Talk:New anti-Semitism/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

NPOV

While I wouldn't claim this article as a model of NPOV (there is a bit of a bias, in that once one is past the lead section, the exposition of claims of a "New anti-Semitism" runs so long as to place the opposite arguments awfully far down the article), but it seems to me that at this point it is a fairly good job for such an inherently controversial subject. I would hope that we are in a position to soon get the NPOV label off of the article. I would appreciate if those who feel it still belongs there could make it clear exactly what about the article they feel still merits the label. Bullet lists rather than essays, please. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

False allegations

This needs clarification. There is no introduction to this subsection which explains who or what is to be falsely alleged and how that relates to anti-Semitism. Please include some criteria for inclusion so that readers can understand why the material which follows is relevant.

Thanks --Uncle Bungle 13:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A number of writers, politicians, public figures etc. have made the claim that one of the manifestations of the "New anti-Semitism" involves false allegations made about Israel and Jews, with the intent of stirring up hatred against them. The section lists examples they commonly use to support that claim. Jayjg (talk) 15:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Jayjg for clarification. Is there proof then that Terje Roed-Larsen made the claim of atrocities in Jenin "with the intent of stirring up hatred"? --Uncle Bungle 16:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proof? Why would that be relevant? Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • pounding my fists on the desk laughing* OMG, thats priceless! *pins it on the wall* "Proof? Why would that be relevant? -Jayjg"

You have stated that the section is about "false allegations made about Israel and Jews, with the intent of stirring up hatred against them". So if you can't prove that Terje Roed-Larsen made those claims with the intent of stirring up hatred, it has no business in the section. The media makes huge mistakes and trumps up shaky reports ALL THE TIME without any specific racial bias. That, sir, is why proof is relevant. --Uncle Bungle 18:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It's purpose is not to "prove" or "disprove" things, or to do any other kind of original research, but rather to report on them in a WP:NPOV way. That is what this article does. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No original research in this question about a neologism. If the story about Jenin was infact to incite anti-Semitism, then that should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Seriously, its just as likely that the whole thing was a media error, not racism, and thats why unless it can be proven to be racism, it has to go. --Uncle Bungle 18:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. The phenomenon has been written about at length by quite a number of respected authors and others, and has even been given full length book treatements. And it's hardly a "neologism" any more; it's been around for half a decade, and gets over 30,000 Google hits. Wikipedia is reporting on the claims of those who support it, and the claims of those who decry it, the essence of NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Way to focus on the irrelevant part of the statement. Let me try again: If the story about Jenin was infact to incite anti-Semitism, then that should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Seriously, its just as likely that the whole thing was a media error, not racism, and thats why unless it can be proven to be racism, it has to go. --Uncle Bungle 20:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be trying to make a case again, Uncle Bungle. Advocates of the idea of "New anti-Semitism" bring the histrionics about Jenin as a major example of the phenomenon they claim exists. The fact that you think it was just "media error, not racism" isn't particularly relevant. Jayjg (talk) 20:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Equating Jews with Nazis

I am looking for some clarification on the idea that is it anti-Semetic to equate Jews with Nazis. Is this every time without exception? After all the Stern Gang and Baruch Goldstein were all Jewish.

The Nazi regime was clearly guilty of some unspeakable acts. From invading their neighbours and persuing weapons of mass destruction to confiscating poperty, imprisoning dissidents, separing people from their families and business, and yes, even murdering children. If the actions of an individual or an organization are so extreme as to remind one of the Nazis, should not that individual or organizations behaviour supercede their ethnic or religous background?

Throughout the second world war the Nazis murdered over twenty five million Russians (combined civilian and combatant). When Niall Ferguson compared Putin with Hiter [1] could his statements not also be called racist?

Please consider the following:

  • What if a non-Jew were to become prime minister of Israel. Could that individual be associated with Nazis (because of their actions in that capacity)?
  • What if a Jew somewhere were to setup a blatantly Fascist state, opress the occupants and invade neighbours? Could that individual be associated with Nazis (because of their actions in that capacity)? I feel that these are legitimate questions that would be asked by any reader, and worthy of at least some examination. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 14:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're asking this question here; is the article itself not clear enough? If you'd like more information on the reasoning of those who suggest that equating Jews and/or Israel with Nazis is part of the "New anti-Semitism", you'd probably be best of reading their works; obviously this article cannot reproduce their arguments in full. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, no, it isn't. Aside from the "3 D's of Natan Sharansky" who is quoted "the comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of the Palestinian refugee camps to Auschwitz... can only be considered anti-Semitic.", there is no explanation of that claim. In fact, even Sharanskys quote doesn't explain why just that he considers it to be true. While obviously this article "can not reproduce their arguments in full" at the very least it could reproduce a fragment of their arguments, rather than exclusively their claims. See questions above, still unanswered. --Uncle Bungle 16:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've provided a link to Sharansky's article in the Wikipedia article itself. Jayjg (talk) 17:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Those who draw such analogies either do not know anything about Nazi Germany or, more plausibly, are deliberately trying to paint modern-day Israel as the embodiment of evil. " - Natan Sharansky That didn't explain a whole lot about why.
"do not know anything about Nazi Germany" if that is the case, then what is it people who draw such analogies should know?
"deliberately trying to paint modern-day Israel as the embodiment of evil" thats a nice generalization, but not backed with anything.
That was a great op-ed piece (is that the same conference my Powell quote is from?) but not much else. Still looking for an explanation as to why the above questions are inherently racist.

--Uncle Bungle 18:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject." - from Wikipedia:Talk page. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Bungle, you seem to be trying to make a case here. Editors are not allowed to do original research or construct their own cases for certain positions. See Wikipedia:No original research. Our job is to characterize disputes, not engage in them. We simply report what others say, so long as it's relevant and the sources are credible. If you feel their arguments are poor, there's nothing we can do about that. SlimVirgin 19:03, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I'm not trying to make a case, simply searching for clarification on a vague statement. But you're right, thats not the job of editors, however maddening. I still think that above examples are very relevant, and so it seems I'm going to have to research the issue in depth, to see if there are so called credible sources who agrees with me. I'll delete some of this section for the sake of saving space, and instead work towards debunking the ridicilous claim that its racist to equate Jews (in their capacity as officials of the state of Israel) with Nazis. --Uncle Bungle 20:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if you wouldn't delete anything from talk pages. I'll archive so there's less text here. SlimVirgin 20:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky quote

Although the quote of Chomsky is correct, Chomsky's quote appears to be incorrect. He refers to Necessary Illusions where this passage occurs on p 317:

These two aspects of "the real anti-Semitism," ADL-style, were illustrated during the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign. The Democratic Party was denounced for anti-Semitism on the grounds that its convention dared to debate a resolution calling for a two-state political settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In contrast, when an array of Nazi sympathizers and anti-Semites were exposed in August 1988 in the Bush presidential campaign, the major Jewish organizations and leaders were, for the most part, "curiously blasé about both the revelations and Bush's response to them," largely ignoring the matter, John Judis comments.116 The New Republic dismissed as a minor matter the "antique and anemic forms of anti-Semitism" of virulent anti-Semites and Nazi and fascist sympathizers at a high level of the Republican campaign organization. The editors stressed, rather, the "comfortable haven for Jew-hatred on the left, including the left wing of the Democratic Party," parts of the Jackson campaign, and "the ranks of increasingly well-organized Arab activists," all of whom supported the two-state resolution at the Party convention and thus qualify as "Jew-haters."117

The note (117) gives references as follows: Judis, In These Times, Sept. 28; New Republic, Oct. 3, 1988. See David Corn, Nation, Oct. 24, 1988, for more on the "haven" for "anti-Semites and fascist sympathizers" in the Republican party. Also Holly Sklar, Z Magazine, Nov. 1988; Charles Allen, Village Voice, Nov. 1, 1988. On the downplaying of the story by the New York Times, see FAIR, Extra!, Sept./Oct. 1988.

In the New Republic , Oct 3, there was a very short (1 page, 1 column) piece called "Anti-Semitism, Left and Right" (page 9). But this article only contains the second and third quotes given by Chomsky. The first and fourth quotes don't occur at all. It refers to "old-fashioned right-wing anti-Semites" ("seven aging Eastern European fascists in the Republican apparatus") and "the anti-Semitism of native-born bigots on the right". It subsequently refers to this kind of anti-Semitism as "rather abstract and altogether without an agenda". The "salient anti-Semitism" of the left, on the other hand, is described as dangerous because it has an agenda. One tenet is "the delegimitization of the Jewish national movement".

There is no reference to the two-state resolution at all. Chomsky's description seems to be tendentious and inaccurate. (Denis Diderot 17 March 2005)

Hmm. TNR charges for online access, and I don't really plan either to spend money or make a special trip to the library to verify this (the passage isn't mine, I'm just remarking). I suspect that the 4th quote ("Jew-haters") is a scare-quote, not intended as a quote from TNR. But it sounds like the passage could at least use a rewrite noting TNR's "seven aging Eastern European fascists in the Republican apparatus" and pointing out that part of what Chomsky quotes may not be accurately quoted. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Neumann

When Neumann's criticism in Counterpunch is discussed, shouldn't his subsequent email exchange with the "Jewish Tribal Review" be mentioned?. Here are some quotes attributed to Neumann:

"I'm not quite sure whether you guys are antisemtic in the 'bad' sense or not"

"I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable antisemitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious racist antisemitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care. "

"My messages were not thought out with the deliberation I would take in making public pronouncements, and there is absolutely no question but that Zionists could twist them and misuse them."

When the exchange was published against his will at www.jewishtribalreview.org/neumann2.htm, Neumann's judgment was questioned

Neumann's defence is here

(unsigned, anonymous, 18 March 2005)

I don't think these particular e-mail quotes, which I believe have been taken out of context and incorrectly interpreted, are really relevant to this particular article. This article is about the claimed phenomenon "new anti-Semitism". Neumann's arguments against some of the claims made in favor of it are include as part of the counter balance those in favor . It is not about Neumann or anyone else quoted in the article. A separate article on Neumann would might be an appropriate place for the controversy over his e-mail to the Jewish Tribal Review. They do not make any argument for or against the points he makes in the Counterpunch article, they appear to be taken out of context and thus I don't see this as the place for them. Exactly what he meant by them is debatable and their inclusion would come across to me as a sort of adhominum argument to try to discredit the him and thus in turn the argument he makes in the counterpunch article by claiming these quotes prove him to be an anti-Semite/self-hating Jew and thus invalidating his arguments which it wouldn't even if were true. --Cab88

Straw-man anti-Semitism

Without passing judgment on the merits of this section, its recent placement in the article as a level-2 header, subordinating several unrelated sections that follow, is clearly wrong. Would someone please work out where they meant to put this in the article, or if it's just the header level that's wrong, or what? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Christiaan's edits

Christiaan, please note that arguments for one side are not supposed to be turned into arguments for the other side; this violates NPOV. Each side must be allowed to make its argument. Also, the organizations in question fight anti-Semitism, if you can find widely accepted views that say they do not, then you can question it, not until then. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well you only need to look at our own criticism section to see that this is disputed to some degree. I don't have strong feelings either way to be honest, just thought it was a good edit by Chamaeleon. Maybe "whose stated aim" would be better. —Christiaan 19:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have no preference for "alleged", "whose stated aim", "claim to" or any other version. I'm completely open on that one, and so is Christiaan. What is unacceptable is the version that flat-out says that the ADL is an organisation that combats anti-Semitism. I have never seen a statement from the ADL condemning anti-Semitism, only ones condemning leftists. Chamaeleon 20:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's just a silly thing to say. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Chamaeleon, please seek consensus here for your edit. It's bad English apart from anything else. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:03, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
I've already stated that I don't have any preference regarding the wording. The only issue is that the — let's say — Zionist version cannot remain. Chamaeleon 20:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I see you reverted my edit which changed Accusations of bigotry effectively inhibit debate by demonizing one party to the debate to Accusations of anti-Semitism can and are used in an attempt to discredit and demonise those who criticise Israeli actions, which is more accurate. Why did you revert this? —Christiaan 20:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Straw-man anti-Semitism" is a straw-man itself

I remember when I was reasonably young and I was hearing a lot about Israel and Palestine on the telly. At the time I remember thinking to myself that both peoples were as bad as each other; always attacking and counter-attacking. As a young ignorant mind this is how it appeared to me through my television anyway. Eventually I took just a cursory look at the situation away from my television and what struck me was the overwhelming injustice that had been dealt to the Palestinian people. After that I remember debating the situation with someone and being called anti-Semitic for my troubles. What was most interesting is that I didn't even really know what a Jew was, or even what really happened in the Nazi Holocaust, such is my ability to have large gaps of knowledge. So I was looking at the situation with truly fresh eyes for what it was. Alas not any more. To this day I remember that and realise how easy and unjust it is to demonise one's opponent simply by labelling them. Never since have I ever been able to articulate my views as an anti-Zionist without being accused of anti-Semitism. And for writing that last sentence I am by definition of this article an anti-Semite.—Christiaan 19:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hear you, but they don't, and they never will. Chamaeleon 20:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And who are "they"? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Um, all the Jews in their big conspiracy Chamaeleon 00:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pretending to be a jerk is not a good way to demonstrate you're not one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's funny though. Chamaeleon 10:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I hear you, but they don't, and they never will. —Christiaan 19:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, actually, it isn't funny, and I say this as a person who has worked quite cooperatively with you on other articles. When one gets into the realm of ethnicities, and questions of possible ethnic prejudice, jokes by people who are not part of the ethnicity are in terrible taste, and really not funny at all. I personally think that the claims of a "new anti-Semitism" are a crock—it's just a conflation of the old anti-Semitism and Arab anti-Zionism—but that old anti-Semitism ranges from country-club elitism to lethal neo-Nazi hatred. I personally had the childhood experience of people throwing rocks at me and calling me an epithet that I will not repeat here, relating to my ethicity. Seriously lousy realm for jokes, especially among people who don't properly know each other and can't gauge whether it's just a joke. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
No, you're wrong, J. Jews don't have any special right to tell people what they can joke about, even if you did have a hard time as a kid. If you are seriously worried about what comments on Wikipedia might do to people in the real world (and therefore cause real-world actions such as rock throwing), consider the fact that when I show people the slime that has been spread across Wikipedia and thrown at me, people who previously didn't care start grumbling about vicious Jews. In other words, if you want to berate someone for making a comment that might inadvertently cause anti-Semitism, you'd best direct yourself towards the likes of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. Chamaeleon 09:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is obscene to blame Jayjg and SlimVirgin for "inadvertently" causing anti-semitism, and I challenge you to find a comment either one of them made that would do that. Your innuendo about "people...grumbling about vicious jews" is also disgraceful. I am sure you challenged their anti-semitism, and didn't just shrug your shoulders, you being so into fighting for human rights an' all...--Mrfixter 11:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
a) The obscenity is in tactics such as quoting what I just said on the admin poll as though it condemned me. b) The innuendo is not mine. c) Otherwise, you're right to be sure.
Anyway, you're not going to draw me into future debate, as I have already proven that making arguments is suicidal on Wikipedia. I'm going to be the perfect, arrogant, tight-lipped admin-type from now on. You just watch. Chamaeleon 12:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Still waiting for a comment that Jayjg or Slimvirgin made that "inadvertently" caused anti-semitism. --Mrfixter 12:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Everything said by you, Jayjg, or Slim on my nomination page, for example. Chamaeleon 12:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Everything said by me? What ARE you talking about? How would mentioning your involvement in edit warring over apple pie lead to anti-semitism? --Mrfixter 12:44, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have rather missed the point. Try asking someone else to explain it to you. Chamaeleon 12:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As you said it, your answer/explanation is all I need. How am I and others causing "inadvertent" anti-semitism on your nomination page? Or maybe if thats too difficult a question to answer, how can I reverse the "inadvertent" anti-semitism I have caused? I hope you answer, I know you won't. --Mrfixter 15:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, "the Jews bring anti-Semitism upon themselves". Where have I heard that before? Jayjg (talk) 16:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's a slur. Please re-read Wikipedia policy on personal attacks and apologise immediately. Chamaeleon 18:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A slur? No, it's a question about a familiar refrain. Please re-read the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks; you'll find it here: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 18:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please act in good faith (and assume it). You haven't understood Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Reread it and reflect upon it serenely. Also read the policy on NPOV again. Chamaeleon 19:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know how my comment about you could inadvertently cause anti-Semitism. I wrote: "Oppose. He seems not to have understood Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or Wikipedia:No original research, and takes POV-pushing to extremes. He wrote today that: "I have never seen a statement from the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) condemning anti-Semitism, only ones condemning leftists," which is absurd. [2] I'm also opposing because of his combative responses to other oppose votes. People should be allowed to vote as they see fit without being challenged by the nominee. And I'm not keen on his sour-grapes-in-advance comment underneath his nomination."

Would you care to explain how that leads to anti-Semitism, and what you mean by "the likes of Jayjg and SlimVirgin"? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

[3] Chamaeleon 19:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't tell me what you meant, nor how what I said leads to anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism

Can we have some sources for "new anti-Semites argue that Jews view all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic"? —Christiaan 20:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles around like these: [4][5] How many more would you like? Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I read the first article and couldn't find any examples of the argument "that Jews view all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic". The argument I did find is that if you criticise Israel you are bound to be labelled an anti-Semite. And I, funnily enough, have never been accused of being anti-Semitic by a Jew. On the few occasions that I have been accused it's come from right-wing American evangelicals. So I'm not sure why you provided the first article; it specifically argues that there are many Jews who do not hold this view and seems to be mostly made up of comments that argue precisely the opposite to "Jews view all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic". I had a quick look at the second article and it immediately bats off with "[Jews] are all united by their unlimited belief in anti-semitism". I don't know who Ran HaCohen is but this seems to be a good example of the alleged new anti-Semitism, so worth including. But we really need many more examples to base this claim on. So yes please, bring on the hundreds. —Christiaan 01:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Why is it that anyone who opposes the state of Israel?s occupation and brutalization of the Palestinians is branded an anti-Semite? " "The Zionists refuse to separate criticism of Israel from criticism of Jews." - from the first article. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't get it. This is categorically not an argument "that Jews view all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic". You seem to be conflating "Jews" with "Zionists". Can we have some more sources? —Christiaan 02:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here are a couple more [6] [7] Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The first one refers only to Israelis, and the second one refers only to "most Jews [at fromoccupiedpalestine.org]". There must be some good examples in those hundreds of articles out there. —Christiaan 07:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there are, and they have been provided. It doesn't appear to make a difference which sources are provided, since you insist their clear statements don't actually mean what they say. Jayjg (talk) 15:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Huh? You mean to say they don't say what you think they mean, right? —Christiaan 19:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
LOL! No. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So some of these writers are communicating in some code that you know and I don't? —Christiaan 21:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm familiar with it anyway; it's called the English language. Jayjg (talk) 21:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You believe that when someone argues that Zionists view criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and even when someone specifically argues that many Jews do not view criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic they're not actually saying any of this at all because they're actually saying "Jews view all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic". I'm not aware of this form of English. This involves some kind of code that I don't know about. I'd be interested if you could enlighten me. —Christiaan 21:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(de-indenting) Here's more of the code, from one of the links above.: "Jews relate to anti-semitic conspiracy every criticism of Israel." Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'd prefer it if you responded to my argument rather than side-stepping it. Is this how it's going to be? —Christiaan 22:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What argument are you making? Which part of the article are you contending now? I point out clear statements in the articles, you say they don't exist. Is this how it's going to be? Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You believe that when someone argues that Zionists view criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, and even when someone specifically argues that many Jews do not view criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic they're not actually saying any of this at all because they're actually saying "Jews view all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic". I'm not aware of this form of English. This involves some kind of code that I don't know about. I'd be interested if you could enlighten me. You know which citations I am talking about, please don't obfuscate by posting comments from the citations I have already acknowledged.—Christiaan 23:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that argument. There is no point in responding to strawman arguments, and I can't figure out what exactly you are objecting to any more. Do you take issue with any part of the current article? Is so, which part specifically, and why? Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why can't you just talk straight Jayjg? I'm talking straight and I'd appreciate the same in kind. Why so much effort to obfuscate? Is it that you are aware of the deficiencies of this passage but are unwilling to address them? —Christiaan 23:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am talking straight, I wish you'd do the same. My questions are extremely clear, what specifically do you object to? Why spend your time asking convoluted leading questions instead of simply stating what you think is inaccurate about the current text? Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan, your comment above that begins "Let me get this straight" is so convoluted that I can't understand it, and I'm quite comfortable in saying I'm neither stupid nor language-deficient. I think Jay is entirely correct in asking "Do you take issue with any part of the current article? Is so, which part specifically, and why?" This is not a general discussion area. This is an area to discuss an article. Either you have something you want to change in the article, or you don't. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
So I ask for some citations (because the article is obviously lacking in this department), I acknowledge those that appear to be good examples and point out precisely what I believe to be defiencies in the others. I then get drawn into some wacky discussion about how these deficiencies aren't really deficiencies at all because the authors actually mean something other than what they've writen. In response to my request that Jayjg enlighten me as to how he knows what they really mean I am thrown some quote from a citation that I've already acknowledged as been suitable. When I request again to be enlightened I'm then told I'm spinning strawman arguments. And then I'm being convoluted??? —Christiaan 22:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The argument Christiaan seems to be making is that a number of the examples cited by Jayjg seems to be refering to Zionists not simply Jews in general. Since not all Jews are Zionists then the examples do not equate to saying all jews view critisism of Israel as anti-Semitic but rather all Ziionist view critisism of Israel as anti-Semitic. Thus the straw-man argument is really about Zionist not simply jews in general. At least that how I read the his argument. --Cab88 23:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intro

That is how the term is, as a matter of fact, used, Christiaan; it is not simply an intention. I have supplied three more articles showing that. You're not allowed to remove edits that are properly referenced to credible publications. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Actually in can be argued that this isn't even the intended use of the term let alone its actual use. Please ask yourself which is the more NPOV term to use. —Christiaan 00:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan, you're giving me the strong impression that you've taken ownership of this article and will not allow me to make a reasonable edit. As I said above, it is referenced that this is how the word is used by mainstream journalists. You have no reason to dilute that. If you want to argue that their use of the term is somehow not a real use, but merely an intended one (whatever that means), please supply a source; otherwise, leave my edit alone. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Christiaan's version less POV. Anti-semitism is hurled about as a "power word", with the intent to defame and silence anyone critical of Israeli policy or things jewish. "new" anti-semitism is a neologism for cases where it is especially hard to make the case for anti-semitism, and so even the slanderers feel a need for a new term so as to preserve credibility. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christiaan's version is unreferenced. Mine is referenced. And the word IS used to mean that. I am simply stating a fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't anyone else notice that this sentence (regardless of "used" v. "intended") is screwy? Although the term is intended to describe acts of bigotry closely related to historical anti-Semitism, it asserts that contemporary anti-Semitism often takes a different form and is based on different pretexts.. How can a word assert something? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
True. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

See Sapir Worf, words are powerful. If I hear the word "rapist" or "racist" or whatever, I tend to dislike those it is used against psychologically, before I have a chance to know all the details. Many people no longer want to hear all the details once someone is labeled anti-semitic, they already have there mind made up as soon as the power word is dropped. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intro and the left-wing

The charge of new anti-Semitism is meant to apply to all groups that express unreasonable hostility toward Israel; to the extent that the left-wing tends to level condemnation and perceived unfair criticism against Israel, they are accused of promoting new anti-Semitism.

This passage needs a serious look at I think. It reads as if to conflate the "expression of unreasonable hostility toward Israel" with the "left-wing". —Christiaan 01:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist Jewish groups

From the article "Today, the number of anti-Zionist Jewish groups worldwide is small." True enough, if Zionism is taken to mean merely believing in the right of the State of Isreal to exist, but the number of Jewish groups opposed to the policies of the Israeli government is far larger. The term Zionism is much more problematic than when there was no state of Israel. At this point, it tends to be associated with a certain maximalist Israeli agenda, not with those who feel that the proper goals of Zionism have already been achieved, and that present Israeli policies excede what is appropriate.

For example, Yesh G'vul and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom are both, in some sense, Zionist, but they are constantly subject to attacks from the Israeli right and its supporters as "self-hating Jews" for what is perceived to be an insufficiently zealous Zionism. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone characterize them as "anti-Zionist"? Jayjg (talk) 15:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Qualifiers

"to the extent that the left-wing tends to level condemnation and unfair criticism against Israel, they are accused of promoting new anti-Semitism." This is a matter of proper English usage and logic. The qualifier "to the extent that" states the premise adequately; the logic is that if it's unfair criticism, then it's considered antisemitism. You can argue that the logic is faulty, but this is merely meant to outline what it is. --Leifern 21:35, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

It's not that the logic's faulty, it's that it's a POV statement to say that the left levels unfair criticism against Israel. —Christiaan 21:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, no, no - read the sentence - if you think that the left doesn't level unfair criticism, then you'd still agree with the logic. In other words, it's only if the criticism is unfair ("to the extent that") that it's considered antisemitism. --Leifern 21:46, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Exactly; and if you take out the word "unfair", then you are promoting the view of the term's opponents, not its proponents. Remember, it is proponents who says that unfair criticism of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism, whereas opponents say all criticism of Israel is included in the term. You must allow the term to be defined by proponents as they mean it, and not reverse their meaning to make a counter-argument. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"To the extent" presupposes that it is done. To "tend to" do something "to an extent" is a qualifier for how much, and you do not do zero of something. —Christiaan 21:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course the proponents of the view that there is a "New anti-Semitism" presuppose it is done. And the opponents presuppose it is not. But if you're defining the term, you certainly have to define it as the proponents do, and the proponents are quite clear that it is only unfair criticism that is "New anti-Semitism", not any and all criticism (as the opponents claim). You can't represent the view by stating its opposite. Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Christiaan, you're misunderstanding the English. Read Leifern's posts above. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hehe, I see, it couldn't possibly be a problem with the article, it's all just a huge misunderstanding on my part as a reader. We gotta get better readers round here. —Christiaan 22:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's that code again; you know, the English language. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg's last edit summary: to the extent that they do they, they are *accused* of promoting it. Note, *accused*. Not a statement that they actually do so, but the accusation by those who say there is a New anti-Semitism.

Accused is only the second part of the sentence. The first part says "to the extent" and "to the extent" that they do presupposes that there is an extent that they do. And now, no doubt, you're you're going back to your "proponents must be able to state their case" argument. This is not stating the case of the proponents from a neutral stand point. It's stating the proponents case as factually true; that there is an extent to which the left levels unfair criticism at Israel. Do none of you see this??? —Christiaan 22:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to those who make the accusation they do. If the article said "to the extent etc., they *promote* anti-Semitism", then you would need to qualify it. The sentence merely describes what proponents of the notion accuse them of doing; it does not in any way claim they actually do so. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My beef is not with the accusation of anti-Semitism, my beef is with the comment that the left levels unfair criticism at Israel to some extent. How can you not see this? (please note that you've also violated 3RR) —Christiaan 22:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's what they accuse the left of doing! The article doesn't take the position that the left actually does it, it just acknowledges that proponents of the notion of a "New anti-Semitism" accuse them of that! Proponents don't accuse them of "allegedly" doint it, they accuse them of actually doing it. If you add the qualifier, it no longer represents what proponents actually say. How can you not see this? (and how do you figure that? I don't see 4 reverts in 24 hours). Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It acknowledges that proponents accuse them of anti-Semitism, not unfair criticism of Israel; it states this as fact. [8] [9] [10] [11], not that I particurlarly care, I'm just pointing out that you have done little more than plain revert me in this exchange. —Christiaan 23:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Those aren't 4 reverts by any stretch of the imagination, and I've seen enough debates on the subject on the AN/3RR page to know. In any event, the current wording is much better, so there should be no further issue. Jayjg (talk) 13:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, this one's not even worth an argument. Just reshape the sentence; even if one or the other of you is misinterpreting the sentence, it's because the sentence leads to misinterpretation: proof being that one of you did so. Instead of
    to the extent that the left-wing levels unfair condemnation and criticism of Israel, they are accused of promoting new anti-Semitism.
    why not something like
    the left-wing is accused of promoting new anti-Semitism in the form of unfair criticism and condemnation of Israel.
    --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, that was exactly my point about needing better readers above. This was what I was hoping someone would do because I couldn't think of a better way to shape it. —Christiaan 23:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I agree, that's better, but there is still some ambiguity about the sentence I just posted below but had an edit conflict with Jpgordon. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 23:32, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, I think they mean "in particular". —Christiaan 23:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Much better, thank you. I'm also going to link "left-wing" to Left-wing politics, I'm assuming that's who is referred to here. At first I wasn't sure whether the term was targeted toward something in a more local sense. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 23:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
    A good sentence now. Jayjg (talk) 13:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I think it's worth noting for the record how difficult it was to change. —Christiaan 22:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I think it's worth noting for the record how easy it was to change once a reasonable proposal was made. Jayjg (talk) 14:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Though if everyone is noting things for the record, let's note that it was a convolutedly structured sentence to begin with, and a challenge even for fair editors (regardless of perspective) to reframe. Now that the sentence structure is more clear, let's hope Jmabel (or someone) will be able to clarify some of the ambiguity that still remains in reference to the "Left". --MPerel( talk | contrib) 16:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
    See, I looked at the talk page first. I see it's been changed now. Nice job, to all who made that more clear. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 16:08, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The whole sentence is confusing

The charge of new anti-Semitism is meant to apply to all groups that express unreasonable hostility toward Israel; to the extent that the left-wing levels unfair condemnation and criticism of Israel, they are accused of promoting new anti-Semitism.

There is some ambiguity in this paragraph that I'm having trouble understanding. First, is the second part of the sentence saying something different than the first part, or is it just further explaining the first part. The first part talks about charges meant to apply to "all groups" and the second part talks about the "left-wing". Who is the left-wing exactly and what's different about the left-wing from "all groups"? I find the whole sentence very confusing. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 23:30, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, my concerns were resolved in the preceding Talk: paragraph. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 23:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Left

We currently have a sentence in the lead section, "The Left in particular is accused of promoting new anti-Semitism in the form of unfair criticism and condemnation of Israel." I guess my main problem is with "The Left in particular..." What could be less particular? Surely the claim is not that all socialists, left-liberals, etc., even those who are Jews, even those who are Israelis, are promoting anti-Semitism. But that's what this says. I'm not sure exactly what it means to say, but could whoever wrote this take a shot at rewriting it to say what they actually mean? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I now see that this sentence resulted from discussion above. Sorry, folks, but you still definitely don't have this right. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't wrote this sentence, but I think it tends more toward radical left groups (and when I say radical, I mean radical on the political-national spectrum, regardless of economical positions). MathKnight 08:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BTW: I think we should some how incorperate Post-September_11_anti-war_movement#Allegations_of_anti-Americanism_and_anti-Semitism_within_the_European_anti-war_movement in this article as well (maybe as a link with short para descripition and maybe in just copy it under section such as "Left wing and antisemitism" and rewrite the first few sentences). MathKnight 08:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the sentence is intended to indicate that the New anti-Semitism is considered to be more prevalent in left-wing groups, as opposed to the "old anti-Semitism", which was promulgated by right-wing (often fascist) groups. Jayjg (talk) 13:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm going to try to reword it in a way that may be what is intended; I realize this may be controversial, but I promise that it is simply a good-faith effort to address the ambiguity I refer to above. If someone else can do better, great. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:09, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Image of Neonazi defacement of cemetery

Just curious, is the image in this article (FrenchCemetery103004-01.jpg) an example of "New" anti-semitism or the old anti-semitism since neonazis are on the Right of the political spectrum, and the defacement doesn't have much to do with unfair criticism of Israel? I'm thinking it would be more appropriate in the Anti-semitism article. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 19:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I believe it is already in that article. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are right. Unfortunenately, I don't think Wikipedia has better images on the subject. Do you have any sources for more related images we can use? I think I can screen-capture some images from Indymedia websites, including some cartoon of Latuff (I don't know what it is the copyright status of Latuff's cartoons). MathKnight 19:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. This isn't anything like "'new' anti-semitism"; it's old-fashioned paleonaziism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this image is better? It is a graphic work taken from Indymedia. MathKnight 19:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • If we want to illustrate with a nasty cartoon, surely we can find one that at least was executed competently... -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Do you have better suggestions? MathKnight 10:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't go seeking this stuff out, but I'd probably look in the Islamist press, or the fringe left (Workers' World maybe? I wouldn't be astounded if they have crossed this line on occasion). -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

The newness of the new antisemitism is exaggerated too much

  • For many people who use the phrase "new antisemitism", it's basically the same as old antisemitism. It's new in the sense of "new water". And it doesn't only exist on the left.

Here is Jonathan Sachs:

the new antisemitism—and it is new—is a global phenomenon conveyed by Internet, e-mail, television and video, and we do not yet know how the new communications media will affect its spread. --- It is coming simultaneously from three different directions: first, a radicalized Islamist youth inflamed by extremist rhetoric; second, a left-wing anti-American cognitive élite with strong representation in the European media; third, a resurgent far right, as anti-Muslim as it is anti-Jewish. [12]

Benyamin Netanyahu:

The past two years have witnessed a recrudescence of antisemitism in Western Europe the likes of which have not been seen since the end of World War II. Synagogues, schools and other Jewish buildings have been torched and Jews have been subjected to physical and verbal abuse. While most of these acts have been the work of Muslims, it is the European elites who have created an ambience in which antisemitism is no longer considered unacceptable in "polite company". --- Future historians may yet call this "new antisemitism" (the term coined to describe what has been happening in Europe in the last 2 and a half years, since the Palestinians abandoned diplomacy for violence) a watershed in the long gloomy history of Jew-hatred on the European continent. Today, more than five decades after French police rounded up Jews on the streets of Paris for deportation to the East, no Jew with a kippah on his head feels secure walking the streets of any city or town in Europe.[13]

Denis Diderot 21:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image

Please don't remove the image for no reason. I've put it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think Christiaan removed it after the discussion above concluding that it was representative of anti-semitism but not new anti-semitism. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 23:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, Christiaan. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

"...is simply a matter of conscience"

From the article (arguments made by opponents to the thesis): "Criticizing or even condemning a state's actions is simply a matter of conscience, and no state is exempt from accountability for its action."

The first part of this seems problematic to me. I'm not sure exactly what it means to say. Clearly criticism of a state's actions can be a matter of conscience, but this seems to say that it is inherently so. In any case, it seems to me that the whole thing would be stronger if we just said, "No state is exempt from accountability for its action". If the rest of this can be said coherently, it probably belongs as a separate item preceding that.

BTW, while I agree that we have a basically accurate summation of the arguments agains the "new anti-Semitism" thesis, do we have citations for any of these arguments? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism or Neo anti-Semitism

Any comments on the proposal to change the current name of the article from "New anti-Semitism" to "Neo anti-Semitism", and direct this page to it. Grammatically, "Neo" is correct, "New" just makes it sound like it really is new and not a modern variant based on previous concepts.

I know it's not nice to compare, but it is for this very same gramatical reasoning that we say "Neo Nazism" not "New Nazism". Also note the very different meaning of "New Nazi" (someon who recently joined the original nazi party) and "Neo Nazi" (not a member of the actual Nazi party, but a member of a modern variant). Al-Andalus 05:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC).

    • I believe that Neo anti-Semitism would be a neologism. New anti-Semitism is, for better or worse, the term in the literature. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Friedman quote

In the section New anti-Semitism#Examples cited, the Friedman quote is part of the bullet point about straw-man attacks, but seems to have nothing to do with that topic. I agree that the quote belongs in the article, but not with its placement. I'd have no problem with just inserting a newline before it (that is, taking it outside of the bullet list) but wondered if anyone else has a better idea. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dershowitz

What I particularly like about this article is the supreme irony of quoting Dershowitz saying that no Jewish leader has claimed criticism of Israel is dismissed as "antisemitism". He is too modest and, as is appropriate for a lawyer, very careful. I don't think Jewish leaders have ever suggested that criticisms of "particular policies" are driven by antisemitism. It would be nonsense to say: "You criticised the 'security barrier' because you hate Jews" -- transparently dumb. But in a broader sense, this is exactly what is done. In this article Dershowitz makes the accusation he very often does, that antisemitism is a "factor" in attacking Israel's policies. IOW, he does exactly what is being described as a straw man.

I couldn't find in this article any mention of Norman Finkelstein, who levels precisely this charge (among others) at Dershowitz. Finkelstein suggests that the "new anti-Semitism" is fabricated. A balanced article would have referenced him.

I have no interest in editing this article whatsoever. I'll leave that to editors who are more closely interested in this subject than I am. I'm not watching it either, so any comments to my talk page, please.

I want to make absolutely clear that I do not agree with all of Finkelstein's positions, particularly where the Holocaust is concerned, nor do I disagree with all of Dershowitz's. It would be just too ironic to be accused of anti-Semitism on the page about anti-Semitism. I'm asking for balance, not anti-anything-ism. Grace Note 02:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Finkelstein should certainly be cited as a critic of the "New anti-semitism thesis", although I would say that his views on post-Holocaust Jewish institutional politics probably do put him "beyond the pale" for a lot of Jews. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

The following was the subject of dispute:

---

…the new antisemitism—and it is new—is a global phenomenon conveyed by Internet, e-mail, television and video, and we do not yet know how the new communications media will affect its spread. … It is coming simultaneously from three different directions: first, a radicalized Islamist youth inflamed by extremist rhetoric; second, a left-wing anti-American cognitive élite with strong representation in the European media; third, a resurgent far right, as anti-Muslim as it is anti-Jewish. [14]

Opponents of the term generally acknowledge that the "old" anti-Semites have opportunistically latched onto aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Arab anti-Zionism has led to a growth of anti-Jewish as well as anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world, but argue that claims of a "new" anti-Semitism have largely, or even primarily, been used as a tactic to stifle what these opponents of the term see as legitimate criticism of Israel. Many have questioned the linkage between anti-Semitism and opposition to Israel.

---

SV|t|add 03:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. This is a quotation from the current Chief Rabbi of the UK. Is someone disputing that Sacks said this, that it belongs in the article or what? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Article introductions should be brief and dynamic. Including a paragraph-length quote in the intro, unless it is a very pithy or very well-known statement, diminishes this. Therefore, the quote has been relocated to the Proponents section, where it belongs. LevelCheck 01:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I completely agree. (Nothing in the remark above made it clear that the issue was placement rather than inclusion.) -- Jmabel | Talk 02:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Democracy and quickness of wit

I know that we live not a hundred years ago but today; at the same time, I hold that we can't neglect to delve under the surface. In particular, what are the motivations of the anti-Zionists, and why do we Jews, or most of us Jews, equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism?

Yes, it isn't our job to untangle their motivations, much less to state them. But we have to remember, and note, that a great deal of the anti-Zionists in the West have nothing to do with Israel at all. A student is rejected from a British University because he was in the Israeli Army! Now, it's difficult to withhold judgment, isn't it?

To what you've written about anti-Zionism I can suggest adding only the analysis by which we Jews conclude that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. Of course, the answering analysis is, stop with the conspiracy theories! That's very difficult to argue without appearing out of your mind. But note that not all of us who conduct the former analysis make conspiracy theories. --VKokielov 05:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article has been unprotected. -SV|t|add 17:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article opening

The article opening is way too long and rambling. Paragraph-length quotes really don't belong here. They should be placed further down in the article. LevelCheck 18:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incoherent, POV paragraph

The following recently added paragraph is, at best, marginally coherent, and seems rather POV: what the heck are "modern Jewish eyes"? And why should the narrative voice of the article say, "'Statements of principle' from the side have always been considered bad manners in diplomacy…"?

These perceptions in modern Jewish eyes arise because the vast majority of Israel's critics have little to do with the conflict. "Statements of principle" from the side have always been considered bad manners in diplomacy, whilst in criticism of Israel around the world exactly these statements of principle (many of them on loan from Arab sources) dominate.

I'd be inclined to just remove, but this is obviously a contentious article, so what do others think about the paragraph? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:33, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • It should be reworded to conform with NPOV. The paragraph clearly expresses what many of the proponents of the "new anti-Semitism" epithet feel, but Wikipedia should not lend editorial weight to its actual truth or falsity. LevelCheck 01:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Would anyone have a problem with removing it pending re-addition in a more coherent form? I've quoted it in full above, so it won't get lost. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I must be Mr. Marginally Coherent. No matter. I'm not contentious. I'll try again. --VKokielov 04:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External links

There are far too many external links in this article. We should only be using the most relevant ones, or at least references to content in the article. If footnotes have to be used, either hidden or explicit, that may solve the problem. --Viriditas | Talk 02:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phrasing in Need of Improvement

Reading the following statement is enough to make one's head spin:
Those who claim there is a new anti-Semitism claim that "new anti-Semites" argue that Jews view all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic and that his allegation is then used to criticise Jewish groups as unreasonable, overly anxious or unable to withstand criticism.
I realize that any statement of the form "A believes that B believes that C believes D" is going to be unwieldy, but can't we do better than this while still retaining NPOV? LevelCheck 02:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Both paragraphs have been removed to talk, as they lack attribution. Please add them back in to the Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism section when the weasel words have been removed.
Those who claim there is a new anti-Semitism claim that "new anti-Semites" argue that Jews view all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic and that his allegation is then used to criticise Jewish groups as unreasonable, overly anxious or unable to withstand criticism.
They claim that no Jewish groups officially hold such a position, and that on numerous occasions many Jewish groups have publicly criticised the policies of different Israeli governments.
--Viriditas | Talk 02:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pierre-Andre Taguieff

I would like to add and clarify content in this article using Pierre-Andre Taguieff's book. If anyone has any information about the author, that would be great. --Viriditas | Talk 02:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Highly POV paragraph cut

I have cut the following highly POV paragraph:

Jews more and more in recent years equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism because more and more anti-Zionists in recent years have very little to do with Israel or its politics. In 2003, an Oxford professor personally denied admission to an Israeli student on political grounds, for which he was made to apologize ([15]); the number of academic divestments and boycotts by organizations that have no or little interest in the conflict has risen sharply in the last ten years; Jews have been connected to Nazis with ever-increasing ferocity and at an increasing frequency. It has become difficult for Jews to continue to see the disinterested altruist in the anti-Zionist.
  1. Uncited claim that "Jews more and more in recent years equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism"
  2. Uncited claim as to why Jews do this.
  3. Uncited (and not very clear) statement that "more and more anti-Zionists in recent years have very little to do with Israel or its politics". What does it even mean to say that an anti-Zionist has "little to do with Israel or its politics"? Is this implying that past anti-Zionists were heavily involved in Isreali politics?
  4. One statement that might belong somewhere in the article—"In 2003, an Oxford professor personally denied admission to an Israeli student on political grounds, for which he was made to apologize ([16])"—except that the "political grounds" go unexplained, suggesting implicitly that the student was banned for being Israeli, which I doubt.
    • VKokielov asked on my user talk page, "What do you doubt?" I doubt that the student was banned merely for being Israeli. As I understand it, the incident related to the student being in the Israeli army. Given the near-universal conscription in Israel, I suppose that almost amounts to the same thing, but that should not go without saying. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Uncited claim that "the number of academic divestments and boycotts by organizations that have no or little interest in the conflict has risen sharply in the last ten years". What is the claimed basis for these divestments and boycotts? There seems to be a presumption of bad faith, with no evidence presented.
  6. "Jews have been connected to Nazis with ever-increasing ferocity and at an increasing frequency." "Connected to" is unclear, but I assume it means (and should say) "rhetorically compared to", unless there is evidence of actual claims of Jewish-Nazi alliances, which I sincerely doubt. But even then: it's an uncited claim, indeed a claim with no evidence, of an increase in such rhetoric.
  7. "It has become difficult for Jews to continue to see the disinterested altruist in the anti-Zionist." A pure POV statement. And with a strong, false, implication that one can make a broad statement like this about all Jews. Apparently, the Satmars (for just one example) either do not exist, aren't Jews, or are incapable of believing in their own altruism. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:32, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
"Uncited (and not very clear) statement that "more and more anti-Zionists in recent years have very little to do with Israel or its politics". What does it even mean to say that an anti-Zionist has "little to do with Israel or its politics"? Is this implying that past anti-Zionists were heavily involved in Isreali politics?"
The intention of the writer was to say that anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli action were not made because of Israeli policies (i.e. the "occupation", the "appartheid" and so on) but because of Israeli being a Jewish state (i.e. the Jew of the nations). They reason that worse policies (such as suicide bombings or despotic Islamist regiems) are not criticized\boycott\demonized by those (such as the AUT) who boycott\demonize Israel. In other words, they sat that group boycott Israel not because Israel's policies but because Israel is Jewish. MathKnight 19:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. That sure isn't clear. But clearly that is POV, no? Claiming to know people's unstated motivations? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. He described the Jewish POV about the factual sharp increase in anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli rethorics and boycotts. MathKnight 21:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While we both agree, I don't think it's possible to describe the "Jewish POV" in a NPOV manner without attributions. We need to stick to hard facts. This is why I recommend citing authors, names of proponents, and organizations. As an example, the non-Jewish French philosopher and political historian, has defined and documented the new anti-semitism, and I suggest we use sources that can be specifically cited and verified. This is not a meme; this is a real, observable phenomenon that has been documented by experts in their respective fields. --Viriditas | Talk 01:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course it's a meme. The term "new anti-Semitism" is simple in form and intent: according to the proponents of the accusation, opposition to Israel is anti-Semitic, and anyone who points this out is also anti-Semitic. There's nothing at all complicated about it. LevelCheck 01:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, except for the fact that they explicitly say opposition to Israel's policies is not anti-Semitic. There's nothing at all complicated about that either, but for some reason people keep throwing up that strawman argument anyway. Jayjg (talk) 07:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's make it easy on ourselves: WP:3O --VKokielov 20:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I ask for a third opinion because we're not going to come to a consensus by talking. We are looking at each other from different sides of a gorge. It'll save us both a lot of headache if we can involve someone else, someone neutral...Am I wrong? --VKokielov 20:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Are you claiming that what you wrote is NPOV? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Insofar as it represents general Jewish opinion (and not an analysis which I say you can't deny), yes. How would you like me to prove to you that it does? --VKokielov 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If this is "general Jewish opinion" (FWIW, I doubt that such a thing even exists), then you need to attribute it to someone. You can't use the encyclopedic voice to make highly controversial statements like: "more and more anti-Zionists in recent years have very little to do with Israel or its politics". LevelCheck 21:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wipe my hands clean of this article - I renounce my right to say anything on the question - so that I can answer you here. This is how I answer: if there were no general Jewish opinion, there would be no Jews after all this time. Remember that. The Jews are notorious for their ability to put aside their differences at the slightest provocation, at the slightest sign of danger. They talk of civil war in Israel now? When I raised the question to (another) Jew I trust very much, he told me to wait and see how it never comes to that. And, whatever I suspect or wonder, I know why he's saying what he says. If it comes to civil war, then we Jews are standing before a big tragedy, for us bigger than any other tragedy we've faced.
That was my personal opinion, and (in accordance with every rule of good conduct) I promise not to meddle anymore. Do with that paragraph what you will.--VKokielov 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of academy, let me tell you what that has to do with Israel and anti-Zionism. A Jew who will not rise to fight for Israel, accusations of misconduct be cursed, is a very peculiar Jew indeed. Have you seen the Israeli left? There is not one Israeli leftist who did not serve his round in the army. So, pardon me, when an Oxford professor spits, like the last idiot in the world, on a student from Israel because (says Oxford) this student was Israeli, why should we be surprised that Oxford punishes him? --VKokielov 22:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing written here do represent a common conception among Jews, Zionists and Israelis, but it is badly written and hard to understand. There is actually a good point here to develop, using the examples of the Oxford professor who refuse to accept an Israeli only because of ita nationality and the AUT recent boycott, to write a paragraph about acadamic boycotts against Israel and the percieved bias and single out of Israel alone to boycotts. Check this Guardian in which you can find some attributation to the claims raised in the paragraph. We definitely have something to work out and discuss. MathKnight 21:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I didn't say that there wasn't a point here to develop. I said that the way it was written was highly POV, lacked citations, and that certain passages made false implications, enough so that in this highly controversial article it seemed more appropriate to cut it to the talk page for work than to work on it in the article itself. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic incidents in the United Kingdom

This whole section should be cut, or completely re-written. It is highly POV, irrelevant and leading. It insinuates and makes accusations. There may well be incidents of Anti-Semitism in the UK, but there would be incidents of all other forms of racism as well. It also tries to lable Ken Livingstone as an anti-semite, but he is not, and there is no factual and un-POV evidence to indicate that he might be. --Chammy Koala 13:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? It is contained well-cited reports. You argue that the antisemitic attacks are no different than the sphoradic racist attack occuring once in a while, but the above statements differ on that: they cite 40% rise in attacks, organized demonization efforts by groups and official unions and the result of that rise.
Is this paragraph claims that Livingston is antisemitic? Well, not explicitly. It states the fact he was highly criticized by Jewish groups and his support for Qardawi. It let the reader to decide alone rather Livingston is antisemitic or just pro-Palestine and anti-Israeli with big mouth that got him into troubles. MathKnight 20:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The mention of Oona King is kind of odd. There is no way of knowing why the voters of B&BG voted the way they did but Iraq was clearly an issue. It is not clear that Ms King's Jewish mother was despite her claims that it was. After all the same voters voted for her in three, I think offhand, previous elections. At least once anyway as she was a sitting member. Either a lot of them became A-S over night, or Iraq was an issue, her Jewishness was not. Does anyone mind if I try to recast that bit to make it clear that it is a claim, not a fact? Lao Wai 16:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Lead POV

"The New anti-Semitism refers to the resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols as well as the acceptability of anti-Semitic beliefs and their public expression in the media, universities, and the intellectual world in the late twentieth to early twenty-first century."
This is not NPOV, by any stretch of the imagination. -SV|t|add 20:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was paraphrasing the work of Pierre-Andre Taguieff, who is not Jewish, but has collected data on the new anti-Semitism. So, this description partially defines his dataset, although it could be expanded. What changes would you recommend? I thought it was clear and to the point, whereas the original lead made no sense whatsoever and was very confusing. How can it be made more neutral? The description I offered appears to encapsulate the concept and offers some clarity to an otherwise messy article, but does not just describe Taguieff's position, but the idea as a whole. Two words in particular, "resurgence" and "acceptability" are key to the definition. --Viriditas | Talk 21:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So we now have a lead that totally fails to mention the controversy, even among Jews, surrounding the term? This seems absolutely wrong to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

It should certainly mention any controversy. Could you offer an example of a rewritten lead that incldues such controversy? The previous lead was too confusing and didn't explain the term in any helpful way. I haven't yet addressed Taguieff's main point, which is that anti-Semitism that was formerly based on racism and nationalism has changed nto a new anti-Semitism based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. That is the essence of the "controversy", so any reputable source which criticizes that view should be included in the lead with the aforementioned text attributed to Taguieff, in addition to the present lead which gives a brief, general overview. I don't believe the current lead is in question but the nature of the attacks themselves, which I have just briefly clarified. I will also be adding evidence for these attacks in the coming days. --Viriditas | Talk 02:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Chesler makes the same point about the New anti-Semitism, that anti-Semitism that was formerly based on racism and nationalism has changed into a new anti-Semitism based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently very busy, not able to keep up with my Watchlist, etc. I will get back to this eventually; meanwhile, no one should mistake my lack of time to address this for agreement with the changes being made. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Let me start with a question: where does the definition of "The New anti-Semitism" that makes up the first sentence ("the contemporary (beginning in the late 20th century) resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols as well as the acceptability of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse") come from? It's unattributed and it completely contradicts the Irwin Cotler definition cited/quoted below.

I don't want to be disruptive here, but in the case of a controversial term, we need to be discussing that term the way it's used in the literature. I finally found myself with an hour or so on my hands and thought I'd try to work on the lead, as discussed, but the article now announces itself as being on a rather different topic than just a few days ago. Can someone please find a set of cited definitions and write a first paragraph or two accordingly? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

The current lead is an overview and not an actual definition. The fact that these attacks are occurring and have been labeled the "new anti-Semitism" is clear and not in dispute. The dispute lies in the difference between the old and the new, and the proponents have explicitly stated that criticism of Israel is not NAS. It may or may not be the case that some attacks fit the definition of NAS and some do not, and this is one aspect of the controversy that should be explored. The criticism section should focus on pointing out holes in NAS. In contrast to anti-Semitism based on racism and nationalism, proponents claim that NAS is motivated by anti-racism and anti-nationalism, such that Jews are being attacked as "racists who support Israel", by an alleged radical Islamist subculture in Europe, and by a contingent of disparate (and not so disparate) groups in the U. S. and elsewhere (views that range from right to left) who compare Zionism to Nazism, accuse Jews of ritual murder, and engage in holocaust denial. In some cases, there is an overlap between the groups. The critics claim the proponents are confusing the old anti-semitism with criticism of Israel, but the proponents point out that these kinds of attacks are in marked contrast to simply criticizing Israel. --Viriditas | Talk 07:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


As the previous version tried to make clear, the meaning of the expression varies considerably. Here are some examples. First some quotes from Seymour Martin Lipset, professor of government and sociology at Harvard University (1971). He doesn't use the exact phrase "the new anti-Semitism", but he outlines the theme pretty well:

Twenty-five years after the end of World War II and the collapse of the most anti-Semitic regime in history, anti-Semitism appears to be on the rise around the world. But unlike the situation before 1945 when anti-Jewish polirics was largely identified with rightist elements, the current wave is linked to governments, parties and groups which are conventionally described as leftist.[---]One may oppose Israeli policy, resist Zionism or criticize worldwide Jewish support of Israel without being anti-Semitic. But when one draws on age-old hostility to Jews to strenghten a political position, when one gives credence to this charge of a worldwide Jewish plot to rule, when one attacks those with whom one has political and econonomic differences as Jews, when one implies that Jews are guilty of some primal evil, then one is guilty of anti-Semitism,[---]The Arabs, of course, like other critics of the Jews on the far left and right, insist that they are only anti-Zionist. Yet there is clear evidence that anti-Semitism -- not simply anti-Zionism -- has deeply penetrated Arab groups and governments.[---]Given the clear-cut anti-Semitic character of much pro-Arab propaganda [...] the question arises as to why so many on the left, including many Jews, hace accepted such politics as their own, or more commonly, have abstained from criticizing groups such as the Black Panthers, no matter how explicit their bigotry. [---]The fact that this time the predominant weight of the anti-Semitic thrust is on the left rather then the right will surprise only those who are unaware of the considerable literature on anti-Semitism [sic] in the socialist and other leftist movements.

Lipset described all the main characteristics of the "new anti-Semitism": the "predominant weight" in left-wing rather than right-wing groups. Anti-Semitism under the guise of anti-Zionism. Far left, far right, and Arab worlds as main sources. Seen as acceptable many intellectual leftists.
Then we have the ADL report called "The New Anti-Semitism" (1974) written by Forster and Epstein. Its perspective was quite similar to Lipset's, but there was a greater emphasis on the acceptability of anti-Semitic stereotypes in public discourse.

the new anti-Semitism is not necessarily deliberate in character and is more often expressed by respected individuals and institutions here and abroad -- people who would be shocked to think of themselves, or have other think them, anti-Semites

Sometimes the concept is closer tied to anti-Zionism:
Irving Abella (professor of history at York University in Toronto) (1991):

The new antisemitism consists of Israel-bashing. It is more than a matter of attacking the policies of the Israeli government, which is legitimate, Abella says, if you disagree with those policies. But accusing Zionists of racism, negating Israel's right to exist as an independent state, and using Nazi metaphors to describe IDF actions in the administered territories is antisemitic.

This usage was of course criticized, for example by Eric Alterman in the Nation, Nov 5 1990.
But sometimes Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are seen as characteristic of the new anti-Semitism. Thus, for example Frances Henry, professor of Anthropology (1999) who testified in a Canadian court:

Her evidence was that the "new" anti-Semitism places great emphasis on Holocaust-denial and belief in Jewish conspiracies and control of governments. She noted that racism may be expressed overtly or may be covert. It has become more subtle in recent years. In her view, the more serious forms of racism are those that are hidden in popular culture, such as in the words, images and descriptions used by media writers.

Sorry if this is a bit unsystematic, but I think it should give a general idea. Sometimes it's used in a more narrow sense as with Abella or Cotler, where it becomes a new kind of anti-Semitism, but usually it simply refers to the contemporary forms of anti-Semitism (e.g. Lipset and Sacks) though most commentators agree that the current forms are different from the forms prevalent at previous times. --Denis Diderot 09:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Quite. And our lead needs to make that ambiguity clear, rather than select one meaning of a contentious term and act as if it were the only one. See Liberalism and Conservatism as examples of articles that have to deal with a similar issue (and, for that matter, Socialism, Right-wing politics, ad nauseum. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:50, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any ambiguity. The definitions Diderot posted are pre-2001, and the term is used differently today. I will support this definition with citations later tonight. --Viriditas | Talk 03:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me? Are you saying that people somehow got together in 2001 and agreed to redefine this expression? And that the way it was used for about a decade before that is now irrelevant? I don't even know how to engage an argument like that. This is an encyclopedia, not a political party with a "line of the moment". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see a problem. The term NAS is used differently today, particularly in terms of the resurgence of anti-semitism after 2001. I'm not sure what "argument" you are trying to engage, nor am I clear on what you describe as a "political party with a line of the moment". All words, terms, and definitions change over time, depending on their usage. I've also said that I will provide support for a general, non-ambiguous definition, which I am in the process of composing. --Viriditas | Talk 08:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

O.K., as I see it, there is currently a phenomenon where Israel and its assumed supporters (i.e. Jews) are being increasingly attacked in various ways (in print, verbally, physically). Proponents of the concept of a "New anti-Semitism" say that this is "New anti-Semitism" because a) Jews are being attacked as a result of antipathy for Israel, and b) Israel is being attacked in the same way that anti-Semites attack Jews, often as a socially acceptable cover or proxy for anti-Semites, and c) attacks now come not only from the right, but from the left, as purported "anti-racism". Opponents of the concept say this is not "New anti-Semitism" because a) Jews being attacked is just plain old anti-Semitism, and b) Israel is simply being legitimately criticized on moral grounds, there's nothing anti-Semitic about it, and c) charges of anti-Semitism are just a ploy to stifle debate and criticism. From what I can tell, the definitions given by various people above do not disagree on these fundamental points, so there is no pre-2001/post-2001 dichotomy. Am I missing something here? Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The definitions don't disagree, but some of them place more emphasis on other aspects such as Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. After 2001, the NAS began to be used to refer to the anti-racist and anti-nationalist nature of the attacks, more so than any other aspect, perhaps because of the increase in such attacks.
  • Many see the rise in Western Europe of what they call the "new anti-Semitism" as even more worrisome. Since serious Israeli-Palestinian fighting began in the fall of 2000, there has been a spike in harassment and vandalism targeting Jews, especially in France. Much of that is in poor communities where immigrant Muslims and immigrant Jews from North Africa live side by side. Unemployment and frustrations are high. Arab satellite stations, as well as European news networks, broadcast a steady stream of reports on Palestinians under fire, their homes destroyed, their lands reoccupied, their children killed. There is also, in many parts of Europe, a residue of the old racist attitudes that spawned the Fascist and Nazi policies of the 1930s. One of the presidential candidates in France's upcoming elections, Jean-Marie Le Pen, skirts the limits of the law baiting both Arabs and Jews..."For the first time I'm getting reports from young Jews about anti-Semitism at work," Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, told Newsweek. It's gotten worse since September 11. "I've been getting hate mail, powerful letters," says Sacks, "one even calling me a neo-Nazi. Never been called that before. Many of the letters were responding to events in Israel." (April 1, 2002. Newsweek. 139:13)
  • Burning synagogues in France. Blood libels in Saudi Arabia. The murder of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan. Nasty language now acceptable at London dinner parties. Harassment of Jewish college students in the United States. The massacre at a Passover seder in Israel... The official Saudi newspaper al-Riyadh last month asserted that Jews kill Muslim and Christian children and use their blood in holiday foods. A government-controlled newspaper in Egypt decried the "Jewish conspiracy" to dominate America. The virulently anti-Semitic and thoroughly discredited screed "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" is once again making the rounds. The New Anti-Semitism in Europe is subtler but more worrying. Since the Israeli military offensive began in the West Bank last month, Jewish schools, synagogues and cemeteries have been attacked; individual Jews have been beaten and harassed. "Salon anti-Semitism" is becoming acceptable, even when it proves to be embarrassing-such as when the French ambassador to the United Kingdom was caught at a dinner party calling Israel "that s- little country."...tensions on college campuses have grown recently, as demonstrations and divestment movements galvanize an increasingly assertive pro-Palestinian sentiment. Jewish students have been harassed, their institutions vandalized...legitimate criticism of Israeli leadership is distorted by what can only be called an unfair double-standard applied to Israelis and to Jews. That's evident in the disturbing remarks made earlier this month by members of the panel that selected Shimon Peres, Yasser Arafat and the late Yitzhak Rabin as the 1994 recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. Several members said that, if they could, they would take back the prize from Peres, now the Israeli foreign minister, whom they hold entirely responsible for the bloodshed in the Middle East. There was not a shred, not a whisper, not a hint of criticism of Arafat for supporting terrorism, inciting hatred, and destroying his people's best chance at statehood. (Apr 12, 2002. Philadelphia Inquirer)
  • On September 11, 2001...both war-and a new kind of anti-Semitism-had been declared...Jews and Zionists are being blamed in Chinese as well as in Arabic...the war against the Jews is now also the war against America and the west, and against our shared cultural values...nothing has been the same for any of us, in America or the rest of the world, since 9/11...in the last three years...incidents of anti-Semitism have increased enormously...the Jews are experiencing four simultaneous Intifadas: one in the Islamic world, a second in Europe, a third on North American campuses, and a fourth directed at America and the West by Al Qaeda...this is also what is new about the new anti-Semitism...it is worldwide. (Chesler, Phyllis. 2003. The New Anti-Semitism)
  • In all, 197 anti-Semitic incidents reported [in Canada] between January and June 2002 -- 63 per cent more than in the same period in 2001. (Jan 20, 2003. Maclean's. 116:3. p. 52)
  • The new anti-Semitism drips into the mainstream with surprising ease. Since she went to print, a popular columnist in The Observer, one of the most popular of Britain's liberal papers, piously announced that he would no longer even read letters to the editor about anti-Semitism if they were signed with Jewish names. The Chicago Tribune, with several newspapers following its lead, only recently ran a particularly nasty political cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a stereotypical hooked nose and the Jewish star sewn on his jacket, staring down with pleasure as President Bush satisfies his greed by paving "the road map to peace" with dollar bills. (The Tribune apologized for failing to recognize the anti-Semitic slurs.) (Jul 28, 2003. Washington Times)
  • In England, the Guardian wrote that "Israel has no right to exist." The Observer described Israeli settlements in the West Bank as "an affront to civilization." The New Statesman ran a story titled "A Kosher Conspiracy," illustrated by a cover showing the gold Star of David piercing the Union Jack. The story implies that a Zionist-Jewish cabal is attempting to sway the British press to the cause of Israel. In France, the weekly Le Nouvel Observateur published an extraordinary libel alleging that Israeli soldiers raped Palestinian women so that their relatives would kill them to preserve family honor. In Italy, the Vatican's L'Osservatore Romano spoke of Israel's "aggression that's turning into extermination," while the daily La Stampa ran a Page 1 cartoon of a tank emblazoned with the Jewish star pointing its big gun at the infant Jesus, who cries out, "Surely they don't want to kill me again." Across Europe, the result has been not just verbal violence but physical. A report issued last year by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, titled "Fire and Broken Glass," describes the assaults on Jews and people presumed to be Jewish across Europe. Attackers, shouting racist slogans, throw stones at schoolchildren, at worshipers attending religious services, at rabbis. Jewish homes, schools, and synagogues are firebombed. Windows are smashed, Jewish cemeteries desecrated with anti-Jewish slogans. In just a few weeks in the spring of last year, French synagogues and Jewish schools, students, and homes were attacked and firebombed. A synagogue in Marseilles was burned to the ground. In Paris, Jews were attacked by groups of hooded men. According to police, metropolitan Paris saw something like a dozen anti-Jewish incidents a day in the first several months after Easter. (Nov 3, 2003. U.S. News & World Report. 135:15)
  • French President Jacques Chirac launched a commission yesterday to fight a "new anti-Semitism" after another attack on Jewish property prompted commentators to raise concern over France's failure to integrate its Muslim population. (Nov 18, 2003Toronto Star)
  • JAKARTA, Indonesia...the prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, stirred global controversy when he delivered a speech to an Islamic summit conference that labeled Jews as the "enemy" of Islam. Mahathir's speech was rightfully condemned as undisguised anti-Semitism, no different in its essence than the ideas that led to Nazism in Germany. Unfortunately, the speech was widely applauded in the Islamic world, including here in Malaysia's neighbor, Indonesia, the largest Muslim-populated nation in the world...In a society with no direct knowledge of Jews, the existence of these views is testimony to the reprehensible global spread of what some have labeled the "New Anti-Semitism." "The problem is not Jews _ the problem is Zionism," insisted a leader of one of Indonesia's Islamic political parties. But in literature sold at the party headquarters, the "international Zionist movement" is described as a product of the "evil of Jews" whose religion insults God, making them not only an enemy of Islam but of all humanity. During this past week we have seen what happens when extremists act on such ideas. Last Saturday terrorists set off bombs in front of two synagogues in the Turkish city of Istanbul. On the same day, cowards of the same ilk set fire to a Jewish school outside of Paris, the latest in a wave of anti-Semitic acts in France. As the French daily Le Monde acknowledged in an editorial last week, the condemnation of Israeli policies by European leaders "has lowered the borderline, evidently, which was already uncertain for some, between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism." (Nov 21, 2003. San Jose Mercury News)
  • ...in the past few years, extreme left-wing and right-wing groups in Europe have worked together to mount anti-Israel demonstrations in several major cities; in the United States, white supremacists and other ultraright-wing organizations have taken up the Palestinian issue in the hope of building a new coalition against Jews; and left-wing groups throughout the country, and especially on college campuses, have championed the anti-Israel cause, at times pushing it, in Foxman's words, "over the line into out-right anti-Semitism. (Nov 30, 2003. New York Times Book Review)
  • Since the new millennium, however, renewed bloodshed in the Middle East and America's war on terror have rekindled some disturbing anti-Jewish trends throughout Europe and beyond. According to a report prepared for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, British Jews blame inflammatory reporting on the Middle East conflict. But while the motivation for today's anti-semitism may be more closely linked to people's attitudes towards Israel, the effect on Jewish minorities remains the same. (Dec 4, 2003. The Times. p. 3)
  • Something new had invaded discussions of the Holocaust - a not-so-new anti-Semitism, revived and rampant, that trivializes the Holocaust and hides hatred of Jews in the conflict between Arabs and Israel. An Italian newspaper poll of nine European nations on the eve of the anniversary found that 46 percent of those interviewed across the continent say that Jews are "different," 9 percent do not "like or trust Jews" and 15 percent wish that Israel didn't exist. What the Israeli designation of the anniversary recognizes is that anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment are hatreds joined at the heart. Many of the Europeans who want Israel to go away don't even know why they do. Nearly a third of those interviewed concede they have no idea what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about. It's enough to know that Israelis are Jews...The Alexandria Library in Egypt, funded by the Egyptian and Italian governments with support of the United Nations, includes a manuscript room where the holiest books of the three Abrahamic faiths - the Torah of the Jews, the Bible of the Christians and the Koran of the Muslims - are displayed in places of honor. Not long ago the director of the museum placed next to the Torah a copy of the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," an infamous forgery that sets out an outlandish Jewish plot to take over the world...The director of the Alexandria Library described "The Protocols" to an Egyptian newspaper as a sacred book of the Jews, who misrepresent their victimhood by exaggerating the number murdered in the Holocaust. (Feb 02, 2004 Washington Times)
  • Mark Levin, the executive director of NCSJ, a group that works for Jews in former Soviet states, including Russia, said that after the Soviet Union collapsed, anti-Semitism at times seemed to be the only issue uniting the political left and right. He added that he's been dealing with "anti-Semitism classic," while watching "new anti-Semitism" rise in Western Europe. "In Russia they call it the Red-Brown Coalition, when left and right agree," he said. Gunther Jikeli works with young people in a section of Berlin that's full of anti-globalization protesters and Islamic immigrants. He said he's frustrated that the rapid increase of anti-Semitism he sees in both groups wasn't getting attention at the conference. "These are people who meet in youth centers and find a common argument in the Israel-Palestine debate," he said. "They find a common base in anti-Semitism. And we're seeing more violence on the streets, against Jews, because of it." (April 29, 2004, Knight Ridder Washington Bureau)
  • Those keeping track of anti-Semitic incidents reported an astronomical rise in their number in France and England during the rest of September and throughout October. And the post-9/11 violence itself was dwarfed by what followed in April 2002 when the Israeli government reacted to the Passover massacre of 30 people and wounding of 140 in Netanya by entering Jenin in order to quash the terrorist network that dispatched suicide bombers. This brought, in Schoenfeld’s words, "an upsurge in anti-Semitic violence in Europe unprecedented since the 1930s"...Whereas physical violence against European Jews is mainly the work of Muslims, the verbal violence is the work primarily of leftists, of strugglers against "racism," of the "learned" classes. Here the British lead the charge, with one Oxford lecturer calling for Jews living in the disputed territories to be "shot dead," another Oxford luminary in medicine refusing to consider any Israeli applicant for post-graduate research, assorted London and Manchester professors organizing boycotts of Israeli scholars..."Too frequently to discount now," wrote Petronella Wyatt in the Spectator of London in late 2001, "I hear remarks that the Jews are to blame for everything." In April 2003 the EU conducted a public opinion poll that elicited (as it was intended to do) the view of a majority (59%) of Europeans that Israel is the greatest threat to world [peace]... (Nov-Dec, 2004. Society)

--Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

NAS definitions continued

  • The new anti-Semitism is not exclusively hostile to this or that individual Jew. or to Judaism. It is directed primarily against the Jewish collective, the modern State of Israel......It dates from the 1967 Arab-Israeli war that transformed the image of the Jew. Shylock was replaced by a new all-powerful Jew, cartooned as an aggressive, excessive, brutal collective called Israel...The traditional attacks from the right, based on national, religious, or ethnic reasons, have been surpassed in Europe by the moral driving force of the extreme left, which invokes political and universal reasons like human rights, anti-colonialism and economic egalitarianism, overlaid with excessive anti-Americanism. (Zuckerman, Mortimer. (Dec 2004-Feb 2005) UN Chronicle 4)
  • Taguieff expertly dissects the thinking of the most aggressive anti-Jewish Muslims. To them, "Israel is inherently culpable, the only nation-state guilty by its mere existence," he observes. Moreover, those who are thought to be allied with Israel are also guilty and may be attacked at will. The rationale that supports such violence goes like this: "Jews are all more or less crypto-Zionists. Zionism is a form of colonialism, imperialism and racism. Therefore Jews are colonialists, imperialists and racists, whether overt or covert." Taguieff further points out that these by now well entrenched political clichés have reconstituted "an anti-Jewish vision of the world." Like the old anti-Semitism, the new "Judeophobia," as he prefers to call it, embodies a "total hatred" of Jews "as endowed with a malign essence." All are guilty, although the most guilty are the "Zionists" and those who support the alleged evil that is the "Zionist state." Hence, in the new lexicon of Judeophobia, currently fashionable among French and other European intellectuals, "anti-Zionism" is not to be denounced as a form of anti-Semitism but embraced as a virtue by all right-thinking people. Taguieff presents an array of evidence that shows these views are now normative among people on the far Right and the extreme Left...The "Zionism" endlessly excoriated by the "anti-Zionists" is a construct, or useful ideological fiction, he correctly notes. The targets of the "anti-Zionists" are "less and less 'Zionism' or 'Zionists' and more and more Jews as such." To illustrate, Taguieff quotes Jordanian Minister of Social Affairs Emile Algohri: "It is our firm belief that there is no difference at all between Jews and Zionists. All Jews are Zionists and all Zionists are Jews, and anyone who thinks otherwise is not thinking logically. We consider world Jewry our adversary and enemy, as we do imperialism and all the pro-Jewish powers." (Rosenfeld, Alvin H. (May/Jun2004). New Leader. 87:3. p. 23.)
  • Harold Evans, the former editor of the London Sunday Times, argues that it isn't anti-Semitic to criticize Israel (and he has), but it is "anti-Semitic to consistently condemn in Israel what you ignore or condone elsewhere." He describes the "new anti-Semitism" as frenzied, vicious, prolific and largely unrecognized in the West by the press, academia, churches and governments....Cynthia Ozick observes in an afterword that the "new" anti-Semitism accelerates under the rubric of "anti-Zionism" and is masked by the deceptive language of "human rights." This is the Big Lie of our time, propelled with "malice of aforethought by the intellectual classes, the governing elites, the most prestigious elements of the press in all the capitals of Europe and by the university professors and the diplomats." (Fields, Suzanne. (Jul 25, 2004). Washington Times. Books. p. B08)
  • Recent writings on anti-Semitism by a number of prominent authors have suggested that Jews are confronting a new brand of anti-Jewish vitriol and violence that is distinct from classical anti-Semitism because it cloaks itself in the increasingly acceptable politics of anti-Zionism. Evidence that much anti-Zionism and rhetoric that demonizes Israel is anti-Semitism in disguise, and the sense of panic that pervades much of the writing on this subject, seem to have so irked Brian Klug ["The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism," Feb. 2] that he rejects out of hand the idea that Jews are confronting a new wave of anti-Semitism. Klug is right to take issue with one claim made by many commentators on the "new anti-Semitism": Advocacy of anti-Zionism and binationalism vis-à-vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not inherently anti-Semitic. Both can be, and have been, advanced in ways that acknowledge the intense need that many Jews, both in Israel and around the world, feel for a strong, secure Israel--for example, in proposals for a binational confederal regime that might evolve by mutual consent from two working democratic states at peace, Israel and Palestine, modeled in some respects on the European Union. But in his zealous effort to reject the logic of the "new anti-Semitism" writers, Klug refuses to admit the pervasiveness of anti-Jewish racism that today underlies much of the anti-Zionism and anti-Israel invective in the Arab world and on the European left. (Remba, Gidon D. (Apr 12, 2004) The Nation. 278:14)
  • The Quranic motifs began to grow in importance after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, along with virulent anti-Americanism. In the Islamic demonology, both America and Israel are now bonded together as "Satanic forces" that threaten the core-identity values and existence of Islam. This has been especially the case since the beginning of the Palestinian Al-Aqsa intifada in the autumn of 2000 and the massacres of September 11, 2001. Not only did an astonishing number of Muslims seek to place the responsibility for this mass murder onto the Jews, but Israel, more than ever, was execrated as a dagger of the West poised to strike at the heart of the Muslim Arab world. In the anti-Semitic script, America itself is depicted as being run by Jews malevolently determined to subvert and destroy Islam. This chorus of voices has grown even shriller with the American war on Iraq, a conflict that has led to an ever closer twinning of anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic sentiment in western Europe, as well as the Islamic world....Driven by this ideology, Islamists see the fingerprints of the all-powerful Zionist lobby everywhere, spreading its tentacles and deadly lies, draining the life-blood of Arabs and Muslims, gratuitously inciting war against Iraq, and carrying out its sinister plans for global control...In the case of the jihadist, the return of anti-Semitism also needs to be seen as a powerful backlash against Western and Israeli visions of a "new Middle East", as well as the rejection of a new world order, a global economy, "normalization" with the Jewish state and the idea of a negotiated peace. Indeed, "world Zionism" is today perceived as the driving-force behind globalization ("Americanization") much as a century ago "international Jewry" was depicted by European anti-Semites as the satanic engine of finance capitalism and supranational cosmopolitanism. The new anti-Semitism eagerly scavenges this arsenal of older images which, since the onset of modernity, have stereotyped the Jews as a dangerously mobile, roodess, abstract and transnational mafia uniquely tuned to exploit capitalist economy and culture. The protean caricature of the Jew has been given a new lease on life by the contemporary Islamist apostles of jihad. Israel and Jewry have become their great surrogate in the holy war against America and the corrupt modem world of jahiliyya. Uncle Sam, so to speak, has coalesced with Shylock into a terrifying specter of globalization that threatens to swamp the world of Islam. (Wistrick, Robert S. (Summer, 2003). The National Interest)
  • What's new about the new anti-Semitism is that for the first time it is being perpetrated in the name of antiracism, antiimperialism, and anticolonialism. Because the charges of apartheid Zionism and American capitalist imperialism are being leveled by those who champion the uprising of the oppressed, what they say cannot, by definition, be racist. The new anti-Semites allege they are not anti-Semites because they say they're not...Old fashioned anti-Semitism was expressed in the name of ethnicity, Aryanism, white purity, superiority, and nationalism...What's new...is the way in which visual and print propaganda are being purposefully created and used to indoctrinate and manipulate people on a scale that was neither imaginable nor possible fifty years ago...in order to brainwash the viewers against the Jews and the Israelis...Criticizing the Jewish state is no proof of anti-Semitism...but...today's new anti-Semite hides behind the smoke screen of anti-Zionism. (Chesler, Phyllis. (2003). The New Anti-Semitism)

Response by Jmabel

I feel like I'm being buried under the weight of these, but there is no statement as to what you think these each demonstrate. Is this intended as a response to my issues above? If so, sorry, but I can't see the upshot. May I at least presume that you consider this a representative sample of statements by people who believe in the "new anti-semitism" model? Or is your point something else entirely? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think the header is self-explanatory. Regarding your comments, can you clarify your issue? --Viriditas | Talk 09:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it's not self-explanatory. This is a pile of other people's prose, not a coherent argument.
  1. Nothing I see in it bolsters your claim of a pre-2001 vs. post-2001 distinction, though maybe I'm missing something in a pile of quotations with no linking remarks.
  2. Nothing in it argues why, if such a distinction exists, a pre-2001 usage would not merit mention in an encyclopedia.
The current lead makes no mention that "old" anti-Semitism continues. The current lead gives no indication of controversy over whether the phenomenon being described is simply (old) anti-Semitism coded as anti-Zionism or is a distinct phenomenon in which a (possibly legitimately based) anti-Zionism is being (unjustly) extrapolated into anti-Semitic actions and beliefs (and probably there are other variants that merit mention).
Beyond that, I agree with what Jayjg (above) and Stevertigo (below) have said, and I see no need to repeat it. It is my strong belief that the lead section of the article was considerably closer to the mark about two weeks ago than it is now. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
In response to what you written above, the self-explanatory header clearly states, "NAS definitions continued", in referernce to some older definitions provided by Denis Diderot. The other section, in response to Jayjg, is separate and briefly addresses the nature of the new anti-Semitism in relation to the attacks after 2001. This is certainly not an argument, nor was one intended. In response to your other points:
  1. The pre-2001 vs. post-2001 distinction is evident, with the attacks in question occuring after 2001, and the use of the term being used in reference to those attacks. Much of the ambiguity you describe is found in the pre-2001 definitions that Diderot provided. Further, this is not my claim as you contend, but one made by many proponents, including Chesler, Taguieff, Schoenfeld, and many other writers. Please do not confuse me with the claims being made.
  2. I'm not exactly clear what you are getting at with your second point, so I will skip this until you explain it further.
  3. The current lead has not yet been modified to discuss the difference between the old and the new anti-Semitism.
  4. I don't see how the old lead was "closer" to getting to the root of this issue, as it avoided the issue altogether. The new lead at least partially describes the phenomenon in question, from the point of view of those who use the term, but does not yet make mention of the anti-racist and anti-nationalist distinctions. The post-2001 description is an ancillary definition, so one should not get too hung up on it, although quite a number of proponents find it important. --Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo-Viriditas

Wll, I think what this comes down to is that "New anti-Semitism" is a neologist term, (as the article was months ago) which it's propents insist isn't merely a term, but rather a real thing/phenomenon itself – similar enough to anti-Semitism to be called "anti-Semitism" but distinct and different enough to be called brand "new". This should raise some incongruities about the logic of such a term:

Does "New anti-Semitism" mean that "old" anti-Semitism is dead and no longer a continuing issue? The term seems to assert that all recent anti-Semitism is "new anti-Semitism" and conversely, it seems to imply a meaningful distinction between past and recent anti-Semitism, based simply on the aspect of time. But if "new anti-Semitism" actually is anti-Semitism, then by who's definition is recent time a valid sub-distinction from a category that spans millenia —back to before even the "troubler of Israel," Elijah. The article (as it is written) leads one to understand that the definition of "New anti-Semitism" is not based merely on time, but rather a whole bunch of other criteria mixed in with it. Is any of that criteria POV, and if so, how can this article be said to be anything other than a term, not really distinguishable from anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism?

Whats left is that one can reasonably make the assertion that most of the "new Anti-Semitism" can simply redirect-merge to anti-Zionism or anti-Judaism. The assertion that the term is anything more than a term to label certain political views as anti-Semitism is a POV one, and is only attributable to contemporary conservative polemicists, seeking to impose an agenda. The 64KUSD question – is this POV title worthy of an article? Answer: Only if its basis keeps to what it is, and not shifted to what it claims or asserts. -SV|t 18:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. Can you show me where an author argues that the old anti-Semitism is dead? I think the previous comments, definitions, and quotes above make the distinctions clear.
  2. Can you show me where the term asserts that all recent anti-Semitism is "new anti-Semitism"? Again, the distinctions have been spelled out.
  3. The term does not imply a meaningful distinction between past and recent anti-Semitism, based simply on the aspect of time. That was an ancillary point that I raised in relation to the time frame of the attacks and the publication of articles and books referring to the term.
  4. The new anti-Semitism is based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism, while the old anti-Semitism is based on racism and nationalism.
  5. The article as it is written needs a lot of work, and I am in the process of providing data and sources from proponents and critics to answer your criticism about distinctions between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
  6. I don't see how one can "reasonably make the assertion" that most of the "new Anti-Semitism" can redirect or merge to anti-Zionism or anti-Judaism. You offer your own POV when you state that the assertion that the term is anything more than a term to label certain political views as anti-Semitism is a POV one, and is only attributable to contemporary conservative polemicists, seeking to impose an agenda. That is your opinion, and does not reflect the fact that many of the proponents are from all parts of the political spectrum: Chesler is a radical left-wing feminist; Michael Lerner is a liberal; Christopher Hitchens is described as a "hawkish liberal", etc. Your argument appears to be ad hominem: "You can't trust so and so, she's a conservative..." --Viriditas | Talk 09:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses. I am beginning a rewrite of the article lead, based on your clarifications. -SV|t 21:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I had begun to rewrite the lead article, incorporating (verbatim) Viriditas' concise and pertinent comment: "The new anti-Semitism is based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism, while the old anti-Semitism is based on racism and nationalism." It was reverted by Mr Fixter, without comment on the talk page. I will restore my changes when time permits. -SV|t 23:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what a "POV sockpuppet" is. Use edit summaries, btw. --Mrfixter 00:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed that. What do you mean "use edit summaries"? On what basis did you revert my edit? Your note appears to claim either "original research" or a mislabeling as "not minor". The latter is not justification for revert. The first is typically used by sockpuppets and POV pushers as an ad hominem. Can you explain how it is "original research?" -SV|t 00:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Use edit summaries, the box underneath the main text fieldy box. What is a "POV sockpuppet"? Is that a good or bad thing? --Mrfixter 00:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Certainly that depends on your point of view. How was my edit "original research"? -SV|t 00:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Certainly that depends on your point of view. --Mrfixter 00:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

SV, in answer to your questions, proponents of the view that there is a "New antisemitism" say that it differs from the "Old antisemitism" in a number of ways I have outlined above. However, date is not a primary differentatior, but rather an effect; that is to say, "New antisemitism" is not defined as "antisemitism that occurred after the year 1990", but rather a different kind of antisemitism which has only manifested in recent times. As for it being based on "based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism", proponents of the idea that there is a new antisemitism are quite careful to note that, in their view, it is based on purported anti-racism and anti-nationalism. For example, the Ozick quote above:Cynthia Ozick observes in an afterword that the "new" anti-Semitism accelerates under the rubric of "anti-Zionism" and is masked by the deceptive language of "human rights." This is the Big Lie of our time, propelled with "malice of aforethought by the intellectual classes, the governing elites, the most prestigious elements of the press in all the capitals of Europe and by the university professors and the diplomats." Or, as Chesler says, "it is being perpetrated in the name of antiracism etc." As for trying to decipher whether these claims are true or not, that's not the purpose of Talk: pages or Wikipedia articles, remember, as WP:NPOV states, Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted.. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Weird, the 00:53 version by Levelcheck I just reverted doesn't show up in the history, but it does show up in the diff. Perhaps the database isn't caught up. Anyway, Levelcheck, the intro was inadequate, too much of a straw man definition. That's why I reverted in agreement with SlimVirgin's revert. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:00, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Are these people new Anti-semites?

Over 10,000 demonstrate against 'israel' new york city http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstrations/April2805nyc.cfm

Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews Protest the State of Israel, Says Neturei Karta International http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=46640

No. They're simply religious fanatics. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I guess that makes Zionists statehood fanatics. —Christiaan 15:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
They represent a traditional religious understanding of Zionism —which they assert is unrelated and contradictory to notions of statehood and state nationalism. -SV|t 00:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
That's not correct; they represent a recent religious response to a recent political phenomenon. Religious Zionism has always been an integral part of Judaism - it should not escape your attention that these people are themselves living in Israel, descendents of immigrants to Israel; surely they do not believe that their presence in Israel is a sin. Rather, they object to Political Zionism, which is at most a 150 year old phenomenon. Jayjg (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
That's not correct. Neturey Karta is an extreme minority faction of anti-Zionists, which does not represent Orthodox Judaism. MathKnight 22:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Political Zionism in its modern form has little basis in the Jewish tradition up to the 19th century...I'm pretty sure there's no mention of a UN Mandate in Scripture --Tothebarricades.tk 02:56, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguity and history

A new linguistic law

Whenever a cultural phenomenon X reappears after a period of decline or absence, some people will call it "the new X" or "neo-X". Thus, for example "the new romantics", "the new realists", "neo-Nazism", "Neoliberalism" etc. These expressions don't imply that X is something new. To the contrary, they assert that X is something old that has re-emerged. But as soon as people realize that X has reappeared, they begin to compare the new X with the old X. And then they may discover some differences, and they may say things like "the new X is B, whereas the old X was A". Subsequently some people may discover that some of the new X is A as well. Rather then saying "the new X that is A", some people will use expressions like "the old X", "traditional X", "classical X", "paleo-X". Thus at this point some people will include "the new X that is A" in the concept of "the new X", and they will continue to call it "the new X". Other people will also include it in "new X", but often refer to it as "old X". Finally, some people will exclude "X that is A" altogether from "the new X".

On the history of the expression "the new anti-Semitism" and the history of the new anti-Semitism

The expression "the new anti-Semitism" first became popular in the early 1970s and was used to describe certain phenomena noted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The main phenomenon was the reappearance and apparent acceptability of anti-Semitic stereotypes in public discourse. The expression was controversial from the beginning, since people were called anti-Semitic who didn't see themselves as anti-Semitic or didn't want to be seen as anti-Semitic. Especially controversial was the claim that words like "Zionist" and "Zionism" could be euphemisms for "Jew" and "the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world". To be more precise, the claim was not controversial when applied to some neo-Nazi groups who had clearly adopted this usage in their "exoteric" pronouncements. (Though it was of course denied by the neo-Nazis.) But the claim was widely controversial even when applied to other openly racist groups. The expression became even more controversial when some commentators claimed that almost all forms of anti-Zionism were anti-Semitism. The basis for such claims was (1) that "Zionism" was "Jewish nationalism". To be against Zionism was therefore to be against Jewish nationalism. Because anti-Zionist supported other forms of nationalism (e.g. Arab or Palestinian) they were clearly biased against Jews. (2) Even if Zionism was understood in a more narrow sense as support for the Jewish state, anti-Zionists applied standards to Israel that they did not apply to other states. For example, they did not demand that Arab states should cease being Moslem. The anti-Zionists obviously didn't accept this argument. They generally rejected the first wide definition of Zionism and argued that Zionism should be seen as a form of colonialism, imperialism or racism, whereas Arab and Moslem nationalism (Islamism) should be seen as a struggle for independence.

On the year 2001

In 2001 Pierre-André Taguieff, a French historian of political ideas, presented an updated version of his old analysis of "the new Judeophobia". He argued that after the 1967 Six-Day War, a "new anti-Semitism" was spread across the world around a "conspiracy myth" labeled (by Taguieff) "absolute anti-Zionism". The main sources for the myth were the Arab Moslem world and the Soviet empire. Around demonized images of Zionism and Israel, all the ancient anti-Semitic themes were conjured. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, was massively diffused in 1967. He further maintained that a second wave of Judeophobia had swept across the world in the late 1990s. This time around the Soviet empire was out of business, but judeophobic themes were often amplified by passing from some Arab source through the far right to some leftist groups. Taguieff listed 4 characteristics of the "new Judeophobia": (1) The massive use of anti-Racism to promote anti-Jewish goals, (2) "Banalization" of the themes and language of Holocaust deniers, (3) Legitimization of anti-Semitic agitation by reference to radical anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism and criticism of free-trade globalization, and (4) Interaction with Islamist notions of Israel as the "little Satan" mixed with a demonized image of the Zionist control of the Western world. He thus disctinguished between "the old Judeophobia", which was based on explicit racism, and "the new Judeophobia", which was based on "demonological or absolute anti-Zionism". Taguieff's terminology has been adopted by other researchers and commentators and thus "the new Judeophobia" is a rather well-defined expression which means (in general) the modern (post 1967) use of anti-Semitic themes legitimized by anti-Zionism. Sometimes the expression "new anti-Semitism" has been used as a synonym of "new Judeophobia".

On the ambiguity of the term "new anti-Semitism"

From a November 2001 editorial by Amotz Asa-El in Jerusalem Post:

In the post-war era, again, anti-Semitism fueled a Zionist psychosis across the former Eastern Bloc, ultimately unleashing another mass immigration to Israel. YET, TODAY'S challenge is different, since all these precedents were part of the Jews' European experience. Today's crisis is about anti-Semitism entering an entirely new phase in its already elaborate history. Previous turning points in the development of anti- Semitism - since early Christianity condemned our forefathers, ourselves, and our descendants as Christ's killers - included the barring of Jews from public office in the waning days of the Roman Empire, a measure that socially marginalized the Jews; prohibitions on land ownership and cultivation, which enhanced the Jews' image as transient guests wherever they resided; the 1096 Crusaders' mass murder of entire communities in Germany; the 1215 Lateran Council's yellow-badge decree, which made the Jew carry his own discrimination wherever he went; the late Medieval expulsions, which made the threat of displacement a hallmark of the Jewish psyche; the 1648 massacres in East Europe, which happened despite an unwritten alliance between the Jews and the Polish nobility; and, of course, modern anti-Semitism, which depicted the Jews as nearly anyone's demon, from the fascists' anti-patriots to the Marxists' plutocrats and the Stalinists' "rootless cosmopolitans." Now, just when the Christianity that invented it goes through pains to turn its back on anti-Semitism, it is being adopted by an Islamism intent to scapegoat the Jews for its own failures and eager to mobilize deep-seated prejudices among Christians against the Jews.


Newsweek cover story April 2002:

Many see the rise in Western Europe of what they call the "new anti-Semitism" as even more worrisome. Since serious Israeli-Palestinian fighting began in the fall of 2000, there has been a spike in harassment and vandalism targeting Jews, especially in France. Much of that is in poor communities where immigrant Muslims and immigrant Jews from North Africa live side by side. Unemployment and frustrations are high. Arab satellite stations, as well as European news networks, broadcast a steady stream of reports on Palestinians under fire, their homes destroyed, their lands reoccupied, their children killed. There is also, in many parts of Europe, a residue of the old racist attitudes that spawned the Fascist and Nazi policies of the 1930s. One of the presidential candidates in France's upcoming elections, Jean-Marie Le Pen, skirts the limits of the law baiting both Arabs and Jews. He's expected to garner 10 percent of the vote

Murray Gordon for AJC August 2002:

What is referred to as the "new anti-Semitism," which resonates so powerfully in Western Europe today, is not exactly new. Arab attacks against Jews occurred during and after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 to root out the PLO, which had been using the country as a platform to shell Israeli towns and settlements. What is different about today's Arab violence is its scope and intensity.

2003 headline from Jerusalem Post: "Jews fear 'new' anti-Semitism in quiet German city"

Surveys say anti-Jewish assaults and incidents in much of Europe are at their most frequent since Hitler's defeat. Germany is especially sensitive because, within living memory, Hitler put to death 6 million Jews. But violence is more prevalent in France, where slums are crowded with disaffected young Arabs. "Of course, we're afraid - we are terrified," said Ima Buchinger, an 18-year-old student, at the Regensburg synagogue on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the nationwide Nazi pogrom of 1938. Tall and blonde, she might pass for a Wagnerian opera diva. Still, she said, young Arabs, Turks, and Germans taunt her and her Jewish friends, sometimes threatening physical violence. As she spoke, German police in a Volkswagen van were at their usual spot outside, just as security forces watch over synagogues in Vienna, Paris, or London. Rabbi Dannyel Morag advises calm but caution to his Regensburg community - 700 in a city of 160,000, many of them recent Russian immigrants with a thin grasp of either Hebrew or Torah. "So far, we're OK," he said, "but in big cities it can be terrible. Some Jews can't find non-Jewish business partners because so many Germans think there may be trouble again, and they're afraid."

--Denis Diderot 06:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel intro rewrite

From my cursory reading, I say, great improvement, nice work. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:35, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think much of it is an improvement and well written, but unfortunately the following is clearly POV:

The word "new" in this construction refers only secondarily to the fact that this is "recent" anti-Semitism. The term New anti-Semitism is strongly identified with a controversial view that this new anti-Semitism is distinct—in its rhetoric, in its pretexts, and its locus on the political spectrum—from the old anti-Semitism that continues to exist alongside of it.

This is unattributed and may be false. One difficulty here is that even if people discuss the difference between "old" and "new" anti-Semitism, it doesn't necessarily mean that they always see them as distinct entities existing side by side. I don't think I've ever, for example, seen a breakdown of anti-Semitic incidents on the basis of "old" vs "new anti-Semitism. Many times it is close to impossible to deduce from a particular text what definition the author is using. Because my previous examples clearly haven't been enough to convey the fundamental ambiguity of the term I will provide two additional example from a recent (2004) book, "Those who forget the past: the question of anti-Semitism". These two authors clearly don't see any sharp distinction between "old anti-Semitism" , as exemplified by neo-Nazism, and "the new anti-Semitism".

We see that Nazism, communism, radical pan-Arab nationalism, and Islamism share a remarkably similar demonology of the Jew. [---]The new anti-Semitism eagerly scavenges this arsenal of older images which, since the onset of modernity, have stereotyped the Jews as a dangerously mobile, rootless, abstract, and transnational mafia uniquely tuned to exploit capitalist economy and culture. (Robert S. Wistrich pp. 88-89)

This new anti-Semitism is a kaledioscope of old hatreds shattered and rearranged into random patterns at once familiar and strange. It is the medieval image of the “Christ-killing” Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers. It is the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement refusing to put the Star of David on their ambulances. It is Zimbabwe and Malaysia – nations nearly bereft of Jews – warning of an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world's finances. It is neo-Nazis donning checkered Palestinian kaffiyehs and Palestinians lining up to buy copies of 'Mein Kampf'. (Mark Strauss p272)

I don't think an encyclopedia should concern itself too much with the meaning of words and expressions. That is a task for dictionaries. Wikipedia should simply note that the expression is ambiguous, describe the various meanings, and avoid making unattributed claims about the relative frequency or "properness" of any interpretation (unless the interpretation is clearly marginal or incorrect acording to dictionaries). --Denis Diderot 08:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The expression is only ambiguous in the sense that one may confuse the concept of the New anti-Semitism with "new" anti-Semitism. They are two different things. --Viriditas | Talk 08:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware of this "solution", as well as early attempts to use consistent capitalization in the article, but it isn't a good solution, for two reasons. First, the "new anti-Semitism" is a generally acknowledged phenomenon, whether or not it exists :-). There are many books, scholarly articles and newspaper stories written about it. The "New anti-Semitism" in your sense is clearly less notable. Should Wikipedia have two articles, one on the "new anti-Semitism" and another on the "New anti-Semitism"? Also, it may be very difficult to attribute views correctly. Is X discussing the "New anti-Semitism" or the "new anti-Semitism". Secondly, as I've already suggested, instead of having an article on the "New anti-Semitism", it would be much better to have one on the New Judeophobia.--Denis Diderot 08:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it will be that difficult to attribute views. Regardless, the "new" anti-Semitism refers to anti-Semitism whereas the "New anti-Semitism" is the topic under discussion. It might initially be confusing to people unfamiliar with the topic. I agree with your proposal to move the page, but the problem is that only a few authors use the term, "New Judeophobia", with the published majority preferring "New anti-Semitism". --Viriditas | Talk 09:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
As for attribution, does the Sacks quote refer to "the New anti-Semitism" or "the new anti-Semitism"?

The New anti-Semitism refers to a contemporary (beginning in the late 20th century) international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols as well as the acceptability of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.

This is exactly what "the new anti-Semitism" refers to. The anti-Semitism article is too long for adding information about "the new anti-Semitism" to it. It wouldn't present any problem to direct readers from a general article on "the new anti-Semitism" to information about "the New anti-Semitism" under the "new Judeophobia" heading. I really don't think that we disagree substantially on any of this, and I certainly don't think that I am "unfamiliar with the topic" as you seem to suggest. --Denis Diderot 10:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Huh? Please read what I wrote again, as it 1) Did not refer to you or suggest anything about you in any way, and 2) was suggesting that people unfamiliar with the topic might confuse "new" anti-Semitism with "New anti-Semitism". --Viriditas | Talk 10:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Dennis' comments seem to be thorough and thoughful and they are much appreciated. Everyone on this page seem to be making a genuine effort to explain the various meanings of the term, and only slightly less seem to be concerned with how these can be conveyed to the reader without appearing to bias the article in a pro or con way. This is really excellent discussion, and I'd like to make a few points in response to Dennis and Viriditas as well as Jayjg above. Jmabel's rewrite was substantial, though this alteration by Jayjg, "In particular, the rhetoric and pretexts for the new anti-Semitism are seen at the root of some anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli, or anti-Israeli-government sentiment" would seem to condemn any hope that the article might ever actually make sense. Dennis properly notes the importance in "convey[ing] the fundamental ambiguity of the term." This is the crux of the argument, and its likewise my view that attempts to assert a proper definition (without defining the context) can be dismissed as POV. Viriditas claims "[the] expression is only ambiguous in the sense that one may confuse the concept of the New anti-Semitism with "new" anti-Semitism. They are two different things." That disambiguation is somehow irrelevant for an encyclopedia article is not a valid claim, and Viriditas seems to assert that the reader should already have such prerequisite knowledge that any mere mention of ambiguity should be considered redundant or POV. Take this with his earlier statement (which I thought makes a fine introduction ;-) ) "The new anti-Semitism is based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism, while the old anti-Semitism is based on racism and nationalism," and one could write a short paper on the inherent logical contradictions of this and similar polemic terms. Suffice it to say that the term is a nexus for a controversial and debated new political theory that asserts a philosophical or political relationship or similarity between liberal anti-Occupation movements and anti-Semitic hostiles. "New anti-Semitism" is a label disguised as a term for a kind of philosophy which is itself never espoused or claimed, but who's very definitions are the exonymic assertions of proponents of the label's use.
Naturally, even the assertion that a debate may exist among proponents as to its very definition must be suppressed in order for the term to have any real political meaning. Hence the dismissal of ambiguity is a dismissal of the debate, which itself is a dismissal of any drastically dissenting opinion. In particular, dissenting Jewish opinion; whom may oppose conscription in Israel, be somewhat "pro-Palestinian," or otherwise hold non-nationalistic or non ethnocentrist views. This redefinition of "anti-Semitism" seeks to drive a relativistic wedge between an apparent new union of Jews and non-Jews who assert common moral and ethical principles over ethnocentrism. The claim that some "liberals" and non-Jews share this "new" view of anti-Semitism is rather simplistic, if not entirely disingenous and misleading. Are there any strongly anti-Occupation voices who are likewise for a continuous morphing redefinition of "anti-Semitism"? How does a relativist and shifting definition claim to based in principle? I take "ambiguity" to be connotative of "contradicted," "relativistic", and perhaps "illogical." That "anti-New-anti-Semitism" by some definitions is in opposition to the very moral basis by which anti-Semitism itself is opposed, is the most important and glaring "ambiguity." Anti-Semitism, racism and religious bigotry are all widely denounced on universal (common) moral grounds. There is no universal moral basis for exclusively denouncing anti-Semitism, while accepting other forms of bigotry. The attributed claim that "new anti-Semitism" can be based in "anti-racism" raises the flag that proponents omit or ignore the very moral basis by which anti-Semitism itself is now denounced. Hence the "New anti-Semitism" thesis, as based on very new and particularized definitions of "anti-Semitism," appears to contradict the common definition and understanding of anti-Semitism itself, as ethnist bigotry.
The new assertion overlooks any positive effect toward minimising "old anti-Semitism" that wider (more common) associations and education brings. Likewise it neglects natural self-determination, that those who may have hostile anti-Semitic views may change these to more educated and moderate views. Instead it claims that the latter are based on the former, and that that any appeal to universal principle is simply a disguise for hatred, or otherwise irrelevant or immaterial. Perhaps such view is ultimately based on the fallacy that "once an anti-Semite always an anti-Semite," and that any opposing views should at least carry the strong suspicion if not the direct implication of anti-Semitism —even if the "new" definition is itself an absolute contradiction of "anti-Semitism." It would seem that the terms "anti-Judaism," "anti-Zionism" and "anti-Occupation" exist only as politically correct substitutes, where in more particular venues a simple "anti-Semitism" would suffice. Scholars and writers of any political industry may be paid by the word and not by originality or merit, but this project has the merit of at least attempting a rational categorization of this and similar relativist polemic terms. But the proper and encyclopedic represenation of the term as "ambiguous" is contradictory to its polemic uses, and the abiguous definition naturally irks those who would like to see it make the dictionary. -SV|t 00:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
SV, my alteration removed words that were linguistically unnecessary, and grammatically incorrect; "some" inherently means "not all", so adding "not all" detracts rather than enhances. Your proposed introduction was not only a vast oversimplification, but actually a misrepresentation of the views of people who think there is a New antisemitism, since they say that it is not "based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism", but rather uses the guise of anti-racism and anti-nationalism to oppose Israel and/or express antisemitism. As for your attempts to pull various Jews who may oppose conscription or be "somewhat pro-Palestinian" etc., that's a strawman argument at best; neither of those are examples of "New antisemitism" to begin with, and, even it they were, relies on the dubious proposition that a Jew can't be antisemitic. Finally, the term isn't particularly ambiguous, or no more so than any other commonly accepted term; one could equally claim that any term contains ambiguity (e.g. Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism), but that doesn't stop encyclopedias from defining and describing them anyway. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Jayjg, I can't tell who is the "you" in the preceding paragraph. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that "New Judeophobia" is pretty much a neologism, and we shouldn't use it.

I agree that not everyone means the same thing by "new anti-Semitism" (or "New anti-Semitism" or "New Anti-Semitism"); I doubt that the views run in neat parallel with the choice of capitalization.

This article clearly should be about the thesis that there is something distinctly new about the present mode of anti-Semitism, and about the debate over that thesis. Insofar as the term simply means "recent anti-Semitism", that's not an article topic: if everyone agreed that was all that was going on, this would all just go in the anti-Semitism article. Recent incidents of anti-Semitic violence merit mention in the article insofar as they bolster the thesis (e.g. anti-Semitic violence coming from sectors that were not part of the "old" anti-Semitism), but they should not be the subject of the article.

Hope I was clear here; I'm writing "on the run". Let me know if anything I said is confusing. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:11, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

If a treatment of the topic that proceeds from a single unambiguous definition is required, then the "new Judeophobia solution" would be better than the "capital N solution". Though, as Viriditas and Jmabel have pointed out, it is a fairly marginal neologism outside France. An article on the new anti-Semitism should emphasize whatever is new about it. But it should not subscribe to a particular POV on the meaning of "new anti-Semitism" and use that as the basis for the whole article. It is as if an article on political freedom adopted a libertarian definition and presented the whole topic from that POV.--Denis Diderot 05:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

In reference to Wikipedia:Lead section, the current lead is too long, too complex (not clear), and incomprehensible to the average reader. Denis Diderot's recent addition to the lead should be added to a "History" section, as it is not necessary in the lead. The current description added by Jmabel needs to be condensed down to two small sentences. Please try reading this article as if you were a totally disinterested reader who knew nothing about the topic. If I were such a person and I was reading the article in its current state, I would not read past the first paragraph. --Viriditas | Talk 04:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Sloppy wording

The following sentence has found its way back into the lead: "This view is very controversial, especially through the association between the "new anti-Semitism" and the politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict." I'm not even sure what this means but "…through the association between…" is extremely unclear, unclear to such a degree that if I were not already familiar with this topic, I could not even make an educated guess at what it might mean. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Que?

Isn't it the nature of the beast that any attempt to define "new" and "leading edge" cases of anti-semitism is automatically POV?

We aren't attempting to define the concept, but to describe it in terms of the NPOV policy. --Viriditas | Talk 06:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

State of the controversy

Before I attempt to tackle this controversial section, I would like to know why the "Opponents" subsection is listed before proponents. --Viriditas | Talk 06:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Because the section began with an explanation as to why the New anti-Semitism was controversial.[17].
I think it is important to be very specific in this section, because not all claims associated with the "new anti-Semitism" are particularly controversial. For example, the increase of anti-Semitic incidents has been quantified and documented for many countries. Also it's not disputed that some leftist and pro-Palestinian groups have made use of anti-Semitic stereotypes and even condoned violence against Jews. Even some cases of "acceptability" of anti-Semitic themes in mainstream media have been generally acknowledged. The infamous cover of the New Statesman, for example, was almost universally denounced. [18] So it seems that the controversy concerns the extent and significance of such examples as well as the borderline between legitimate political statements and bigotry disguised as politics.--Denis Diderot 07:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with that. I would also say that critics of the New anti-Semitism thesis typically argue that it is used primarily to reclassify as anti-Semitism legitimate criticisms of Zionism, Israel, its government, and its supporters. As far as I can tell, most of the vocal critics, certainly most of the vocal critics who are themselves Jews, have been as quick as anyone to condemn anti-Jewish violence (and a lot quicker than some to condemn anti-Arab violence) and agree that some anti-Semites exploit the rhetoric of anti-Zionism. What they object to is what they perceive as a thesis that leads to a presumption that criticism of Zionism, Israel, its government, and its supporters are anti-Semitic, and that claims to the contrary are made in bad faith. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:06, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to Israel is not directly anti-semitic

A note of this needs to be made in the article. Many groups on the left sympathize with the palestinians as being an oppressed people, which comprises their main opposition to the state of Israel, this article makes no distinction between anti-semitism and opposition to jewish colonialism of palestine.--68.74.30.182 23:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, and the article discusses that extensively in the "opposition" and "criticisms" sections. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

anouncing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Is the Clean Up label is still neccesary?

I think it should be removed by now. MathKnight 12:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It is my opinion that it is still necessary, although if one was to remove it, I wouldn't object. --Viriditas | Talk 12:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The article gone major changes during recently. What more do you think we should clean up? MathKnight 12:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The "nature of the new anti-Semitism" and "state of the controversy" sections need to be tightened up. Some of the blockquotes, like the one in the "Anti-Semitic cartoons" section could be paraphrased and linked to the full quote to save space. Same goes for the quotes in the incidents section. I could keep going, but you get the point. The article needs work. --Viriditas | Talk 13:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


It's still a messy article. For example, I just excised this mangled comment which had snuck into the text: "Are we going to have ping-pong claims and counter-claims? Are we now going to have a "what the propoponents answer" section as well, followed by a "what the opponents answer in response etc."? Please integrate these arguments into the opponents section, rather than extending a debate down the page." --LeFlyman 06:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust needs help

Responding to an idiotic comment on the discussion page of Black supremacy, I found myself at The Holocaust. Mindful that this article is an overview of the subject with numerous other, related articles elsewhere on this web site, I still think this piece could use some major additions, major work. The subject is not a primary interest of mine, so I don't foresee myself contributing much more beyond that which I already have. But this is a general solicitation (I haven't done so on the wiki page set aside specifically for that purpose; I figured this was more direct) for contributors to converge upon the page and improve the piece. I've made some suggestions in talk. Take 'em or leave 'em, but please contribute however you feel so moved. The article seems to have been nominated for featured article status, and that effort (understandably) failed. The next time it's nominated, such a thing shouldn't happen again. Peace. deeceevoice 13:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cartoon by Latuff and IDF Spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey

If anyone think that the Latuff cartoon is Anti-Semitic, it's just a PoV, not a fact. So this cartoon has nothing to do in the part "Anti-Semitic cartoons".

The fact about allegation of IDF Spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey needs to be covered. Please stop erase it.

--Marcoo 23:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is all about POVs, and NPOV policy says they must be represented, not suppressed. As for the IDF spokesman's statement being misunderstood, why do you think it needs to be covered? He made the statement on Apr 14, but claims of a massacre with hundreds killed were coming from Palestinian sources as early as April 4 [19]. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When an image is included to illustrate a part of an article, the choice must respect the NPoV. Here, it doesn't. The article can't carry the POVs it presents.

Just few allegation of massacre came before the April 12. For example, the figures given by Terje Roed-Larsen came after.

--Marcoo 23:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"As for the IDF spokesman's statement being misunderstood, why do you think it needs to be covered?" : Because all Israeli newspapers wrote the allegations by the IDF spokesman, so the report by Terje Roed-Larsen has to be read in this context. --Marcoo 00:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The picture is an example of the POV it represents; as such, it is perfectly appropriate. Please stop deleting it. As for the allegations of Roed-Larsen, why do imagine that they were based on the IDF spokesman's claim, as opposed to the many claims of massacre from Palestinians weeks earlier. On April 4, Secretary-General of the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, complained in an interview on Palestinian television about “…world silence over the massacres being perpetrated against the Palestinian people.” (BBC Worldwide Monitoring). [20]On April 6, Nabil Sha'ath delivered a speech at a meeting of the Arab League, in which he charged that “a 'massacre' was underway in the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin.” (Deutsche Presse-Agentur) He also “compared Israeli actions in the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus to the 1982 massacres of hundreds of Palestinans…” (The Associated Press).[21] On April 7, Abdel Rahman told NBC’s Tim Russert, “The victims so far has been over 250 Palestinians killed, many of them are children and women.”[22] Saeb Erekat is quoted by Washington Post as having said “This is not fighting between armies, but a massacre in Jenin camp."[23] Why do you think that the IDF spokesman's statements from over a week later were so influential, as opposed to these many public statements by Palestinian spokesmen which were widely disseminated in major news outlets? Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The picture is an example of the POV it represents" : So the name of this part must become : "Cartoons described as Anti-Semitic"

If you read an article named "Anti-Semitic cartoons", it means the cartoons you see are Anti-Semitic. It's not a NPoV. --Marcoo 00:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's an example of what proponents of the view that there is a "New anti-Semitism" describe; the caption doesn't say that it is New anti-Semitism. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"why do imagine that they were based on the IDF spokesman's claim" : I don't imagine anything, I gave the exact chronology. If you want to add more facts, feel free, but dont delete exact facts.

--Marcoo 00:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are trying to make an argument here that it was the IDF spokesman who was responsible; that is what is known as Wikipedia:Original research. In any event, it is not relevant to the claims; if someone has said that this was not an example of New anti-Semitism because the IDF said it first, then you can quote them, but you can't go building your own arguments. Please respect Wikipedia policy, including the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Jayjg (talk) 00:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Please respect Wikipedia policy, including the Wikipedia:Three revert rule." : The rule "doesn't apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism".
"You are trying to make an argument here that it was the IDF spokesman who was responsible" No, I gave the context for everybody to make it's own opinion. You talking about Wikipedia policy but you could be blocked for vandalism, when you delete facts with sources.
If you think the way I talk about "A week before, IDF Spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey suggested to Israel Radio on April 14, 2002, that "hundreds of Palestinians" were killed in Jenin [24]." is not neutral (?!), feel free to express it in an other way, but don't delete it.
You also deleted 3 lines I added on the Opponents arguments part, without explanation. Why ?
You put Latuff's cartoon in a part called "Anti-Semitic cartoons", so it means for every reader that this cartoon is Anti-Semitic. It doesn't respect the NPoV.
--Marcoo 00:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Latuff's cartoon clearly belongs, since it had many of the motives described in the cartoon paragraph. The readers can judge for themselves if describing religious Jewish soldier as "eager to kill kids for God" is antisemitics or not, but what it is clear that many Jews and proponents of the new antisemitism see this cartoon as such. MathKnight 11:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I could agree your point of view only if the title of the paragraph doesn't choose between two interpretations. It's why I proposed "Cartoons described as Anti-Semitic" which is neutral.
--Marcoo 20:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you try to assert that people who revert your edits are "vandals", you will no doubt get little sympathy from the admins, who have no qualms about blocking in spite of such allegations. Vandalism has a very specific and narrow definition on Wikipedia. As for your 3 lines in the "opponents" section, I explained quite clearly what the problem is; they appear to be original research; that is, novel arguments you have made up on your own. Could you please find a source which shows opponents of the concept of "New anti-Semitism" using these arguments? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ron Kitrey and Jenin

As for the Jenin part - lengthy discussion should be made in the Battle of Jenin 2002. But I will say it loud and clearly:

  • It is seems that Marcoo only point in enters Kitrey estimation with the assertion that it was prior to any Palestinian allegation massacre, is to promote the false claim that the IDF is responsible to the massacre claims. Not only that this consipercy theory is ridiculous, it is also based on a wrong fact, as as proved in Talk:Battle of Jenin 2002 and here.
  • Therefore, it will be deleted as many times an neccesary since it is uncorrect and biased.

MathKnight 11:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I ask for a paragraph which doesn't talk only of Palestinian allegations, but also the Israeli ones. You can propose another way to talk about them, but the version cannot stay like this.
The paragraph now is a kind of resume of the paragraph "Inflated body counts" in the article Battle of Jenin 2002. However, in § "Inflated body counts", there are Palestinian declarations but also Israeli declarations. So it's not neutral to talk only about Palestinian ones.
--Marcoo 21:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Israeli allegations? Israel did not accused itself in a "massacre" and not in mass grave digging. Early estimation of casualties were a bit high but they were quickly reduced. They are certainly not the reason to the Palestinian allegations, as you try to imply. More discussion on the issue should be made in Talk:Battle of Jenin 2002. MathKnight 10:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"They are certainly not the reason to the Palestinian allegations, as you try to imply." -> I don't try to imply anything. If you desagree the way I talk about something on an article, you can write it in another way, without deleting it. I ask for a paragraph which doesn't talk only about Palestinian declarations, on the example of what Tomhab did for Battle of Jenin 2002, or something like "For the battle of Jenin, see Battle of Jenin 2002". --Marcoo 11:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why would such a paragraph be relevant to this article? Have opponents of the concept of a "New anti-Semitism" disputed the "Jenin massacre" claim using this argument? Proponents have certainly used the "Jenin massacre" claims as an argument in favour of there being a "New anti-Semitism". Again, I recommend you read the Wikipedia:No original research article, and remember that this article is about claims regarding New anti-Semitism. It's not for us to develop arguments for and against the concept of a New anti-Semitism; rather, we just report the arguments of those who insist there is or is not such a thing. Jayjg (talk) 15:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you give a fact in the article, ("false allegations" : allegation of massacre and false figures), we have to give a clear context of this fact. Here the context is forgiven because the paragraph only talk about Palestinian declarations and Terje Roed-Larsen's, not Isreali's false allegation. It's a very partial presentation. So I propose to write : "For the inflated body counts, see Battle of Jenin 2002". --Marcoo 17:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You still don't seem to understand the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research rules. In accord with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, this article (and Wikipedia in general) presents Points of View, not "facts". Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:No original research we have to present the arguments that other people make, not our own, even if in our view they are one-sided (which they often are). That is exactly what this article has done; it's not up to you to try to re-argue the positions presented here simply because you don't agree with them, and that's what you have consistently been attempting to do. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Straw-man anti-Semitism

It is written : "One claim made by opponents of Israel and/or the notion of a new anti-Semitism is that defenders of Israel insist that any criticism of the State of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism."

I never heard about such a claim. I've heard about the claim (from opponents of the notion of a new anti-Semitism) that defenders of Israel would often use the word Anti-Semitic to disqualify any criticism of Israel, but never saw the claim that defenders of Israel would insist that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Do you have any sources ? --Marcoo 12:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there no sources about this, I proposed to remove the paragraph. --Marcoo 14:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 10)#Straw men galore. Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the link you gave me, but the given links :

aren't an answer to my question.

"Jews relate to anti-semitic conspiracy every criticism of Israel." : I never said that nobody told this !

What I said is I've never heard anybody told that defenders of Israel insist that any criticism of the State of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism. It's a big difference I think. So in my opinion we have to re-write the paragraph. --Marcoo 15:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see any difference whatsoever; can you explain what you see the difference as being? Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry for my english. I'm going to try to explain :

First, I agree with the fact that some people say that defenders of Israel, when they are confronted to an argument which is a criticism of Israel, want to link it to Anti-Semitism. That's what all yours sources above are talking about.

But who said that defenders of Israel explicitly accept and explain the idea that any criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitic ? I've never heard that.

In the article, a quote of Alan Dershowitz "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".

But nobody never told that defenders of Israel explain that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic ! Defenders of Israel are sometimes accused to systematically link critics of Israel to Anti-Semitic, but without saying of course that any criticism of Israel is Antisemitic.

So the assertion : "One claim made by opponents of Israel and/or the notion of a new anti-Semitism is that defenders of Israel insist that any criticism of the State of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism." is strange because I never saw this and that's why I ask for sources. --Marcoo 21:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the links provided give sources of the claim. Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, they give sources of the claim that in front of a criticism of Israel, some defenders of Israel always try to link it to Anti-Semitism. It doesn't give sources of the claim that defenders of Israel say that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. It's not the same thing ! --Marcoo 22:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make; indeed, the French links you brought make the same strawman argument. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must say, as a more general point - the whole Straw-man para really does seem to be intended to express a particular POV to me.

It's quite true by the way that defenders of Israeli actions and policy will play the anti-Semite card from time to time, and I think the article should at least reflect this. Some won't, and fair enough - I can't say I've ever heard a major Israeli politician do that. But some do. jamesgibbon 02:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Opponents

Because Jayjg is asking me, I will give sources for what I included in "Opponents, Opponents of the claim of New anti-Semitism assert that:" part.

1. "The double standard is in favor of Israel in regard of disrespect of the international laws."

See (in french) : "notre dénonciation lors des manifestations anti-guerre du "deux poids, deux mesures" concernant l'Irak que l'on bombarde d'un côté et Israël qui jouit d'une totale impunité malgré ses crimes, ses violations des résolutions de l'ONU et sa possession d'armes de destruction massive"

[25], see [26] for automatic translation.

2. "The Israeli-Arab conflict is important not because of the amount of casualties but for geo-strategic, symbolic, religious, historical reasons."

(editing)

3. "Many Anti-Semitic allegations come from Zionist non-Jewish people who spread the idea that Israel is the only legitimate State for Jews."

(editing)

--Marcoo 14:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The question is not whether or not people have made this claim, but rather whether they have have used these arguments to claim there is no such thing as "New anti-Semitism". Please remember, this article isn't a replay of pro and anti-Israel arguments, but rather pro and anti "New anti-Semitism" arguments". Jayjg (talk) 14:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK. But the first sources I will give will be links to arguments I read on archived pages of french discussion forums on the internet. Will it be enough ? --Marcoo 15:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous editor on a discussion forum? I think you'll have to find more reputable sources than that. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editors on forums on the net could never be considered as opponents of the claim of New anti-Semitism ? Can you explain me why ? --Marcoo 20:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're not credible citable sources. Wikipedia represents mainstream or at least notable views. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources. Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, think about it from another perspective; if you could cite any anonymous poster on a Discussion forum, then the Wikipedia:No original research policy would be meaningless, since I could simply post something on a forum, then come here and cite it. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Marcoo, does your latest source talk about "The New Anti-Semitism"? Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Marcoo, again, I ask do your sources discuss "New anti-Semitism" or not? Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have to ask me twice the same thing in half an hour ? Let me the time to see that you asked me something...

OK for your explanation about quotes from forums. All the sources I included in my last changes on the article talk about the supposed rize of a "new anti-Semitism". Even if you don't speak French, you can check it using an automatic translation. --Marcoo 22:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, which automatic translation would you recommmend, and what makes these commentators notable? Jayjg (talk) 05:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can use the automatic translation you want, as Google's one. The views are notable, coming from well-known activist Michel Warschawski, well known french association MRAP, and from a conference about Christian Zionism. --Marcoo 22:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I used it, and went carefully through them, and it is as I feared; the articles do no actually address the concept of a "New anti-Semitism", but rather they generally simply assert that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. In fact, http://www.radioairlibre.be/infos/michel-warchavski.htm and http://www.mrap.asso.fr/differences/2004/differences251/anniversaire05 are actually examples of the strawman argument that supporters of Israel or Sharon claim all criticism is anti-Semitism. You need to find sources that describe the concept of the "New anti-Semitism", and not simply ones that insist that "anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand the articles. They are alking about the same concept. In France, it's called a come back of Anti-Semitism but it is the thing you call in the States New Anti-Semitism. --Marcoo 21:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I add that on New anti-Semitism page, I read :

"This view [of New AntiSemitism] is very controversial, especially because it presumes a connection between the New anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism". --Marcoo 21:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that you don't understand what relevant links are. Yes, proponents of a "New anti-Semitism" argue there is a connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but not that they are the same thing. As well, the return, or comeback, or resurgence of anti-Semitism is not the same thing as the concept of a "New anti-Semitism", which argues that, in fact, this kind of anti-Semitism is New. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please read one more time the french articles. They're talking about an Anti-Semitism which is a new kind for people who see it. It's exactly the same concept that you call in the US "New Anti-Semitism". They're not talking about a resurgence of usual Anit-Semitism. --Marcoo 22:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please quote, on this page, the sections you think point to a "New anti-Semitism". Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Un groupe d'intellectuels sionistes européens vient de trouver la solution, en faisant intervenir l'inconscient et un concept passe-partout qu'ils nomment "le glissement sémantique". Quand on dénonce le sionisme, voire quant on critique Israël, on a, parfois inconsciemment, comme objectif non pas la politique d'un gouvernement (le gouvernement Sharon) ou la nature coloniale d'un mouvement politique (le sionisme) ou encore le racisme institutionnel d'un état (Israël), mais les Juifs."

Google translates that as A group of intellectuals European Zionists has just found the solution, while utilizing the unconscious one and a concept pass key which they name "the semantic slip". When the Zionism is denounced, even as one criticizes Israel, one has, sometimes unconsciously, like objective not the policy of a government (the Sharon government) or the colonial nature of a political movement (Zionism) or the institutional racism of a state (Israel), but the Jews. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ceux qui dénoncent les actes antisémites, réels ou fruits de "glissements sémantiques", mais ne disent rien des exactions anti-arabes portent une part de responsabilité dans la communautarisation des esprits et dans le renforcement de l'antisémitisme, car ce n'est pas le racisme, quel qu'il soit et d'où qu'il vienne, qu'ils combattent, mais uniquement le racisme de l'autre. Ce ne sont certainement pas eux, les Tarnero, Lanzman et autres Taguieff, qui ont le droit de faire la leçon aux militants de la gauche radicale et du mouvement contre la mondialisation marchande, qui depuis toujours, ont été à la pointe de tous les combats anti-racistes, et n'en ont jamais déserté aucun."

Google translates that as Those which denounce the acts anti-semites, realities or fruits of "semantic slips", but do not say anything the exactions anti-Arabic carry a share of responsibility in communautarization for the spirits and the reinforcement for the anti-semitism, because it is not racism, whatever it is and from where that it comes, that they fight, but only the racism of the other. They are certainly not them, Tarnero, Lanzman and other Taguieff, which has the right to make the lesson with the militants of the radical left and the movement against commercial universalization, which since always, were with the point of all the combat antiracists, and never deserted some none. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The famous book by Taguieff Michel Warschawski is referring is called "La nouvelle judéophobie" (literally "the new judeophobia").

"Le MRAP n'acceptera jamais que la condamnation de la politique criminelle d'Ariel Sharon soit assimilée à de l'antisémitisme. La volonté de certains de déplacer le conflit israélo-palestinien sur un terrain communautaire ou religieux , alors qu'il relève exlusivement répétons le, d'une question de justice et de droit international, dans le respect des résolutions des Nation Unies, est d'une gravité extrême. Cette attitude ne peut que banaliser l'antisémitisme (la profanation du cimetière juif de Herrlisheim prouve que contrairement aux propos tenus par le président du CRIF, l'antisémitisme de l'extrême droite n'a pas disparu!), et favoriser le développement de tous les racismes, de la haine et de la violence ainsi que du communautarisme."

Google translates that as The MRAP will never accept that the judgment of the criminal policy of Ariel Sharon is comparable with anti-semitism. The will of some to move the israélo-Palestinian conflict on a Community or religious ground, whereas it raises exlusivement repeat it, of a question of justice and international law, in the respect of the resolutions of the United Nations, is of an extreme gravity. This attitude can only standardize the anti-semitism (the profanation of the Jewish cemetery of Herrlisheim proves that contrary to the remarks made by the president of CRIF, the anti-semitism of the extreme right-hand side did not disappear!), and to support the development of all racisms, hatred and violence as well as communautarism. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism". Keep in mind, the source is alleging any criticism of Sharon's "criminal" policies is being equated with anti-Semitism, exactly what is described in the "Strawman antisemitism" section. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here he's talking about a new supposed kind of Anti-Semitism, opposed to the old kind ("l'antisémitisme de l'extrême droite n'a pas disparu!").

--Marcoo 22:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"and watch the 3 Revert Rule" -> You reverted 3 times my changes : [27], [28] and [29] in 1,5 hour. Good job for an admin. :-) Why do you delete everytimes my changes before asking me explanations ? I wonder how did you become Admin... --Marcoo 22:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Because he's right most of the time, accepts when it's pointed out he's not, and does a lot of good janitorial work as well. At any rate, both of you are on the right path, discussing it here rather than revert warring. (By the way, 3RR means 3 is the max, not 3 is over the limit.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Feel free to add your comments on the issue as well, Jpgordon. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't speak any French, and I utterly distrust Google translations because of their intense technological bias, so I don't really have any way to give an opinion of the issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I felt a little bit agressed when I was asked twice the same new question in 30 min, waiting for my answer. Nevertheless, I'm surprised to see that my changes were immediatly deleted everytimes, whereas I never refused to stop the dialog and always gave explanation. --Marcoo 08:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you re-insert the problematic statements again and again, when there are clearly problems with them, and when I am clearly involved in dialogue here with you. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I am clearly involved in dialogue here with you" -> In this dialog, you always suppose first that what I say is false, so it's quite agressive as a dialog.

Don't you assume you are correct? You certainly inserted your information as if you felt that way. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "when there are clearly problems with them" -> I inserted them because they were relevant and I gave my sources, and I answered all your question. Is it now ok to insert the statements that you deleted ? You can check on the net what I explained for the text about "new antisemitism" vs. "old one" (extrême droite) and about a huge debate in France with the Taguieff's book called "La nouvelle judéophobie" (literally "the new judeophobia") which develop the concept you call in US "new antisemitism" --Marcoo 21:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Did you not see my comments above? I went through the text, and they did not appear to say at all what you claim. It doesn't say New anti-Semitism, and your translation of "extreme right" as "old one" is extremely liberal, to say the least. Could you work with the question raised above, please? Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see first your comment. I explain : In France, some people express the idea that the New Anti-Semitism is in fact a Strawman Anti-Semitism. That's why they are opponents to the idea of New Anti-Semitism (as developped for example by Taguieff and Tarnero). It's not because you don't see exactly the words "New Antisemitism" in google's translation that it means they don't speak about it. --Marcoo 22:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First source

"Un groupe d'intellectuels sionistes européens vient de trouver la solution, en faisant intervenir l'inconscient et un concept passe-partout qu'ils nomment "le glissement sémantique". Quand on dénonce le sionisme, voire quant on critique Israël, on a, parfois inconsciemment, comme objectif non pas la politique d'un gouvernement (le gouvernement Sharon) ou la nature coloniale d'un mouvement politique (le sionisme) ou encore le racisme institutionnel d'un état (Israël), mais les Juifs."

Google translates that as A group of intellectuals European Zionists has just found the solution, while utilizing the unconscious one and a concept pass key which they name "the semantic slip". When the Zionism is denounced, even as one criticizes Israel, one has, sometimes unconsciously, like objective not the policy of a government (the Sharon government) or the colonial nature of a political movement (Zionism) or the institutional racism of a state (Israel), but the Jews. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, please explain which specific argument this supports. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You take the axiom that "New anti-Semitism" is different than "Strawman anti-Semitism". But in France the opponents of the notion of "New anti-Semitism" say that this one is in reality a "Strawman anti-Semitism". --Marcoo 22:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Second source

"Ceux qui dénoncent les actes antisémites, réels ou fruits de "glissements sémantiques", mais ne disent rien des exactions anti-arabes portent une part de responsabilité dans la communautarisation des esprits et dans le renforcement de l'antisémitisme, car ce n'est pas le racisme, quel qu'il soit et d'où qu'il vienne, qu'ils combattent, mais uniquement le racisme de l'autre. Ce ne sont certainement pas eux, les Tarnero, Lanzman et autres Taguieff, qui ont le droit de faire la leçon aux militants de la gauche radicale et du mouvement contre la mondialisation marchande, qui depuis toujours, ont été à la pointe de tous les combats anti-racistes, et n'en ont jamais déserté aucun."]

The famous book by Taguieff Michel Warschawski is referring is called "La nouvelle judéophobie" (literally "the new judeophobia").

Google translates that as Those which denounce the acts anti-semites, realities or fruits of "semantic slips", but do not say anything the exactions anti-Arabic carry a share of responsibility in communautarization for the spirits and the reinforcement for the anti-semitism, because it is not racism, whatever it is and from where that it comes, that they fight, but only the racism of the other. They are certainly not them, Tarnero, Lanzman and other Taguieff, which has the right to make the lesson with the militants of the radical left and the movement against commercial universalization, which since always, were with the point of all the combat antiracists, and never deserted some none. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, please explain which specific argument this supports. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because he speaks about the position of Tarnero, Lanzman, and Taguieff, who are known to develop the idea of a "New Anti-Semitism", as Taguieff's book called "la nouvelle judeophobie". --Marcoo 22:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

O.K., but while he refers to that book, I can't understand the argument he is making, can you clarify? Perhaps improve the translation? Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In few words, for Michel Warschawski, the fight against a so-called "new antisemitism" is a false fight, because for him the idea of a "new antisemitism" is developped outside a context, outside the global fight against racism. And the newt paragraph explain why Warschawski consider the so-called new one as a strawman anti-Semitism. --Marcoo 23:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Third source

"Le MRAP n'acceptera jamais que la condamnation de la politique criminelle d'Ariel Sharon soit assimilée à de l'antisémitisme. La volonté de certains de déplacer le conflit israélo-palestinien sur un terrain communautaire ou religieux , alors qu'il relève exlusivement répétons le, d'une question de justice et de droit international, dans le respect des résolutions des Nation Unies, est d'une gravité extrême. Cette attitude ne peut que banaliser l'antisémitisme (la profanation du cimetière juif de Herrlisheim prouve que contrairement aux propos tenus par le président du CRIF, l'antisémitisme de l'extrême droite n'a pas disparu!), et favoriser le développement de tous les racismes, de la haine et de la violence ainsi que du communautarisme."

Google translates that as The MRAP will never accept that the judgment of the criminal policy of Ariel Sharon is comparable with anti-semitism. The will of some to move the israélo-Palestinian conflict on a Community or religious ground, whereas it raises exlusivement repeat it, of a question of justice and international law, in the respect of the resolutions of the United Nations, is of an extreme gravity. This attitude can only standardize the anti-semitism (the profanation of the Jewish cemetery of Herrlisheim proves that contrary to the remarks made by the president of CRIF, the anti-semitism of the extreme right-hand side did not disappear!), and to support the development of all racisms, hatred and violence as well as communautarism. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism". Keep in mind, the source is alleging any criticism of Sharon's "criminal" policies is being equated with anti-Semitism, exactly what is described in the "Strawman antisemitism" section. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, please explain which specific argument this supports. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same anwser than for first source. --Marcoo 22:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marcoo's opponents

Marcoo had added the following to the opponents section:

  • Opponents of the argument respond to these objections by asserting that:
  • The israeli-arab conflict is important not because of the amount of casualties but for geo-strategic, symbolic, religious, historical reasons.
  • The double standard is in favor of Israel in regard of irrespect of the international laws.
  • Many Anti-Semitic allegations come from Zionist non-jewish people who spread the idea that Israel is the only legitimate State for Jews

Apart from the problem with phrases like "in regard of irrespect" or "opponents of the argument respond to these objections", these claims were unsourced and of doubtful relevance to the topic (whether the "new anti-Semitism" is a reality).

Marcoo has since provided some sources that are supposed to support the claims. They have been discussed above.

One problem is that Marcoo provides French sources and make claims about the French discourse which are difficult to verify for people who don't read French. Jayjg therefore asked me for help. Here are my comments:

1) Michael Warschawski.[30] Warschawski does not argue against the existance of a new anti-Semitism. He argues against the identification of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism which he calls a "semantic shift" ("glissement sémantique"). He also also complains about the one-sided concern with anti-Semitism without taking note of anti-Arabism. In fact, he seems to support the claim of a new anti-Semitism. Here is an ugly (too literal) translation: "Anti-Semitism exists, and, in Europe, appears to raise its head again after being unvoiced for half a century following the horrors of the Nazi judeocide and crimes of collaboration. In a growing segment of Arab-Muslim communities in Europe, racist generalizations accuse, without distinction, Jews of crimes commited by the Jewish State and its army."

2) Renée le Mignot, MRAP.[31] She doesn't discuss the issues at all. It contains a general discussion of MRAP's position on the Arab-Israeli conflict (support of a two-state solution). There is a brief statement towards the end that "condamnation of the criminal politics of Ariel Sharon" must never be "assimilated to anti-Semitism".

Denis Diderot 03:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I got out of the links, but Marcoo was so insistent that I thought I might have missed something. Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
About MRAP's article, Denis Diderot write : "There is a brief statement towards the end that "condamnation of the criminal politics of Ariel Sharon" must never be "assimilated to anti-Semitism"" -> But it's the point ! In France, MRAP and others critisized the Taguieff's and Tarnero's position, and said that it's not a new concept to study but it's merely a strawman Anti-Semitism.
"(whether the "new anti-Semitism" is a reality)" : Not exactly. We're talking about New Anti-Semitism with a capital "N". Opponents of New Anti-Semitism are opponents to this concept of a new denomination. For them, there's no new one as a specific thing you can study separatly.
In the head of article New Anti-Semitism, I read :
"In the latter sense, the "New anti-Semitism" (with a capital N) is often seen as distinct—in its rhetoric, in its pretexts, and its locus on the political spectrum—from the "old" anti-Semitism that continues to exist alongside of it. This view is very controversial, especially because it presumes a connection between the New anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism; indeed, many opponents of this concept have contended that the concept of "new anti-Semitism" is an attempt to conflate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism."
We're talking of opponents of the concept of "New Anti-Semitism". We're not talking about oppononents of the fact that this violence here or there is Anti-Semitic or not and if it razise or not. Here it's the concept which is critized. And Michel Warschawski is clearly an opponent of the concept of New Anti-Semitism. It dosen't mean he does't recognize that there is a raise of Anti-Semitic violences. Do you see what I mean ? --Marcoo 07:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense to talk aboout "the concept" of New anti-Semitism, because there are a number of concepts of "New anti-Semitism", but let's not get into that again. The issue here is whether the sources (i.e. the texts) you referred to make the claim that there isn't any "New anti-Semitism". New anti-Semitism is defined as "a new anti-Semitism" that is somehow distinct "in its rhetoric, in its pretexts, and its locus on the political spectrum" from the old. Thus Taguieff's "new Judeophobia" would be one example of such a concept, but there are also many others. In order to argue against the general thesis that there is a new form of anti-Semitism different from the old "right-wing" version, one would have to argue either that (a) there isn't any new anti-Semitism or (b) that the new anti-Semitism is of the same order as the old. None of the texts you refer to contain such arguments. --Denis Diderot 13:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"In order to argue against the general thesis that there is a new form of anti-Semitism different from the old "right-wing" version, one would have to argue either that (a) there isn't any new anti-Semitism or (b) that the new anti-Semitism is of the same order as the old. None of the texts you refer to contain such arguments." -> The question is not to say if the arguments of opponents are relevant or not. I notice that in Warschawski's mind, he's against a new denomination "New Anti-Semitism" and he explained his reasons, so it makes him an opponent to the notion of New Anti-Semitism. Maybe for you his reasons are not relevant because he didn't prove that "there isn't any new anti-Semitism" or that "the new one is of the same order as the old", but it's another question.
The subject is to quote arguments, not to judge them, not to say what a good argument should be, or how it should be (for you : to affirm that there isn't any new anti-Semitism or that the new anti-Semitism is of the same order as the old).
In others articles where arguments are quoted, the arguments are not deleted if someone thinks they are not relevant. --Marcoo 14:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I didn't judge the value or relevance of arguments. I merely observed that the texts don't discuss the question of a "New anti-Semitism". Perhaps the authors believe that the "New anti-Semitism" is a bogus notion. Perhaps they intend their remarks about anti-Zionism or Sharon to be directed against such notions. But that's pure speculation."The subject is to quote arguments". That requires arguments to quote. Perhaps you can notice things in Warshawski's mind, but for others they are invisible. --Denis Diderot 18:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I didn't judge the value or relevance of arguments." You did. You said that opponents have to argue either that there isn't any new anti-Semitism or that the New anti-Semitism is of the same order as the old. You decided how the opponents' arguments should be to be acceptable for you.

""Ceux qui dénoncent les actes antisémites, réels ou fruits de "glissements sémantiques", mais ne disent rien des exactions anti-arabes portent une part de responsabilité dans la communautarisation des esprits et dans le renforcement de l'antisémitisme, car ce n'est pas le racisme, quel qu'il soit et d'où qu'il vienne, qu'ils combattent, mais uniquement le racisme de l'autre. Ce ne sont certainement pas eux, les Tarnero, Lanzman et autres Taguieff, qui ont le droit de faire la leçon aux militants de la gauche radicale et du mouvement contre la mondialisation marchande, qui depuis toujours, ont été à la pointe de tous les combats anti-racistes, et n'en ont jamais déserté aucun."

is an explicit criticism of french authors who develop the concept of New Anti-Semitism, I don't see what you want more. In the first sentence, Warschawski gives the idea that this way to develop this concept which is outside of the context ("mais ne disent rien des exactions anti-arabes") is dangerous ("portent une part de responsabilité dans la communautarisation des esprits et dans le renforcement de l'antisémitisme"), and for M. W. proponents of so-called New Anti-Semitism don't even fight the racism, but give more power to the Anti-Semitism itself ("le renforcement de l'antisémitisme"). If you've read the Taguieff's book, the criticism of the concept of New Anti-Semitism by M.W. and what he's referring is quite explicit. --Marcoo 01:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think your ability to notice things in my mind is somewhat limited. In this Wikipedia article, the New anti-Semitism is defined in a certain way. Therefore, in order to determine that X opposes such a notion of New anti-Semitism, X would either "have to" refer to the Wikipedia article or make statements that clearly oppose New anti-Semitism according to the Wikipedia definition. The phrase "have to" is used here in a purely logical sense, it does not stipulate what X may or may not do. Nor does it constitute a judgement of the general relevance of X's arguments.
Both authors probably oppose the notion that anti-Semitic prejudice could be more than marginal among leftists. The wording suggests that. But in order to refer to their arguments in the article, they have to be made explicitly. It is, after all, possible to disagree with Taguieff on many issues while still agreeing that there is such a thing as a "New anti-Semitism".
Denis Diderot 04:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"The wording suggests that." -> It's not only a suggestion, and it's not only about the marginality or not among leftists. I repeat myself, but M.W. clearly gives the idea that this way to develop in France this concept which is outside of the context ("mais ne disent rien des exactions anti-arabes") is dangerous ("portent une part de responsabilité dans la communautarisation des esprits"), and for him proponents of so-called New Anti-Semitism in France don't even fight the racism, but give more power to the Anti-Semitism itself ("le renforcement de l'antisémitisme"). So maybe we should refer to the french concept of "New Anti-Semitism", which is maybe different from the american one. It's about all this new theory developped in France by Tarnero or Taguieff he is an opponent. Of couse it's about "Strawman Anti-Semitism" as Jayjg was referring above, but in France these people express the idea that the New Anti-Semitism is in fact a Strawman Anti-Semitism. --Marcoo 16:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clear you believe that, Marcoo, but you haven't been able to actually provide a citation showing that. Unless they address the issue directly, we can't go about assuming what they mean and entering it as fact. Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following hypothetical argument is entirely compatible with both texts: "The new anti-Semitism is a real and significant phenomenon, but we must not discuss the new anti-Semitism without also discussing anti-Arabism. And legitimate criticism of Zionism or Israeli politics must never be confused with anti-Semitism." --Denis Diderot 02:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please read more in your translation the paragraphs before and after in Warschawski's text.
"The new anti-Semitism is a real and significant phenomenon" -> M.W. never told this. In the concept of New Anti-Semitism, the word "new" is important. You forgot the lines above :
"Un groupe d'intellectuels sionistes européens vient de trouver la solution [he's talking about Tarnero and Taguieff and their concept of New judeophobia], en faisant intervenir l'inconscient et un concept passe-partout qu'ils nomment "le glissement sémantique". Quand on dénonce le sionisme, voire quant on critique Israël, on a, parfois inconsciemment, comme objectif non pas la politique d'un gouvernement (le gouvernement Sharon) ou la nature coloniale d'un mouvement politique (le sionisme) ou encore le racisme institutionnel d'un état (Israël), mais les Juifs."
He clearly present that these intellectuals make a "new phenomena" with Anti-Zionist criticisms. So he explicitly says that the new concept as expressed by "un groupe d'intellectuels sionistes" is a Strawman Anti-Semitism.--Marcoo 14:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidents in the United States section

All of the sources in this section alleging anti-semitism on US campuses come from either an article on the Anti-Defamation League website (itself using words such as 'allegedly') or a text file with no sources mentioned. If better sources cannot be found (especially considering the section claims the offences were caught on videotape) then this section should, at the least, be considerably reworded, if not deleted.

Additionally, the section on the San Francisco bay report 'ignoring the racist, violent nature of the atttacks' is clearly POV. illWill 19:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Examples of "new Anti-Semitism" creeping into Wikipedia

In line with the "political" and "unequal treatment" forms of anti-Semitism in the guise of Anti-Zionism, we have examples creating a furor here on Wikipedia.
See: Zionist Terrorism and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zionist_terrorism
Israeli Terrorism and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Israeli_terrorism
--LeFlyman 05:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but please do not remove invisible comments in the text. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'invisible'? Those comments don't appear to belong in the article - I think Leflyman was right to move them to the talk. However, the comment makes sense - this article is ridiculously long and IMHO the very premise of it is somewhat shaky. It may as well be called interminable and pointless debate as to whether there is in fact a new anti-semitism, or alternately (according to some views) whether the term attempts to stifle criticism of Israel .illWill 17:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg seems to be referring to my moving discussion "comments" from the article text which were actually 1) Visible (if Jayjg had checked the history, he would have noticed this); 2) not appropriate to the article itself, but should have been in Talk. See: Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Is_the_Clean_Up_label_is_still_neccesary?.
In any event, this doesn't have to do with my point about an example of the "new Anti-Semitism" being the creation of an article titled Zionist Terrorism --LeFlyman 19:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the comments were visible. However, your removing them made some other commented out text visible; I've removed it all now. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't, that was a bit off-topic, although it will always be an interminable debate. If much of the debate surrounding this topic is whether the new anti-semitism is a term designed to obscure criticism of Israel/Zionism, then stating that an article called Zionist terrorism is aan example of siad phenomena just feeds back into the original debate. If your position is that anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, then you will enver be satisfied with many of these articles. Conversely, if your position is that anti-Semitism shouldn't be used to attack critics of Israel, then you will never be satisfied with the other side of the debate. I'm of the opinion that it's best to assume good faith and that there are only a minority of anti-semitic wikipedians.illWill 13:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problem with sources in this article

Many of the links on this page take the reader to Hebrew-language sites - no good if you are interested in checking the sources of some of the claims here. I don't know Wkipedia policy on this, but it doesn't seem right that the en Wikipedia uses non-english sources. If nobody can supply English versions, they should go.

Also, there are many sources (see section I added about incidents in the United States above) which come from press releases released by the ADL with no links to their origins either - this is tantamount to presenting the POV of teh ADL as if it were fact, and isn't really much different from the 'No original research' caveat which pops up all the time. illWill 13:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the policy is on foreign language links; just a couple of days ago there was a huge debate here, and one side was using French language links to attempt to prove their point, which made it very difficult for anyone who didn't speak French to participate. I suppose that rule would have solved the problem quickly. Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a difficult question, I would certainly argue that the systemic bias present on Wikipedia proceeds from some sources being more heavily-represented in English, but it's probably frustrating to click on a link to a page you can't understand. Then again, if there's only one translation of something then the translation can also be considered unreliable. I think this issue is much bigger than politics, although in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I'm of the impression that neither Hebrew nor Arabic sources should be linked to in the body of the article - I suspect anything of considerable importance would be translated into English eventually. When I'm not working so hard I'd like to start a discussion on bias in media translation, but at the moment I wouldn't know where to start.illWill 17:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no rule of any sort against citing foreign-langauge material. If there were, I'd be in a lot of trouble: probably 30% of the sources I cite in my articles are in a language other than English. I don't happen to read Hebrew, but I think it would be insane to say "no Hebrew-language citations" on a Jewish-related subject. Imagine if the Hebrew Wikipedia had to write about Canada using only Hebrew-language citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it should be a rule, as such, but I'm interested in checking the context of the sources of articles on this page, made impossible by not being able to read Hebrew. Also, I could imagine that on any of the articles that loosely orbit around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict you could find a Hebrew-language source that would say one thing and an Arabic-language source that would say the exact opposite. The amount of people who could speak both well enough to comment on them would, I assume, be quite small, and probably be limited to inhabitants of the region. Obviously, these contributions would be extremely valuable, but I suspect there aren't too many.
I was particularly interested in this link [32], because it cites a report on Anti-semitism in France, and I speak a little french, but I can't figure out anything from the Hebrew. I'm of the opinion that, if an article references a report, and link on Wikipedia should also include a link to the report.
Maybe it would be a good idea to provide some kind of rough translation with Hebrew-language links? I don't know though, sourcing stuff from Israel is often problematic because people often use Haaretz because it's in English, and then half the links don't work, for some reason I can't figure out (maybe to do with archiving?).illWill 00:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Will, even without Arabic sources, on any of the articles that loosely orbit around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict you could find a Hebrew-language source that would say one thing and another Hebrew-language source that would say the exact opposite. And I would say that on any source where you are suspicious as to whether it bears out what it's cited for, it's reasonable to ask for translation of the relevant passages, but there is a limit to how much one can ask anyone to translate: everyone has their limit on how much of that sort of thing they can spend their time doing. Another approach is simply to ask a third party who can read Hebrew whether the cited work adequately supports the claim made. FWIW, there are four people listed at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Hebrew-to-English, all native English speakers with various levels of Hebrew, two of them professional translators. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I see your point, I wasn't trying to suggest that a source is bad just because it's in Hebrew (or Arabic, or any other foreign langauge). I just think that this article is particularly contentious, and the way it is written involves lots of allegations that I personally find unconvincing. With some of the sources I'd like at least to know whether they are newspapers, fact sheets, 'media watch' organisations, government departments, weblogs, published reports etc. and I can't figure any of this out from some of the current links. It's better if it says 'Israeli newspaper x' or 'French government report y', because at least it gives an English-speaker the ability to search for pre-existing translations or comments, or at least to assess the source and consider whether it is worth asking for a translation.
Anyway, I've been through some of the sources and have added english-language links which say the same things. I'll post a request for translation if I find anything I find particularly confusing.illWill 09:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Usually when I cite a foreign-language source, I try to make the citation explicit (not a blind link) and also, unless the title is very close to the English equivalent I translate the title. See Nicolae_Ceausescu#Bibliography for examples of how I approach this. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
For obvious reasons, citations in scholarly writings perforce range across languages heedless of any potential reader's possible personal limitations. Wikipedia should not be crippled by pandering to obligatory anglophones. Yet, as a popular encyclopedia, it is also important that Wikipedia satisfy the countervailing need for transparency wherever feasible without compromising the inherent quality of an article (NPOV, accuracy, comprehensiveness, etc. as well as accessibility, to be sure). The evolution of articles involves a series of good and bad edits by contributors drawn from an enormous pool. As more translators pile onto an article, NPOV translations can be recognized and challenged as much as is any other content. Requests for translation would enhance such activity, posting alternative English language links mitigate the problem and specially marking each link to a non-English source alerts the reader to be suspicious of the source. Banning foreign language sources would cripple Wikipedia; cooperating with foreign versions of Wikipedia would enhance each version. Perhaps a policy that promotes cross-wiki collaboration would make more translators available. Myron 08:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The official policy on Verifiability suggests rather strongly that sources should be in English wherever possible. It is not a carved-in-stone requirement, but please "pander" to us anglophones as much as possible. Thanks. 64.140.89.34 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Irwin Cotler table

I propose that this enormous table be removed, and the contents summarised in a shorter paragraph. As quite a lot of the material is the point of view of Cotler, I don't think it warrants the amount of space it takes up, expecially when much of it is duplicated elsewhere in the article. The idea of 'six categories' and 'thirteen indices' is an attempt to present the problem in a manner which may be scientifically measurable, but Cotler's assertions are quite vague and could be subject to interpretation.

For example:

  • What exactly is "European hierarchical anti-semitism"? Has Cotler any evidence that such a distinct phenomenon exists?
  • What is the difference between the "Theological anti-Semitism" of the Islamist world and "State-sanctioned anti-semitism"?
  • What does he mean by "culture of hate"?

It seems that Cotler's main point is that unfair treatment to Israel (inspired by religion, racism or other causes) constitutes anti-semitism. I can't see anything in that enormous table that strays very far from material which could be summarised in two sentences. Any thoughts?illWill 22:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, though it might take three sentences. :-) Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Good summary. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag?

While I think that the article still needs some work (though it actually flows fairly well), I am not sure why it needs the NPOV tag. I was impressed with the general level of balance here, in explaining both claims and counterclaims without the omnipresent "Some people say...other people believe...some critics assert..." of so many controversal articles. Is there a reason to keep the tag? --Goodoldpolonius2 03:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Position of the United Nations

Far from being NPOV this particular section ought to be totally disputed. It starts off with a quote from Kofi Annan insisting that the world must not be silent. A reasonable statement related to the topic from an authoritave source. Afterwards it has two long quotes which, to paraphrase, state "The UN is biased against Israel and the only reason can be anti-Semitism". The quoute from Bayefsky, for example, points out a number of human rights abuses and states that Israel is unique in being criticized for it. One could indicate that there are other factors which make Israel unique. For example, to my knowledge China does not have a powerful lobby in the US who attracts the President of the United States as a speaker. Zimbabwe isn't a first world nation recieving billions of dollars a year in aid from the United States. Saudi Arabia wasn't created by a UN resolution. One could point all of this out, and then cut the whole thing and paste it into Israel and the United Nations where it belongs.

To balance the POV of the UN, find some evidence of the UN being anti-Semitic, or turning a blind eye to it. The current content belongs in the aforementioned article regarding Israel. I won't remove it because of the inevitable long running revert war that follows. --Uncle Bungle 13:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Bungle, I hate to say it, but it seems to me that you still aren't comprehending the Wikipedia:No original research policy. It specificially states that something is forbidden original research if "it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article". Yet here you are counselling article editors to do exactly that, or to try to support the veracity of the claims themselves. Alleged U.N. bias is frequently raised as a proof by those who support the idea that there is a "New anti-Semitism", and they are quoted here. If you want to refute the argument, you need to bring citeable sources try to refute that argument - i.e., people who say "this argument (regarding New anti-Semitism at the U.N.) is incorrect because...". What you cannot do is develop your own unique arguments to try to prove the quoted sources as either correct or incorrect. Jayjg (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Again, thats U.N. bias against Israel, for which there is allready an article. The content is simply not relevant to this section. --Uncle Bungle 14:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Uncle Bungle, the point is that if there actually is a bias in the UN against Israel, that would potentially qualify as anti-Semitism, so it should remain here. This isn't just opinion, quoting from part of the European Union's ECRI definition for anti-Semitism:
Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
  • Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
  • Applying double standards b requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
Since one of the primary claims of proponents of the "new anti-Semitism" is that Israel is being singled out by the world community as a proxy for attacks on Jews as a whole, then the question of UN bias is obviously relevant to this article, whether you agree or disagree over whether such a bias existed. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The ECRI, easily qualifies as a legitimate authority on the issue. While I strongly disagree with the quotes in the section, their opinions are in line with the EU position on anti-Semitism with regards to Israel as cited above. I must concede that the content is relevant, and I thank Goodoldpolonius2 for the information provided. Too often we are forced to rely on the "expert" opinion of individuals such as Anne Bayefsky, or Irwin Cotler, as well as ambiguous qualifiers such as "the overall context". It seems logical to me to take a neutral and clear definition of new anti-Semitism and use it as a framework for the article. I would wager, however, that such a definition does not exist. Again, thank you Goodoldpolonius2. --Uncle Bungle 16:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidents in Israel

Israeli settlers in Gaza, angered over the gaza pullout, have staged numerous rallies and demonstrations to try to gain support in greater Israel. According to The Guardian, the actions of these activists have included having children leaving their houses with their hands up or wearing Star of David badges. These were Nazi practicies, and the settlers are trying to associate the actions of Israel with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. [33]


To the best of my knowledge no one has outright called this new anti-Semitism as of yet, but the guardian clearly indicates that the intent of the protesters is to draw a comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany. This article states that such comparisons are anti-Semitic in the rules of new anti-Semitism. I realize that the rules on original research may apply. User:Jpgordon reverted my addition and I won't start a revert war, but would instead appriciate some comments. In the meantime I am going to add it to the gaza pullout article instead. --Uncle Bungle 17:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Finkelstein

Right now, the article contains a stubby mention of Norman Finkelstein. In its entirety, it reads "Norman Finkelstein dedicates the first half of his book Beyond Chutzpah to debunking claims of new anti-Semitism, arguing that it simply provides political cover to supporters of Israel. He notes that Jewish leaders consistently claim there is a new wave of anti-Semitism on the basis of what he considers scanty evidence every couple decades."

Given that Finkelstein is a very controversial figure—in the proper sense of controversial, I'm not using that as a euphemism—a passing mention of him like this probably does not serve our readers very well. This should either be fleshed out or removed. (It also could be worded better, I guess I'll go do that, but I haven't read the book in question, so I'm in no position to flesh it out.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

For now I've worded it more neutrally, but it really adds nothing to the article. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky

Is Noam Chomsky really "Jewish," as is claimed in the article? My understanding is that he was born Jewish but is now atheist (or at least secular). Does anyone know for sure? --zenohockey 00:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

  • He is Jewish in the ethnic sense. By religion he is (as you put it) "an atheist (or at least secular". As far as I know, his religious beliefs were essentially the same when he was first involved in politics as an active Zionist. By Halakha, he is a Jew. And I suspect that he, like I, would consider it pretty close to "fighting words" if someone were to tell him he is not. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:36, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV again

This paragraph was deleted (corrected here):

=== Israel Shahak ===
Israel Shahak parsed the Israeli governmental-administrative structure and process as essentially comprising a constitutional theocracy based significantly on race and noted that when the label "anti-semitic" or "self-hating Jew" was applied to him for this analysis it was akin to a Nazi expression because the Nazis called Germans who defended Jewish rights "Anti-German" or self-hating Germans.

In my view it is important to point out where the rejection of criticism of the concept of "New Anti-Semitism" comes from. -- Vít Zvánovec 18:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you know he was talking about the concept of the "New anti-Semitism"? Did he describe it that way? Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
His name should be spelled "Shahak", and he is certainly a significant figure. Of course he wouldn't be using the term "new anti-Semitism" in this context: he was not carrying on an abstract intellectual discussion of this thesis, he was objecting to being accused of anti-Semitism for his opposition to the current politics of the Israeli government. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
He was accused of anti-Semitism because of books like "Jewish history, Jewish religion", which were about his views of Judaism, and this article lists the views of people discussing the New anti-Semitism - that way it avoids original research. Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't insist that this paragraph has to placed here. Please, advice me another good place, because that text is very important. Thank you. -- Vít Zvánovec 08:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's already in Wikiquote; why is it important to have it here? Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha, I didn't know that. Maybe it would be satisfactory to put this into Self-hating Jew. In my view Wikiquote is not enough, WP is needed. -- Vít Zvánovec 18:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Self-hating Jew. -- Vít Zvánovec 19:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You wanna document that reversion?

For reference's sake, can I get the name of "all monitoring agencies" according to whom "there has been a resurgence in anti-Semitism."

Ah, what's the point... There is very little hope for this article anyway. --Diderot 22:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no hope for this article? Pintele Yid 06:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well, I am not sure why there is no hope for the article, but I don't think you read it all the way through before you started changing the intro. First of all, the article already lists a whole bunch of organizations and their reports on anti-Semitism. It also goes through both the arguments of proponents and critics, and the issues about Israel. Your only factual dispute with the article seems to be that you think that anti-Semitism has not increased, but this is a pretty much undeniable fact. Thus, here is the answer to your request, and just a sampling:
  • The EU Monitoring Commission, part of the European Union: "Anti-semitism on the rise" BBC Report
  • The United Nations, as stated by Kofi Annan: " 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 this phenomenon in new forms and manifestations. This time, the world must not, cannot be silent." [34]
  • US State Department Report on Global Anti-Semitism: "The increasing frequency and severity of anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the 21st century, particularly in Europe, has compelled the international community to focus on anti-Semitism with renewed vigor. Attacks on individual Jews and on Jewish properties occurred in the immediate post World War II period, but decreased over time and were primarily linked to vandalism and criminal activity. In recent years, incidents have been more targeted in nature with perpetrators appearing to have the specific intent to attack Jews and Judaism. These attacks have disrupted the sense of safety and well being of Jewish communities." [35]
  • Human Rights First, formerly International Lawyers for Human Rights: "The rise of antisemitism in Europe has come to a head in the last three years, as a wave of of hate crimes against Jewish people and institutions surged across the region" PDF
  • ...and this doesn't even count the ADL, or any of the other organizations reporting this trend, but I can give you plenty more if you'd like.
Hopefully, this will satisfy you, but it certainly should result in the removal of the totally disputed tag. What else are you disputing? What facts are inaccurate? Goodoldpolonius2 23:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Which of those reports asserts that there is a "resurgence of [...] acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse", as I have seen precious little of it in the mainstream press. But the point rather, is that I dispute that there are enough years of data to state that there is a trend. EUMC's report covers all of two years of data, three years in the past.

I also claim that the new anti-Semitism is significant only within a context of international disputes over Israeli policy and its effects, and I challenge you to find a single published piece - an editorial or magazine article - on the new anti-Semitism that does not discuss the notion that some criticism of Israel is covert anti-Semitism. This point deserves to be in the first para, because otherwise I should think the response to anti-Semitic incidents is "[o]ut of any proportion to the size of the conflict, whether measured in number of individuals affected, the size of the territory in dispute, or by the magnitude of alleged transgressions".

I also dispute the title of the second section ("The nature of the new anti-Semitism ") and its tone, as it assume that which it ought to set out to prove. You must marshall arguments that there is a "new" anti-semitism by first setting out what is new about it, rather than describing it as you imagine it to be.

As for further disputes. I dispute every sentence that contains a passive verb, a weasel word or a non-specific allegation, as well as several sections of dubious logical coherency. The proliferation of such usages makes this article as it stands garbage.

  • Proponents of this model argue that ... - Who? There are two examples right afterwards.
  • That attacks on Israel sometimes serve as a cover for anti-Semitism has also been accepted by official governmental bodies in Europe and the United States. - The passive verb covers up that you mean exactly two organisations: the US State department and the EUMC.
  • Although it is usually conceded that... By whom?
  • Some have questioned whether any large portion of opposition to Israel is actually rooted in anti-Semitism.... Who?
  • Often the "New anti-Semitism" is seen as distinct from classical anti-Semitism... Who? Again, a name follows right away.
  • Opponents of the concept of New anti-Semitism assert that... What follows are specific arguments here that are attributed to no one. Nonetheless, they are remarkably specific for ambivalent group sentiments.
  • Proponents of the concept of the new anti-Semitism respond to these objections as follows... And this is going to make matters less POV? Should we have section Reply to the Proponents to make this into a real debate?
  • The following have been identified by proponents of the term as specific examples that reflect New anti-Semitism:... Again, passive verbs. Who identifies these things as such? The author of the article?
  • Straw-man attacks, wherein Jews are alleged to claim that any and all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. This allegation is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable. - I'm lost here. Not only must one not say bad things about Israel unless one has said worse things about a long laundry list of other countries first, but if one is then accused of being an anti-Semite, any suggestion that such a claim might be inaccurate is also evidence of anti-Semitism?

But this is the totally disputed section, where it's not just bad writing that's the problem:

  • Manifestations of the new anti-Semitism - Once against assuming what one sets out to prove.
  • Perhaps the most notable case was the so called "Jenin massacre" allegation, in which it was claimed that in Jenin, Israeli Defense Forces committed atrocities "horrific beyond belief," according to United Nations special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen [7], and "massacred" 500–3000 innocent Palestinians during Operation Defensive Shield. Two weeks after the press promoted the Jenin massacre allegation, international reporters uncovered that no massacre had taken place in Jenin. Fatah lowered its estimate of the death toll to 56 people, the majority of whom were combatants, as were the 23 IDF soldiers killed during the battle. The "Jenin massacre" story sparked waves of anti-Israeli protests and violent attacks against Jews in Europe, and was regarded by many Jews as a modern blood libel.
The article on the Jenin massacre describes matters differently, with even the IDF reporting hundreds of dead in the early stages. But that passive again "regarded by many Jews as a modern blood libel" really kills. So, the IDF only massacred 22 innocent civilians - that's what the page on Jenin says - and because the media reported what they could, people protested. and this has what to do with blood libel?
  • The role of the media in reporting these events was highly controversial. Many Western media outlets were criticized as having deliberately misled their readers, and some reporters were accused of fabricating information to demonize Israel. However, reports by the Western media of a "massacre" in Jenin were generally presented as eyewitness accounts, and not as undisputed facts. The BBC, for instance, conveyed reports of a "massacre" from some international observers, but did not take a position as to whether or not such events had occurred.
So, what Western media reported this as a fact? Obviously not the BBC, according to the next sentence. Who did? I dispute the factual accuracy of this claim pending documentation.
  • What does the Arab press and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have to do with "new" anti-Semitism? Some of those countries are still legally at war with Israel and have been publishing anti-Semitic materials since '48. What relevance does this have if it is nothing new?
  • One claim made by some opponents of Israel and/or the notion of a new anti-Semitism is that defenders of Israel describe any criticism of the State of Israel as anti-Semitism. Who makes this claim? The response is quite specific, but who has said that any major Jewish leader has removed some political subject from the table as anti-Semitic? Other people yes. I do not contribute to articles on Israeli-Palestinian affairs here, in part because of the chilling effect created by a fear of being branded as an anti-semite for criticising Israel. I have been accused of just that elsewhere.
  • Cartoons described as Anti-Semitic - For crying out loud!! If someone had called Joe Sacco's Palestine a sign of the new anti-Semitism, it would at least be logical. But Indymedia? And that was the best example of an anti-Semitic cartoon? Anti-religious, yes, but hell, I've seen harsher things in the Jerusalem Post on Islam.

I am too tired right now to go through the rest of the page. My hopelessness, and the totallydisputed tag, stem from the poor sourcing, the inconsistent argumentation, and also the circular logic of assuming what you wish to prove, in an article that is about an idea and what impact its having. This is an intrinsically controversial topic, which means it has to be far better sourced. So many weasel words and passive sentences... quite honestly, it's shameful. --Diderot 03:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Images

Rama, I removed the images, in part because they don't seem to show anything, and also because I couldn't understand the text, or the relevance. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, there was a pro-Israeli stand which denouced the pro-Palestinian one using "New Antisemitism" rethorics, so I found the images relevant to
  1. illustrate people who cast accusations of "New Antisemitism"
  2. illustrate people who get accused of "New Antisemitism"
Also, these photographs were taken in Switzerland, which is completely third party in the discussion. Rama 10:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone accused these groups of being purveyors of "New anti-Semitism"? Has this information been published anywhere reputable that can be cited? Also, what exactly did the pictures add, besides simply being a picture of a booth and a person? Jayjg (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
For the "accusation", I point you to another images of the same, [Image:Stand-pro-israelien-p1010311.jpg]. You can clearly see the crossed "Urgence Palestine", name of the pro-Palestinian booth, and several slides readin, for instance "Le Nouvel Antisémitisme / un monde débarassé de l'Etat juif" ("New Antisemitism, a world gotten rid of the Jewish State").
As for being "a picture of a booth and a person", most images deling with politics invlove people... Rama 10:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Your link doesn't work for me. As for pictures, what do these ones tell us about the subject? Jayjg (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
To Jayjg: to follow your reasoning, many pictures on Wikipedia don't add much. Pictures of politicians don't tell us about their politics, for instance. David.Monniaux 11:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
But politicians are famous people, that's why we have their pictures; these people aren't. Jayjg (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Most people who do things on the field are not famous. The link is [36], of course, sorry for the mistake. Rama 11:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
They were just non-notable people standing next to tables, and it was hard to know what the text was saying. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Um, ok, I can kind of almost make out some of the stuff in there, though not really. So, again, exactly what information does this picture add to the article? What important information does it convey about the subject, other than the fact that pro-Palestinian people sometimes set up booths in various places condemning Israel, and pro-Israel people set up counter-booths defending Israel? Jayjg (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Jajyg: Recently, in London, I've witnessed the following phenomenon: some pro-Palestinian group sets up a booth denouncing Israel in some street, and a few dozen meters away a pro-Israeli group sets up a booth denouncing the Palestinians and "New Antisemitism". Rama apparently witnessed the same kind of action in Lausanne. I suspect that this is relatively common that one party protests somewhere and the other party decides to do a counter-protest nearby.

So I think this is interesting to give concrete examples of people protesting "New Antisemitism" in the streets, so that it doesn't stay some kind of abstract notion. I'll give you another example: I'm striving to find free photographs for the street protests French presidential election, 2002 because all we currently have are just dry counts of hundreds of thousands of people, which, I think, somehow fail to fully convey the event. Similarly, to go back to anti-semitism, we have pictures from the Nazi death camps, whereas most of the people depicted are non-notable and the horrific fate they faced is described in the text (so the picture does not really convey a lot of information). What do you think? David.Monniaux 11:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't compare photographs of Nazi death camps or photographs showing the size of a demonstration with ones of two or three people standing behind a table, where you have to blow their posters up several times even to be able to read them. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The point is not to compare anything with Nazi death camps, but that you illustrate a general, wide-spread and complex concept with instance of punctual events. I can't really figure out what is debatable with this. For instance, Antisemitism has a photo [37] which shows a scene not very different than the ones displayed on my photos -- a handful of militants demonstrating in the street. Rama 11:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
It's very different. That's a great photo: interesting, unusual, dramatic. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Well it is unusual to see Israeli flags in the streets in Switzerland; the rethorics of both booths were VERY interesting; and their staff certainly had much dramatic effect in their discourse. Rama 12:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
So what are you proposing, a picture of a guy standing at a table in Switzeraland, handing out information on what he believes is "the New anti-Semitism"? Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. Why not ? These images are topical, illustrate the rhetoric, and in absence of more worthy candidates, I fail to understand why we should not use them. Rama 02:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Them? I can only see one picture which might be relevant, though it doesn't add much (if anything). Why would any others be included? Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I am glad that you see the relevance of at least one of these images now.
We have three images here (more in fact, but three that I suggested):
  1. One Image:Stand-pro-palestinien-p1010318.jpg of a pro-Palestinian stand which incarnates "New Antisemitism", since it was denounced as such by pro-Israeli demonstrators.
  2. One Image:Stand-pro-israelien-p1010316.jpg of the pro-Israeli stand which denounces the previous one, which is needed to explain why the first one incarnates "New Antisemitism" (which is far from obvious at a first glance).
  3. The third one Image:Stand-pro-israelien-p1010315.jpg was mainly cosmetics, because the first photo of the pro-Israeli stand is badly framed.
As for images not adding much, this is a matter of personal taste, but I am under the impression that people tend to like images. Rama 03:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I said one of the pictures might be relevant. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, they are fine pictures and all, but I don't see them illustrating any of the concepts in the article about new anti-Semitism -- I wouldn't expect to see these pictures in an encyclopedia article on the topic, either. Correct me if I am wrong, but the people aren't notable, the protest is not notable, and I can't really see the connection here. Rama, they are nice photos, but I don't see them adding anything to the article that is informational in nature. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

These people are demonstrating against the "New Antisemitism" of the other other half. If this is not connected with the subject of "New Antisemitism", I am left with the impression that the subject does not exist. Rama 07:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I think I see what you're saying now. Are you saying the juxtaposition of the stands illustrates the dispute about the concept "anti-Semitism," because the setting up of a pro-Palestinian stand triggered the setting up nearby of a pro-Israeli stand alleging "new anti-Semitism" of the first one? So these images are, as it were, an action shot of the thesis/antithesis. It's a good idea, but I don't think it's obvious enough from these particular photographs. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, precisely.
I am absolutely agreed that these images are by no means images of excessively spectacular events, and do not meat press agency standard; however, in the absence of other illustrations, I see no reason not to use them, with appropriate captions. Rama 08:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the second group saw the first as purveyors of New anti-Semitism? Or were they merely providing a counter demonstration? Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Image:Stand-pro-israelien-p1010313-detail.jpg
"Radical Islamism uses globalisation to stir the passions of antisemitism (...) In our country, the radical left-wing group Collectif Urgence Palestine (...) perfectly illustrates this system" (detail of Image:Stand-pro-israelien-p1010313.jpg)
Absolutely; apart for the very obvious sign on the desk of Image:Stand-pro-israelien-p1010315.jpg and the lengthly discussion which I had with these chaps, you can see the image joined right there. I will anticipate your next question, as to whether I have proofs that the first group is indeed called "Collectif Urgence Palestine", by pointing you to this image. Rama 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Some images illustrating the topic can be found at [38]. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
These are images of antisemitism as it is fully well seen in the title of the page, and I see absolutely nothing which makes it a "new" antisemitism. Also, their licences is not stated, and a priori, I doubt that they are free. Rama 08:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
You're right. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a little note. I'm taking no position whether to keep or remove the photos. However, I cannot help noticing that some people here, such as User:Jayjg, keep on demanding proofs or justifications of certain things about the subject of the photos. Apparently, User:Rama was there and had a discussion with them, so he probably knows their slogans and their political position. I think we should assume good faith in that respect — I don't think that Rama is a dodgy character, and have never heard of him posting images and adding captions that do not correspond to what the images depict. David.Monniaux 17:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If the context, meaning and contents of the source images are not clear then they should be clarified, and preferably cited in the same way we cite everything else. This has nothing to do with whether or not Rama is reliable. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought that you suggested that Rama had taken photos of some stuff and had put incorrect captions underneath. But I don't follow you: how do you mean to "cite" photos? David.Monniaux 17:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
We should be careful with describing the context of controversial photographs that are not self-explanatory and that are provided by Wikipedia editors.

If there are no more question, I think that we might consider restoring the images by now. Rama 06:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I see only marginal value in them, and only in one actually showing people handing out information about "New anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
One of them shows "New Antisemits", and the other one show people handing out information about "New anti-Semitism". Rama 16:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think both should be posted, it is too much exposure for photos that have no immediate or powerful explanatory value. I would actually say no to posting any of them, but if other editors disagree, that is fine. Again, Rama, no offense to you or your photography, of course. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not offended, merely surprised that these images were removed, and that so much talk is made around displaying them. I am used to the converse -- only images which pose real problems are removed and the removal is subject of discussion. But that illustrating an article rather than leaving it without illustration is so debated is a first sight for me.
And I still cannot see why these images should not be featured on the article; they are not excellent, but certainly better than nothing. Rama 16:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
For me, the issue is that, precisely because there are not enough pictures the photos will have disproportionate influence on shaping the views of people who come to the page. I don't think any of the existing pictures are that great for this, frankly, since at least some should capture that the "New Anti-Semitism" is not solely a debate over the nature criticism of Israel, but also the well-documented rising number of anti-Semitic incidents throughout Europe and the world, and the world response to it. Thus, another picture with such a direct Israeli-Palestinian link, and without notable people or incidents involved, is not something I think needs to be added. Again, my opinion. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not really certain that I understand. We have made a point that these photos, however technically badly exposed, are perfectly topical. They are the most proeminent occurence of this "new antisemitism" that we have yet seen pictured on Wikipedia -- for instance, I fail to see what clearly makes the images of graves with nazi crosses "new antisemitism" rather than "regular" antisemitism; I also fail to distinguish any sort of antisemitism in the (apparently copyvio) political cartoon.
Don't you think that refusing to include this perfectly to-the-point images could be mistaken for, let's say, a very selective use of information ? Rama 08:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Rama, please don't accuse me of selective us of information, I don't think that it is at all fair, and it is quite annoying. As I have said again and again, I don't agree that these pictures are topical, and I have explained that your pictures do not seem to illustrate the definition of the article: "The new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse." Do they show anything anti-Jewish? Examples of much more topical pictures are here: [39], [40], [41], etc. Your picture apparently illustrates a stand that two or three people apparently thought was anti-Semitic, without giving any visual indication as to why they would think so. I don't find that particularly powerful, and, by implication, it seems to trivialize the problem of actual, rising anti-Semitism as reported by the UN, State Department, etc. The defacing of the graves shows an actual recent anti-Jewish incident that is part of this new wave of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols, by the way, and I personally think the cartoon should not be included. If you could explain to me what the counter-protesters found anti-Semitic, maybe that would help, but please do not attack me when I am actually trying to engage you in a discussion over what I object to. As anyone looking back over the discussion would note, I have never refused to allow the images, my exact quote above was "I would actually say no to posting any of them, but if other editors disagree, that is fine." --Goodoldpolonius2 14:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not accuse you of anything, I am just very surprised that these images, which have been proved to be illustration of actual complains about "New Antisemitism", should not be used, apparently on the grounds that they do no illustrate a pre-conception of what "New Antisemitism" should be. It sort of strikes me as ajusting facts around a definition rather than the converse. Note that I cannot see what is "New Antisemit" in the images you show; this is political criticism toward Israel, this is regular antisemitism and this is normal antisemitism as well. Rama 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

But new anti-Semitism also refers to the uptick in once relatively dormant "regular" anti-Semitism, as shown in the two pictures of a burned synagogue and defaced graves. And equating Israel with Nazi Germany fits within the ECRI definition of anti-Semitism, and is closer to the "new type of discourse" argument that is a part of the fears over new anti-Semitism. As for your pictures, could you explain what, exactly, the protesters found anti-Semitic in the other booth? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
"new anti-Semitism also refers to the uptick in once relatively dormant "regular" anti-Semitism"; so you agree that this images are merely regular antisemitism.
"equating Israel with Nazi Germany fits within the ECRI definition of anti-Semitism"; does it ? There are a number of images of people equalling the USA with Nazi Germany, and I have never heard that mentioned as "anti-Protestantism", for instance. Where is your source that criticism against the state of Israel is assimilated to antisemitism by the ECRI ?
"As for your pictures, could you explain what, exactly, the protesters found anti-Semitic in the other booth"; no, frankly, I cannot. They were very vocal about this accusation, as can be seen on the image, but their ground for this did not strike me as particularly clear (I do not endorse the discourse of any of these stands, I merely decided to use this unwanted and unseeked irruption of a foreign conflict in my personal life for the best possible common good). If you are interested in the details of the rhetoric of the pro-Israeli stand, you can refer to the photographs I took of their posters. Rama 17:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
1) The upsurge in, and acceptance of, "Regular antisemitism" is part of the "New anti-Semitism"
2) The ECRI definition makes this really clear: "Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor; applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis; drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; and holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel." You don't have to agree, of course, but their definition is clear.
3) That is why I object. I can't for the life of me see what is anti-Jewish about the Palestinian booth. The implication of the picture (and my personal reaction) is that the counterprotesters are over-reacting, or are extremists who equate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Certainly, the concept is misused against legitimate criticism of Israel, but there are also real incidents of anti-Semitism in the mix as well. There may be something anti-Jewish, but your picture doesn't show it, so the counter-protesters look ridiculous.--Goodoldpolonius2 17:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
These images very clearly show a criticism in the form of "New Antisemitism". I never suggested that they were covering the whole subject of "new antisemitism".; however, refusing to use these images on the ground that they do not illustrate some other particular aspect (and a very blurry and unclear one, at that) in the way you see it fit strikes me as a very peculiar selection of information. Rama 17:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, stop accusing me of some sort of "peculiar selection" bias. I have answered all of your objections and challenges, and I am still unconvinced of the value of the picture because I have no idea what the pictures show that is supposed to be anti-Semitic, or why the people who are apparently saying it is anti-Semitic are basing their assumptions on, and apparently you have no idea either Therefore, it is absolutely unclear to me if these pictures are related to the concepts in the article or not, and I would thus not be in favor of using them, I am not sure why this is so "very blurry and unclear". I think that is a reasonable stand, and I understand that I have not convinced you of my point -- fine. I have never said I would "refuse" the pictures, just that I think they should not be used because of the reasons above. As I wrote several exchanges back, if other editors feel differently, fine. I await their opinions. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I merely take note that you have no objection to use material depicting classical antisemit actions in the "New Antisemitism" article, but that you have the most severe standards for images where "New antisemitism" can be seen written in large letters.
Since you do not object to these images to the point of putting a veto and that we have heard no further objections of the other editors, I suggest that we use these images, at least in a section dealing with "New Antisemitism" applied to political opposition to the government of Israel. Rama 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think my standards are severe, I think that it is entirely normal to ask you to explain to me why the Palestinian booth is in any way anti-Semitic, or, at least, why people might claim it is anti-Semitic. If you can't do that, why should we use the pictures? If I couldn't explain to you why the burned synagogue was anti-Semitic, I wouldn't expect it to be used in the article, either. Let me quote you: [Picture One] of a pro-Palestinian stand which incarnates "New Antisemitism", since it was denounced as such by pro-Israeli demonstrators. [Picture Two] of the pro-Israeli stand which denounces the previous one, which is needed to explain why the first one incarnates "New Antisemitism" (which is far from obvious at a first glance). If it isn't obvious that the first stand shows New Anti-Semitism, why are we posting it as an example? It just makes it look like the other stand is crying wolf, and makes them seem ridiculous. And, where are the "large letters" in the picture.
Before posting, I would prefer to wait for some other opinions, either pro or con. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't have to say why the pro-Palestinian stand is antisemit. For what I know, it might not be. It so happens that the first stand specifically depicts it as "New antisemit". Please refer to previous discussion and my answers to Jayjg for proofs.
That the people in the second stand look ridiculous is matter of personal opinion, and their problem. I did not stage this, I did not select this, I stumbled into the scene and took photographs of what was going on. If you have better images of similar events, you are welcome to post them and suggest alternatives. Rama 18:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Rama, I realize we are not going to agree here, but I want to be clear of the reason for my objection. I do not know what is being labelled as "New anti-Semitism" by the second stand, and therefore the pictures are obscure. Are these people who equate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism? That, in my mind, is a pretty dubious use of the anti-Semitism label. Or is the Palestinian booth handing out copies of the Protoccols of the Elders of Zion? If so, that is a clear case of anti-Semitism. Or are they denying Israel's right to exist? That falls into the area of the article, with some people (like the EU through the ECRI) saying it is New anti-Semitism, and others arguing that it isn't. If I knew which of these it was, I would feel comfortable with seeing the picture posted, but, as it is, the pictures (and your comments) make it seem like it is illustrating the first case, which is generally not considered to be an example of new anti-Semitism, even by many of the scholars who support that the phenomenon exists. That is why I have the issue. Is it any clearer? --Goodoldpolonius2 21:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Listen, the second stand calls the first one "new antisemitic"; this has been proved on this talk page, there is a photograph which you can see, you just have to give it a glance.
As for why the second stand calls the first one like this, it is irrelevant. They are using the term "new antisemitism". Your line of reasoning is tantamount to saying that we should dismiss any accusation of new antisemitism unless approved by you. We have an example, and we exhibit it, that's all. Rama 22:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant, and it is no way tatamount to saying I have to approve it. The second stand is calling something about the first stand anti-Semitic. We have no idea what that something is. The literature? The people? The peace flag? What? If you just want to post the second booth (the one with the sign saying New anti-Semitism) fine, I give up, please do so. I disagree with posting both, because we do not know what is being attacked about the first booth, and that is vitally important. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
To me, your line of reasoning looks close to something like "Illegitimate accusations of 'new antisemitism' are casted over people who are not really antisemits, so they are not accusations of 'new antisemitism'". That's a bit a circular. We don't know why many people attacks others (or we know why and it is illegitimate), that doesn't prevent us from reporting the fact. Rama 22:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The second stand is merely protesting "New anti-Semitism"; there's no evidence they consider the first stand to be "New anti-Semites". Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition to my word, which I have yet to be seen questioned, I have provided visual proofs above that it is the case. Rama 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Rama, the point of the images isn't clear, they're not informative or visually stimulating, and they don't show anyone notable, or anyone who's the subject of the article. For some and all of these reasons, they don't seem to enhance the page. I'd say the confusion here about what they're intended to show is evidence of that. Sorry. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Confusion ? I have not noticed much confusion on this respect, rather dispute that they display the face of "new antisemitism" that some would like to focus on. Rama 07:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rama, you've only provided evidence that there was a stand with a guy manning it, who was protesting "New Anti-Semitism". That's it. There is no evidence that the stand was accusing the other people of being "New anti-Semites"; indeed, the stand itself does not refer to the other stand at all. The pictures themselves are visually uninteresting, and not particularly informative. I don't see what they might add to the article from either and aesthetic or informational point of view. Jayjg (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"the stand itself does not refer to the other stand at all" ??? What about the photograph I provided right above ? What about Image:Stand-pro-israelien-p1010315.jpg ? I am startled that you should say such a thing after material proofs have been provided.
As the the informational nature of the stand, I would like to point to the fact that these are the only photographs on Wikipedia that I know of where the words "New Antisemitism" appear, so I really can't see how tehy can be less informative than others. Rama 07:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Is that circle with a line through it referring to the other stand? Hard to tell, it's all in French. I still don't understand what you think a picture with the words "New anti-Semitism" adds to the article that we don't already know. Jayjg (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I still do not understand your position. If an image of an instance of a demonstration for a precise cause cannot be used to illustrate that cause, I really can't see what will be good enough for you. Rama 08:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Latuff Cartoon

Since no-one has mentioned it that I can spot, the cartoon attributed to Latuff is a bit odd. Run a search for "Latuff" on google-images and the one on this page is the only example I have found where the style of mixing photo with drawing is used, leading me to suspect. The text style in the speach bubble is not typical either. Less clear cut is my view that the words do not follow Latuff's style. Overall, I believe that this cartoon has been mis-attributed. 80.6.104.41 21:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Mr Smin.

I don't actually understand why the cartoon is there at all. Is it supposed to be anti-semitic? Or at least do some people see it that way? I can't see how it's any different in character from say http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1517810,00.html. The only difference appears to be that George Bush is American and Sharon is Israeli. Is any criticism of Israeli military action automatically defined as new anti-semitism by followers of this doctrine? If so, it should be explained in the article that that is the case. Unless someone can explain why the cartoon is anti-semitic, or else change the article to define 'new anti-semitism' as any opposition to Israeli policy. In any case it seems awfully convenient to be able to write off all criticism as anti-semitic = racist = EVIL. 87.74.15.60 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The cartoon is Anti-Semetic not because it criticizes Sharon, but because it depicts the jews as being bloodthirsty jerks that enjoy watching Palestinian children die. The Bush cartoon doesnt have anything about enjoying killing kids.

Debate over?

I feel that the debate on this item is largely over. The codification of antisemitism by Europe to include activity aimed at Israel when it meets certain criteria proves sufficiently (in law) that some forms of anti-Israel / anti-Zionist activity are antisemitic. What it does not prove is that ALL critisisms of Israel are anti-semitic - but then this article doesn't claim that. While interesting the comments from detractors do not add (or remove) anything from the content of the article, they simply say that sometimes critisism is legitimate. That's fine, and sometimes sheep are black. This whole section in my opinion is now only of historical usefulness. To dispute the existance of what this article describes as "New Antisemitism" is now to disagree with the law, and with facts on the ground. - I've removed the disputed tag as a result. This article was not disputed, it was dated. Oboler 20:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)That's insane! "anti Americanism smacks of fascism and "anti Zionism" is an equally fascist notion. The idea that if your Jewish you're by fact of being so the target of a criticism of Israel is ludicrous and slanderous against many Semetic and less Semetic critics of Israel. I suppose Noam Chomskey's one of your new "anti Semetic" (ie non Zionist imperialist) brigade?Mensch2006 08:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edits (made anonymously) violate NPOV policies, and I have reverted them. I also feel that given your partisan positions on this issue, and your involvement with things like www.zionismontheweb.org/, Board of Deputies of British Jews, Union of Jewish Students, and others make it unlikely that you are in an unbiased position to determine that the debate is over.
Edits changing things like 'critics contend' to 'critics once contended' (have they stopped?), the equation of the European Monitoring Centre with the European Council (this is like saying the Commission for Racial Equality is the same as the British government). The content is valid, in the appropriate place (under the 'European Union' section), but to start off with loaded statements and inaccurate summaries such as 'This view has been solidly dismissed by law makers who have acknowledged that not all critisism is legitimate, and that which is not is indeed a new form of antisemitism'. This is not a conclusion supported by the article at all. 'Law makers' implies a veracity that is not appropriate at this point in the article, since the law makers in question 'Solidly dismissed' is a pretty strong statement, which isn't justified by the text - which is already a biased source which contains statements such as 'Likewise, it is anti-Semitism when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross. '.
To the editor who reverted my deletion of these many biased statements, the references are all very well, but none are appropriate where they have been added, e.g., http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Nations-vow-to-fight-rising-antiSemitism/2005/06/10/1118347599346.html merely says that anti-Semitism is rising (which is discussed elsewhere in the article). THis link is fine, but not where it is. THe other link is probably redundant, as it basically says the same thing. I will revert and then restore the link from the Anti-Defamation League. 147.114.226.175 11:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
" The codification of antisemitism by Europe to include activity aimed at Israel when it meets certain criteria proves sufficiently (in law) that some forms of anti-Israel / anti-Zionist activity are antisemitic" -- So why "New antisemitism" ? I have never see the term "new antisemitism" elsewhere than among pro-israeli militants, and certainly not in European laws. Rama 12:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
A good point, I must confess I don't know too much about this issue, and why proponents are so keen to introduce the doctrine and distinguish it from normal anti-semitims and really don't care all that much. But I do think if the intent is to distinguish anti-semitism which counts as 'new anti-semitism', then it should be done carefully and explicitly. Simply marking all incidents of contemporary anti-semitism as 'new anti-semitism' is presumably disingenuous. 147.114.226.175 14:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up article

I made several edits on 25 December 2005. These were purely for better reading and I tried hard to be both clear and precise, and maintain NPOV. In particular, I think that the wordiness of one of the opening paragraphs ('locus' and 'pretexts' are words that are meaningless to the average reader) was unnecessarily confusing.

Also, please remember that links should only be used where relevant to the content. I don't think it helps to link words like criticism. Brw12 06:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone put 'pretexts' and 'locus' back. These are simply beyond the scope of the average English reader's vocabulary. I replaced them with simpler synonyms ("professed purpose" and "place"). Please, people, if a legit edit is made, and you want to reverse it, explain yourself in the talk pages! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brw12 (talk • contribs) 10 Feb 2006.

FWIW, I don't think "pretext" is obscure at all. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Denying Israel's right to exist=antisemitism

I would like those who argue that it is not antisemitic to deny Israel's right to exist to please certify for the record that one can argue that Egypt, Norway, Spain, Mexico, and any number of nation-states should be dismantled without causing offense to Egyptians, Norwegians, Spaniards, or Norwegians. Otherwise, it is patently apparent that denying Israel's right to exist is antisemitic. --Leifern 20:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Individual editors' opinions are not relevant to the matter. Talk pages are for working on articles, not for political debate. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's actually a useful question, although not in this context. Leifern could perhaps ask himself whether it would be "antinorgist" to complain if Norway sent tanks into Sami villages or excluded the Sami people from its polity? James James 05:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To respond to that by insisting that Norway should not exist as a Norwegian state might be antinorgist, yes. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think Norway is an ethnically based state though, in the same way as, say, Libya is. There's no such thing as "norgism" that I know of. I made it up. And I was rather hoping to draw the line between disapproving of actions and disapproving of the actors. Dismally, it seems. I completely agree with you that a disproportionate response to the question would be suspicious but I think I gave an example of a criticism that wasn't disproportionate. Do you have a view on that, rather than the straw man you proposed? James James 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The particular criticism (hypothetically: "don't send tanks into other people's villages") isn't the point. It's the response (that the tank-senders are not worthy of self-determination) that's the problem. And the nature of the response is such that one suspects it would have been made anyway, tanks or no tanks, which, indeed, may have been the reason for the tanks in the first place. It's a complicated dynamic, in other words. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I entirely agree that it's complicated but I think all I'm saying is that it's complicated both ways. There are many roads to the belief that tanks should not invade villages, and it's a broad brush that paints all people who arrive at the belief as "antisemitic".
Whether self-determination means the same thing as "entitlement to a particular piece of land" is a different question, one that clearly can be asked of both Israel and the Palestinian state. One needn't be antisemitic to ask it. James James 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It's off topic, but while Norway is not exactly an ethnically based state, Bokmål and Nynorsk aren't much older than Modern Hebrew and Norwegian nationalism is only marginally older than Zionism. And, offhand, the Sami analogy to the Palestinians seems reasonable. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It is off topic and consequently, I'm done with it. However, yes, I think that I'd have a problem with the suggestion that the people who identify as Norwegians should not have a state if they attacked Sami villages. After all, the Germans destroyed half of Europe, and no one suggested they should be denied a country. James James 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I object to drawing up these analogies about other countries on the basis that it implicitly equalizes Israel with Judaism. The only way that these analogies would be applicable would be if we are asking whether denying Israel's right to exist is anti-Israeli rather than anti-semitic. An important difference. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Israel is a Jewish state, to single it out for desctruction is antisemitic. The analogies go further because the Jews had their country/ies in the Land of Israel and never gave up the hope to return. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
"Israel is a Jewish state, to single it out for desctruction [sic] is antisemitic." <- You really think you can get Wikipedia to just assert this here? No, of course not. So why are you spouting your personal political rhetoric at a place where it absolutely serves no purpose? Wikipedia is not Usenet! -- Dissident (Talk) 01:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
It's true that this page is to discuss the article, Dissident, but you expressed a personal view too, as did I. Perhaps we should all stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with expressing a personal view as long as there is a reasonable chance of advancing the discussion on how to improve an article. If articles pertaining to anti-Semitism implicitly assume Judaism and Israel are synonymous, something not even Humus sapiens is asserting here, then that's a NPOV violation and must be addressed. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
FYI, Judaism is a religion. The State of Israel is a state. Who, other than Dissident, implies that they are synonyms? For "spouting", see WP:CIV and WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If you agree with that premise, then it follows that Leifern is comparing apples with oranges. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be a sensitive issue, but one has to be cautious before drawing conclusions. Anti-Zionism is by no means the same as anti-Semitism. Even within the Nazi Party, for example, there were some in favor of the expulsion of Jews to remote places (such as Israel). Also, within the state of Israel and outside, there are lots of Jews who do not support the Israeli government or its establishment, but they're still Jewish and tend to associate with other Jews. Are you saying they're antisemitic? AucamanTalk 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

To Leifern and others: Simply put, I am a Jew and I don't think any country that gives one group legal status over others is a very good idea, even if I am one of the beneficiaries. I would like to see the legal entity of Israel cease to exist and a non-ethnic-nationalist state with true pluralism take its place. Can I feel this only if I am secretly prejudiced against my own people?

Do you really think that the only reason someone could, say, oppose the idea of forming a Gypsy state, would be prejudice against the Gypsies? Do you really think that the only reason a Native American could criticize the right of the US to exist would be prejudice against white Americans?

The point is, there is more than one reasonable position on the matter. Brw12 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the comparison between israeli-flag-burning is against jews generally. There are also Arabs and Christians who feel israelian, and a critique against the (-harsh!-) policy of Israel against Palestinians in the last years shouldn't be judged as antisemitic, nor of course be an excuse for "real" antisemitists. But telling that antisemitism is a sad caracteristic of France is a dumb cliché, and everyone who's ever lived in France will agree with me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.76.9.36 (talk • contribs) 20 Feb 2006.

Blood libel

Re: the poster at New anti-Semitism#Incidents in the United States. I actually hadn't noticed this before; I noticed it now because no one had bothered putting a license tag on the image; I've labeled it as {{politicalposter}}. Sure strikes me as a variant on blood libel against Jews, especially the reference to "slaughtered according to Jewish Rites", suggesting that child-murder is a religious matter. Would it be legitimate to say as much in the article, or would that cross the line of original research? -- Jmabel | Talk 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as original research to point out something this blatent. --NHSavage 11:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not, but I think it would be better to find a source that has noted it rather than point out the obvious. If no one ever has pointed it out, then it's OR to do so. I say this only as a matter of correctness so far as policy's concerned. It's as clear a case of the blood libel as you could wish to see (or not wish to see, if you know what I mean). James James 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

True. The source for this poster [42] is titled Blood Libel.--NHSavage 11:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
That's on what appears at a quick look to be an anonymous "Messianic Judaism" website. Unless I'm missing something, that's not a citable source, even if in this case I think they are correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the president of the student union discussing action taken against what he describes as the section of the flier "suggesting the ancient 'blood libel'". Is The Forward acceptable? I'm not familiar enough with American newspapers to know whether this is a serious paper, but it seems to be one. In my view, sourcing to either would be okay. Other views? James James 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, both are good sources. Thanks for finding them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Definitely good citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Incidents in UK

I have done quite a lot of work on this section and I hope it is now improved both from NPOV and references point of view. However, I do have a POV on these matters (especially relating to AUT) and so I hope other will take a look at what I've done and check that my POV has not unduly influenced what I've done.--NHSavage 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Primarily the left

Although I agree with SlimVirgin that accusations of anti-Semitism directed at the left are new, the article's examples of anti-Semitism are not primarily leftist denunciations of anti-Zionism, but rather a mixed bag of contemporary anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Consequently, I think that the introductory passages should match the article's content. The alternatives would be to clarify the introduction, so that the reader is clearer that we are talking about all kinds of accusations of contemporary anti-Semitism, or to remove from the article the "old" anti-Semitism, which is not perpetrated by the left. James James 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Woah! Have I made a mistake! I see an article that in several places describes anti-Semitic incidents, mostly of the old school, but in its introduction says that the charge of "new anti-Semitism" is primarily aimed at leftists. I didn't realise leftists were doing all the "verbal abuse, vandalism, desecration of property, abusive literature, threats and physical violence" reported by the Community Security Trust. I thought that was the same old people who've been doing it for a couple of thousand years. I didn't realise that the radical Islamists in France were leftists either. Nor that leftists had started accusing Jews of eating Christian babies. The sources that I found didn't say anything like that, but presumably, Viriditas's "research" has found something different. Naturally I won't revert this article again, and I'm taking it from my watchlist. James James 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Chesler in particular states that the new anti-Semitism is new because it is espoused by progressives: "...performed by politically correct people in the name of anticolonialism, anti-imperialism, antiracism, and pacifism." This is in contrast to the old anti-Semitism, which is embraced by right-wing racist groups. --Viriditas 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the content needs to match the intro, but the solution is to flesh out the content, not to make the intro inaccurate. All the books on the new anti-Semitism that I have read make it clear that it's a phenomenon emanating primarily (although not exclusively) from the left. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Surely you meant to say "restrict the content only to those things that actually match the intro"? Anyway, you're welcome to write whatyou like. I only came here on RC patrol and I don't have any great interest in slugging it out. James James 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Are we now going to make Wikipedia endorse the validity of this type of accusations? This a very controversial subject and the intro (and everything for that matter) should completely stay away from anything close to suggesting that the dust has in any way settled on this (instead of just leaving a token paragraph at the end for the "other side"). -- Dissident (Talk) 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced strawman arguments

We need sources for all of these:

  • Critics of the concept contend that it only serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
  • Opponents of the concept of New anti-Semitism assert that:
    • Antipathy toward Israel's policies, its character as a Jewish state, or even its existence, does not necessarily amount to anti-Semitism.
      • People may have legitimate reasons to criticize or condemn the actions of any state, and Israel is as subject to this as any other.
      • There are Jewish groups and Jewish individuals who hold views critical of Israeli policy; some of these (though far fewer) even question the legitimacy of Israel's character as a Jewish state. Some Haredi groups regard the state of Israel and Zionism as secularist heresies, and a few fringe organizations, most notably Neturei Karta, have called for the creation of a unitary state of Palestine in the region. A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the state of Israel and Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism. Former Knesset member Tamar Gozansky is one such figure, while prominent Jewish intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber articulated similar views in the mid-twentieth century.
      • Many left-wing groups within mainstream Israeli politics hold views regarding some Israeli government policies similar to those criticized as anti-Semitic when expressed by left-wing groups outside Israel.
    • A frequent target for accusations of new anti-Semitism — the socialist Left — maintains a principled stand against any form of bigotry.
    • Accusations of anti-Semitism may be used to discredit those who criticize the actions of the Israeli government.
    • Comparing Israel with regimes known for repressive policies is commonplace within Israeli politics as well, with right-wing Zionists comparing Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler.
    • Palestinians and their sympathizers have reasons to oppose Israel independently of its connection to the Jewish people. Some of these sympathizers bear ill will toward the Jewish people, while others do not.
    • Frivolous accusations of anti-Semitism could undermine the struggle against more serious examples of it.
  • In turn, critics of this view believe that associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticisms, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies. They point out that, during debate over the establishment of the State of Israel, most notably, many Hassidic Jews considered this manifestation of Zionism heretical.

Here the anonymous "critics" are not speaking for themselves, but serving up strawman arguments for the wikipedia editors to shoot down. For each statement attributed to "critics" there should be some indication of which specific critic is speaking and that these are the terms the "critic" prefers to use. If, as I expect, these statements supposedly from "critics of the idea of a new anti-Semitism" cannot each be specifically sourced, they should be removed. If they will not be removed, they should be replaced with stronger arguments. TopRank 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The article itself links to, and summarizes, statements from critics of the term "New anti-Semitism". Please feel free to read them. If you are aware of other critics, and can provide some encyclopedic links, they would be most welcome. However, you cannot make up your own arguments; this is original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed?

The article currently bears the {{totallydisputed}} tag - who is disputing what? The tag has been there since October and if there is no dispute, then it should be removed. Izehar 10:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Izehar. Diderot added it but hasn't edited the page since, so I think it's okay to remove it and have done so. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up citations

I've done my best to clean up the citations on this page into a reasonably uniform style. This added a lot of information, because title and author information was missing before for nearly all online citations. There were a few dead links. For some of these I could easily find appropriate substitutes. I'm afraid the Internet Archive was no use, possibly because some of these were too recent to be up there yet, or possibly because they aren't going to be archived. Without anything but a blind link, it was pretty hard to identify appropriate substitute citations.

Currently,

  1. The citations I couldn't verify—and some statements that were simply lacking any citation—are marked with {{fact}}.
  2. There are two places where I could really use some help on citation of Hebrew-language articles, because I can't read Hebrew. And, needless to say, if those citations don't bear out the claims made, I'd have no idea.
  3. I made some (very minimal) use of the name attribute of the ref element to make multiple references to the same note. I'm not sure I like that, though. We could have duplicate notes instead, with different, sequential indexes. What do other people think?

BTW, this new footnoting system is definitely a simplifier. I recommend it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky

I've restored the characterization of Chomsky as an anarchist. His politics are more relevant here than his being a linguist (though I did not remove the fact that he is a linguist). If there was question whether Chomsky considers himself an anarchist (the terse edit summary suggests someone may have doubted this), I assume that the following will be more than adequate citation: [43] [44] [45] [46]. That's all from the website of Z magazine, to which he is an important contributor. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Those who describe Chomsky as Jewish are trying to increase the credibility of this holocust denier - since it is well known that many of the worst anti-semites are Jewish (cf. Adam Shapiro), any reference to Chomsky's "jewishness" is irrelevent and should be deleted. Incorrect 17:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the made administrators has just deleted my edit regarding Chomsky being of Jewish origin. Interestingly, the sites in the article itself to Chomsky do not refer to his Jewishnes (sic) at all, merely refer to the definitins of "Jews". Another example of wikipedia being gamed by those with a pov. Incorrect 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic bookstores

I've restored Unbehagen's deletion that Islamic stores in the UK are increasingly stocking anti-Semitic material, including Mein Kampf. Unbehagen argues that, as this book is available in many large bookstores in the UK, its availability in Islamic stores is not surprising. However, there are no large Islamic stores in the UK selling books; those that do are very small and focus on material relevant to Islam. It's therefore notable that increasing numbers of them appear to believe that Mein Kampf has such relevance. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good arguement - I hadn't seen it that way. BUT - if the nature of the Islamic bookstores is as fragmentary as you suggest how can anyone have done a meaningfull survey? This does look like work taken from a Blog - so do you still think we should include. Unbehagen 15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar mistakes

Notice the grammar mistake in the anti-Semitic cartoon:"Sharon will allows you..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bombshell (talk • contribs) 21 Feb 2006.

Citation needed

I added a few tags for where citation is neede. This article lacks sources in a major way and in the same time it make sweeping arguments. Clean up is badly needed. // Liftarn 09:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis on the New Anti-Semitism

I have added an external link to a very recent and equally insightful article on the New Anti-Semitism by the renowned British historian Bernard Lewis. Enjoy. Pecher Talk 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples

For more examples of New Anti-Semitism, follow the repeated attemps of some Wikipedians to re-introduce the racist use of the word "Aryan" into Wikipedia. Follow the discussions here and see examples on the following articles: Persian people, Tajik people, Iranian peoples, Aryan, and Indo-Iranians. Your help would be appreciated. AucamanTalk 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

HEM !
  • "Aryan" does have a precise technical meaning. That it was used by the Nazis changes nothing to that. Forbidding the use of "Aryan" is like calling the Japanese nazis because they use the svatiska to label buddhist temples
  • Even if the word in question as utterly Nazi, I fail to understand how this would be new antisemitism rather than regular antisemitism. Rama 09:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The only accepted meaning today is when referring to Indo-Aryans (because the word was used a lot in the Rig-Veda). Indo-Aryans have nothing to do with Iranians, especially Persians. The word was reintroduced in the Persian language in a racist-nationalist campaign parallel with that of Nazi Germany. The Iranian society was split into Aryans and Semites, with Aryans of course being the suprerior people. You're saying the Nazi's used the word in a racist manner, so it's not possible for any other people to use it in a racist manner? Well these people are using it in a racist manner and it has nothing to do with the history of the word. The history of the word is only used to give justification for its usage. In context they're not really related. See the discussion there for more information.
  • Read the definition: "the perceived contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse." This certainly falls within the definition. AucamanTalk 14:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I am very dubious about this "definition", precisely. What makes this a legitimate concept, more that, say, "New fascism" ? There have been numerous "perceived contemporary international resurgence of fascist incidents and acceptance of fascist beliefs and their expression in public discourse". Yes I fail to see "New Whaterism" at every corner, and I still fail to see what is so specific about anti-semitism that it should have a "new itself". Rama 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're attempting to achieve here, Rama. While you may well be "dubious about this definition", the fact remains that the phenomenon has been defined, described, and written about in many books, and dozens of articles. The Talk: page isn't really the place for advancing your own personal views on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
First, that are books and articles about it does not make what the books and articles say accurate or true.
Furthermore, I do not have personal views, I have logical problems with this article: the definition cited by Aucaman is: "the perceived contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.". This makes "New anti-semitism" essentially a phenomenon created by the "many books, and dozens of articles" to which you refer: what creates this so-called "New anti-semitism" is the perception that the people who describe it have of it, rather than its nature. As such, I find the subject very confusing, especially since our article tends to blur the line between the perception of facts and facts, and I wonder to which extend it is accurate.
Of course, this might be my own personal views on logics and ethics of writing. Rama 10:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, in between, the definition has been changed yet again into "the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks...";
the difference between the "New" and "Old" anti-semitism is explained as "distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose,, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which derived from the Right and was motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism. The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism, and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland." (note that the formulation is again more related to the perception of fact than facts themselves: "is closely associated": by who ?).
But to illustrate the concept, we are presented with a Jewish grave defaced with a Nazi symbol – hardly a Left-wing symbol. This sort of zig-zag formulation and even conceptualisation goes all through the article and makes it very confusing to me. Rama 10:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure it's possible that the many books and articles on the topic, written by various well-known authors, or found in reputable sources, are, in fact, completely wrong, but you'd have to find other reputable sources to refute them; your own personal concern with the concept is not particularly relevant. Regarding the definition, it's pretty much the same as it was 3 months ago, and the forumulation which presents it more as perception than fact is in deference both to NPOV, and to various editors (like yourself) who were opposed to the notion that it existed at all. Finally, the photograph does not really illustrate the concept well; a far better one would be the rather common "Star of David = Swastika" signs you see at various rallies. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Rama, all Wikipedia ever does is report the perceptions of reputable sources. We don't decide what is true. Reputable sources, some of them scholarly, are writing extensively about a new form of anti-Semitism that comes from the political left, so we simply report what they say. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
My remark about books does not attempt to dismiss the point, I was just trying to remind Jayjg, who is so demanding when he requires proofs from others, that mentioning "books and articles" can be done about any subject, and thus constitute no guarantee in itself, depanding on the degree of crackpotism. Among one of the few things which I have understood about this "New antisemitism" is that it seems quite controverted.
You both assume very much of my desire to introduce my opinions in this article, and of my opinions themselves, for that matters.
"New Antisemitism" is a subject with which I am not familiar. It was also the case of, say, Tunnel effect a few years ago, but I have come across texts which allowed me to grasp some understanding of the matter. This article keeps coming back and fro about what is and what is percieved, says one thing and illustrates it with its opposite, and I find this unsettling.
I assume that reporting ones impressions about an article on its talk page so that the authors can improve it is not inappropriate, is it ? Rama 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The "repeated attempts of some Wikipedians" to re-introduce the use of the word "Aryan" have very little to do with Anti-Semitism, and a lot to do with the increase in Indian and Iranian contributors, for whom the word labels an important aspect of their culture. Many of them, especially Indians, resent the association of the word with Nazism and wish to emphasise their "ownership" of it (to a lesser extent the same applies to the swastika). They also resent having to apologise for words and symbols used in their culture just because some people thousands miles away used them once for their own purposes. These users rarely have racist intentions in my experience, though they can sometimes be highly nationalistic. The Nazi use of the term Aryan was certainly anti-Semitic, because it functioned as a synonym for "non-Jew", but strictly speaking the specifically racist aspects of Nazism concerned their claims for the superiority of the Nordic race. Yet no-one gets worried about the use of the word "Nordic" on Wikpedia. Paul B 19:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur completely with this last statement. - Jmabel | Talk 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of the {{fact}} template

On February 18, 2006, User:Liftarn inserted no fewer than 19 {{fact}} requests for citation into the article.[47] In the majority of cases, the sentences in question were immediately preceded or followed by direct citations. In a small minority of cases the citations were in linked articles, or in were websites which had gone bad. In one case he inserted 3 requests for citation inside a direct quote from a source, and in another he actually added his own POV into a direct quotation! This is a gross abuse of the template and the editing process. Jayjg (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Disruption is not unusual for Liftarn. The same user inserted patent nonsense into the List of unrecognized countries [48] and engaged in wholesale removal of sourced material, including no fewer than 33 (!) endnotes, on Dhimmi [49]. Pecher Talk 09:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Liftarn

Except for possibly (and barely) the first sentence "Disruption is not unusual for Liftarn" this doesn't read like a personal attack. It reads like a description of your conduct, and suggests a pattern that could make someone appropriately doubt your good faith. - Jmabel | Talk 16:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Quoting out of context

I've removed this quote from the "state of the controversy#examples cited" section:

However Eli Muller wrote "Some Jews will invariably denounce any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, using a powerful allegation as a barrier to dialogue. /../ many negative things can and should be said about Israel's current policies without the speaker being subjected to charges of anti-Semitism." ("Locating the hate in anti-Zionism", Yale Daily News, February 28, 2003 [50])

This was added by Liftarn on January 12. [51] Apart from the fact that it's an undergraduate writing in a student newspaper, which makes it an inappropriate source, if you read the article, you'll see that it in fact says exactly the opposite of the impression given by the quote, namely that a lot of the anti-Zionism the writer encounters on campus boils down to "bigotry" and "fanaticism."

When selecting quotes, it's important to stay true to the original tone and intent of the piece. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Without passing judgement on the particular quotation, I'd consider the Yale Daily News generally citable. It is one of the probably half-dozen leading student newspapers in the U.S., and standards are probably better than plenty of professionally run local papers. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Source request

I've moved the following from the page because it need one or more sources:

Some have questioned whether any large portion of opposition to Israel is actually rooted in anti-Semitism; some have argued that the increase in anti-Semitism among Arabs and Muslims, while lamentable, is a nearly inevitable outgrowth of the hostility between Israel and much of the Arab world, and is strictly an epiphenomenon of that conflict.

I'd be surprised if any reputable scholar in a relevant field were to argue that Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism is "strictly an epiphenomenon" of the Arab-Israeli conflict, given the anti-Semitism that predated the State of Israel. Bernard Lewis has pointed out that some leaders in the Muslim world are almost at pains to point out that they're anti-Semitic, not just anti-Israel, as a matter of national or personal pride. For example, after President Khatami of Iran denied that his govt was anti-Semitic, a newspaper known to express the views of Khamenei appeared to correct him, saying it was important not to exaggerate the difference between the Jews and the Zionist regime because: "[t]he history of the beginnings of Islam is full of Jewish plots against the Prophet Muhammad and of murderous attacks by Jews ..." Lewis also cites the daughter of President Nasser, who complained about a film portraying her father as anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. Lewis writes (quoting a newspaper article about the incident): "she objected to a passage in [the] film indicating that 'Nasser was not against the Jews, but against Zionism, because she wanted to portray her father as a hero of the anti-Jewish struggle'." (Lewis in Those who forget the past by Ron Rosenbaum (ed)) It could still be argued that, although it's clearly anti-Semitism and not just opposition to the govt of Israel, it's still only an outgrowth of the latter, but it's a difficult position to maintain, so it'd be good to attribute it. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sharon, Hobeika and the Sabra and Shatila massacre

Anyone interested in writing on the question of why Ariel Sharon is held responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre, but Elie Hobeika, who actually ordered the killings, was not. My understanding is that Hobeika was well-received in various European capitals where Sharon is persona non grata. This seems to be support the argument that anti-Zionism relies on double-standards with respect to human rights.

Adam Holland 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


IDENTIFICATION OF ANTISEMITIC STATEMENTS AS "JEWS"

Some who edit consider it important that those attacking Jews be called "Jews," as if a person of Jewish origin is incapable of being anti semitic or anti Jewish. It is clear that many of Jewish ancestry are among the most vehement anti semites, cf. Adam Shapiro; it therefor adds nothing to an anti semites credibility to label him/her as Jewish - such identification should be deleted, or, as I have done, indicated that the person is of Jewish heritage but does not follow the Jewish faith nor identify with the Jewish people. Incorrect 17:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)