country. For instance, I also disagree with the Arabic state as desired by Bin Laden and his ilk. Now, it is true that Jews have been persecuted for a long time and that is a reason for giving them their own country (again, I don't want to get into the debate whether it is sufficient justification or what that country should be), but then we are talking about an exception to the rule. The rule is that you should try to use democratic means to 'get your way' within the country that you live. For instance, US Jews have the right and the ability to get their voices heard in politics. They are not discriminated against or denied their own culture. In some other countries that is not possible, but even then, there is no right to a seperate state, but people should either try to work within the current system or flee to a country where they have this possibility.
AFAIK, all this nonsense about this human right to self-determination comes from a biased reading of the UN's Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that "All peoples have the right of self-determination." However, peoples clearly refers to a state as a whole (certainly in the context of the entire document) and does not grant that right to an individual or an ethnic or religious group. Wfzelle

Would Afro-Americans have the right to take an American state and kick all others out? Do catholics have the right to do the same? I don't think so. Jews have been living outside of Israel for thousands of years and they don't have the right to suddenly go back and kick the people out who were living there. What would happen if everyone could do so? The US would stop existing for one, since it would be given back to the Indians. Clearly unrealistic and unacceptable.

No, the only reason why the creation of Israel was allowed was the Holocaust. Jews were allowed something which is hardly ever tolerated (N-Cyprus, Kurds, Kosovo). Now, I don't want to argue about the wisdom of doing so, but it is clearly not true that Israel had a right to exist in international law or when compared to other UN decisions about new states. To claim this as a human right or to compare it to the Palestinians who were already there (and who might have not been allowed a seperate state if Israel wouldn't have existed) is quite deceitful.

As for Christianity being anti-semitic, you must clearly have missed Enlightment and the rise of secularity. Non-fundamentalist Christians do not claim universality or refuse to recognize different people's right to be distinct (within the limits of law, of course).

You must clearly not have read or understand what I wrote. Slrubenstein
This is what I understood, please explain to me what you meant by "Christianity claims a universality while refusing to recognize different people's right to be distinct," especially with regard to Judaism. Wfzelle

Finally, respect for someone's core beliefs does not require agreement, but it does require enough commonality of basic norms and values. I cannot respect a belief which requires the killing of innocent people for instance (such as the attacks by Hamas on civilian targets or 9/11).

It is insulting on its face, and perhaps anti-Semitic, to suggest that Judaism requires killing innocent people. Slrubenstein
I wanted to give an example of extreme beliefs that I cannot respect. I explicitly used the examples of Hamas and 9/11 because I didn't want you to see this as an attack on Israel, but somehow you were able to see it that way. Wfzelle

Israel is also doing many things which go against my norms and values.

Like many Zionists and Jews, you can criticize many of those things. Expelling people from their land, or detaining people illegally, or assasinating people are certainly not core beliefs of Judaism. In any event, "criticism" implies non-agreement. The point that one can respect someone else's core beliefs without agreeing with them stands. Slrubenstein
It is you who sees criticism of Israel as criticism of Judaism. The point of the 'new anti-semitism' debate is that they are not the same. You seem to agree with me because you say: Israeli politics != Judaism politics, so why do you accuse me of criticising Judaism??? Wfzelle

The Israeli government (and its supporters) also want to deny me the right to honestly talk about my grievances, by calling it anti-semitism (a new Godwin's law it seems).

Calling you an anti-Semite does not deny you any rights. In the United States, at least, even anti-Semites enjoy the right to free speech, protected by law. That does not mean that others have to agree with you. For you or anyone to demand that others agree is to deny others the right to free speech. Slrubenstein
First of all, anti-semitism is (rightly so) forbidden in my country. Secondly, I do not require that someone agrees with me, but I don't want to be demonized. It is similar to being called a child rapist (without evidence). Technically it might not take any rights away from you, but in practice, people will think "If there is smoke, there is fire" and your life will be affected. That is also why there are slander & libel laws, even in the US. Clearly, free speech does not give you the right to malign people unfairly.
Now, people are free to call me unfair towards Israel or otherwise attack my arguments in a respectful manner, but the right to free speech does not give them the right to slander me. Wfzelle

Using those dishonest tactics also goes against my norms and values and makes me respect the person who uses those tactics less.
--Wfzelle 12:09, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Cotler warns that none of this is intended to suggest that Israel is somehow above the law, or that Israel is not to be held accountable for any violations of law. On the contrary — Israel is accountable for any violations of international law or human rights like any other state.[7]

On the contrary, it is because of these lying and hypocritical DOUBLE-STANDARDS of being somehow "above the law" that has been the actual "root" cause of Gentile People's "anti-Semitism" or "anti-Jewishness" or "anti-Zionism" or "anti-Holocaust Extortion" or "anti-CENSORSHIP of Political correctness", etc. ad nauseum. -PV

This world is not fair. I have read something about the earliest German jet pilot's fates -- When they were shot down, they were denied of human rights, because they were flying a more advanced aircraft than the US's. Probably in Adolf Galland's autobiography but I am not sure.
But how about the B-17s or, later, B-29s? German bombers were smaller. Did the Luftwaffe deny B-17 crew's rights?
Personally, I think those GIs and "private contractors" in Iraq do not deserve any protection once they are caught by the Iraqis. They have much superior weapons and training. The Iraqis have nothing. No one could even sell any weapons to them. The whole war is like the movie Independence Day, only this time the flying saucer guys are from the US. Did the US ever care about other people's rights? Since in the movie you did not care about alien invaders' rights (same in the real world). Your rights shall not be honored.
Do I need to elaborate my points further?
In my opinion, most people of the US are whiners. They demand to be treated equally and that has to be more equal than others.
Look, I did not say anything about the Jews, Judaism as a religion or lifestyle or political faith. Nor did I draw an analogy between the US and the State of Israel. You can call me a shameless US-basher, but I am not anti-Semitic. -- Toytoy

Denying self-determination to Jews alone

Back to "expelling others" and denying self-determination. Jews have accepted various partition plans (most notably 1947),

I guess they've kept those borders, then? No expansion, no occupation, no green line, no illegal "settlements".... uh.... Even though they keep expanding, arguments against colonialism expansion are not wholly anti-semitic. Ronabop 06:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
You start a war of aggression - you lose territory, that's how it always works throughout history. Did Germany keep its borders after it had lost WW1 or WW2? Do you call Polish, Czech, French, Russians, etc. who live now from E. Prussia to Silesia to Sudeten to Alsace "illegal settlers" or "colonialists" ? Is the US going to return the "illegally occupied" strip from CA to TX back to Mexico? Lesson: next time don't start aggressive wars. --Humus sapiens|Talk 09:15, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Not since the Geneva accords. Participate in a war of agression, you keep the original lands before the war, not any new ones. Afghanistan is not a new part of the US, nor is Greneda, or Panama, or Iraq. Winning nations get no new land, period. Sorry. Welcome to civilization. Ronabop 11:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Arabs have rejected every single one which allowed any Jewish state, and started one war of extermination after another, and after failing in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 are now attempting to achieve the same genocidal goals by terrorism.

The behavior of some (or even all) Arab states doesn't justify equally repugnant behavior by Israel. There should be no double standard. To deny a government power to arbitrarily determine borders is a simple matter. Neither the arab states, nor Israel, doing it in the name of "self-determination", is acceptable. The Geneva conventions forbid it. Ronabop 06:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Equally repugnant? Five huge Arab nations, repeatedly attempting to exterminate a tiny Jewish state and throw those Jews into the sea, and OTOH the people who accepted various partitions, who defended themselves in order to live in peace with their neighbors, to trade and prosper? Those repugnant Joos, still want to survive! --Humus sapiens|Talk 08:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
They can pull back and survive on the UN (1947) land. Their nation has chosen not to. And BTW, could you cease using tired terms like "genocide" and "throw them into the sea", as this is wikipedia, not a labour/likud debate. Quite a few (including arab) nations have recognized Israel, within '67(!) boundaries. Ronabop 11:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The Arabs have 22 huge and resource-rich states but prefer to deny Jews a single tiny sliver of land where Jewish presence is uninterrupted for 3.5 millenia, way before the Arab settlers came from Arabia or way before the Islamic conquests of the 7th century.

Nice spin, if highly debatable (what were the original settlers there? Japanese?). Christians have had a presence there for just as long, (as christianity is a sect of Judaism) so maybe the christians could claim it as their home state, and "get angry that jews are trying to take their homeland from them." :) It's still not an argument against (or for) jews as an ethnography, or race,, it's an argument about territory. Ronabop 06:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
So maybe let's start another peace process? No it's not about territory, it's about intolerance and inability to compromise. Remember: no negotiations, no peace, no recognition? --Humus sapiens|Talk 09:15, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Kill another Yitzak Rabin to end another solution? Elect Sharon? I think that's already happened. Multiple compromises have been offered, but almost all of them required Israel to accept a right for refugees to return. Israel refused to allow natural citizens to return. Those citizen refugees might vote, afterall. Can't have that. Ronabop 11:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Visited a working synagogue in Saudi Arabia lately? Talk about "expelling others". --Humus sapiens|Talk 04:06, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. No matter how cruel and violent the rest of the world is to the majority people of any nation, that nation doesn't then earn the right to be above reproach for their actions. Nor do they earn a right to attempt to deflect from their actions by complaining that other nations are treating their people in hostile ways. Ronabop 06:36, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I did not imply that. All I'd like to see is the same standard applied to all. It's time to stop pointing the blaming finger at a Jew. --Humus sapiens|Talk 09:15, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Point the blaming finger at Israel *and* an arab nation, then. Don't blame the arabs for lack of compromises when Israel refuses to honor its 1947, or even 1968, boundaries, and blame both parties for the insanity. Ronabop 11:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion belongs on a different page (Israel, Israel-Palestine conflict), not here. This article simply states, accurately, that one person claims (reasonably, in my opinion) that attacks on Israel may and have been veiled forms of anti-Semitism. It does not claim that all or any attack on Israel is anti-semitic. If someone is so convinced that their criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, then do not bring it up on the anti-Semitism talk page. Moreover, talk pages are only for improving articles. This is not a list serve or discussion group and not a venue for expressing personal opinions. Slrubenstein

The EUMC recently issued a two reports on anti-semitism in europe and whether or not there are links to anti-zionism. suprised that they are not referenced here. http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=1

A precursor to that report was in the encyclopedia a while back, but I removed it. One of the problems was that there was no clear point made by referencing the report. The report's main purpose seems to be collect data about anti-semitism, but it is the first study of its kind, so it cannot be used to prove an increase or decrease in anti-semitism (since no baseline exists).
As for the links to anti-zionism, this is already explored in the encyclopedia. The report does not add anything, as it mirrors what is already under discussion. Basically, anti-zionism is not regarded as anti-semitism, unless "Israel is seen as being representative of 'the Jew'". That is so obvious and non-commital that it can be accepted by the groups who push 'new anti-semitism' and those who are against the use of the term. The difference between the groups is how easy they blame people for being anti-semitic when Israel is criticized. The report does not dare to take a real standpoint on that matter.
So concluding, you are free to add the report if you can make a nice story around it. For instance, I see a good story in the report's conclusions that the perpetrators of hostility against Jews are now often Muslims (where it used to be the extreme right) and that the situation in the Middle East is a strong influence (perception of Israel as hurting Muslims leads to anti-semitism, since Israel is considered to be 'Jewish'). --Wfzelle 15:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Alleged

I suggest we rename Alleged modern manifestations of anti-Semitism into Modern anti-Semitism. Alternative: rename most of WP articles to start with word "alleged". Except Harry Potter, of course. --Humus sapiens|Talk 01:58, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Humus sapiens|Talk 01:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

List of antisemites

Moved this to talk: See also: List of anti-Semites. Since AS-ism is not a formal club, the list will be highly controversial. I don't think it belongs to a serious encyclopedia and deserves a VfD. --Humus sapiens|Talk 18:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I have removed this new paragraph from an anonymous user, and would like to explain why. This paragraph is from a Christian group that i attempting to convert Jews away from Judaism, and into a fundamentalist form of Christianity. A very large percent of Jews see these "messainic Jewish" groups as subtly anti-semitic themselves, even if members of these groups do not. Most Jews, even secular Jews, bristle at their theology and beliefs - which teach that all adherents of Judaism will burn forever in hell unless they renounce their traditional faith and accept Jesus as their messiah. Rightly or wrongly, Jews who hear this view are angered and offended, and will react with hostility. For Jewish readers, seeing members of such a group weigh in on anti-Semitism is a deliberate insult. (Many liberal Christians and Catholics also do not like such groups, for other reasons: While they agree with Christianity, they see messianic Judaism as false advertising in the name of Jesus.) Given the hundreds of other authorities we can quote, both Christian and Jewish, I see no need to quote this figure in the article, as I suspect it will cause multiple flame-wars. RK

Messianic Renewed Rebbe Julio Dam defines anti-Semitism in light of its spiritual origins thus: "It is the demonization of the Jews and their religion by ha satan, so that their conexion with the only true Elohim/"God" cannot be pursued. This was especially done in such a way so that the early followers of the Jewish Messianic newly found faith because they could not accept joining a Jewish movement such as Messianic Judaism, led by the Rebbe Yeshuah in the first Century of our Era.Thus was Christianity first unofficially founded by the "Fathers of the Church," all of them furious anti-Semites, which led to the founding, in 321, of the Roman Catholic Church. What Rebbe Dam calls "the FIRST Reformation, that of Luther´s, did not diminish in any way anti-Semitism, but only continued its long and painful (for the Jews) His-story.

 (See his article "Is there Anti-Semitism in the Church?" at: [[1]]

"Denying the right of Jews for a state is indicative of considering Jews inferior."

"Denying the right of Mancunians for a state is indicative of considering Mancunians inferior."

"Denying the right of Gypsies for a state is indicative of considering Gypsies inferior."

"Denying the right of Welshmen for a state is indicative of considering Welshmen inferior."

"Denying the right of Frisians for a state is indicative of considering Frisians inferior."

"Denying the right of Basques for a state is indicative of considering Basques inferior."

Hmmm... doesn't work for me no matter what ethnicity you substitute. - Mustafaa 07:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. In other places you argue that all Palestinians ever wanted is their own state (that would make 23 for Arabs). Not anymore? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nope. All I want for the Palestinians is their own land back. The state is a second-best solution, although sadly they will probably be forced to settle for it. - Mustafaa 19:29, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
All I want for Sudeten Germans is their own land back. All I want for Jewish refugees from Arab countries is their own land back. All I want for American Indians is their own land back. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 18:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sounds great, in all three cases. Or would you rather endorse the theft? - Mustafaa 19:31, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No I won't. To make this discussion relevant to the subject of the article, may I suggest you work on those before advocating etnic cleansing of the Land of Israel from Jews. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 19:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The ethnic cleansing in Palestine is about 80% complete - and it wasn't an ethnic cleansing of Jews... - Mustafaa 20:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see, then you have a good reason to edit this article. You also forgot the wells poisoning and using DU bullets. Last time I checked, Arabs in Israel prosper and enjoy all freedoms of democracy, unlike Jews in Muslim countries (about a million in 1948, almost non-existent today). Blaming those mean Jews for Arab rejection of every one of numerous partition plans, or for winning existential wars waged against Israel or for not absorbing hostile population is misleading. Curiously, at the same time Jews are being accused in having victimhood mentality, or being overly sensitive. This is my last msg in this thread. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I see - so those irrational Palestinians are to blame for not being allowed to return to Israel because, for some unfathomable reason, they were hostile to the movement that had exiled them and stolen their land! Nice one. - Mustafaa 01:16, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The issue is far more complex, Mustafaa. Just who "exiled" the Palestinians, and whether or not it was "their" land or "stolen" are hotly debated, and central to the issue. As for the question of "return", the vast majority of the Palestinians still live in "Palestine", and the vast majority who wish to "return" to the State of Israel have never lived there. As I said, the issue is far more complex than the shouted slogans would have one believe. Not that the debate is overwhelmingly relevant to an article on anti-Semitism, except perhaps as a putative cause for it.Jayjg 18:30, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

note

I have considereably reworked parts of this article. To begin with, I substituted inflammatory language like "hatred" and "contempt" with the more neutral "prejudice". I also removed the two quotes in the intro. "An encyclopedia article is a work of synthesis, not regurgitating raw source materials" (who said that?). Quotes are useful for representing specific POVs, which in this case is not the case. I also merged the Roots of Anti-Semitism and Background of Anti-Semitism sections and adjusted the section hierarchy somewhat. -- Viajero 10:03, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simonides keeps deleting sources and facts which back up the claims in this article, and then he makes polemical remarks about howthe resurgence of anti-Semitism is untrue and baseless. Well of course the article may appear baseless if he keeps deleting all the source material and references. But he is the one doing the censoring! Unless he wishes to accuse the EU, the Secretary General of the UN, all of he recently cited authors, and the ADL all of conspiring to lie about this rise in anti-Semitic activity, we can only conclude that he is a crank trying to make it look like Jews are liars. We shoudl not let this troll vandalize the article. RK 00:58, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I mostly agree with RK on this point. Regardless of whether or not there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism, it's been widely reported that some people allege there is, so we of course should report that as well. Perhaps Wikipedia should not say "there has been a rise in anti-Semitism", but we should certainly say something like "Several groups have noted a rise in anti-Semitism, among them [blah blah], who say, 'blah blah' [1]". We can't just ignore something that's widespread enough that Kofi Annan made a speech about it. --Delirium 06:20, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delirium, our rather over-sensitive friend is prone to exaggeration, to put it mildly. Why don't you check the differences between RK's version of the article and mine, and report back to me on what is being ignored - (a quote by a talk-show host, which hardly counts for objective and authoritative opinion, and a second quote from Cotler's article in FrontPageMag (heh) which repeats the earlier quote that is also linked) - and let me know which version is closer to factual accuracy and NPOV. I did not notice the links RK added later, so their removal was an honest mistake, but most of his "information" is not objectively and independently verifiable; not to mention I had to make corrections to his own links, dates and names. -- Simonides 07:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Simonides also removed this quote, absolutely relevant to the straw-man section:

In his speech) given at Berkeley University on April 29, 2004, Law Professor at Harvard University Law School Alan Dershowitz said, in particular: "Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic. That's just something made up by Israel's enemies."

The same sleazy tactics is being utilized in Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sources cesnored by Simonides

A number of political and social leaders in the European Union have become concerned with the new wave of anti-Semitism that is sweeping over Europe. As such, a report on this phenomenon was written at the Center for Research on Anti-Semitism, at the Technische Universität Berlin, Germany. This report was written on behalf of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC.) The February 2003 version of this report is available online

A number of researchers on anti-Semitism have written book-length treatments about this subject, including The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It, Phyllis Chesler (Jossey-Bass, 2003); The Return of Anti-Semitism by Gabriel Schoenfeld, Encounter Books, 2003; and Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism]] by Abraham Foxman, HarperSanFrancisco, 2003.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated on June 21, 2004, that "It is hard to believe that 60 years after the tragedy of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is once again rearing its head. But it is clear that we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of these phenomena in new forms and manifestations. This time the world must not, cannot, be silent." Anan then asked U.N. member states to adopt a resolution to fight anti-Semitism, and stated that the UN's Commission on Human Rights must study and expose anti-Semitism in the same way that it fights bias against Muslims. Anan stated "Are not Jews entitled to the same degree of concern and protection?"

Tikkun magazine ran a series of article on the resurgence of anti-Semitism across the world.

The Anti-Defamation League stated that: "The events of September 11, the American campaign against terrorism and the Palestinian intifada against Israel have created a dangerous atmosphere in the Middle East and Europe, one that 'gives anti-Semitism and hate and incitement a strength and power of seduction that it has never before had in history.'"

Calling anything that doesn't suit your POV censorship is a tired old canard. For anyone who is interested, please look at the edits made and the context for these changes, instead of listening to these hysterical yarns - I don't enjoy wasting my time on defending myself against outright lies, but this is for the benefit of observers. 1) The report was not removed, but balanced by reports which are contrary or provide balance to the article - there is, after all, no statistical data in the report, and the only statistical study made contradicts its conclusions - I suppose that makes the study "anti-Semitic" in RK's view; 2) the books RK mentions are all polemical, not factual, and I changed the passage to read that both those kinds of books and works opposing their views were frequently published. The titles removed are not "sources" because they are not factual works, just rants - look up the titles in a bookstore or on Amazon. 3) I removed the Annan statement because it is not based on any actual data - Annan and other politicians mention a new issue everyday, and one can't take them at their word because there is usually a motivation for such speeches, such as calming or escalating conflict for political ends; besides, there are already several quotes which say exactly the same thing, so why do we need more than one example of the same view? 3) When RK said he was reverting my article yesterday, I thought he simply replaced it with the old one, so I replaced it with mine again; I did not check to see whether he added new links, and deleting those was a mistake - he is welcome to have them on the page, and they are now. -- Simonides 22:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Simonides provides no sources

Simonides inserts into the article "However, apart from the claims made by special-interest groups, there is no almost no substantial evidence that anti-Semitism is prevalent among these social circles."

Simonides is making things up. There was a huge amount of evidence. Unfortunately, Simonides deleted most of the sources, and then childishly claimed that no sources exist. (Most sources have not yet been reinserted into the article.) That isn't expressing a different point of view; that is vandalism. We can't erase facts and sources from any of our articles, and then pout that such sources do not exist. RK 16:56, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
RK, there is no point in trying to argue this point with you, since you clearly cannot distinguish between rhetoric and fact. A source is something credible, not a random quote; if you want to quote, the quote should be backed up by data or contain a widely accepted point of view. It is not a widely established fact or accepted view that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe or in America - sporadic outburts do not necessarily equal a trend. -- Simonides 22:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What research groups have presented evidence that back up any of Simonides' claims? He provides none. What scholarly sources does he have? He shows us none. Who is accusing UN Secretary General and the European Union of lying? Simonides doesn't say. He just keeps on accusing the Jews (whom he refers to a "special interest groups") of lying. That isn't scholarship. Its just the same old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories we always see. Simonides is saying that "the special interests" (i.e. the Jews) have conspired to control the statements of the UN and the European Union, and of the many scholars who have documented this phenomenon. RK 16:56, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

There is no evidence for your claims, so I did not "claim" anything, I merely stated so. I did not say the Jews were special-interest groups - that's your usual paranoic interpretation, and if you want to stick to it, fine, but again, don't confuse opinion with fact. There are no actual scholarly documents for your claim, and for those that pretend to be scholarly, there are equally scholarly rebuttals, which deserve to be mention - the latter is called NPOV, not a willful omission of facts. -- Simonides 22:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Simonides is right on track. An article by BRIAN KLUG in the February 2, 2004, The Nation, "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism" [2], deflated these tired arguments. Yep, a growing number of people around the world are criticial of Israel and oppose its policies towards the Palestinians. Nope, this not anti-Semitism, but the distinction is probably lost on the zealots here. -- Viajero 18:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Viajero, I am trying to figure out how you couldbe confused. Please re-read the article. Simonides deleted multiple sources, then claimed that these sources do not exist. Without any exagerration, this behaviour is called "Lying to one's face", and is one of the definitions of trolling. Also, you seem very confused about that one magazine article. Let me enlighten you: Any person can make up any half-truths they want in a amagazine article, but this one man's view does not dispute any of the statistics and events described in the many sources this article once provided. Are you saying that one can rewrite history by deleting sources?! RK 00:13, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Also, this article is not about the policies of Israel towards Palestinians; I have no idea why you bring this up. The problem here was Simonides' repeated vandalism, and his conspiracy theory about "special interests", i.e. the Jews. Yet you are responding to statements that no one here is making, and issues that have nothing to do with this article's topic. If you want to issue polemics about the Jews and Palestinians, please do so elsewhere; your personal anger at Israel is off-topic for this discussion. RK 00:13, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)


Viajero misunderstands the issue, which is NPOV. Yes, some people consider it a form of, or motivated by, anti-semitism. Others don't. It is not our task to say who is right. It is our task to provide both points of view. Slrubenstein

We can't present any points of view if Simonides keeps deleting all the sources documenting an acutal phenomeon (attacks on Jews, synagogues being burned, cemetaries being desecrated, death threats, etc.) and then denies that such sources exist. RK 00:13, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Does Viajero misunderstand the issue or have you failed to follow the edits? I am the one trying to provide both points of view - this article almost only has one point of view, and RK considers anything else anti-Semitic. Apparently he has a long history of killing time in this manner, but I am not interested enough in this debate to justify myself at every turn, so I don't wish to add anymore to the discussion - I have requested a comment from sysops. -- Simonides 22:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That is totally untrue; I never said any such thing. Presenting other points of view has never been a problem. Please, if you have some academic sources which analyze the same data yet offer differing conclusions, please mention them. But you haven't. The only problem here is that you keep deleting sources, then claiming that no sources exist, and then claimed that "the special interests" (i.e. the Jews) were frabricating all this data for their own purposes. Your non-stop anti-Jewish conspiracy theories are a violation of Wikipedia etiquette and of our NPOV policy. RK 01:06, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps irony escapes you, RK, as does much else - I posted data (the only real data in the section, in fact) stating that anti-Semitism may actually be in decline, but you have just deleted it. In any case, you haven't addressed any of my points and there does not much point in discussing anything with you since you are convinced I am anti-Semitic; so I will just revert your edit. -- Simonides 01:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAntisemitism_Archive_9_1b6f.html"