Talk:New anti-Semitism/archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Source contradicts itself

The section entitled "A new phenomenon, but not antisemitism" begins with the statement: That there has been a resurgence of antisemitic attacks and attitudes is accepted by most opponents of the concept of new antisemitism

But when you click on the reference for this statement, you are taken to a couple of comments that specifically deny any such increase has taken place! Gatoclass 12:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I discussed that and related problems here (point 4a). There was some promising low-key informal mediation going on here for a while, but it appears to have stalled.--G-Dett 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"controversially claiming that Zionism was a racist and colonialist movement"

In the lede, the article says that "In the 1980s, radical left-wing movements voiced increasing opposition to Israel, controversially claiming that Zionism was a racist and colonialist movement." (my emphasis) By the 1980s, the idea that Zionism was racist and colonialist was old hat; allegations to that effect were decades old, and the United Nations had adopted a resolution to that effect in 1975. It is historically incorrect to suggest that the concept was new and controversial in the 1980s or that it was uniquely connected to the "radical Left." — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not the lede. It was indeed controversial, so much so that it was revoked in 1991. Those voting for the 1975 were basically radical left governments, various forms of left-wing dictatorships, plus the Arab block and a bunch of essentially one-party African dictatorships. As for what was new and controversial about it, please read the Wistrich article. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about mistaking it for the lede. About it being "radical left," I recommend the list of who voted for the UN resolution in 1975. "Third World" and "one-party" are not the same as "radical left." Also, the suggestion its repeal indicates that it was controversial is bunk. The UN resolution article makes particular note of its longevity, and the article on its repeal says that it was a condition of Israel's participation in peace talks.
With respect to Wistrich, he says (in 1984) that the antisemitic anti-Zionist campaign "has become increasingly apparent since the early 1970s" and that it "has now acquired ... a global dimension and resonance." That argues against it being either new or controversial in the 1980s. What Wistrich identifies as new is the equation of Zionism and Nazism, and even that he describes as an "escalation of the earlier campaign." — Malik Shabazz | Talk 20:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
So if the sentence were changed to "in the 1970s" would that do it? Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No. An allegation that "has ... a global resonance" and "intensified across the political spectrum in the West" can't be laid solely at the feet of the "radical left." To do so represents an extreme POV reading of Wistrich, who names the New Left, the Old Left, Trotskyists, "bought lackeys of Arab petro-dollars," neo-Nazis, "ultra-Orthodox Jewish fanatics," and "a significant section of the Western press" as sources of these claims. Also, I don't see how an allegation that "has ... a global resonance" can be described as "controversial" — except among Zionists and other supporters of Israel. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It has global resonance now; in the 1970s it was controversial. The propaganda efforts of the past 40 years have born fruit. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways, Jayjg. If the paragraph is attributed to Wistrich, who describes the allegations in 1984 as having "global resonance" "across the political spectrum," then it's incorrect to say that "In the 1980s, radical left-wing movements ... controversially claim[ed] that Zionism was a racist and colonialist movement." If you wish to make that assertion, you need to find another source. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Why are they incompatible? Something can be a controversial claim, yet have global resonance. For example, it is a controversial claim that the United States was behind the 9/11 plane crashes, yet that conspiratorial view still has global resonance. Jayjg (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
First, as I've written, an allegation supported a decade earlier by 72 member states of the United Nations can only be described as "controversial" among those who disagree with it. By 1984, the date of Wistrich's speech, the charge that Zionism was racism and colonialism was not considered controversial except among Zionists and other supporters of Israel.
Second, Wistrich does not attribute this allegation to "radical left-wing movements" as the article says. I noticed that you've stopped arguing that point; does that mean you've re-read Wistrich and agree, or that your mind is made up and further discussion is pointless? — Malik Shabazz | Talk 14:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Your first claim is nonsense; the allegation was purely political, and was supported almost exclusively by Communist dictatorships and their clients, or third-world dictatorships of various sorts. On the other hand, it was opposed by just about every Western democracy; not "Zionists and other supporters of Israel", but western democracies. Regarding your second point, Wistrich specifically states ""in recent years these grotesque Soviet blood-libels have been taken up by a part of the radical Left — especially the Trotskyists — in Western Europe and America." Jayjg (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
He also says it has "intensified across the political spectrum in the West" and that it comes from the New Left, the Old Left, Trotskyists, "bought lackeys of Arab petro-dollars," neo-Nazis, "ultra-Orthodox Jewish fanatics," and "a significant section of the Western press" as well. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing what Wistrich writes about anti-Zionism - which he makes clear is not synonymous with antisemitism, though it often acts as a cover for it - and the New antisemitism. You are also misquoting him; for example he asks if the radical left are bought lackeys of Arab petro-dollars - in other words, he's still talking about the radical left, and questioning their motivation for taking up "these grotesque Soviet blood-libels". As for "ultra-Orthodox Jewish fanatics," the writings of this tiny group (mostly in Yiddish, I might add) can hardly be considered to have "global resonance". Regarding a "significant section of the Western press", he makes clear that they started drawing these parallels after the start of the Lebanon War, which, in case you've forgotten, started in 1982. You can't mix and match almost random phrases from different parts of the article and expect it to make a coherent argument out of them. Jayjg (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lerner

I would like to ask that the following sentence (in bold) be inserted in the article:

Rabbi Michael Lerner, a spiritual leader and liberal activist, also says that there is no new antisemitism. Lerner has been an out-spoken critic of anti-Zionism and antisemitism among leftists and has written that Israel-bashing or holding Israel to a double standard may be antisemitism.<ref>Lerner, Michael. The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left. Tikkun Books, 1992.</ref> He claims that he and like-minded activisits have been termed "self-hating Jews" by those who charge that new antisemitism exists, and fears that "[w]hen this bubble of repression of dialogue explodes into open resentment at the way Jewish Political correctness has been imposed, it may really yield a 'new' anti-Semitism."

As I noted, while Lerner disputes the concept of a "new antisemitism," he has in fact written a book and spoken out publicly about some of the phenomena that are described by the term. I think it is appropriate to mention that in the article to give context to his comments. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An interesting quote, Lerner's... Now, do you have any NAS-proponent explicitly calling Lerner a New Antisemite?
If necessary, I can provide quotes from Jews & Blacks, a book Lerner co-authored with Cornel West, in which he further defends Israel from what he perceives to be double standards applied to the country.--Abenyosef 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the 'editprotected' template, since as Jayjg notes below, this article is undergoing an informal mediation on an issue by issue basis at this point. Please try to reach consensus with the others first about any requested change. Crum375 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
We're working through a long and difficult mediation right now, over some very specific items. We are making slow progress, but I imagine your request will be at the end of a long line. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that "activisits" in the paragraph above (cut and pasted from the article) should be "activists." — Malik Shabazz | Talk 05:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
My comment above was an objection. Please review WP:NOR; you are making an argument here. Jayjg (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean Jayjg. I would have thought that Lerner's view is notable. Do you disagree? And that Malik Shabazz's suggestion is an attempt to summarise his view accurately. Without having read the text referred to I can't say whether that is the right way to summarise him or not. However, it would seem to be worth allotting space of at least a short paragraph to both Lerner's views and the ways that they have been received. Itsmejudith 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not making an argument, I'm describing Lerner's past comments about one of the subject of the article: antisemitism on the Left. Is the original research that I summarized his book on the subject? Would it be okay if I quoted from his book instead? Or from a newspaper or magazine article about him? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue here is that you're basically mixing his views on antisemitism from the Left with his views on "New antisemitism"; using one to play against the other, though it doesn't appear that Lerner does so himself. His view is, in a way, paradoxical; he supports one of the primary theses of New antisemitism, but also says it doesn't exist. What would you like to quote from his work or secondary works? Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no paradox; within the editorial quoted in the article ("There is no NAS") Lerner writes approvingly of Rosenfeld "exposing the actual anti-Semitism of those who deny Israel's right to exist." He's been consistent about that for more than 15 years, as the 1992 publication date of his book shows. What he rejects is Rosenfeld's characterization of those who level legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and he says there's nothing "new" about this "antisemitism" because it's neither new nor antisemitism.
With respect to mixing his views, I didn't think I was doing that; I thought I was summarizing his background in more detail than "spiritual leader and liberal activist." If you think my language is OR, why not use more of what he wrote in the editorial, as I did above? Lerner is playing one against the other himself. As this article currently is written, Lerner is only described as saying that (a) there is no NAS, (b) he and his fellow travelers get called self-hating Jews by the crowd who allege the existence of NAS, and (c) keep stifling debate and one day we'll see a "real" new antisemitism. It sounds like he denies the existence of antisemitism altogether, which he absolutely doesn't, and which I was trying to clarify by my sentence. Since some of the hallmarks of NAS are said to be its anti-Zionism and its adoption by leftists, I think it's significant that a man who acknowledges that there is antisemitism on the left, and its connection with anti-Zionism, says there is no such thing as NAS. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add this category

Whenever this article is again available for editing, I request that Category:Judaism-related controversies be added to it for obvious reasons. --Wassermann 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing protection

I have been asked by User:CJCurrie to remove the page protection, and I will do so within 24 hours, unless there are any good reasons not to, which should be noted below. Thanks, Crum375 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were waiting for the return of Mackan79. Also, I'm not sure why CJCurrie needs the page unprotected when, for example, he hasn't responded to requests such as this: Talk:New_antisemitism#Question Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to Jayjg, I don't believe that page protection is serving any useful purpose at this stage.
I decided to take a break from our slow-motion debates a while ago, out of general frustration with a lack of discernible progress in resolving even the simplest of issues. I'm now prepared to rejoin the discussion, and would appreciate the removal of page protection as a gesture that all participants in the discussion are willing to move forward with improving the page.
This request is not a ploy to restart dormant edit wars or to "cause trouble", as some might put it. For the record, I don't see resolution of the Wistrich controversy as a necessary precondition for lifting page protection. CJCurrie 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I was under the impression the history discussion was going to continue, which I'd been leaving to CJ. In any case, it seems appropriate for the page to open after a couple of months. Is it possible we can continue future discussions with the courtesy above? We had some additional issues, but it seems we ought to be able to discuss those, and anything else, without the lockdown. Mackan79 00:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
To recap the history here, I protected this page to stop an ongoing edit war. The main editors here at first contemplated mediation, then seemed to be able to move forward and find some common ground on their own. If the main editors representing the various sides feel this self-mediation process can continue with the page unprotected, I'll unprotect. If there is still significant disagreement about major issues and at least one side feels unprotection will be counter-productive, then I would prefer to maintain the protection and encourage the sides to seek mediation. Crum375 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd think we should be able to discuss matters as previously with the page open, if that particular discussion is going to continue. I don't know how future discussions will proceed; it seems the presumption should be toward opening the page, though, unless the failure of discussion seems to be ongoing. To the extent we're actively discussing the issues, though, it would seem we should be able to reopen. Mackan79 05:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I would unprotect if the main sides to the dispute feel that there is a reasonable chance to continue the convergence to a common ground with an open page. Running the page history stats here, I see that of the top 3 editors, SlimVirgin has 955 edits, Jayjg has 207, and CJCurrie has 201. I think it makes sense to get agreement among the top editors on unprotection. Unless that happens, I would suggest that the editors here either continue with the self mediation, which recently led us to a new consensual lead, or seek external mediation. I think if the page is unprotected prematurely, it may spiral back to edit warring and all our effort here will have been wasted. So please let's try again to resolve the differences and move forward. Crum375 06:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
CJCurrie, if you are re-joining the discussion, why don't you finally make a proposal regarding the re-wording above? As for the lockdown, it seemed to be the only thing that actually promoted any discussion - indeed, it seems to be the only thing that has prompted this re-start of the discussion. And I would appreciate it if Mackan79 were involved as well, I don't feel all views will be brought out without his participation. Jayjg (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be making a comprehensive suggestion for the historical section in the upcoming week, whether protection is lifted or not. I'd simply appreciate some gesture that real changes will be forthcoming in the near future.
Also, I'm a bit concerned that the current lockdown is preventing new material from being added to the page (such as the Raul Hilberg information, listed below). CJCurrie 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Pardon my absence the last few days, I just returned to town. My question: is there any precedent for locking down a page for this period of time? My impression is that the major problem here has been the inability of various sides to openly and cooperatively edit the page. If people are agreeing to discuss rather than revert war, which I think we are (I am), I don't see the justification for maintaining the lockdown. Crum suggested the lockdown should end as quickly as possible when it started, which has now been some two months; I have to think that's something we should be uncomfortable with.
If we're further addressing the history section, we could also agree to discourage others from trying to make significant changes there until that is worked out. Beyond that, I'm not sure what else we have even agreed to hammer out in this format. If people would be more specific about the need for a lockdown at this point, I'm having a hard time seeing it. Not to get overly ambitious, but it seems like a return to civil dialogue with the page open should be the ultimate goal. Mackan79 01:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Could I request again that the page please be unlocked? The current lockdown goes back until March 13, over two and a half months. I think we've had some success with the discussion, but that the time to try again with an open page has certainly arrived. CJ and I have both requested; Jay suggests we should further discuss the history section, but I believe that is only to the extent CJ was asking for certain changes. I saw Crum was also suggesting mediation, but that none of the parties seem overly enthused about this, while it is not entirely clear what mediation at this point would resolve. In any case, the threat of edit warring seems significantly reduced, and after 2 and a half months it seems the presumption should be almost irrebutable to reopen the page. If we could move this ahead, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mackan79 19:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I will unprotect if the sides agree. But short of that, if there is reasonable common ground right now to avoid an edit war, why not try to agree on more changes, as you were able to do in the lead? And if there is no agreement, and the opposing views are deeply entrenched, why not try mediation, as was the original suggestion? Crum375 19:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, is there an issue currently that needs mediation? I'm not sure what it is. CJ said he plans to bring additional material for the history section, but not something that we've previously discussed or even seen. The reason not to try for more changes is that I think the presumption should be toward editing with all editors represented, as opposed to the four of us trying to definitively resolve all issues with the page. My feeling throughout was that communication was the main issue, so I'm hoping that has been resolved to the point where we'll be able to discuss further issues in more normal fashion. I suppose there is an issue, though, regarding Slim's absence; does Slim plan to oppose additional changes to the page? Or are there specific issues that she or Jay would like to mediate? If the page needs to be locked down, I was hoping they could give specific reasons. Mackan79 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly willing to try more normal working through of the issues on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected - I highly recommend to use the Talk page for any controversial edits. Good luck! Crum375 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Mackan79 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I obviously hope this won't lead to another edit war in the near future.
I apologize for yet another delay in my revisions to the history section; I've been busy in recent days. CJCurrie 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Historian Raul Hilberg criticizes the term New Anti-Semitism =

Raul Hilberg can be considered to be relatively impartial and certainly an historical authority on the Nazi Holocaust- his "Destruction of the European Jews" is a seminal work in Holocaust studies. So his thoughts from a recent interview in Logos seem worth mentioning- "Is There a New Anti-semitism?: A Conversation with Raul Hilberg [[1]]. In response to a question whether the so-called "New Anti-Semitism" is something we "should take seriously or is this simply a continuance of the older anti-Semitism?" Hilberg Replied...

Hilberg: It is not even that. It is picking up a few pebbles from the past and throwing them at windows. I am old enough to remember what the effects of an anti-Jewish attitude are. Here, at the University of Vermont it was unthinkable, even in this liberal state, to have a Jew as a dean as late as the seventies, let alone president. In other words, there was still a lot of segregation in the United States. If you go back and you pick up any New York Times in the thirties or even the forties you will see ads for apartments in New York City and the word “restricted”. This is a Jewish owned newspaper and they printed ads barring Jews. And this was an embedded anti-Jewish regime, which the society itself supported and it’s gone. It’s simply gone.
We cannot even talk about restrictions on Jews in the Islamic world because the Jews have left the Islamic world. They are not there anymore except in Morocco and maybe some tens of thousands still here and there, but that is a remnant of the two hundred thousand that were still there when the state of Israel was created. So the anti-Semitism of the past belongs to the past, and particularly the word “anti-Semitism.” There was an anti-Semitic party in Germany and there was an anti-Semitic party in Austria. The leader of the Hungarian regime, Admiral Horthy, who, when some extreme right wing guys were trying to take over Jewish businesses shouted them down. He said, and I am paraphrasing, “you are not going to take over these businesses because the Jews at least know how to run them and who are you? And don’t you talk to me because I was an anti-Semite before you were born.” Adolf Hitler himself, and nobody reads Mein Kampf, makes a statement that his father would not be an anti-Semite because it would degrade him socially. Nietzsche’s sister married an anti-Semitic leader and he referred in letters to his sister in the whole correspondence “to your anti-Semitic husband.” Now, you can see that anti-Semitism was somewhat correlated with some backward glance. It belongs to the nineteenth century with its other “-isms,” with imperialism, with colonialism, with racism. It sounds bizarre if I tell you that the Nazis did not call themselves anti-Semites. You do not even find the word. [[2]]BernardL 00:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
So what exactly do you think he is saying, and why would it be important? By the way, there were close to a million Jews in the Islamic world when Israel was created, so Hilberg seems to be using very sloppy language at best. Jayjg(talk) 05:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Responses: (i) He seems to be arguing that a general decline in anti-Semitism in recent decades has made the concept of a "new antisemitism" largely unviable, (ii) as one of the most respected historians on the Holocaust, his words carry some weight, (iii) this seems like Original Research; in any event, given the imprecise nature of interview transcriptions, it's possible that he was only referring to the numbers from Morocco. CJCurrie 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"It sounds bizarre if I tell you that the Nazis did not call themselves anti-Semites. You do not even find the word." Well perhaps it sounds bizarre because it is.
"Der Antisemitismus aus rein gefühlsmäßigen Gründen wird seinen letzten Ausdruck finden in der Form von Progromen. Der Antisemitismus der Vernunft jedoch muß führen zur planmäßigen gesetzlichen Bekämpfung und Beseitigung der Vorrechte der Juden, die er zum Unterschied der anderen zwischen uns lebenden Fremden besitzt (Fremdengesetzgebung). Sein letztes Ziel aber muß unverrückbar die Entfernung der Juden überhaupt sein." (Hitler's letter to Adolf Gemlich Sept 16, 1919)
"An dieser Halbheit ging der Wert der antisemitischen Einstellung der christlich-sozialen Partei verloren. Es war ein Scheinantisemitismus, der fast schlimmer war als überhaupt keiner; denn so wurde man in Sicherheit eingelullt, glaubte den Gegner an den Ohren zu haben, wurde jedoch in Wirklichkeit selber an der Nase geführt." (Mein Kampf vol 1 chapter 3, 1925)
Not only did Hitler see his movement as antisemitic. He described it as a new "rational" antisemitism, as opposed to most of the the older antisemitism, which he saw as too half-hearted. Or as Hitler put it: "even worse than no antisemitism at all".
--Denis Diderot 21:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
He is primarily talking about institutional anti-semitism; the extent to which antisemitism was embedded in social attitudes- by far the most important dimension - which does not exist near as much anymore . Hence the The New York Times ran ads barring Jews, even liberal universities did not admit Jewish Deans until relatively recently. These are valid points by a major authority who has been used fairly extensively as a reference for the existence of historical anti-semitism. Apparently User: Jayg does not agree with Hilberg's opinions in this interview but he needs to remember his own words: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." And truth as it concerns matters such as these contains unavoidably subjective elements. As to the historical claims that Hilberg made, judging by the interview alone, they are not at all conclusive as to what Hilberg thinks of the relation between Nazism and anti-semitism and require elaboration but it does not seem to necessarily contradict an interpretation that Hitler et al. reformulated or subordinated anti-semitic attitudes into some sort of unprecedented rationalistic vein. The statement that Hilberg ascribes to Hitler to the effect that "Adolf Hitler himself, and nobody reads Mein Kampf, makes a statement that his father would not be an anti-Semite because it would degrade him socially." corrorobates Hilberg's contention that anti-semitism as a social attitude was considered to be backward-looking even in Hitler's time.BernardL 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What he is saying is verifiable, but not everything that is verifiable must be included in an article. Hilberg's statemnts are fairly opaque, and it's not clear exactly what relevance Hilberg's statements have to this article. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's be clear. Hitler and the nazis described themselves as antisemites and made antisemitism a fundamental part of their doctrine. You will "find that word", including in that book which "nobody reads". Hitler disapproved of the antisemitism of the Austrian Christian Socialists and approved of the antisemitism of the pan-German movement. He did not write that "his father would not be an anti-Semite because it would degrade him socially". This is what he wrote, referring to the word Jew ("Jude"): "Ich glaube, der alte Herr würde schon in der besonderen Betonung dieser Bezeichnung eine kulturelle Rückständigkeit erblickt haben. Er war im Laufe seines Lebens zu mehr oder minder weltbürgerlichen Anschauungen gelangt, die sich bei schroffster nationaler Gesinnung nicht nur erhalten hatten, sondern auch auf mich abfärbten." Hitler suggested that his father saw German nationalism and the preoccupation with "races" as backwards and cultivated a "more or less cosmopolitan outlook" that he also transferred to his son. Hilberg is of course free to interpret this the way he does, but he should have made clear that it was his interpretation and not Hitler's statement. Hilberg also fails to understand the attitude of educated racists. They despised the crude racism of the masses, as exemplified by Der Stürmer, but espoused, what they regarded as, a more rational or sophisticated racism.
Apart from his bizarre claims about the nazis, I partly agree with BernardL's interpretation. Hilberg's opinion appears to be that the "new anti-Semitism" is nothing we need to take seriously, since institutional antisemitism is a thing of the past. The problem is that he does not express this opinion very clearly. Therefore it seems difficult to quote or paraphrase him in the article.
--Denis Diderot 04:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


And who, besides you, decides what verifiable material gets included in an article, based on what criteria, and can such criteria be applied consistently across wikipedia? In this case, it is in fact more clear than you seem to think. Hilberg disputes the concept of a "new anti-semitism"; saying that it amounts to "picking up a few pebbles from the past and throwing them at windows." Whatever anti-semitism now exists pales in comparison to the past when anti-semitism was institutionalized and widely prevalent in social attitudes to the extent that there was segregation and institutionalized prejudices. I think this is an accurate interpretation of his views regarding the concept of "new anti-semtism." As an historian who understands the "Destruction of European Jews" -in depth- and who nevertheless disputes the concept of a "new anti-semitism", his views are notable.BernardL 03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, "picking up a few pebbles from the past and throwing them at windows". A rather bizarre, and as I said, fairly opaque metaphor. We have to use editorial judgement when deciding which material to use. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a bizarre metaphor at all- strikingly apt. And with an accompanying explanation that is not to be belittled considering who is offering the explanation. As far as the disingenuous posture of "editorial judgement" is concerned, we are talking about 3 or 4 sentences perhaps at the expense of none.BernardL 03:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, what is the point you think must be made? That Hilberg thinks antisemitism was much worse when Jews were persecuted in Muslim countries or by Hitler? That is an important point that must be made? It looks like something trivially obvious to me. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be bothering yourself with his extended explanation- which is that institutionalized forms of anti-semitism, particularly embedded social attitudes of anti-semitism today pale in comparison to the past to the extent one cannot speak of anti-semitism as a widespread problem in today's context. I think this is a legitimate representation of his views. And yes, these and similar views should be expressed because racism and bigotry have historically been manifested in their most virulent forms when they are institutionalized as embedded social attitudes. Sometimes the "trivially obvious" needs to be expressed to maintain perspective. Moreover, in saying it is "picking up a few pebbles from the past and throwing them at windows" he is disputing the concept of a "new anti-semitism" pretty much categorically.BernardL 04:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The material strikes me as apt in regard to the "phenomenon" as opposed to the theory, as we discussed earlier. This would be a response to the idea that antisemitism is on the rise, gaining wider acceptance, etc. It could be quoted or not; a paraphrase might simply note Hilberg's skepticism of the notion, arguing that antisemitism has substantially declined even over the last few decades. It's also relevant in the section starting here. In any case, I'd certainly think it bears some mention. Mackan79 11:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.zombietime.com

It is a reliable source because? --Cerejota 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The History section (part one)

I apologize for taking so long to finish this post. This should have been completed a month ago; I've been busy with other matters.

I have a number of suggestions for improving the "History" section of this article. There are some things that I'd like to see removed from the current version, some things I'd like to see revised, and some things I'd like to see added. I'll deal with the first two points in this post, and the third at a later time.

On the most basic level, I'd like to see the current History section restructured as a timeline of events, dealing in an objective and dispassionate manner with early (ie. pre-2000) discussions about the concept of a "new antisemitism". I would prefer that this section not include more recent (ie. post-2000) arguments on the historical origins of "new antisemitism"; these arguments are relevant to the modern concept of "NAS", but generally convey a somewhat tendentious view of its historical emergence. (I'm prepared to compromise on this point, though, particularly in the Taguieff section. See below.)

I'm going to take this section-by-section. I've made an effort to suggest revisions which incorporate the concerns of divergent parties, and which avoid the appearance as well as the reality of biased editing. Comments are welcome, and I hope this will lead to good-faith discussions on all sides. CJCurrie 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Commentary article (again)

An early use of the concept in close to its modern form was in the late 1940s, when the Soviet Union was accused of pursuing a "new anti-Semitism" against Jews, of the sort manifested in the so-called Doctors' plot, a supposed conspiracy by Jewish doctors to poison the Soviet leadership. 1 Stalinist opposition to "rootless cosmopolitans" – a euphemism for Jews – was rooted in the belief, as expressed by Klement Gottwald, that "treason and espionage infiltrate the ranks of the Communist Party. This channel is Zionism."2
  • 1 Schwarz, Solomon M. "The New Anti-Semitism of the Soviet Union," Commentary, June 1949.
  • 2 Pravda, November 21, 1952.

Comments:

I've already stated my objections to this paragraph on many occasions (most notably here and here). I now believe there can be no justification for keeping this paragraph in our article. Solomon M. Schwarz's article is entirely unrelated to the modern concept of "new antisemitism", and was in any event written three years before the so-called "Doctor's plot".

I am not averse to including some reference to the influence of Soviet anti-Semitism on the concept of "new antisemitism", if modern authors have made this connection (indeed, the Taguieff paragraph suggests a practical way of approaching this subject). The Commentary paragraph, however, must be deleted. CJCurrie 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one has responded, I've taken the liberty of removing the paragraph. CJCurrie 01:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Taguieff paragraph

French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff writes that the first wave of the new antisemitism emerged in the Arab-Muslim world and the Soviet sphere following the 1967 Six Day War, citing papers by Jacques Givet (1968) and historian Léon Poliakov (1969) in which the idea of a new anti-Semitism rooted in anti-Zionism was discussed.1 He argues that anti-Jewish themes centered on the demonical figures of Israel and what he calls "fantasy-world Zionism": that Jews plot together, seek to conquer the world, and are imperialistic and bloodthirsty, which gave rise to the reactivation of stories about ritual murder and the poisoning of food and water supplies. The Israeli victory of 1967, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and the Palestinian deaths during the first Intifada all served to reinforce the caricature.2
  • 1 Pierre-André Taguieff cites the following early works on the new antisemitism: Jacques Givet, La Gauche contre Israel? Essai sur le néo-antisémitisme, Paris 1968; idem, "Contre une certain gauche," Les Nouveaux Cahiers, No. 13-14, Spring-Summer 1968, pp. 116-119; Léon Poliakov, De l'antisionisme a l'antisémitisme, Paris 1969; Shmuel Ettinger, "Le caractère de l'antisémitisme contemporain," Dispersion et Unité, No. 14, 1975, pp. 141-157; and Michael Curtis, ed., Antisemitism in the Modern World, Boulder, 1986. All cited in Pierre-André Taguieff. Rising from the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe. Ivan R. Dee, 2004, p. 159-160, footnote 1.
  • 2 Pierre André Taguieff. Rising from the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe. Ivan R. Dee, 2004, p. 62.

Comments:

First, a technical point: Taguieff's book was published in 2002, not 2004. The latter date refers to its translation and publication in America. In the comments that follow, I will use 2002 as the date of publication.

Second, a clarification: Some time ago, I argued that the wording of the above paragraph did not indicate whether or not the papers by Givet and Poliakov were relevant to the modern concept of "new antisemitism". I've since had a chance to consult these works, and am prepared to drop this objection.

This takes us to the main point at issue. Our current paragraph is a rough transcription of the first paragraph of Taguieff's translated "Rising from the Muck", Chapter Three, "Construction, Content, Functioning, and Metamorphoses of the "New Anti-Semitism": Toward the Islamization of Absolute Anti-Zionism". The original paragraph appears as follows on pp. 62-63 of Taguieff's book (any typographical errors are my own):

A case has been rightly made that, after the Six Day War of June 1967, a "new anti-Semitism" began its worldwide career.1 It centred on a mythical conspiracy theory that I have called absolute anti-Semitism2, with its two main bases in the Arab-Muslim world and the Soviet Empire.3 A number of traditional anti-Jewish themes have clustered around the demonical figures of Israel and a fantasy-world "Zionism": Jews plot together; Jews seek to conquer the world by all means; Jews are cruel and bloodthirsty by nature (hence the reactivation of old legends of "ritual murder"4 or the poisoning of food and water supplies); Jews are "imperialistic," and so on.5 In addition, there is the literature of Holocaust denial, with its claim that the genocidal gas chambers never even existed.6 Its "popular," or anyway "popularizable," conclusion is that the Jews and their "allies" invented the "tall story" of their own extermination, and that they are therefore guilty of "the biggest lie ever"7 -- itself a recycled version of the old stereotype of Jews as "liars by nature." One is reminded of Hitler's homage to Schopenhauer in Mein Kampf:
"One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. He called the Jew `The Great Master of Lies.' Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in making Truth prevail."8
  • 1 See Jacques Givet, La Gauche contre Israel? Essai sur le néo-antisémitisme, Paris: Jean-Jacques Pauvert, 1968; idem, "Contre une certain gauche," Les Nouveaux Cahiers, No. 13-14, Spring-Summer 1968, pp. 116-119; Léon Poliakov, De l'antisionisme a l'antisémitisme, Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1969; Shmuel Ettinger, "Le caractère de l'antisémitisme contemporain," Dispersion et Unité, No. 14, 1975, pp. 141-157; and Michael Curtis, ed., Antisemitism in the Modern World, Boulder: Westview Press, 1986.
  • 2 See my critical study: "L'antisionisme arabo-islamophile. Éléments d'une analyse froide de la forme dominante de l'antisémitisme contemporain," Sens No. 11, November 1982, pp. 253-266. I focus there especially on an article published in Le Monde on June 17, 1982, in the form of a publicity announcement: "Le sens de l'agression israélienne," signed by Roger Garaudy, Father Michel Lelong, and Pastor Étienne Mathiot, and reprinted in Roger Garaudy, Mes Témoins, Paris: Éditions "À Contre-Nuit," 1997, pp. 108-116. For a criticial analysis, see also Alain Dieckhoff, "Le sionisme, `diable' des Palestiniens," Les Nouveaux Cahiers No. 79, Winter 1984-1985, pp. 17-22.
  • 3 See Yohanan Manor, "L'antisionisme," Revue française de science politique 34/2, April 1984, pp. 295-323; and Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites, op. cit.
  • 4 See Salomon Reinach, L'Accusation due meurtre ritual, Paris: Librairie Léopold Cerf, 1893. On the accusation that Jews are inherently cruel and dominating, see my Le Protocoles des Sages de Sion. Faux et usages d'un faux, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 354-357.
  • 5 Many examples of press articles expressing this standard Judeophobia may be found in the report of the Simon Wiesenthal Center: Egypt: Israel's Peace Partner: A Survey of Antisemitism in the Egyptian Press, 1986-1987, Los Angeles: Simon Wiesenthal Center Publications, 1988; and in Rivka Yadlin, An Arrogant Oppressive Spirit: Anti-Zionism as Anti-Judaism in Egypt, New York: Pergamon Press, 1989.
  • 6 See Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust, New York: Columbia University Press, 1992 (a collection of essays published in France between 1980 and 1987); Alain Finkielkraut, The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998; Florent Brayard, Comment l'ideé vint à M. Rassinier. Naissance du révisionnisme, with a preface by Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Paris: Fayard, 1996.
  • 7 See my study "La nouvelle judéophobie. Antisionisme, antiracisme, anti-impérialisme," Les Temps modernes No. 520, November 1989, pp. 1-80.
  • 8 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, London: Hurst & Blackett, 1939, vol. I, ch. X.

(Note: There are no references in this passage to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, nor to Palestinian deaths during the first Intifada. These are instead mentioned on pp. 64-65, wherein Taguieff outlines what he describes as the second wave of the "new antisemitism".)

There are some problems with our current summarization of Taguieff's paragraph:

(i) On a minor technical note, it seems inappropriate for us to identify the disputed NAS concept as simply "the new antisemitism" in our first sentence. This wording implies that we are dealing with an actual and undisputed phenomonen, when there is in fact no agreement on this point. (To prevent confusion: I would not dispute that the phenomena described by Taguieff are anti-Semitic; whether they constitute "new antisemitism" in the modern sense of the term is much less clear.)

(ii) More fundamentally, the current paragraph doesn't really fit with the chronological flow the history section. Much of it refers to Taguieff's arguments/extrapolations written in 2002, and not to the actual discussions surrounding the NAS concept in prior decades. As I've already noted, this doesn't strike me as the best approach for our History section.

What then should be done to fix the paragraph? If it were entirely up to me, I would (i) shift the focus from Taguieff to Givet and Poliakov, (ii) explicitly focus on the "NAS" concept's emergence in France in the late 1960s, (iii) shift Taguieff's arguments to a new section of the article dealing with the recent history of the NAS concept.

I suspect, however, that these proposals would only lead to another round of slow-motion debates, and end without any resolution. In the interests of moving forward with improving the page, then, I'm willing to present the following as a compromise proposal:

The concept of a "new antisemitism" rooted in anti-Zionism was raised in France in the aftermath the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. The French philosopher Pierre-André Tanguieff cites a number of works written on this subject in his La Nouvelle Judéophobie (2002, trans. 2004), including publications from 1968 and 1969 by Jacques Givet and Léon Poliakov. Taguieff's position is that the "new antisemitism" [or should we use "nouvelle judéophobie"?] of this period was centred in the Arab-Muslim world and the Soviet empire, and that it was marked by anti-Jewish themes centred on "demonical figures of Israel" and what he calls "fantasy-world 'Zionism'": that Jews plot together, seek to conquer the world, and are imperialistic and bloodthirsty. (footnotes the same as before)

More information perhaps could be provided about Givet's and Poliakov's works, if others are interested in pursuing this theme. I'll leave that to someone else, however.

By the way, I haven't been able to obtain a french-language copy of Taguieff's book. Does anyone involved in this discussion have it? CJCurrie 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one has raised an objection, I'll make the change. CJCurrie 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Forster/Epstein and Brownfeld paragraphs

In 1974, Forster and Epstein, officials of the Anti-Defamation League, published The New anti-Semitism, which appears to be the first book-length treatment of the subject. They expressed concern about manifestations of antisemitism and opposition to Israel, drawing attention to what they called "Arab propaganda" and "the oil weapon" in international affairs.1 Part of their criticism is directed towards left-wing American organizations of the period, such as the Young Socialist Alliance, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Spartacist League.2
Allan Brownfeld, writing in the Journal of Palestine Studies, argues that the term "new antisemitism" emerged as a result of efforts by some to re-define the term "anti-semitism" to include anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel. He cites the Forster and Epstein book as one of the first manifestations of this trend. Brownfeld argues that this altered definition trivializes the concept of anti-semitism, by turning it into "a form of political blackmail" and "a weapon with which to silence any criticism of either Israel or U.S. policy in the Middle East". He adds that the "false imputation of anti-Semitism" is a "violation of Jewish ethics and values", and that the shift in the term's meaning "will be welcomed by genuine anti-Semites who will, as a result, be able to escape responsibility for their own bigotry".3
  • 1 Forster, Arnold & Epstein, Benjamin, The New Anti-Semitism. McGraw-Hill 1974, p.165.
  • 2 Forster, Arnold & Epstein, Benjamin, The New Anti-Semitism. McGraw-Hill 1974, p.9.
  • 3 Allan Brownfeld, "Anti-Semitism: Its Changing Meaning", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3.

Comments:

Jayjg has argued that these paragraphs should be excised from the article, on the grounds that (i) the Forster/Epstein book offers an idiosyncratic definition of "new antisemitism" which is not relevant to our purposes, and (ii) the book is more notable for the opposition it has garnered (ie. Brownfeld, and pp. 21-26 of Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah) than for the arguments it raises. I would beg to differ.

The Forster/Epstein book argues that a new anti-Semitism emerged in the United States following the 1967 and 1973 wars, grounded in part in anti-Zionism and political opposition to Israel. The authors identify this development as emanating from several sources, including the radical right, "Arabs and pro-Arabs" (to use the politically incorrect terminology favoured by the ADL authors) and the radical left. The Forster/Epstein book was also criticized at the time of its release (see below) for offering a problematic definition of "new antisemitism", and for conflating all political opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism. In other words, the book is entirely relevant to the current debates surrounding the "new antisemitism" concept: it should be kept, and improved.

Incidentally, the Givet and Poliakov publications from 1968 and 1969 were extended, book-length essays. Leaving aside its other problems, the phrase "appears to be the first book-length treatment of the subject" is factually inaccurate and needs to be dropped.

The first paragraph (dealing specifically with Forster and Epstein) should be reworded to read as follows:

In 1974, Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein, officials of the Anti-Defamation League, published a book entitled The New anti-Semitism. The authors expressed concern about new manifestations of antisemitism and opposition to Israel in the United States of America, which they described as emanating from radical left, radical right, and "pro-Arab" figures. Forster and Epstein argued that "the heart of the new anti-Semitism" could be found in "indifference to the most profound apprehensions of the Jewish people", "a blandness and apathy in dealing with anti-Jewish behavior", and "a widespread incapacity or unwillingness to comprehend the necessity of the existence of Israel to Jewish safety and survival throughout the world".

[Citations: "Gerald Smith's Road" (19-48) + "The Radical Right" (285-296), "Arabs and Pro-Arabs" (155-174), "The Radical Left" (125-154); the "heart of the new anti-Semitism" quote may be found on p. 324.]

Reviewing Forster and Epstein's The New anti-Semitism in Commentary magazine, Earl Raab argued that a "new anti-Semitism" was indeed emerging in the United States of America in the form of opposition to the collective rights of the Jewish people. However, he criticized Forster and Epstein for conflating "anti-Israel bias in general" with antisemitism, and for "sometimes interpret[ing] the failure to be pro-Israel as anti-Semitism". Referring to the activities of European nations in the Yom Kippur War, Raab added that there are "a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to Jews which are not anti-Semitic in nature, just as there are a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to blacks which are not racist in nature".

For the "response" paragraph, I am prepared to excise the Brownfeld material (or at least relegate him to the footnotes, or perhaps another section of the article). In his place, I would recommend that we instead focus on a review that Earl Raab wrote for Commentary magazine in May 1974 (pp. 53-55).

Raab's response to Forster/Epstein is quite interesting, insofar as he argued that there was a new anti-Semitism emerging in America at the time, centred in opposition to the collective rights of the Jewish people. However, he was also critical of the vague and all-encompassing definition favoured by Forster and Epstein, and specifically criticized their depiction of political opposition to Israel as being inherently anti-Semitic (for all intents and purposes). An extended quote should suffice to demonstrate this point:

Forster and Epstein fail to distinguish clearly between these two kinds of indifference in discussing the situation within the United States. They also fail to make an analogous distinction in considering the question of Israel. "The destruction of the Jewish state," they write, "is itself the ultimate anti-Semitism"; and despite the way in which this statement grandly sweeps over some of the normal aspirations of international politics, one is tempted not to challenge it because because of the awful import of the word "destruction." However, Forster and Epstein often stretch the word in practice to mean anti-Israel bias in general, and they sometimes interpret the failure to be pro-Israel as anti-Semitism.
"Thus, on the 1973 war, they say that "the palpable erosion in worldwide sympathy and friendship for Jews" since 1967 had helped to relay "the message that yet another attempt to annihilate the Jewish people would be greeted in the mid-70's with massive indifference if not active support." They complain that "we have no reason to believe that the world -- beyond the United States and a few moral places here and there -- is at all prepared to accept fact instead of fantasy or outright lies when it comes to the Middle East." After Yom Kippur, the Arabs and the Soviet Union charged Israel with aggression. England, France, West Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey refused to allow American aid to Israel to go through their ports or air. The Vatican "struck a position of neutrality." In short, "Just thirty years after the Holocaust, a new chapter was being written in the history of European anti-Semitism."
The policies of England, France, et al. toward Israel in October 1973 did indeed stem from indifference, but it was indifference of the kind exemplified by the voter who doesn't care whether his candidate is anti-Semitic. These nations clearly did not have a commitment to legal or moral principles which outweighed their own needs -- in this case, oil. If the Israelis had had the oil instead of the Arabs, there is no question where those European nations would have stood.
There are, in other words, a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to Jews which are not anti-Semitic in nature, just as there are a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to blacks which are not racist in nature. Attempts to impose rigid quotas on the hiring or training of teachers, social workers, doctors, and lawyers are disadvantageous to Jews as a group on more than one count, but they are not necessarily anti-Semitic in the sense of being designated to hurt the Jews as Jews. Similarly, the creation of Israel set up new conditions of vulnerability to Jews, but these are not necessarily related to anti-Semitism either. If an Amish state had been set up where Israel is, the Arab nations would not have been much more hospitable toward it than they have been toward the Jewish state; Soviet strategy would not be basically different."

Raab's views may be summarized as follows:

Reviewing Forster and Epstein's The New anti-Semitism in Commentary magazine, Earl Raab argued that a "new anti-Semitism" was indeed emerging in the United States of America in the form of opposition to the collective rights of the Jewish people. However, he criticized Forster and Epstein for conflating "anti-Israel bias in general" with antisemitism, and for "sometimes interpret[ing] the failure to be pro-Israel as anti-Semitism". Referring to the activities of European nations in the Yom Kippur War, Raab added that there are "a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to Jews which are not anti-Semitic in nature, just as there are a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to blacks which are not racist in nature".

CJCurrie 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one has raised any objections, I'll incorporate my changes into the article. CJCurrie 00:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wistrich, Eban and Oesterreicher paragraphs

In the 1980s, radical left-wing movements voiced increasing opposition to Israel, controversially claiming that Zionism was a racist and colonialist movement. In 1984, historian Robert Wistrich delivered a lecture in the home of Chaim Herzog, the President of Israel, in which he spoke of a "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism," the characteristic mode of which was the equation of Zionism with Nazism. He stated that "in recent years these grotesque Soviet blood-libels have been taken up by a part of the radical Left — especially the Trotskyists — in Western Europe and America".1
In the mid-1980s, the Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban argued that "the New Left is the author and progenitor of the new anti-Semitism."2 Other commentators stated that the tendency to criticize Israel actions more vehemently than those of other nations was a form of antisemitic prejudice. Monsignor John M. Oesterreicher said in 1983: "Nobody says anything against the Egyptian authorities for oppressing the Coptic Christians. No one protested vehemently against the forced closing of St. Joseph's College years ago in Iraq, nor against the laws in Jordan prior to 1967 which prohibited Christians from acquiring new property. If Israel did any of these things, everyone would cry bloody murder... This is prejudice."3

Comments:

The Wistrich paragraph is factually accurate in its current form, but is also a bit selective in the facts it presents. I would recommend expanding it to read as follows:

In the 1980s, radical left-wing movements voiced increasing opposition to Israel, controversially claiming that Zionism was a racist and colonialist movement. The historian Robert Wistrich addressed this subject in a 1984 lecture delivered in the home of Chaim Herzog, the President of Israel. Wistrich argued that a "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" was emerging, a distinguishing feature of which was the equation of Zionism with Nazism. He argued that this view was prevalent in Arab countries and the Soviet Union, but said that it had also been taken up by the radical Left, and particularly Trotskyist groups in Western Europe and America. Wistrich did not specifically accuse the latter groups of antisemitism, though he argued that their statements were no less dangerous for this.

Two further comments:

(i) I would recommend appending Abba Eban's statement to the end of this paragraph, rather than the beginning of the next one. I haven't yet been able to obtain a copy of Daniel Rubin's book, and will have to assume that the Eban quote is accurate and fairly cited.

(ii) Readers might notice that there's something missing from this paragraph: a representative statement of the radical left's views. If we're going to present this issue in a balanced and NPOV manner, it would be in our interests to include a statment from a prominent radical Left figure responding to the charge of anti-Semitism. I'll try to find such a statement in the near future.

Concerning the Oesterreicher section ... frankly, I'm not certain what this is doing here. Oesterreicher isn't discussing "new antisemitism", or even old anti-Semitism, in any conceptual sense. He's referring to the international criticism of Israel that followed the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. His comments (which I don't object to in principle, btw) might be relevant to Wikipedia's article on Antisemitism, but I can't see why we're including them here.

I'd be prepared to change my opinion, if anyone can present a compelling reason for keeping the reference. CJCurrie 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote from Wistrich is compelling; it's not just "increased opposition to Israel", it's "grotesque Soviet blood-libels". Your version downplays the antisemitism outlined in Wistrich's statements. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I stated above that I'd prefer to present information in an "objective and dispassionate manner". I'm not certain that latching onto the "blood-libel" comment serves any useful purpose. That being said, I'm not opposed in principle to its inclusion. If you think my version downplays the *accusation of* anti-Semitism in Wistrich's statements, I could return it without difficulty. CJCurrie 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've now adjusted the Wistrich paragraph, retaining the phrase "grotesque Soviet blood-libels" in order to accommodate Jay's concerns. I've also included a Tariq Ali quote, on the grounds that a representative statement from the radical left should be included as a response to Wistrich and Eban. I hope that other editors will accept the quote in this spirit.

I've also removed the Oesterreicher section, as no-one has challenged my previous comments concerning its relevance. CJCurrie 01:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed these comments. Just to address CJCurrie's point, I've reverted the Monsignor's thoughts in briefer summary form, because the previous raw quote failed to put his comment in context. He was addressing Israel and Jews being singled out for criticism as "prejudice." This captures the new anti-Semitism though not using the term.--Mantanmoreland 15:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Oesterreicher's quote has nothing to do with the evolution of the "NAS" concept (unless we're now defining the term so broadly as to include every defence of Israel from real or perceived "disproportionate criticism" into the discussion). The quote's inclusion is original research, and it must be removed accordingly. CJCurrie 02:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Chip Berlet paragraphs

Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, an American research group that tracks the far right, writes that, during the early 1980s, isolationists on the far right made overtures to anti-war activists on the left to join forces against government policies in areas where they shared concerns,1 mainly civil liberties, opposition to U.S. military intervention overseas, and opposition to U.S. support for Israel.2 3
As they interacted, some of the classic right-wing anti-Semitic scapegoating conspiracy theories began to seep into progressive circles,2 including stories about how a "New World Order", also called the "Shadow Government" or "The Octopus,"3 was manipulating world governments. Berlet writes that antisemitic conspiracism4 was "peddled aggressively" by right-wing groups, and that the left adopted the rhetoric, which Berlet argues was made possible by the left's lack of knowledge of the history of fascism and its use of "scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history."2
Toward the end of 1990, as the movement against the Gulf War began to build, Berlet writes that a number of far-right and antisemitic groups sought out alliances with left-wing anti-war coalitions, who began to speak openly about a "Jewish lobby" that was encouraging the United States to invade the Middle East. This idea morphed into conspiracy theories about a "Zionist-occupied government" (ZOG), which Berlet writes is the modern incarnation of the antisemitic hoax, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.1 Berlet adds: "It is important to recognize that as a whole the antiwar movement overwhelmingly rejected these overtures by the political right, while recognizing that the attempt reflected a larger ongoing problem." He cites the example of Wisconsin anti-war activist Alan Ruff, who appeared on a panel in Verona to discuss the Gulf War. Also on the panel on the anti-war side was another local activist, Emmanuel Branch. "Suddenly I heard Branch saying the war was the result of a Zionist banking conspiracy," said Ruff. "I found myself squeezed between pro-war hawks and this anti-Jewish nut, it destroyed the ability of those of us who opposed the war to make our point."2
  • 1 Berlet, Chip. "ZOG Ate My Brains", New Internationalist, October 2004.
  • 2 Berlet, Chip. "Right woos Left", Publiceye.org, December 20, 1990; revised February 22, 1994, revised again 1999.
  • 3 Berlet reports that the right-wing use of anti-Zionism as a cover for anti-Semitism can be seen in a 1981 issue of Spotlight, published by the neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby: "A brazen attempt by influential "Israel-firsters" in the policy echelons of the Reagan administration to extend their control to the day-to-day espionage and covert-action operations of the CIA was the hidden source of the controversy and scandals that shook the U.S. intelligence establishment this summer. The dual loyalists ... have long wanted to grab a hand in the on-the-spot "field control" of the CIA's worldwide clandestine services. They want this control, not just for themselves, but on behalf of the Mossad, Israel's terrorist secret police. (Spotlight, August 24, 1981, cited in Berlet, Chip. "Right woos Left", Publiceye.org, December 20, 1990; revised February 22, 1994, revised again 1999.)
  • 4 Berlet does not himself use the expression "new antisemitism"; nor does he comment on whether he believes the current wave of antisemitism should be regarded as a new phenomenon or not.

Comments:

The last footnote is somewhat telling. I find myself in agreement with almost everything Chip Berlet has written here (although I wouldn't apply his conclusions to all of the left), but I'm not convinced that this is relevant to the "New antisemitism" article.

Some time ago, our article inaccurately described "New antisemitism" as being first and foremost a term referring to the concept of antisemitism coming from three diverse sources (radical right, radical left, radical Islam). During this period, it might have seemed justifiable to keep Berlet's observations in our article. Now, I'm not certain why we're retaining these paragraphs.

As before, I'd be willing to reconsider my position if anyone can produce a compelling reason for retaining the Berlet section. CJCurrie 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The alliance between the far-left, far-right, and the adoption by the latter of the rhetoric of the former is a critical concept in New antisemitism, and the material is obviously on the topic of this article. I've not objected to the removal of other material that is, in my view, also relevant, but this is going too far. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that Berlet's arguments are relevant to the evolution of the "NAS" concept. (I understand that proponents of the concept would regard the events described by Berlet as crucial to its evolution, but this is not quite the same thing.)
That said, I don't have any strong opposition to the retention of these paragraphs (which I regard as being of dubious relevance, but not problematic on their own terms). Perhaps Mr. Berlet should be consulted before we make a decision. CJCurrie 23:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I object (almost) categorically to the inclusion of the Berlet material. As currently interpolated it is original research. Berlet doesn’t mention the “new anti-Semitism.” Rather, he puts forth a thesis that reminds Wikipedians of NAS. This sort of OR is very familiar in articles on controversial concepts; anyone who has edited over at Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, for example, will have seen editorial attempts to add material about Israeli policies from sources that don’t mention “Israeli apartheid,” but nevertheless remind Wikipedians of that concept. Such material is rightly (and usually immediately) removed, often as not by Jayjg.

The material also appears to violate WP:UNDUE. The material on the “new anti-Semitism” is voluminous (the great bulk of it journalistic and activist as opposed to scholarly, notwithstanding our presentation, but that’s an issue for another time). None of this material, unless I’m mistaken, cites or mentions Berlet. And yet we give him three paragraphs in our six-paragraph history of the concept.

I think a big part of the problem here is an ambiguity about this “history” rubric itself. Does this section present a history of the concept, or a history of the alleged phenomenon? Equivocating between the two rubrics creates a serious – and I would have thought obvious – POV issue.

I say I am “almost” categorically opposed to the inclusion of Berlet. Either of the two following scenarios would make the Berlet material (albeit in modified form) acceptable:

  1. Someone produces sources writing about the “new anti-Semitism” that prominently reference the Berlet material.
  1. Someone contacts Berlet for a clarification, and he posts something on the PRA website stating that the subject of the articles in question was indeed the “new anti-Semitism.”

With regards to scenario #2, private correspondence and/or talk posts from user:Chipberlet will not suffice, because we need something we can quote. Absent that our inclusion of the material works subtly to affirm the existence of the phenomenon the concept describes. Any such affirmation violates NPOV. Our job is to present the concept, not independently adduce evidence for it.--G-Dett 08:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. While I prefer not to use the term "New Antisemitism," I think it should be obvious that what I have written in the past 20 years addresses the topic of this entry directly. I am distressed by the confluence of antisemitism among some on the political right, some on the political left, some Muslims, and some Arabs. I am also distressed by those who claim all forms of anti-Zionism and all opponenets of the state of Israel are automatically antisemites. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I would have thought I made this clear in various published articles. For example:
  • Conspiracism evolves as a worldview from roots in dualistic forms of apocalypticism. Conspiracist thinking has appeared in mainstream popular discourse as well as in various subcultures in the United States throughout its history (Davis 1971; Mintz 1985; Goldberg 2001; Barkun 1998, 2003).
  • On the political left, conspiracist theories are the avenue by which antisemitism is introduced into internal discussions and debates (Berlet and Lyons 2000). This sometimes emerges into public statements by persons on the left who make hyperbolic and stereotypic claims about manipulation of U.S. foreign or domestic policies by Jews, Jewish institutions, the state of Israel, or the Israeli government (Kaplan 2002). At the same time, some have implied that criticism of Israel, or its policies, or Jewish institutions, is a new form of antisemitism[emphasis added], when this is not always the case. This is an area that needs more discussion and debate.
Chip Berlet, "Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style: Facing Complex Questions and Challenges," JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES, Gonzaga University, Institute for Action Against Hate, Volume 3 Number 1, 2003/04
I do think I get to explain what I mean in my own writing--that's hardly OR. Just becasue I choose to not use the term, does not mean that it is not obvious that this is what I am writing about.--Cberlet 23:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a great deal implied by the term "New antisemitism," above and beyond the various phenomena gathered together and named by it. You acknowledge as much by making clear that you "prefer not to use the term." This article is not about marginal conspiracism in the 1980s, or about leftist apologetics for radical Islam, or about criticism of Israel that grows so emboldened as to make some uncomfortable – any more than the article about Allegations of Israeli apartheid is about the separation barrier, or marriage laws, or checkpoints, or the Law of Return, or water rights in the West Bank. Rather, that article and this one are about the controversial theories which bind together such things (and others) and describe them as facets of a single phenomena. If you won't stand by the phrase "new antisemitism" and use it in your public writings, that confirms and strengthens my objections to the use of your material for this article. I am, ahem, aware of the drollness of arguing with user:Cberlet about the appropriateness of extensive use of Chip Berlet's writings in this article, but the above is the above.--G-Dett 08:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
My position is that sometime around the 1980s there began a confluence of conspiracy theories across political and geographic boundaries that reconstited antisemitic frames and narratives for new audiences. This continues today. Since I am aware that the term "New Antisemitism" is sometimes used to imply that all criticism of Israeli policy or the state of Israel is antisemitism (a claim with which I disagree), I choose not to use that term. Yet some of the writing about the "New Antisemitism" is demonstrable examining the same set of recent or "new" confluences. So the problem for this entry is to examine the different ways the term is used. The term is not used to describe a "single phenomena," but used by different writers in different ways, so that I agree with what some of these writers describe, but not others. I am not just writing about conspiracism in the 1980s. Here are some more recent cites:
Chip Berlet. 2005. "Protocols to the Left, Protocols to the Right: Conspiracism in American Political Discourse at the Turn of the Second Millennium." Paper presented at the conference: Reconsidering "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion": 100 Years After the Forgery, The Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies, Boston University, October 30-31, 2005. online version of conference slide show, paper forthcoming in book.
_____. 2004. "Zog Ate My Brains." New Internationalist (London), Issue 372 (October). Special Issue on Judeophobia, online article, and online supplement.
And here is what I wrote for the 2007 second edition of the Encyclopedia Judaica:
"...antisemitic ideas and conspiracy theories once circulated almost exclusively by German Nazis and their neo-Nazi offspring entered popular culture, mainstream political debate, and even broadcast television series, especially in Islamic and Arab countries in the Middle East. These even included a revival of the false allegations from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These conspiracy allegations moved into more mainstream circles through bridging mechanisms that often mask the original overtly anti-Jewish claims by using coded rhetoric about "secret elites" or "Zionist cabals." The international organization run by Lyndon LaRouche is a major source of such masked antisemitic theories globally. In the U.S. the LaRouchites spread these conspiracy theories in an alliance with aides to Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. A series of LaRouchite pamphlets calls the neoconservative movement the "Children of Satan," which links Jewish neo-conservatives to the historic rhetoric of the blood libel. In a twisted irony, the pamphlets imply the neoconservatives are the real neo-Nazis."
Source Citation: Hearst, Ernest, Chip Berlet, and Jack Porter. "Neo-Nazism." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 15. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 74-82. 22 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale.
Whether or not editors here choose to use material cited to my work is a distinct issue from whether or not I am writing about the same matters discussed by some others who use the term "New Antisemitism" to describe the "confluence of conspiracy theories across political and geographic boundaries that reconstited antisemitic frames and narratives for new audiences." I clearly see myself writing about this new confluence involving antisemitism.--Cberlet 12:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I copied the three paragraphs verbatim into the Twentieth century section of History of antisemitism. They make that section slightly unwieldly, so some reworking will be needed, but eventually that will be a good home for the ideas. The Berlet-derived material could then be dealt with much more briefly here, perhaps beginning by saying that some writers who do not use the term have referred to some of the phenomena that it is typically taken to cover. Itsmejudith 09:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Chip Berlet: So the problem for this entry is to examine the different ways the term is used. The term is not used to describe a "single phenomena," but used by different writers in different ways, so that I agree with what some of these writers describe, but not others.
You've just identified this article's primary weakness. I've argued for some time that Wikipedia should define "New antisemitism" as a term that's been used in different ways, to identify different developments (or perceived developments). Each time I've brought this up, however, my suggestions have been met with resistance.
I'd be more than willing to address this question in greater detail, but I'm not certain that other contributors will want to reopen the vexed question of the introduction this soon after the last round of negotiations. CJCurrie 20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I realize this has been a controversial page, and that tempers have flared. I find myself in the middle of the argument (literally and politically). But I have to say that the body of the text already seems to indicate a variety of views about what the term means and its appropriateness. There are at least five tangled threads. 1) As criticism of Israel grew on the political left, some critics began to regularly step over the line into antisemitic stereotypes about Jewish power and evil plots. 2) Alliances between the political left and some Muslim and Arab critics of Israel in some cases drew in historic antisemitic motifs from some Muslim and Arab countries. 3) As the political left embraced the idea of a Secret Team behind the Iran-Contra scandal, right-wing antisemitic ideologues made overtures to the political left, including supplying dubious conspiracist information that sometimes reflected antisemitic stereotypes about Jewish power and evil plots. 4) A confluence of antisemitic stereotypes mingled among the political left, political right, and some Muslim and Arab critics of Israel. 5) Some people who were alarmed by what appeared to be increasing antisemitism began to imply that at this point in time, criticism of the policies of the state of Israel or the existence of the state of Israel was operationally a form of antisemitism. Good luck untangling the threads. I can try to help, but let's not rush into editing text quite yet.--Cberlet 22:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Chip, the last claim (claim 5) is incorrect. Criticism of the policies of Israel per se has never been described as antisemitism except as a straw man. But rather than taking my word for, instead I'll quote a non-Jewish analytic philosopher on the point:

The second claim is that concern about "the new anti-Semitism" represents and entirely dishonest attempts by Jews supportive of the aims of the Israel lobby to smear pro-Palestinian journalists and intellectuals, including the authors: "Israel's advocates, when pressed, claim there is a 'new antisemitism' which they equate with criticism of Israel." Speaking as a non-Jew, I have read most of what has been published so far on "the new anti-Semitism", most of it, as I said in the Preface, by Jews. None of this writing, to my knowledge, asserts equivalence between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. How one might set about justifying such an equation I have no idea, not least given the fact that the Jewish community itself... is alive with vociferous critics of Israel." Bernard Harrison, The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion, p. 201.

Lots of good material in that book, a bunch will have to make it into this article. Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I have personally heard the claim made a number of times at public conferences or during radio programs. I was once a guest on a live radio program debating Nathan Perlmutter in Chicago when he made the claim. It was a central implication of the book by Nathan and Ruth Ann Perlmutter, The Real Antisemitism in America (1982). I will will provide a cite to a printed source as soon as I get back to the office.--Cberlet 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to any criticism of Israel, or disproportionate, demonizing criticism of Israel? Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Two forms. One is that in the current historic moment, anti-Zionism essentially has become a form of antisemitism; and the other is that anyone who questions the right of the state of Israel to exist is an antisemite (which dismisses those anarchists who question all nation states, and antisettlerist radicals who oppose all settler nations as occupying the lands that rightfully belong to indigenous peoples {although this is tricky given the transitions in that part of the Middle East-we should give it all back to the Philistines or Canaanites? but I digress...}).--Cberlet 03:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Anti-Zionism is questioning the right of the state of Israel to exist. And there are indeed people who say this is inherently antisemitic, as it uniquely denies the Jewish people, among all peoples, the right to self-determination. Anarchists "who question all nation states" never seem to actually care about any that shouldn't exist except Israel. Regardless, saying Israel shouldn't exist is not "criticism of the policies of the state of Israel", these are quite different concepts. Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised that you would argue your opinion when what is needed is cited material. At a recent national conference of people concerned about antisemitism on the political left, the discussion was far more complex and nuanced. See these sites: Norman Markowitz - History News Network, Penny Rosenwasser. Please do not argue from emotion. It is not your normal high-level style. You certainly cannot argue, given my publishing and public speaking history, that I am unconcerned with antisemitism.--Cberlet 02:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying here, Chip. I wasn't talking about you, I was pointing out that questioning Israel's right to exist is not the same thing as criticizing its policies. My point remains, I haven't seen examples of people saying mere criticism of Israel is antisemitism. I've heard many sources say that obsessive focus on criticism of Israel, in ways that are disproportionate to both the severity of the issues involved, and to the attention paid to far more serious situations and far more egregious violations, is antisemitic. I still haven't seen anything that contradicts my view (and, obviously, that of Bernard Harrison) that mere "criticism of Israel" is being labeled as "antisemitic" and that that argument is merely a straw man. Can you point to specific sources which do so? Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I see a strawman here, but it's not the same one Jay sees. No, no one says A) "All criticism of Israel is antisemitic." Not even Alan Dershowitz or Abraham Foxman or Marty Peretz say this. And yes, many (including these three) have stressed that they don't believe this, instead arguing that only B) "obsessive focus on criticism of Israel, in ways that are disproportionate to both the severity of the issues involved, and to the attention paid to far more serious situations and far more egregious violations," is antisemitic. The problem with this, pointed out by other writers like Tony Judt and Brian Klug (and I'm in agreement with them here), is that the theoretical distinction between A) and B) often ceases to exist in practice, that writers like Dershowitz and Peretz and organizations like the ADL have defined "legitimate criticism" of Israel down to a nullity (I think it's Klug who uses this word), so that in effect position B) has become tantamount to position A). This is the argument, and it can't be countered by saying, "Well, show me someone who says 'All criticism of Israel is antisemitic'." To counter it in this way is to create a strawman, because the issue is not whether they pronounce this position as a theory, but whether they enact it in practice.--G-Dett 10:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

<---------And what I am saying is that I see both "straw" arguments used all the time, and disagree with both. But for this entry, I would like to talk about how the term "New Antisemitism" is used in different ways by different authors, explain those different ways, and then briefly mention both straw arguments, using quotes from people who make them and do not consider them straw arguments, and then using quotes from people who do consider them straw arguments. Our job here is not to determine the "truth," but help readers understand a complicated term mired in a controversial and often bigoted debate.--Cberlet 14:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well over a year ago, I argued that this article should begin with an explanation of how the term "new antisemitism" (i) has been used in different ways by different authors, and (ii) can refer to different phenomena (whether real or perceived) depending on the perspective of the writer. My suggestion was rejected by other editors, and for pragmatic reasons I decided to focus on other matters.
At this stage, I would fully support a move to revise the introduction, so as to explore the different usages of the term "new antisemitism". Would other editors agree with this course of action? CJCurrie 02:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. This article is meant to be about the term. All material about manifestations of antisemitism in recent years can be added to the Twentieth century and Twenty-first century sections in History of antisemitism, where it will make much more sense. These sections do need a lot of work, as they are at present just stubby and hotchpotches of material transferred in from elsewhere. The twentieth century section should of course have Nazism as its main focus. Itsmejudith 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This seems totally wrong to me, Itsmejudith. The term "New Antisemitism" in current usage refers only to developments that followed the establishment of the state of Israel, and specifically trends that followed the Six Day War. There are already articles on the broader topic of antisemitism; and on Nazism and neonazism that discuss antisemitism.--Cberlet 12:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This is just a misunderstanding, Chip. I'll try and express myself better. The article History of antisemitism should be, as the title suggests, an overview of the whole of antisemitism. It is structured chronologically. When it is properly balanced, the section on the Twentieth century will have to have Nazism as a central question, but other aspects should also be mentioned, such as antisemitism in the United States which is already dealt with in some detail. That article has to have numerous sub-articles to deal with different places and times. Please get back to me if you are not clear what I am suggesting, because I am hoping it is relatively uncontroversial. Itsmejudith 12:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it was my misunderstanding of what you wrote above. Now I see what you meant, and I agree. Ooops. --Cberlet 13:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all. If you had time to add anything to that article it would be much appreciated, I'm sure. Itsmejudith 13:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that is that the authors in question bring all sorts of examples of what they view as New Antisemitism. We can't simply leave them out of the article, they are an essential component of the phenomenon and article. The arguments you make here apply equally well to "Antisemitism" itself, which is defined in different ways by different writers, and in which there is disagreement as to whether specific incidents are antisemitic are not. If examples belong in any antisemitism article, then they certainly belong in this one as well. Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why the History of antisemitism page should not mention the [[New antisemitism] controvery and then direct folks here for details. Meanwhile, does anyone serious object to the contention that "The term "New Antisemitism" in current usage refers only to developments that followed the establishment of the state of Israel, and specifically trends that followed the Six Day War?"--Cberlet 19:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that "New antisemitism" in current usage refers only to developments that followed the establishment of the state of Israel, and specifically trends that followed the Six Day War. BYT 15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Also agree. Itsmejudith 15:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

After 2000

I would also like to see a supplement added to the "History" section, dealing with the emergence of the "new antisemitism" concept after 2000. I'll save that for another post, however. CJCurrie 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I somehow missed all of this when it went up. It all looks very good to me; I would think implementing it step by step is the right approach, and may allow others to see if they have any issues and then consult your specific reasoning. Good stuff. Mackan79 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oesterreicher quote

I notice that a 1983 quote from Monsignor John M. Oesterreicher was removed since I last edited this article. He believed that "prejudice" was the reason Israel was being singled out for criticism. See [3]. Any objection if I put it back in somewhere?--Mantanmoreland 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added since no one objected. While not specifically referencing "new Anti-Semitism" by name, this quote indicates clearly that a leading Roman Catholic theologian embraced the concept.--Mantanmoreland 15:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object, for reasons I've already stated elsewhere (see above). JMO's quote doesn't have anything to do with the "NAS" concept, however defined. CJCurrie 02:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

the pro-globalization/pro-free trade political magazine Foreign Policy

Aside from the rather obvious issue of poisoning the well, which would preclude any of these descriptions of Foreign Policy magazine, you can't make a claim based on your personal interpretation of an interview with one of the magazine's editors. Please review WP:NOR and WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A particularly pointless revert

On the 17th an anon inserted the name "Brian" before a reference to Brian Klug. I could understand inserting the first name if this were the first time he were mentioned, or if he had been mentioned earlier but there had been several intervening sections since which didn't mention him, or more than one Klug mentioned was mentioned in the article. However, the insertion in question was in a sub-section of a whole section devoted to Brian Klug's views, in which he is named no less that a dozen times. His name is used in a large pull-quote, and there is even a picture of him with his name. Do we imagine the reader has suddenly forgotten which Klug we were talking about a couple of sentences earlier? Or are we trying to indicate that this is a different Klug? And yet, when I removed that neoplasm, I was reverted with the claim that "Wistrich is also named, and Wikilinked". Of course Wistrich is named and Wikilinked at that point, since it's the first time he has appeared in the text of the article. You don't see him constantly being referred to as "Robert Wistrich" after that initial introduction. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the first time he's mentioned, Jay. Itsmejudith 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't see that. However, there are eighteen paragraphs in three lengthy sections in between this section and the previous section mentioning him. That is not the case for Klug. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
While I'm glad you acknowledge that Wistrich is both mentioned and Wikilinked earlier in the article, you seem to have only read the first half of my edit summary, Jayjg: Wistrich is also named, and Wikilinked, above, so what's the big deal? It's a new section. My view is that giving somebody's full name at the start of a new section, especially in a long article, is a courtesy and convenience to a reader who uses the TOC, but I'm not going to get into a pissing match over it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Query

Do other editors agree with Isarig's observation that it constitutes well-poisoning to describe the journal "Foreign Policy" as right-of-centre? CJCurrie 23:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do. Nearly all the people and think-tanks are named without any political description or affiliation (except for a few "anti-fascists"). I'm also concerned that the Foreign Policy article is completely silent about the journal's political views, but it seems so important to label them here. I don't know enough about FP to know whether it is, but I might (or might not) have a different view if the other article said that FP were an advocacy publication... — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with "right-of-center"; it situates the argument with regards to free trade, globalization, etc., not with regards to the question of antisemitism. (NAS advocates spread out pretty evenly across the political spectrum, as far as I can tell.) My concern with the Strauss material, however, has less to do with how it's introduced than with what we've elected to quote. Scan up this page to a sentence beginning, "At the same time that we're throwing academic robes over everything..." My misgivings remain now what they were then.--G-Dett 23:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See also: "Myth of New antisemitism"

Is there any reason why there's an external link to "Myth of New antisemitism" under See also as opposed to References or Further reading? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Quite correct to point it out. Changed. Thanks.--Cberlet 01:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and strong comments against NAS

Jeff Halper from israeli committee against house demolitions, was interviewed by norwegian TV (actually on kind of a travel program). I just thought some of his comments may be interesting for the article, though somewhat similar views are probably covered elsewhere in the article. The interview can be viewed here: http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/142202 From 25:00 and onwards a minute or two. He claims NAS is a new cynical pr tool, and that "the NAS says: Every critizism of Israel is anti-semitism." and a few other things. Could this be a useful source? if so, please help yourself! pertn 13:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"A contradictory political ploy" soapbox

The position of critics needs to be in the article, however, this section is just a Finkelstein soapbox. What makes him more of an authority than say Chomsky or other critics? <<-armon->> 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be expanded, and the views of others added. CJCurrie 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice try. What I suggest is that we use scholarly sources on the subject. Norman Finkelstein may be a notable conspiracy theorist and therefore worthy of a mention, but not given this much space where he's presented an authority equivalent to a Bernard Lewis. <<-armon->> 23:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Finkelstein is a published academic. Your POV toward him is not significant. CJCurrie 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well he's an "academic" for the next year or so anyway. <<-armon->> 23:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Any other comments on the WP:UNDUE issue I'm bringing up here? <<-armon->> 23:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Only that the current wording was chosen to prevent any misunderstanding of Finkelstein's position. I could try to shorten his section, if others think this would be an appropriate option. CJCurrie 00:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This section should be expanded. Finkelstein is one of the best sources for this article, having produced one of the most highly regarded works of scholarship on the subject. It is also one of the most thoroughly vetted and peer-reviewed political science books in recent years, due to the extensive legal pressures Dershowitz brought to bear on California government officials and the University of California press in his efforts to have its publication suppressed. Bernard Lewis is an impressive old-school Arabist (and politically controversial in his own way), but his expertise on the subject of this article is not by any serious measure greater than Finkelstein's.

Incidentally, Finkelstein will not cease to be an "academic" after "the next year or so," when the consequences of Dershowitz's character assassination and Stalinist putsch have run their full course. The stature of an academic is decided not by their day job or teaching schedule but by their recognized contribution to the field, and Finkelstein's is major.

At any rate, CJ is certainly right that this section needs to be beefed up. Someone reading the article in its present form might reasonably conclude that the idea of "new antisemitism" is a highly respected scholarly theory, when in fact it is mostly a journalistic trope. And one that had its heyday in the context of the second intifada and the war on terror, but now seems to be quickly approaching its sell-by date.--G-Dett 11:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of avoiding an edit war

(i) Raab and Zipperstein were not merely referring to "criticism of Israel" in their articles. They were instead distinguishing "anti-Israelism" from "anti-Semitism".

(ii) The "response" sub-header was added several months ago, and then deleted by SlimVirgin without an explanation. I've chosen to return it, and I expect that it will not be removed without an explanation.

(iii) The Independent Jewish Voices material is entirely relevant to the subject matter.

(iv) The link to Progressive Jewish Thought and the New anti-Semitism is also relevant.

Please don't revert these changes. If you disagree with the positioning of the Berlet material, let's discuss it here. CJCurrie 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it more than a bit ironic that you start a section titled '==In the interests of avoiding an edit war==" right after making your 3rd revert to the article in less than 20 minutes. It kind of makes it hard to assume you really want to avoid an edit war. Isarig 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
My edits were a response to the unexplained removal of sourced, pertinent information. I'm not going to apologize for them.
In any event, I have a feeling that the current dispute is really about the position of the Berlet section, and the other information has simply become caught in the crossfire. You could demonstrate your willingness to compromise by returning the information mentioned above, if you wish. CJCurrie 23:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the attempt to "bury" the Berlet study, "anti-Israelism" has the same semantic meaning as "Criticism of Israel" but without the scare-quotes, and the position of "Independent Jewish Voices" isn't actually notable. We're not going to turn this into a quote-farm. And yes, 3 reverts in less than 20 minutes tends to undermine your "interest in avoiding an edit war". <<-armon->> 23:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
(i) How does bringing the Berlet study forward in the text constitute "burying it". I'd be perfectly willing to consider returning the sub-header, if that's your concern, (ii) Actually, Raab and Zipperstein did not use the term "anti-Israelism" as synonymous with "Criticism of Israel". Have you read their articles?, (iii) Independent Jewish Voices is a significant group, and their position toward "new anti-Semitism" is perfectly notable. Your decision to exclude them is quite puzzling. CJCurrie 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "anti-Israelism" and "Criticism of Israel" have completely different meanings, but this section of the article throws the two concepts together as if they were the same. All things considered, I prefer "Criticism of Israel" in the title. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
May I ask how you're defining the term "anti-Israelism"? Unless I've misinterpreted their position, Raab and Zipperstein are using it to designate prejudice against Israel based on secular and political considerations, which they argue should be distinguished from anti-Semitism. I don't believe this is quite the same as "criticism of Israel". CJCurrie 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if your question was directed to me or <<-armon->>, but I'll reply. To me, "anti-Israelism" is opposition to the existence of the State of Israel, akin to anti-Zionism. Criticism of Israel is, well, criticism of Israeli policies, and it can come from friend or foe. Most of the Zionists and Israelis I know — both in Israel and elsewhere — engage in criticism of Israel, which is why I wrote that "anti-Israelism" and "Criticism of Israel" are completely different things. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
OK well if you define it like that, I suppose "anti-Israelism" could be antisemitic. However, I think they're using it in the sense that "Criticism of Israel" (i.e. criticism of Israeli policy or actions) is not in itself antisemitic. Nobody on either side of the debate seriously disputes this. <<-armon->> 02:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe this is what Raab and Zipperstein are arguing: their view is that prejudice against Israel, although reprehensible in its own right, is not the same as anti-Semitism. CJCurrie 02:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Response"

By way of an explanation for my change: Wikipedia articles must not only be written from a NPOV standpoint, but should also avoid the appearance of partisan attacks on public figures. Having pictures of Tariq Ali and Noam Chomsky under the heading "The Left and anti-Zionism", in a discussion about perceived new trends in anti-Semitism, could very easily lead inattentive readers to draw an unflattering conclusion (and to miss the point that these authors were responding to general criticisms).

Several editors have removed this sub-header without any explanation. I trust that anyone who wishes to remove it now will first engage with my concerns. CJCurrie 04:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

IJV

I've also returned the material on Independent Jewish Voices, which is at least as significant as the material on the Euston Manifesto. CJCurrie 04:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein paragraph

Armon has removed the following paragraph (which I've long regarded as problematic and possibly superfluous). Do other editors believe that it should be retained:

inkelstein identifies several proponents of the concept of new antisemitism who appear to contradict themselves or each other on the issue of whether to identify Jews with Israel. Phyllis Chesler argues, on the one hand, that "anyone who does not distinguish between Jews and the Jewish state is an anti-Semite," but on the other that "Israel is our heart and soul ... we are family." [1] Gabriel Schoenfeld, the editor of Commentary magazine, writes that "Iranian anti-Semitic propagandists make a point of erasing all distinctions among Israel, Zionism and the Jews," [2] while Hillel Halkin argues that "Israel is the state of the Jews ... To defame Israel is to defame the Jews,"[3] and Italian journalist Fiamma Nirenstein that "Jews everywhere should consider their being identified with Israel a virtue and honor." [4] It would seem to be anti-Semitic, Finkelstein concludes, "both to identify and not to identify Israel with Jews." [5]

CJCurrie 02:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph was indeed problematic for the first reason Armon gave, that it covers writers whose work we haven't discussed. Armon's second object, that Finkelstein "is not an RS on such matters," is of course spurious; Finkelstein is an influential political scientist who has written a highly vetted peer-reviewed scholarly book published by one of the most prestigious university presses in the world on precisely this subject. What Armon means is that Armon doesn't like him, which is a different thing.
Another, deeper problem with this article, which the issue of this paragraph points to, is that we should be quoting the popular writers Finkelstein invokes here, for the simple reason that the concept of "new antisemitism" has enjoyed much greater respect from the popular press than from scholarly sources; this article is dressing up what is largely a journalistic trope as if it were a widely recognized field of academic inquiry.--G-Dett 14:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
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.

Moving "Reports of a left/right convergence"--this is speculative, peripheral, biased and not history

I'm reading through the references that supposedly support the claim that "the far right made overtures to anti-war activists on the left to join forces against government policies in areas where they shared concerns,[18] mainly civil liberties, opposition to U.S. military intervention overseas, and opposition to U.S. support for Israel." It simply isn't there. There is NO documentation that I'm seeing that the right made any overture to join forces. What the Public Eye does seem to be saying is that anyone taking a position that differs from their own editorial view is de facto in league somehow with The Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. However, this is an article about the concept "The New Antisemitism." The Public Eye material is NOT history that's any more than peripherally (and with no small amount of editorial bias) related to this article. saying some fringe anti-Semite sat on a panel in a little anti-war meeting somewhere 17 years ago hardly seems lile encyclopedic documentation that "the far right made overtures to anti-war activists on the left to join forces..." on anything. As to the other examples, they are mixing speculation with fact, namely, the magazines speculation that anti-war rhetoric from tjhe right is directed at progressives--this is far different than any actual evidence of recruitment of th left by the right.Boodlesthecat 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the section has been reverted back without explanation. Wateva. If Wikipedians think a shoddily written, left wing polemic published on a fringe website that would never pass any kind of serious editorial review (making claims such as "the far right made overtures to anti-war activists on the left" that are never backed up in the text) counts as serious "history" of a concept, I'm not gonna argue. Boodlesthecat 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you also see the Chip Berlet piece in the New Internationalist as a poor-quality source? NI is a long-established magazine in the centre-left, Berlet is an experienced analyst, and the piece itself is measured in its language and makes no outlandish claims. Itsmejudith 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Extremely poor quality, relative to its relevance to this article. It's a chatty account of conspiracy theories. It provides zero evidence of a "left-right convergence," (which is the claim it is being used as a reference for), and is full of unsupported bits like "an increasing number of Arabs and Muslims have grabbed onto antisemitic conspiracy theories to explain devastating struggles over land and power." Centre-left tabloid journalism.Boodlesthecat 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)