Talk:New antisemitism/MediationFebruary2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mediation

It has become obvious to me that the various disputes relating to this page cannot be resolved by further dialogue among the participants. I believe that a comprehensive mediation is the only way forward. Do others agree? CJCurrie 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be the only way forward. Catchpole 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree to mediation only if we can find a mediator, formal or otherwise, who is very knowledgeable about the content policies and who is himself/herself a good editor. I'd be happy with Mel Etitis, though he's indicated he may be too busy. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and would be happy with Mel as well.--G-Dett 13:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Mackan79 14:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems accepting Mel. CJCurrie 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been run off my feet. I'll be having a closer look at the article and the debate this weekend. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that things have stalled; Mackan79 has done a sterling job characterising one side of the debate, but it's been nearly a week and there's nothing for the other side. Could someone provide a similar account of the CJCurrie, G-Dett, GraceNote, Pertn, Catchpole, Itsmejudith, and Mackan79 side please? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested

I must admit that, having waded through the Talk page and the History of the article, I've got an idea as to the groupings of editors, and some notion as to some of the roots of disagreements, but (as so often happens) once battle lines are drawn they tend to become obscured by a host of unrelated or tangentially related disagreements. It would really help if one editor from each side of the divide could state here as fully and sympathetically as possible what the other side is arguing for. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I could start this for CJCurrie, G-Dett, GraceNote, Pertn, Catchpole, Itsmejudith and myself, if maybe others could fix or elaborate, meaning I would represent the Slim, Jayjg, Leifern position as well as possible. I could address 1) What to do with Flannery, 2), Whether and to what extent the "Responses" section should be changed, 3.) Scope issues relating to lead and to IJV or other material. I'll start unless someone else volunteers. Mackan79 17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll just jump in here, it it is ok. (move it if you want to structure this in another way). I am fine with the points below, but I also think that the responses-section is a symptom of a more underlying problem: Should the article be about a concept, or about the history of contemporary antisemitism? I think many of the problems can be traced back to this. Now, facts about contemporary antisemitism are presented in a way that may implicitly imply that these facts support a hypothesis about AS today. I believe that there should be an article strictly about the debated concept and that the documentation of antisemitism and antizionism today should be presented in a different article without being related to a specific debated and politically laden concept. This would make this article less controversial as well. pertn 10:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this. Could someone from the other group of editors do the same sort of thing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Mel, can your mediation cover the question of the scope of the article and how it fits in a series of articles as Pertn suggests? I have suggested that there should be an article on Antisemitism in the twenty-first century and that this would take the weight off this article. Thanks. Itsmejudith 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Naturally I object to this kind of false distinction ("New antisemitism as a concept" vs. "Real antisemitism in the 21st century"). Opponents of the concept of "New antisemitism" inevitably try to divorce it from what they view as "Real antisemitism", reserving any blatant acts of antisemitism for an article about "the real stuff", and not about the "fake political concept intended only to deflect criticism from Israel". However, not only does this division of material assume the conclusion, but it also ignores the fact that those who insist that there is a "New antisemitism" provide example after example of activities which they think constitute it. How would it be possible to properly present their view without actually listing the specific actions that are alleged to make up its parts? Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I had planned to take into account pertn's comment (which, pace Jayjg, does concern a genuine distinction: "new x normally refers to a variety of x that is novel in itself, in its proponents, in its justification, in its provenance, or something of the sort, whereas "x in modern times" doesn't, it simply refers to the same old x still going on). How the article deals with that distinction is another matter, and I'll reserve judgement. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next stage

Do those involved accept that the characterisations of their positions and arguments are accurate and fair? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been wanting to respond briefly, but simply haven't quite put it together yet. I'm assuming we're still waiting for a comment from Slim or Jay, though? In any case, I'll try to respond today.Mackan79 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slim, Jayjg, and Leifern (SJL)

I see three major issues:

  1. Flannery,
  2. The Responses section, and
  3. Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)

I'll refer to CJCurrie et al as CGM if that's ok, based on volume of commens, while noting that we may all differ on specific points.

[edit] Flannery

Regarding the Flannery discussion, the SJL position is flexible. SJL rejects the idea that Flannery should be removed altogether, because they see it as reliably sourced and relevant. It is 1.) Relevant, because it addresses the history of antisemitism on the Left, as a background for the current phenomenon, and to explain to what extent NAS is new. It is 2.) Reliably sourced because it comes from an eminent historian of antisemitism. Moreover, it represents his most recent commentary on the subject, even if previous statements diverge. Additionally, CJCurrie's specific criticisms are primarily original research, as they have not previously been published, and therefore should not be considered relevant.

Nevertheless, SJL remains open to amending the specific treatment of the Flannery material to accommodate new sources.

[edit] Responses section

Regarding the Responses section, the arguments have not been as clearly fleshed out, but fall into two broad categories: 1.) Whether specific sources are accurately characterized, and 2.) Whether the section's scope or title should be changed away from "Responses." Regarding 1.), SJL generally argues that the characterizations are accurate, noting the most relevant material to the concept of NAS. Regarding 2.), SJL argues that the section describes responses by governments and universities to the emergence of NAS, and thus is appropriately titled.[1] Moreover, SJL argues that there clearly have been such responses to – whatever we want to call it – the concept or phenomenon of NAS.[2] Thus, a section on these responses is entirely appropriate to the article on NAS.

Still, SJL have stated their openness to changing the title to something like “Actions by Governments and Groups.” [3]

[edit] Scope and IJV

Regarding the scope issue and the IJV material, the arguments again have not entirely been fleshed out. Essentially, SJL argues that CGM are trying to insert critical material which is not relevant to the concept of NAS except through their own original synthesis. Regarding IJV, it is argued that the group has not addressed NAS, but merely commented on a perceived lack of openness to criticism of Israel, primarily within the Jewish community. Specifically, the group has not addressed the confluence of antisemitism among the Left, far-Right and Islamism, the central thesis of NAS. It is not for us to decide that their statements are a criticism of NAS. Moreover, the only basis on which their comments could be made relevant in this way would be to assume the straw-man that NAS accuses all Israel-critics of being antisemitic. We should not make this assumption.

Regarding the lead and general scope, SJL argue that NAS is the concept of a new confluence of anti-Semitism among the Left, far-right and Islamism. As such, they argue that the lead is accurate, and reflects the proper scope for the article. While certain writers do focus on the issue of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, this is only one aspect, and is secondary. [4] The primary theory, as discussed by academic writers, regards the new alliance between previously unaligned or even hostile groups. As such, this should be the standard of relevance for the article, and is accurately and appropriately reflected in the lead.Mackan79 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The other side

To look at the same three issues outlined above:

  1. Flannery,
  2. The Responses section, and
  3. Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)

[edit] Flannery

It is argued:

That Flannery should not be quoted in this article, because
  • His writings pertain to an era when NAS was not under debate, so the arguments pertain to a different phenomenon than what is covered in NAS
  • The most recent book is published by the Catholic Church, which amounts to self-publishing, hence not noteworthy
  • In any case, Flannery interprets his own sources in a way that discredits his views, so they should not be included

[edit] Responses

It is argued:

That the section is mislabeled, because the various organizations do not explicitly accept the premise for NAS but instead focus on antisemitic incidents per se. A more neutral heading, one that doesn't accept the premise behind NAS, is needed.

[edit] Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)

It is argued:

That the IJV initiative is relevant to NAS, in that the IJV objects to the (alleged) practice of labeling criticism of Israel, even radical criticism, as antisemitic or the result of self-loathing.

--Leifern 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leifern's comments

I can only speak for myself - Slim, Jayjg, and I have never sat down and compared notes, and I don't even know who these fellow editors are in real life.

The definition of New antisemitism is provided in the article itself, but if I were to paraphrase it: the central thesis behind those who advocate its existence is that it is antisemitism in effect and often in intent within the pretext of hostility to Israel. None of the proponents of NAS claim that mere criticism of Israel constitutes NAS; nor that it has a home on the political spectrum. Quite the contrary: they observe that whatever differences may exist on other issues, those who speak and practice NAS find common cause in demonizing Israel for no other apparent reason than that it is a Jewish state. In other words, while they observe that the confluence is there, it doesn't define the phenomenon.

I've always had problems with the term "concept." Really, we're talking about a phenomenon here that some say exists, and others don't.

I think the article at the moment suffers from the kind of bloating that is typical in contentious, unstable articles - where all sides want to include as many citations as possible. I much this prefer to revert warring, and I would warn against efforts to stop the tendency at the moment.

As with all other contentious issues, it's important to draw careful distinctions. I've corresponded privately with IJV (so I'll concede that my correspondence isn't an admissible source), but they've made it clear that they are against antisemitism on principle and agnostic on the phenomenon of NAS. What they object to is the notion that only viewpoints that fall within a certain range are acceptable in the Jewish community. Their contention is debatable in itself, but it doesn't support the argument that assertions of NAS are only intended to squash a constructive debate.

I think the issues need to be parsed: 1) Does NAS exist? Those who believe it does have evidence in favor of it, and there is lots of it. 2) Is the charge of NAS used as a means to stifle constructive debate about Israel's policies? Again, those who argue this should present evidence.

It seems absurd to me to claim that since some people possibly throw around the charge of antisemitism too readily, it can't possibly exist. But that's an editorial comment. --Leifern 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That anti-semitism exists is not something that I imagine anyone would dispute. Whether there is a distinct phenomenon which ought to be described as "New Anti-semitism" is a lot more problematic, and it only confuses the issue to conflate the two questions. john k 07:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CJCurrie's response

(i) Do those involved accept that the characterisations of their positions and arguments are accurate and fair? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept that Leifern's summary of my position concerning the Flannery paragraph is both fair and accurate, although it may be incomplete. Flannery does more than "interpret his own sources in a way that discredits his views". Some of his assertions, including at least one cited in this article, are demonstrably false.
Leifern's other statements under the heading of "The Other Side" also appear to be fair and accurate.

(ii) I do not, however, agree with Leifern's comments on the larger issue of defining "new antisemitism".

The most fundamental difficulty in defining "NAS" has always been the elasticity of the term itself. "New antisemitism" has been defined in different ways by different authors, and appears to have slightly a different connotation in Europe and America. As such, the term may be regarded as designating either a phenomenon or a theory depending on which definition is in use.
Some authors have used the term "New antisemitism" to describe contemporary antisemitism, with particular reference to a perceived increase in global antisemitism since 2000. Others have used the term to designate situations where aspects of "classical antisemitism" have been incorporated into criticisms of Israel. In both of these situations, the term "new antisemitism" may be accurately described as referring to a phenomonen.
This is not the only manner in which the term has been used. Since 2000, several authors have used the term "new antisemitism" to advance the view that certain positions toward (and criticisms of) the State of Israel are inherently antisemitic. This perspective often regards anti-Zionism, binationalism, "excessive and disproportionate" criticism, and "drawing a moral equivalence" between Israel and its enemies, to be prima facie evidence of antisemitic behaviour. (The last two categories are, of course, ambiguous in nature.)
The authors who promote this definition of "new antisemitism" represent one side in a much larger series of debates relating to Israel and Zionism. Many opponents, including Judith Butler, Tony Judt and Brian Klug, have argued that this interpretation of "new antisemitism" has been promoted with the intent of stifling criticism of Israel from both Jewish and non-Jewish sources. Although no proponent of the term "NAS" has ever suggested that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, many opponents believe that their preferred range of "acceptable" criticism is so narrow as to make meaningful criticism all but impossible.
When used in this sense, "NAS" is most accurately described as referring to a theory.
Some authors have also used the term "New antisemitism" to advance the view that antisemitism is now more common (or more dangerous) on the left-wing of the political spectrum than the right. There is no agreement as to the accuracy of this position, and this usage of the term is also most accurately described as a theory.
If this article is to be improved, it must accurately reflect these different usages of the term.
I happen to agree that the term only makes sense to the extent that it describes a phenomenon. The inherent difficulty of accusing anyone of bigotry of any kind, is that it is an accusation about what is in the accused person's mind. Most people are either unaware of their own prejudice and/or make great efforts to deny it. Add to that the complexity that accusations of NAS have less to do with intent than consequence, and it's easy to get muddled up. The charge that some types of anti-Israeli rhetoric amounts to antisemitism has to do with the effect of what is said and done - those who are accused may not harbor any antisemitism when they denounce Israel, but whether they like it or not, or mean to or not, they are fueling hatred of Jews. While it is understandable that some of these critics feel unfairly put upon, the accusation leveled against them is no more "radical" than the accusation they level against those who support Israel's existence, policy, or decisions. --Leifern 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You are probably aware that the concept of "antisemitism in effect, if not intent" is both controversial and multifaceted. There is a legitimate argument to be made that some critics of Israel have unwittingly given voice to statements and positions that are genuinely antisemitic, whether through naivete, historical ignorance, or a combination of the two. (My recollection is that the McShane Report addressed this particular issue in its assessments of contemporary antisemitism in Britain.) The problem is that some proponents of the term "new antisemitism" have used the argument of "antisemitism in effect, if not intent" to cover a wide array of positions toward Israel, some of which have no connection to "classical antisemitism" whatsoever. Opponents of the term have, understandably in my view, responded that this is (i) an unfair accusation, and (ii) a trivialization of the term "antisemitism".
Once this article is improved, it will have to deal with this issue in a fair and sophisticated manner. CJCurrie 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(iii) Leifern writes: I think the issues need to be parsed: 1) Does NAS exist? Those who believe it does have evidence in favor of it, and there is lots of it. 2) Is the charge of NAS used as a means to stifle constructive debate about Israel's policies? Again, those who argue this should present evidence.

With respect, I do not believe this is the correct approach to fixing this article. It is not within our mandate to determine whether or not "NAS" exists or whether it has been used to stifle constructive debate. What's important is that some published sources have articulated the former view, while others have articulated the latter. Our task is to summarize both positions in a fair and accurate manner. CJCurrie 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that this article should resolve these issues; but what I did mean to say is that the article shouldn't confuse them. --Leifern 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If you mean that the article should distinguish the various usages of the term, I agree. CJCurrie 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Leifern gives a good summary of the concerns about the "Responses" section. As regards the IJV, the point is not that we think it's related to NAS but that the sources do.--G-Dett 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mackan79's response

Leifern and CJCurrie get the main points above, so just a few thoughts:

  1. Re Flannery, I think there is a problem with using Flannery's quotations of other authors. When looking for material, I think we should avoid second-hand quotations where contested.
  2. Re Flannery, I also see a problem with using controversial opinions in what is supposed to be a neutral history section. While much of the article documents controversial opinions, and appropriately, I think that becomes less appropriate in a neutral history section. (Thinking particularly about the "the further left one goes the more the antisemitism" statements here.)
  3. Re scope, I think CJCurrie lays it out quite well. I'd note this is precisely what Klug argues, that there are 3 different things being described as NAS. I agree this needs to be clarified, while also allowing that some consider it all the same phenomenon.
  4. If we clarified that, I also think it would help the problem with the Responses section, that it currently seems to be offered in support of the controversial NAS "theory" through our arguable equivocation. If we acknowledged the potential distinction, that issue might also be resolved without having to do much more.
  5. Re scope and IJV, this is my main issue. Essentially, I think SJL ignores the second main route of relevancy to this article, of the opposition, which argues that the NAS theory stifles fair debate. Interestingly, our article clearly acknowledges this position in the discussion section, where it's well represented. Yet, with responses and evidence, it seems to be disregarded. I think the opposition argument should be considered relevant for both.
  6. Finally, as G-Dett points out, that analysis may not be necessary, if we just focus on the connections drawn by the sources. At the same time, I'd simply note that our use of Flannery seems to be based on exactly this kind of editorial determination. Thus, I guess I'd argue for a broader standard of relevancy, in which both Flannery and IJV could be considered relevant, on their own merits, and whether or not the term "NAS" is explicitly invoked. Indeed, I think this is consistent with the aim of this article to discuss the NAS concept (including theory and phenomenon) rather than simply the term, an aim which then requires some editorial consideration. Mackan79 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation?

May I request an update on the status of our mediation process? I think it may be time to move to the next stage, notwithstanding that certain editors have chosen not to participate in the preliminary discussions. CJCurrie 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A bout of flu kept me in bed for four or five days, and I'm still recovering, though on my feet again. I'm now going through all the materials. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Mediation?

What is the status of Mel's mediation for this article?--G-Dett 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/w/Talk%7ENew_antisemitism_MediationFebruary2007_6b9a.html"