Talk:Left-wing politics/Archive 2

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

Leftism, Pacifism and "War on Terror"

The section "Leftism, Pacifism and 'War on Terror'" seems to be degenerating into a very POV not-quite-rant. I'm busy elsewhere, but someone should take this on with NPOV in mind. -- Jmabel 11:31, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

A lot of the information in this section needs to be factchecked, and refactored into other articles on the anti-"War on Terror" movement, and this section restricted to just dealing with the Left itself. Pyrop 22:47, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Given the titles of sections here such as "Leftism and the Soviet Union", "Leftism and postmodernism" etc there is certainly a place here to discuss about leftism and the anti-war movement (no dispute that they are highly connected to each other) and the relationship between left-wing groups and Islam (it is a problamatic relationship but it excists). MathKnight 00:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Its a very interesting relationship, and one which Ann Coulter explores in her recent book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. Sam [Spade] 01:30, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I would hope we can all agree that Ann Coulter is a polemical writer and not particularly a scholar. -- Jmabel 02:39, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of her expertise and various qualities, she makes an interesting point. The american left is clearly not chauvanistic, and in fact err's on the part of siding w the enemy, rather than on the side of patriotic nationalism. Sam [Spade] 02:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot possibly make the observation that one side of a debate is "erring". No matter how interesting Coulter's points may be she is not attempting a scholarly analysis of the left, any more than Micheal Moore is GWB's psychiatrist. Lacrimosus 22:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel criticism 1

Since it seems that at least some people believe this section belongs here, and since my own "edit" would consist of deleting it, I'm going to try to raise my issues here and hope someone else will edit and meet my objections. If not, I intend either to slap an NPOV notice on this article or to move the section to the Talk page to be worked on.

  • "...the "Anti-War movement" (henceforth: AWM), a loose coalition of left-wing groups..."
    • The article starts out by neologizing an acronym ("AWM"), defines it to be "a loose coalition of left-wing groups", then says that it includes, among others, "Islamists" and "antisemites". Not exactly the Left. Nor, particularly are European nationalists: if this is a nod to, say, Jacques Chirac, he is hardly a leftist.
  • "united to resist the United States and its military campaign against Arab countries."
    • Wow. As a person who considers myself both a (moderate) leftist and a member of the peace movement, I am unaware of a separate movement that is both specifically leftist and specifically concerned with U.S. campaigns against Arab countries. Note that Afghanistan is not Arab. Nor are the two other members, besides Iraq, of Bush's ostensible "axis of evil." Also, the word "resist" (echoed further on) blurs crucial distinctions: it could range from peaceful protest to violent armed resistance.
      • MK: I rephrased and reworded a bit. The meaning is not that fundemntalists Muslims are leftists, but that in the AWM both lefists and fundematalist Arab are taking place. You may reword to make this clearer.
  • "...and also further-left groups who do not necessarily advocate the views of the majority of leftists, although many of them also disapproved of the war."
    • I don't even know what this means to say.
  • The attributions of different grounds to different factions seems to me to be reasonably on the mark, although some attribution and specifics (what factions? grounds attested by what documents?) would be useful.
  • "Some Islamists and Arabs saw the military campaign as a war crime..."
    • Saying the "campaign" is a war crime is rather vague. Not only "Islamists and Arabs" hold views along these lines. Not a single citation is given.
  • "...extremists..."
    • A loaded word.
  • "...saw it as Bush declaring war against Islam."
    • Again, rather inappropriate without a citation of who said this, especially in an article on left-wing politics, not an article on opposition to the "War on Terror".
      • MK: You may reword a little and rephrase. I can give you a citation of Abd al-Aziz Rantisi (an Arab terrorist, not a leftists) but this view is held by many Arabs.
        • JM: I'm not saying this isn't a widely held belief among Arabs, I'm saying it isn't a widely held belief among leftists, the subject of the article.
          • MK: I think the text stated this clearly. But nontheless, leftists cooperates with Arabs holding that opinions.

While I'm at it, an aside: no small portion of U.S. left opposition to the so-called "War on Terror" has focused on its domestic consequences, such as increased powers for law enforcement agencies. The article as it stands does not even give this a mention, a cross-reference, anything.

      • MK: So add it.
        • JM: I don't think you want me editing this, because my first edit would consist of deleting most of what is there. I'm trying to settle this in a more civil manner.
          • MK: I appericiate your effort to discuss the text and try reach a compromise. I didn't ment by the last comment that you will delete the whole thing, but you can certainly add
            "small portion of U.S. left opposition to the so-called "War on Terror" has focused on its domestic consequences, such as increased powers for law enforcement agencies.
to the article.
  • JM:Are you disagreeing with me in saying "small portion" instead of "no small portion", or was that a typo? -- Jmabel 05:56, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • MK: It was probably a typo, however, this argument is only applying to US protestors. Remember that the AWM is global - or at least consists of serveral AWM of different nationalities (i.e. Europe, Arab-Muslims in Pakistan etc).
      • JM:(1) True with respect to being a U.S.-specific matter (although I believe there are parallel issues in the UK). (2) When you say "Arab-Muslims in Pakistan", I'm not sure what to make of the phrase: there are almost no Arabs in Pakistan, certainly fewer than in the U.S. (3) The relation between the reasons a typical Pakistani Muslim would oppose U.S. intervention in Afghanistan or Iraq and the topic of left-wing politics are tenuous at best. Are there a handful of leftists who have made common cause with radical Islamists? Sure. Are they representative of the broad left or of the Anti-war movement in general? Assuredly not. The section as it stands takes a small, unrepresentative faction within the left and presents it as representative. That's the crux of my objection. -- Jmabel 07:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Others simply felt that Iraq was not a threat to the United States and that a preemptive attack was morally wrong, believing in a more isolationist policy."
    • Being opposed to unilateral preemptive war is not "isolationism". Jim McDermott, one of the farther left members of Congress (my congressman!) is an internationalist if ever there was one, and a prominent opponent of the Iraq war on these grounds.
  • "The anti-war movement has organized massive anti-war rallies..."
    • Yes, sort of, but different rallies were organized by very different entities, and especially with where this is going, it's a bit of a rhetorical trick to say the "movement... organized... [the] rallies".
      • MK: Again, feel free to reword it.
  • Some rallies include what some have called "hate speeches" against Bush, UK's prime-minister Tony Blair and Israel's prime-minister Ariel Sharon although many of them are peaceful civil demonstrations.
    • No citations of the supposed "hate speech". No indication of how speech, even hate speech, makes an action not a "peaceful demonstration". Again, whether deliberately or not, by using "peaceful demonstration" to contrast with "hate speech", this comes around to the phrase "...although many of them are peaceful civil demonstrations", as if those that are peaceful are somehow notable and exceptional. As far as I know, the protest rallies against the Iraq War have been overwhelmingly peaceful events, but you'd have a hard time gleaning that from this article.
MK: I know that in France that there were violent AWM demonstrations where flag were burned and in some case - people passing by have been attacked by the protestors. I have a source but it is not in English.
JM: Burning a flag is not violence.
MK:
  1. but attacking people is.
JM:Obviously. Are you saying that the anti-war movement has attacked people? (Certainly al-Qaida has attacked people in the U.S. and elsewhere and the U.S. government has attacked people in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I am unaware of the anti-war movement doing anything of the sort.)
>MK: Yes. There were anti-war demonstrations in which bypassers were attacked and got beaten up by the protestors.
  1. burning a flag is not a "peaceful" act. It is an act that vandelize property and hurts people's feelings, while encouraging hatred. One can equate flag-burning with hate-speech.
MK: Also, some pictures from AW demonstration: notice the Arab signs in some of the pictures.
JM: "Arab signs"? Well, it's hard to tell which signs may have been made by Arabs, but the only sign in Arabic on this page has, on the sign, what I presume to be an English translation of the Arabic, saying "Neither Taleban nor USA", which hardly buttresses your claims. I see a sign from the Muslim Association of Britain. One of the first hits I get googling that group (about which I know almost nothing) is a strong criticism of them by a leftist group [1] which, again, goes against your implicit thesis (although, admittedly, that criticism also points out that other leftists have allied themselves with the MAB, and criticizes them for it). I see men in Muslim dress with a sign saying "Nie wieder krieg, Nie wieder Faschismus", ("Never again war, Never again Fascism"). I see a pesumably Muslim woman in a head scarf with a sign saying "No to War, No to Terrorism". How do any of these buttress your point? Or am I missing a particular picture you wished to indicate? Or has the page changed since you viewed it?
MK: I just wanted to show that Arab and Islamic movements are taking part in Anti war demonstrations. The proof was sign in Arabic.
MK: Check also this picture from http://www.stopwar.org.uk . Burning a picture of Bush is seem pretty hateful to me.
JM: But, again, not violent.
MK: but certainly equivelant to a hate-speech.
JM: If you want to say "Some demonstrators burned pictures of Bush and some carried banners equating U.S. violence to al-Qaida violence, fair enough, but that's a long way from an implication of violent demonstrations. By the way, if you look more closely at the picture you site, they are not particularly burning a picture of Bush. They are making a bonfire out of their own protest signs, and either by accident or by design the one on top has a picture of Bush on it, along with the slogan "World's #1 Terrorist" and what appears to be the (partially burned) name of a leftist group.
MK: here is one example for an hate-speech:
Columbia University Assistant Professor of Anthropology Nicholas DeGenova does not like the U.S. military, to say the least. He made that clear at a recent “teach-in” on Columbia’s campus when he told the anti-war gathering that he would like to see "a million Mogadishus," a chilling reference to the 1993 ambush in Somalia that killed 18 American servicemen (it also killed several hundred Somalis). "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military,” spewed DeGenova. For good measure, he added that those Americans who call themselves "patriots" are nothing but white supremacists. [2]
so there are cases of hate-speech and inciting provocations. I think the current text reflects this.
Pakistani anti-war protest (the protestors are Islamists and not classical leftists)
  • "Reaction to the anti-war movement has ranged from hailing its proponents as moral heroes and defenders of humanity, to accusing them of being traitors and terror-supporters."
    • True enough, but it matters who is saying these things. I'd consider it a badge of honor to have Ann Coulter call me a "traitor". Cite who has said this. It's almost meaningless in this case to indicate that someone somewhere has held an opinion without indicating who, so that the reader may evaluate the source.
  • "A major criticism of the anti-war movement is the claim that they have turned a blind eye toward war crimes and atrocities commited by Arabs, including al-Qaida terrorists, Saddam Hussein and the Palestinians."
    • Again, not a single citation. Also, some very interesting conflations here. Al-Qaida, an undoubted terrorist organization; Saddam Hussein, former head of a state that was rather close to the U.S. in the 1980s when his government committed its worst atrocities, and at which time the left in the U.S. were about the only people in the U.S. condemning him; and "Palestinians" -- linked, remarkably, to Palestinian terrorism. In this last case, there is a strong case (not one with which I entirely agree) to be made under international law that Palestinians in the Occupied Territories have the right to resist occupation. Plenty on the left who are appalled by al-Qaida support the right of Palestinian resistance.
      • MK: here is a citation: [3] . I also added it to the article itself.

By now you are probably saying that all of this gets rather far afield of an article on left-wing politics. Precisely. I think that most of this material belongs discussed elsewhere, maybe in an article on opposition to the Iraq War, maybe yet somewhere else. To draw out these distinctions to the level they require in order to treat them appropriately would blow this section up well beyond what is appropriate as a section of this article. Hence my inclination to delete the section. But it would be fine with me if, instead, someone builds it up into something solid, with the expectation of refactoring: eventually this article could have a section that is a summary of (and links to) a more comprehensive treatment of the subject.

  • "There are some extremely radical factions of the AWM (mainly from the Islamists) who see al-Qaida's and Palestinian 'terrorist' attacks as a legitimate war against the oppressors."
    • Again, (1) no citations, (2) conflation of al-Qaida and the Palestinians (and of Palestinians in the Territories with Palestinians generally), (3) "extremely radical factions" is actually a dubious characterization in terms of those who defend the right to resistance in the Territories... (4) a matter made more confusing because the term "terrorism" is used by different people to refer to different activities. Again, complicated matters that are not mostly fit for this article, but can't we replace these vague generalities with some specifics?
  • "This is a minor position of the AWM but was failed to be publicly denounced by the AWM."
    • The "AWM" is presumed -- clearly falsely -- to be an entity that can make pronouncements. Plenty of people opposed to the war in Iraq denounce terrorism: most of the U.S. Democratic Party, for starters. If this weren't on such a loaded subject, I'd just call this claim silly, but instead it is (morally, though not legally) libelous.
  • Amir Taheri
    • Finally, one citation. Hallelujah. Also the opinion attributed to Taheri "...radical left-wing groups and Muslim fundamentalists form an alliance ... based on hatred of Jews and Americans (the 'capitalists')" stretches what Taheri says. I'm not going to go into this at length -- read the cited article, it's not too long -- but nowhere does he suggest that the leftists involved "hate Jews", only that they allied opportunistically with those who do. Also, Taheri (unlike our article) is careful to indicate exactly what groups he is talking about and characterizes them -- accurately in my view -- as "far left" and "extreme". He makes no overt statement are representative of a broader left or a broader peace movement.
  • "Far left groups do this because of political opportunitism, since they believe that only the power of Islam can resist U.S. capitalism."
    • paraphrased from Taheri, but he's quoting Carlos the Jackal! For those who may not know, Carlos is one of the most infamous terrorists of all times. Hardly representative of the left or of the anti-war movement.
  • "Although this is a valid argument with respect to extreme leftists and pacifists..."
    • Excuse me? Pacifists are Jew-haters? Pacifists are represented by Carlos the Jackal and the left by George Galloway? OK, Galloway (not named here, but cited by Taheri) is at least on the left, connected to the anti-war movement, and making alliance with radical Islam, but surely it's obvious that he's the exception, not the rule.
      • MK:I didn't write up this line.
  • "...many moderate leftists condemn war crimes and other atrocities commited by terrorists while still condemning the war."
    • True enough -- for a change. I'm not sure why it should be surprising that some of us condemn violence by both sides, but at least in the last paragraph there is finally some acknowledgement of what is almost certainly the majority opinion of the left (though again with not a single citation of who holds this opinion).
  • "Extreme leftist factions are becoming more prevalent in today's society (particularly in Europe), and the public image of the AWM is more affected by them than the silence majority."
    • This seems to me to be pure POV.

That's it. I object to almost every sentence! Those of you who know me know this is not something I say often or casually.

Again, I'd be happy if someone salvages this material into a decent treatment of the subject, with a summary here and a real article elsewhere. Failing that, I'd appreciate any opinions on whether it's better to slap an NPOV notice on the article or to move the material to the talk page. I'm guessing that the former is considered more friendly. -- Jmabel 04:30, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

My answer are triple ident and start with MK. MathKnight 12:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And where I've re-responded, I've initialed as well. -- Jmabel 20:35, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, User:Cab88 has now placed an NPOV notice on the article. As should be clear from my remarks above, I was holding off on doing that, and Cab88 has not indicated on this talk page whether his/her issues are the same as mine. Cab88: please indicate whether you are just raising my issues to another level or if you have specific other problems with the article. -- Jmabel 05:49, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I put the NOPV notice due to shared concerns over major POV issues with the section Leftism, Pacifism and "War on Terror". Cab88

For whatever it is worth, Sam Spade's recent edits make some of my quotations above from the article no longer verbatim, but I do not believe they address any of my issues. In particular, adding "perhaps" to a POV statement just makes it mushy, it doesn't make it NPOV or encyclopedic. -- Jmabel 05:17, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

It was necessary, since we don't know what these people are thinking. Sam [Spade] 05:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Precisely. Not unless you cite actual statements by actual people instead of conjecturing on what they might believe. -- Jmabel 06:39, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

The people who have actively worked on this section, and who appear to be currently active on Wikipedia, have not done me the courtesy of replying to most of my specific issues in what is now a week, and the few responses to date by MathKnight above hardly amount to a defense of the present content of this section. I really would have preferred that someone else use my questions to strengthen the section. It is clear that will not happen in any timely manner. I guess I'll take a shot at it myself, but frankly this is not something I particularly want to do: as I said above, my feeling is that much of what is discussed in the section is peripheral, at best, to the ostensible topic of the article. -- Jmabel 05:40, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

As a first step in this work, I have documented relevant reactions both among leaders of Muslim (and especially of Islamist) countries and on the left in the immediate wake of the September 11 attacks. For the Muslims, I have used government spokespeople (I've also quoted Yasser Arafat, although the Palestinian Authority is technically not a state, and not Islamist; I feel the quotation is relevant, and that Arafat constitutes something of a mixture of Islamic and Left, and that a full explanation of context would be out of proportion.) For the left, I chose three generally respected writers from three different countries.

I wrote up another conceivably relevant paragraph:

A September 14, 2001 statement by the U.S. Freedom Socialist Party begins, "On September 11, thousands of ordinary working people... died or were injured as a result of the stunning air assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We in the Freedom Socialist Party are saddened by this savage attack on men and women like ourselves...", then goes on to contextualize the attacks as blowback of U.S. foreign policy and to describe the victims of the attack as "unwitting victims of imperialist leaders... President Bush's characterization of the September 11 disaster as 'good vs. evil' is superstitious nonsense meant to stir up nationalistic sentiment for war. Those behind it were driven to act, not by Satan, but by their political experiences in a world dominated by the 'American Empire.'" [4]

I decided to omit this because the FSP are a small U.S. party of no great influence, and certainly are less listened to on the broad left than any of the three writers I have quoted.

I hope we have consensus that these quotations simply bolster the section, and that I haven't yet headed into my area of disagreement with the POV of the section, only with its lack of research. Again it may be argued -- I myself would argue -- that the article on left-wing politics is not where this material mostly belongs. I hope, however, that we can agree to leave it here until we can resolve the NPOV dispute, then we can decide how to refactor. -- Jmabel 07:26, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Since there is a close relationship between left wing and anti-war anti-Bush movement I think it do belongs here. Though I think this paragraph need to be copy edited to a strcuture of
background - anti war movement composition (wih focus on left wing groups) - position and reasoning of the AWM - criticism.
MathKnight 08:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BTW, sorry I am being slower than I intended to be in working on this. My job has been very consuming lately, plus I've had a series of visitors from out-of-town. I do intend to follow this through, it's my top priority in terms of any substantive research and writing. -- Jmabel 07:29, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

You can take your time. There is no rush. It is also giving other people a chance to review this section and express their opinions. MathKnight 07:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel criticism 2

I'm doing my damnedest to cite carefully for everything I am adding, both in terms of what bolsters the pre-existing argument which I am disputing and what draws a different picture.

In the middle of the text I am adding, someone else has inserted more uncited, somewhat POV material:

"though there were and are suspicions that Al-Qaida was aided and funded by several Arab/Muslim countries"
  • Probably true but terribly vague on all counts. "...there were and are suspicions..." has no agency (and no citation). "...several Arab/Muslim countries" is a broad-brush accusation that fails to single out any country or countries. Who does it mean? Indonesia? Morocco? Lebanon? I choose more or less absurd examples here, just to show how vague the statement is.
"Many, though, considered the Arab-Muslim reaction as an hypocrisy since states like Iran and Syria were known for long-year funding of terrorist networks such as Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad. Also, Al-Qaida training camps were operating undisturbed in Afghanistan."
  • "Many"? Who? Where is a citation?
    • Common knowledge.
  • "...considered the Arab-Muslim reaction as an hypocrisy since states like Iran and Syria" What is "Arab-Muslim"? Is it a union of Arab and Muslim, an interesection or what? (Iran is mostly Muslim, but not in any sense Arab.) In a politically sensitive context like this, the expression looks to me like a smearing together with malicious intent. It seems to suggest that no Arab or Muslim can be sincere in condemning the attacks. That's like saying no American can be sincere in advocating peace.
    • It is somewhat of a union and relate to countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, the Palestinian Authority and even Saudi Arabia. - (Mathknight, unsigned)
      • Then, at the very least, say that in the article instead of this vagueness. But more to the point, if you are going to say in this context of the immediate wake of the attacks that "many" held this opinion, give some citations as to who said this. I don't feel like doing all your legwork. My recollection (and admittedly I was in the U.K. at the time, not the U.S) is that in the days immediately after the attacks the only people of any note who were blaming Muslims or Arabs broadly were some of the Christian Right, and that even Bush was telling them to cool their jets. Other than that, it came from the kind of thugs who burn mosques. Unless you can come up with some citations, even with a clarification of which countries you mean this statement is anachronistic in the context of immediate reaction to the attacks. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech was four months later. I'll give you a reasonable amount of time, but as it stands, this statement constitutes part of my POV complaint. -- Jmabel 15:19, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • "...terrorist networks such as Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad." Hezbollah is, in some senses terrorist (the U.S. State Department considers it so; so far the EU does not) but they themselves condemned the September 11 attacks. "Islamic Jihad" is a confusing term -- it may refer to any of several groups -- but I assume that the allusion is to the Syrian-backed group responsible for the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut. 21 years is a long time. Since that time, Syria was an ally with the U.S. in the Gulf War.
    • MK:Hizbullah is a terror organization, responsible to the massive bombing of Israel's embassy and Jewish Agency buildings in Buenus Aires, Argentina in 1992 and 1994. Islamic Jihad is well explained in its own article.
  • On Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, yes. But the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was quite a pariah, recognized only by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. That is to say, it is hard to say it was hypocritical of most Muslim and Arab states to condemn attacks by a group sheltered by a government they did not recognize. (Was there presumably some hypocrisy on this front from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E, and the Taliban themselves? Absolutely. Still, it's interesting that they overtly condemned the attacks. But what basis is there to condemn -- especially by implication -- any other Arab or Muslim country for tha actions of the proteges of a government they didn't recognize?) Again, this is rather off of the topic of Left-wing politics, and all the more reason why this should ultimately be refactored out to an article of its own and merely sumarized here, with a see main article reference leading out. -- Jmabel 07:42, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Many, though, considered those reactions as an hypocrisy since many Arab and Muslim states encourage anti-Americanism and many Arab newspapers were celebrating 9/11 attacks. Moreover, states like Iran and Syria were known for long-year funding of terrorist networks such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Also, Al-Qaida training camps were operating undisturbed in Afghanistan and held bank accounts in Saudi Arabia.
The last paragraph is essential since it is not true the only Arab reaction to the 9/11 attacks was a condamnation. There were condamnations from the "governments" but the "Arab street" and Arab press largly celebrated and praised the attackers.
MathKnight 13:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Your clarification is certainly an improvement, but again, the very artticle you cite above (and fail to cite in the article) -- Egyptian press -- is very clear in saying only that some of the Islamicist opposition press in Egypt celebrated the attacks. There is no "hypocrisy" at all in Muslims (such as those in the present Egyptian government) who are not Islamicists rejecting the views of Islamicists. Can we turn "Arab newspapers" into "Islamicist newspapers in the Arab world" and bracket your reference as a citation? I'd have no problem with that. -- Jmabel 18:06, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
O.K. You can do that change, though anti-American hate is also common in secular Arab press (the ovious example: Saddam Hussain). MathKnight 21:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
True enough, I imagine. I'll word it more broadly: "many newspapers in the Arab world -- for example the Islamicist opposition press in Egypt Egyptian press -- openly celebrated the September 11 attacks." Do you have any citations for non-Islamicist newspapers applauding the September 11 attacks? I don't doubt it, I just don't have any citations. I'd really like to have those to cite as further examples, because they are more relevant to the main topic of this article, left-wing politics. -- Jmabel 21:37, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Here is an example for secular praise to 9/11, by a University of Lebanon lecturer Mustafa Juzo who also denounces those who condamned the 9/11 attacks. I'm also putting here another citation - of the exactly opposite opinion, since it is well written and predicted the terror attacks in Turkey, Sauidi Arabia and suiccide bombing in Iraq: Dr. Ma'moun Fendi: We should condemn terror, with no 'buts'. MathKnight 08:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Status of NPOV dispute Aug 8, 2004

Within Left-wing politics#Leftism, Pacifism and "War on Terror", I've now edited sections Background and Immediate reaction to the attacks to a point where I feel I no longer have a POV dispute about them. Cab88, do you still have POV issues about these sections? And MathKnight, do any of my edits in these sections raise POV issues for you? Assuming you are both happy (and unless someone else wants to weigh in), I think we can agree that the dispute is now confined to the sections currently entitled Anti War movement and Criticism. -- Jmabel 23:23, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

I hope my recent edits down to and including the list of various reasons for opposition to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq will prove relatively uncontroversial. MathKnight, Cab88, can we agree that we are out of NPOV territory down through that, or are there things I've introduced that you consider a problem? -- Jmabel 01:43, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'm O.K. with you edits. You did thorough work here. MathKnight 08:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've made some changes in section headings. I believe the NPOV dispute is now confined to sections Character of the anti-war movement and Criticism, mainly the latter. I'll keep working on these. I'm doing some background work elsewhere first, because I've discovered that many of the groups I want to allude to either lack articles or are stubs. -- Jmabel 19:46, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

List of reasons for opposition to the invasions...

In the list of reasons for opposition to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq I still see one problem, but I'm not sure how to write it into the flow. Right now, the article mentions that "There was also an uneasy relationship with explicitly antisemitic groups who charged that the war was being waged on behalf of Israel..." This could be read as suggesting that belief that the wars were fought on behalf of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic, and does not explicitly discuss a matter far more relevant to the politics of the left: anti-Zionism, many forms of which are not at all anti-Semitic.

I'd very much welcome a "friendly edit" if someone sees how best to work that in.

Also in the list of reasons for opposition to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, I have not been citing sources as meticulously as in earlier passages. I'm hoping that this passage is relatively uncontroversial, but of course I would welcom appropriate citations; you could probably just add bracketed links, probably no need to quote explicitly; alternatively, just mention your citations here and I'll integrate appropriately. Also, if there is anything I've written that someone sincerely doubts, please call me on it and I'll track down a citation. -- Jmabel 01:43, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Continuing to try to NPOV this

Just so that no one thinks later that I'm trying to pull a fast one by citing myself: I'm currently laying some groundwork at ANSWER, Not In Our Name, United for Peace and Justice and probably elsewhere (I'll indicate where when I get to it). Those who are actively following this dispute might want to read those articles and add them to your watchlists. -- Jmabel 06:18, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

As it turns out, the only other articles than these three I've found myself writing are pretty irrelevant to the subject at hand: the NION and UFPJ articles have occasion to name a lot of organizations and individuals, a surprising number of whom lack articles. -- Jmabel 05:34, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I have now almost entirely rewritten the section Character of the anti-war movement. I believe it is now much stronger, and I think it will be clear that it is by no means a "whitewash" of the groups in question.

I've written almost entirely about the U.S., because it's what I know. If it is unrepresentative, I hope someone will make comparable efforts to document the situation in other countries rather than throw in unsourced opinions.

Here are the two paragraphs of pre-existing material that I removed from this section:

Some rallies include what some have called "hate speeches" against Bush, UK's prime-minister Tony Blair and Israel's prime-minister Ariel Sharon although many of them are peaceful civil demonstrations.
Reaction to the anti-war movement has ranged from hailing its proponents as moral heroes and defenders of humanity, to accusing them of being traitors and terror-supporters.

I have no problem with including statements along these lines in the article if they can be documented. "Some rallies include what some have called..." does not belong in an encyclopedia, especially not in an article on a controversial topic. If there is clear citation on what was said when, and who called it hate speech, I will presumably have no problem with it being in the article.

As I argued above, the statement "many of them are peaceful civil demonstrations" is a backhanded way of implying (falsely, I believe) that most have not been. If you have specific citations of violence at leftist anti-war demonstrations -- and I hope we can agree that specifically Islamicist demonstrations in which the left played no significant part are not germane to the matter -- I absolutely agree that belongs in this article. Insinuation does not.

As to the second paragraph, it is vacuous without citation. Reaction had also included wishing that damn peace rally wasn't tying up the streets, or being glad it gave someone an excuse to be unable to get to their office, but "heroes" and "traitors" are strong words, and unless we can cite examples of someone using them, they don't belong in the article.

User:MathKnight, you are (or anyone is) more than welcome to address the above. I no longer have an NPOV issue with this section (duh! It's now mostly mine), only with the Criticism section that follows. If you agree that this section no longer raises NPOV issues, we can confine the dispute to one section. User:Cab88 doesn't seem to be actively involved in the discussion. If I haven't heard from you in 72 hours, I'll take the liberty of assuming the NPOV dispute no longer applies to this section; you can always reinstate the dispute yourself. -- Jmabel 05:34, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

For "charecter" paragraph - you done very good job there, very NPOV and professional. MathKnight 09:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As for citation, I have a citation for a violent anti-war rally in France, in which people were physiclly attacked and beaten up. Since two of the victims were Jews, the affair made headlines in Israel 18/04/2003 (Hebrew). I found also some reports in English on this incident: [5]. Also appears in the Hebrew article is the practice or burning flags (mainly of Israel) in (French) anti-war rallies - which is described by Aurélie Filipetti (a French Green Party member) as violent and antisemitic. She also states that she witnessed a violent anti-war rally, I translated from the article:

Filipetti honored the decision, and not carried the two flags { of Israel and Palestinian -MK }, but like all the participants in the rally she saw around her countless flags of Iraq and Palestine. "It was a violent event" she recalls "I said to myself that if I would carry the flags of Israel and Palestinian, I then would face some serious troubles {word-to-word translation of the last expression would be 'noy few (but many) problems' - MK} ."

Also to note that slogans like "Bush and Blair are Nazies" is considered (by me, at least, but I believe also widely) as hate speech. MathKnight 09:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough - but one throwaway line isn't instrumental in accurately representing the anti-war movement generally; or left-wingers generally. I think that such a quote, properly cited, would belong in an article dealing with the specific individuals making the claims.Lacrimosus 11:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
MathKnight, are you alleging that the violent demonstrators were leftists rather than Islamicists or simply Palestinian nationalists? I can't read Hebrew, but nothing in the English-language citation seems to bear this out. Violence against Jews by either Islamicists or Palestinian nationalists is certainly a non-trivial matter, but hardly one with obvious relevance to an article on left-wing politics. If there is somewhere you are going with this, you are going to have to write it up and expect to take your licks if you can't justify why it's in this article.
All I'm saying that the attack took place on an anti-war demonstration in which also classical leftists (such as the green party of France) participated. It is possible that the attackers themselves were Muslims, but it took place not in an Muslims-only protest. Note than in France, unlike in the USA, there is a large minority of Muslims and Arab (about 6-10 millions out of 60), so almost every anti-war protest have noteable attendance by Muslims. I'll try to translate the entire article. MathKnight 17:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I hope we can agree that the section as I've rewritten it is NPOV. Like anything in Wikipedia, it can be added to, and those additions will be judged on their own merits. -- Jmabel 16:48, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
You can confive NPOV dispute only to "criticism". MathKnight 17:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Translation of the article from Maariv

The orginal article may be found here: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/archive/ART/466/162.html

The left wing protests in France against the war in Iraq became anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist events

Sefi Handler, Paris , 18/04/03

Aurélie Filipetti { hencforth I will refer to her as A.F. -MK} felt bad. The brutal attack that two teemagers, member of Hashomer Hatzair, have suffered in a demonstration in Paris against the war in Iraq, made her wonder for exactly which "peace" she is demonstrating.

Aurélie Filipetti (A.F.) , a spokeswoman of the Green Party in Paris, was among the organiziers of the demonstration, in which its fringes Jews were beaten only because they wore kippot (skull caps). She is 30 year old, French from Italian dynesty, not a Jewish. Niether anti-semitic. She is a left wing activists who thinks the state of Israel has a right to exists. This loaded combination have turned the young Parisian to a focus of political-idealogical public controversy, which exposes a lot more than the intellectual integrity of those who arose it. Almost forced by events, the honest spokeswoman of the Green Party to an exception which tesitify over the general common: a growing camp inside European left, which loves itself as equally as it loves to hate Israel.

After the attack against the Jewish teenager, who were in their way to their activity center in east Paris and walked accross the "peace" protest, A.F. decided to send some messages as food for though in the party's internet discussion board. The French left did condamned the attack, beside of the rally's organizers, which claimed it was a provocation of Betar activists.

A.F. asked to touch the truely sensetive points. "I felt we should stop puting our head in the sand, to say that these are only fringes effects and therefore 'not of our concern', to condamn and do nothing more." In the message she posted in the disscussion board she asked the participants why they allow a demonstration against the war in Iraq ( A.F. opposes the war ) to turn into an event in which the main theme is Palestine. She also asked if this has a connection to the attack on the Jewish youth during the rally. "I wrote that according to that logic\reason\sense , we can protest with Chechnya's flags, or Tibet's , but we {somehow -MK} choose to focus only in Israel and Sharon.

This uninnocent question, of a woman from the hardcore of the "enlightened left" touched the most sensetive nerves of the French "Peace camp". A.F. got tons of answers, most of them are hostile. "They explained to me that the slogan 'Bush Sharon are murderers' is not antisemitism but anti-Zionism. But for me, when you burn the flag of Israel (a common sight in anti-war rallies in france -Sefi Handler) it is antisemitism. The meaning is the delegitmation of Israel's right to exist."

Every left wing politician who cares about his chair and status, would mute after the wave of responses and would not turn against the pratice of burning Israel's flags. But A.F. decided to jump into the "lion's mouth" of anti-Zionism and held solidarity visit in Hashomer Hatzair center in Paris. In this visit "she'd gone to far" and made a commitment to carry the flag of Israel and the flag of Palestine together in the next anti-war rally in the Bastile square.

When it was publish in Le Mond, France's most important newspaper, A.F. became a focus for unsacred wrath for many of her colleagues. "They stormed over me" she tells in an interview to Maariv. "I have recieved many enraged phone calls. They told me 'what is wrong with you?'. A senior member in the party told me that 'you can't carry a blood stained flag' i.e. the flag of Israel. Other explained to me it is the 'Sabra and Shattila flag'. There were also some who conveyed me a message that should I dare to appear with the flag of Israel in the protest 'ten people will come and break your face'. I have insisted that is merely a symbol of our commitment to Israel's right to exist."

The leadership of the Green Party in Paris, gathered urgently to discuss the two-flags issue and found an hypocritical solution to the hot problem. The Green Party declare they are "not a national party" and therefore none of its representives is allowed to carry national flags.

Filipetti honored the decision, and not carried the two flags { of Israel and Palestinian -MK }, but like all the participants in the rally she saw around her countless flags of Iraq and Palestine. "It was a violent event" she recalls "I said to myself that if I would carry the flags of Israel and Palestinian, I then would face some serious troubles {word-to-word translation of the last expression would be 'noy few (but many) problems' - MK} ."

Parallel to the confrontation over the flags, A.F. published an article in the left-oriented French newspaper "Libersion" in which she warned from the antisemitism that plauging its camp. An article, which only few, if any, in the European left would dare to write.

It is easy to the French left to protest against Le Pen, it is harder for it to admit that it let "its protestors to carry slogans that have nothing in common for the Palestinian's legitimate rights. There were slogan of those who were facisinated from the Palestinian suicide bombers' death dance" she wrote. "The French left must to recognize that while it developed the distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, it acted as an ostrich and not fulfilled its duty: to think reasonbly. The refusal of the left to be questioned about it, and worse - to question itself about it, played to the hand of antisemitism."

"Zionism is Israel's right to exist. Period. The fact that Sharon gives Zionism an imperialist and colonialist definition not put in doubt the legitimicy and neccisity of the state of Israel. We support the legitmate struggle of the Palestinian for their rights, for their state and for liberating the occupied territories, and we oppose Ariel Sharon's brutal policy. Therefore, because of all this, we should not agree that this struggle will loose its dignity through barbaric acts that sums up in one word: antisemitism."

The article became the talk of the day among Jews, politicians, protestors and everybody else. "I felt they didn't read my article, but only one word from it: 'Zionism', and because of it I'm being scurned like a witch on the stake", she sums. Week and a half ago, during a meeting of the regional bureo of the party, she got intidada in home. "Do you understand you offended people by using that word (Zionism)?" one of the members slammed at her. Aurélie Filipetti do not regret, even for a moment. "Even if I had to pay political price, since I am a pro-Palestiniam Zionist." She sums with a sad smile.

The rest of the article deals with Jewish reaction of French Jews and Zionists to the anti-Zionist atmosphere in France, and campaign they are having to try to decrease hatred toward them. I didn't translated it since it is less relevant to the issue. If you want, ask me and I will translate it also.

More over, there is a reference to an article written by Aurélie Filipetti in "Libersion", I would be happy if French wikipedians will manage to find this article ans translate it, and olso will convet their point of few regarding the whole issue and the Maariv's article.

MathKnight 18:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would guess that "Libersion" is Liberation, the leading French leftist daily newspaper. -- Jmabel 19:15, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
This is certainly interesting with reference to the the French left, and the politics of Zionism and of antisemitism, and several other things, and something about this belongs somewhere in Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether or not this article is where this belongs, or just how to work it appropriately into the article. MathKnight, do you have something specific you want to do here? I suspect that if it belongs in this article, it belongs less in the discussion of the peace movement than a separate section dealing with contemporary attitudes of the French left (or even the European left, if you can document similar cases elsewhere) towards Jews and Zionism. -- Jmabel 18:55, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
It is a reference on anti-war rallies in Europe (this article speaks specificly on France). The relevant points of this article to this bussiness are:
  • Iraq and Palestine flags are common in Anti-war rallies in France.
  • Such rallies often "hijacked" to become anti-Israeli or anti-western rallies.
  • There cases of violence in those rally, triggered by the hatred-inspiring atmoshpere in the rally (such as burning flags and inflammatory slogans).
  • The disturbing relationship between left-wingers and radical Muslims.
Most of your worked focused on the American left and anti-war groups (ANSWER, NION and UFPJ) while pputing aside the European left and anti-war groups (such as Stop the War Coalition and George Galloway.
MathKnight 14:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute now confined to a single section

Per discussion above, the NPOV dispute is now confined to a single section, Criticism.

For starters, I have deleted the sentence "This view [that al-Qaida's and Palestinian "terrorist" attacks as a legitimate asymmetric war against the oppressors] has not been publicly denounced by the AWM." There is no such entity as "the AWM" that can denounce something. Plenty of leftist and anitwar groups disagree publicly with this view, especially with reference to al-Qaida (as amply documented in the sections I've edited above). Does anyone have a problem with this deletion? -- Jmabel 19:24, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Right now the article contains the following paragraph (the one from which I just deleted a sentence):

A major criticism of the anti-war movement is the claim that they have turned a blind eye toward war crimes and atrocities commited by Arabs, including al-Qaida terrorists, Saddam Hussein and the Palestinians. There are some among the movement who see al-Qaida's and Palestinian "terrorist" attacks as a legitimate asymmetric war against the oppressors.[6]

The cited source says nothing resembling this.

  • It is an accusation against a single organization -- ANSWER -- and as such (I believe) basically redundant to material now discussed above.
  • Most of what is listed here it does not say even about ANSWER.

If someone can cite someone saying something like the criticism given here, fine, but if no one has done so in the next 72 hours, and if I can't find appropriate citations myself, I intend to delete this paragraph outright, pending restoration by someone with actual citiations. I promise a good faith effort to find such citations and I hope my work above shows that I am not trying to turn this article into a left-wing screed. -- Jmabel 19:33, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I found a citation which raises serious accusation against ANSWER (which seems to be synonimous to many with the anti-war movement), the WWP and IAC for defending terrorists and atrocities commited by dicatoric regims. Ramsi Clarck has been accused in providing legal protection to war criminals. Here is the citation: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29524 Has antiwar movement been hijacked? Terror alliances, radical politics revealed at forefront | WorldNetDaily.com | November 4, 2002 | Sherrie Gossett ] and here is a [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/828578/posts reprint] of it.
Another article, [7] "I AIN'T MARCHIN' ANYMORE : Antiwar 'leaders' discredit antiwar oppostion – but there may be hope for the movement yet" by Justin Raimondo is full of criticism over the internal politics of the anti-war movements. I think you will understand his article better than me, since I'm not well aquinted with many of the names he mention. MathKnight 21:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, I agree we should change the "criticism" part to be more specific and cite its adress (ANSWER, WWP etc) rather the ambigious and amorphic "anti-war movement". I only can say that in my place many percieve ANSWER to be the major force behind the anti-war movement and the orginazors of most rallies. In the other paragraphs you wrote you embedded some of things that appeard bluntly in the "criticism" part. MathKnight 21:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure we could keep piling on citations (left and right) assailing ANSWER. I pointedly chose to quote Albert and Shalom because they are themselves far more prominent in the American left than is ANSWER: Z magazine is probably second only to The Nation as a voice of the U.S. left. I really feel that if someone wants to add further criticism of ANSWER and those connected to it (which at this point to me seems like beating a dead horse) it belongs at ANSWER, IAC, or maybe, where relevant Ramsey Clark. They are a small (if well-organized) group.

ANSWER put together demonstrations when no one else was doing it. People turned out because it was the only game in town. Many of these people had no idea of ANSWER's specific politics. Many of the rest came out despite those politics, not because of them. I think the article now makes this pretty clear, and I don't think there is a lot more to be said about ANSWER's, IAC's, or Clark's role in the antiwar movement that is germane to the subject of this article.

What would be interesting, and worth citing, is if credible accusations have been made against larger and more prominent groups. If you look at the articles on ANSWER, NION, and UFPJ you can easily see that there is at least an order-of-magnitude difference in the size of even NION vs. ANSWER, and that NION is a member of the order-of-magnitude-larger UFPJ. I don't know actual numbers -- they'd be interesting to get -- but ANSWER and its affiliates probably number a few thousand people, NION is probably well into 6 figures, including several present and former members of congress, and UFPJ and its affiliates are well into the millions of people. The National Council of Churches (a UFPJ member) is probably all on its own larger than NION, let alone ANSWER. Admittedly, it's not a particularly "left" organization (although it is, in American terms certainly "liberal", which is to say in European terms it is social democratic).

It might as well be that in manners of registered members - ANSWER is the smallest, but in term of media volume - ANSWER are the biggest. Somehow, ANSWER is the best known anti-war movement, for better and worse. In the orginal "criticism" section that was a quote about that the extreme left becomes more and more prominant on the anti-war movement and media, with opinions that do not represent the support silent majority. However, the silent majority is rarely heard and many sees the anti-war movement in ANSWER's shape. MathKnight 14:28, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've put what I think is an honest 2-paragraph summary of the Gossett article into our article, and I've used where she quotes Raimondo. Take a look. As for Raimondo himself: Raimondo is a self-described libertarian -- that is, not a leftist -- and his article argues (in part) "this is a war that will be fought for Israel's sake, and to ensconce it as the dominant independent power in the region." I don't know how even to engage that in the context of an article on left-wing politics. Raimondo and his group (antiwar.com) are not particularly big or influential (nor are they so tiny as to be insignificant), they are certainly not leftist, they are part of UFPJ so they are not entirely irrelevant to the matter. In an article on the anti-war movement as such it would probably be right to discuss them. In an article on left-wing politics... well, they would be perceived by most on the left as among the "small right-wing anti-war groups... [who] ... participated in the same demonstrations with other opponents of the war..." (although as libertarians they would probably claim to be "neither left nor right"). I don't think they deserve more than the passing mention now in the article, but if you can indicate what you think is worth citing, I'd consider it. I hope it's not his general stuff like "...every pathetic leftie cause under the sun: free Mumia Abu Jamal (won't somebody free us from him?), 'money for jobs, not for war' (hey, bud, you get a job, and then you get the money!)..." The fact that a libertarian disagrees with the general politics of the left would just be stating the obvious. -- Jmabel 03:20, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

  1. I add two more paragraph on Gosset's article. They mainly include Gosset's quote, which I found relevant to this part. Gosset's article should not be treated as merely as a reference table only.
  2. I didn't were much aware to the "libertarain" issue. In my place, left and right spectrum is primarly defined by dovish-hawkish spectrum and economic idealogy plays only a minor role if any. It might be sound as an absurd to you, but mu country "socialist" left wing party is lead by a capitalist.
MathKnight 15:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've done my best to give an accurate summary of the Taheri article. Frankly, this sort of article that needs to be handled with extreme care as a statement of anything other than its author's own views. The material on (relatively fringe) leftist-Islamist coalitions in Britain and France seems solid. The material on the French Communist Party seems to me mostly like insinuation: as I've pointed out in quoting it, all he really says is that a study was commissioned about "electoral alliances with Muslim organizations." He doesn't say the organizations were Islamist. He doesn't say anything came out of the study.

After (reasonably enough) quoting two French leftists (one on "the struggle for Palestine" and the other to the effect that it is "natural" that Muslims in France "unite with the working class") he goes off into what seems to me to be la-la land; I've done my best to represent accurately in the article that in trying to find a leftist who has something good to say about Islamist terrorism, he quotes Ilich Ramírez Sánchez (Carlos the Jackal). I'm sorry, but this is roughly like Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski as a spokesperson for the environmental movement.

For now, trying not to pull the POV too far to my own side, I'm bending over backwards to keep in the accurate (but previously unattributed) quote from Carlos the Jackal; at least now that I've contextualized it, it should be clear that it is not representative of the left. I still think it doesn't belong in the article. -- Jmabel 04:04, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Taheri's article should not stand on its own. It is only some citations to the left-Muslim alliance in Europe. Another examples (which should be dealt with in the "criticism" article) are STOP THE WAR and the Muslim Association of Britain; and the France anti-war rallies (see the translated Maariv article). MathKnight 15:24, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've just spent a bunch of time trying to find some relevant citations for the paragraph (mentioned above) that begins "A major criticism of the anti-war movement is the claim that they have turned a blind eye..." Frankly, most of what I can find is from people who are looking for any stick to beat the left with. On Saddam, my search words led me to far more references to the Reagan administration having turned a blind eye to Saddam's crimes while they were in progress than to the left doing anything of the sort then or later. I even found the accusation against the Reagan administration written up by Associated Press and published in the Moonie-owned Washington Times. [8]

With the exception of a few marginal groups like Workers World, the left has been pretty critical of Saddam for a good couple of decades. I really think this is a red herring, and I'm getting tired of doing a ton of research to refute nothing more than assertions. Similarly, I can't find anything that looks substantive at all on the left turning a blind eye to the actions of al-Qaida. As indicated above, it's not the least difficult to find leading leftists condemning the attacks as soon as they happened.

Palestine is a different matter, but it seems to me to be doubly removed from the topic at hand. We've gone from Left-wing politics (the topic of the article) to a discussion of Leftism, Pacifism and "War on Terror" (a rather long section), and now we are going to digress further to the attitude of the movement opposing wars in Afghanistan and or Iraq towards the Palestinian question? Maybe (I hate to say it) the article needs a separate section on The left, Israel and Palestine, but any evenhanded treatment is liable to as difficult as the section we've now been hashing out for the better part of a month. It's certainly not what I want to spend the next month doing, and frankly after going through all this, if someone basically blasts uncited opinion into the article rather than really researching the matter, I for one am going to be a lot less willing to collaborate actively and a lot more likely to just delete material as uncited opinion. Which is to say, if someone wants to work on it in a serious, scholarly manner, sure, go for it (assuming it's not all well covered elsewhere in Wikipedia: someone should check). Meanwhile, there is no way we can handle the matter at the level of criticism and response in a sentence or two, and I'd just like to get it out of this section.

Would it help matters any to change the phrase higher up in the article about "opposition to perceived U.S. imperialism" into "opposition to perceived U.S. and Israeli imperialism"? I guess when I wrote that I was, indeed, trying to duck this issue. I, for one, see the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions as only tangentially related to the Israel/Palestine conflict: no more tied to that than to U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Ultimately, everything (especially in foreign policy) relates to everything, but we can't talk about it all at once. -- Jmabel 05:58, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I see there is a problem here - since left wing and anti-war movement don't fully overlap (and there are difference between the groups in the USA and Europe). I though on copy the entire "Left, pasificism and War on terror" into a new article: The anti-war movement , and here leave somethings sort of: "See main article: The anti-war movement" and writing only a brief, such as "Left wing groups are taking highly active part in the anti-war movement...". MathKnight 15:24, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like an excellent idea. Lacrimosus 01:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is the NPOV dispute resolved?

Like almost everything in Wikipedia, this article could get more work, and like a lot of articles it could probably use some refactoring, but I think we are now out of NPOV-dispute territory. My edits sufficiently satisfy the issues I raised to bring it within the pale as far as I'm concerned. MathKnight, is it also OK by you? If so, feel free either to respond here or just to kill the NPOV label on the article, and we can take it from there like any other (controversial) article. -- Jmabel 02:06, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I concern, yes. But I'm intending to add the "criticism" part a section that will deal a little with European left and anti-war movement. The Maariv article that I translated may hint was it is the main criticism is going to be. However, I want to wait a while until I can hear more comments of European locals, mainly from France, on the article and the Filipetti affair. MathKnight 17:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it will still be a contentious and controversial article, but I'm glad to have it out of NPOV dispute territory. -- Jmabel 22:04, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)