Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

1974 book

May I suggest that the current section be rewritten? Epstein and Forster's main argument is that the "new anti-Semitism" was highlighted by opposition to Israel: this should be emphasized in a summary of their text. (The peripheral arguments can also be mentioned, but in their proper place.) CJCurrie 03:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The edits by CJCurrie improved the paragraph. I made one minor change for style. The next paragraph, on the 1980s, could now use some work. It talks about the New Left, which was essentially dead in the US by the Reagan years. Were the writers cited for the 1980s writing about current events, or retrospectively, when they mentioned the "New Left"? --John Nagle 05:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus Christ Superstar thing was unclear. Were they offering it as an example of the new anti-Semitism, and if so, what was their argument? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you read the book? There are four pages on "Jesus Christ Superstar", including long quotes from the show. --John Nagle 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What Epstein and Forster were complaining about back then is that it was reviving the old "Jews killed Jesus" thing, in a medium that reached a young, hip new audience. That was the "new" part; the old anti-Semitism got a makeover and they didnt't like it. Pages 90 to 102 are mostly about that musical. Some people were really wound up about that issue back then. --John Nagle 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, that may be so, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein

The new header lists his name and not his argument, whereas the other section headers try to sum up the content. What would people say the basic argument or position in the Finkelstein section now is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That "new anti-Semitism" is a political argument, and is not really about fighting anti-Semitism. CJCurrie 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Could something like that be the header? E.g. "The 'new anti-Semitism' is just a political ploy." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The role of the ADL in creating "new anti-Semitism"

Over at Anti-Defamation League#Claims of a "new" anti-Semitism, there's some key information we don't have in this article:

• In 1974, ADL national leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein published a book called The New Anti-Semitism
• In 1982, ADL national leader Nathan Perlmutter and his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter, released a book entitled The Real Anti-Semitism in America (New York, 1982).
• In 2003, ADL's national director Abraham Foxman published Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (San Francisco, 2003)

In this article, it isn't made clear that those books all came from ADL officials. That's clear in the ADL article, and it needs to be made equally clear here. --John Nagle 18:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Creating" new anti-Semitism? The ADL's most significant function is tracking and exposing anti-Semitism, it's no surprise that various ADL leaders publish books about it. John, I must again strongly remind you that Wikipedia is not a muckraking investigative newspaper, trying to uncover secret plots and conspiracies. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is from Finkelstein. Perhaps it can go in his section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Creating" presumably not in the sense of creating the attitude, but creating the framework, the model, the construct describing the attitude. Of course, whether they did even that is another matter. - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Superstar

I've removed the sentence on Jesus Christ Superstar:

Forster and Epstein's book also contains extensive criticism of pop-culture works that the authors believed were anti-Semitic, notably the 1973 Broadway musical Jesus Christ Superstar, because it blamed Jews for the death of Jesus (p. 93).

It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the topic of this article, which is quite lengthy as is. Perhaps it might go in an article about the book, or about Jesus Christ Superstar, if you really think it's very notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's properly cited, and it shows what was considered "New anti-semitism" back then, so it should stay in. As the history section, which is mostly factual, becomes more comprehensive and better organized, we may be able to cut down some of the more argumentative sections further down and get some space back. It's worthwhile to work on "who said what when". Looking at the historical sequence of events makes this issue clearer. The 70s-80s period is better now. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be properly cited, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this article. All sorts of things have been called "New anti-Semitism" at one time or another, including the racial anti-Semitism of the early to mid 20th century; however, this is an article about the modern concept of "New anti-Semitism", not anything that has ever been called "New anti-Semitism". As stated before, this article is already quite lengthy; please only include items which are on the topic of this article. Also, please avoid insulting edit summaries which refer to my edits as "vandalism"; that's a serious violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is attempting to redefine "new anti-Semitism". We've clearly established that claims of "new anti-Semitism", covering a wide range of perceived offenses, have been verifiably reported by reliable sources each decade since the 1960s. Just because some of those claims may now look silly in retrospect is not cause to remove them from Wikipedia. The historical cultural references help to put the issue in perspective. The article already had references from the 1940s, so the claim that this is an article only about the "modern concept" is demonstrably false. --John Nagle 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're attempting to re-define New anti-Semitism. The academics who described this subject talk about a key set of indicators and actors, and refer to events in the 90s and 2000s; we've clearly established this. The fact that someone used the phrase 30 or 50 years ago to refer to something else is irrelevant for the purpose of this article. Please stop trying to insert prochronisms into this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

John, this article is about the wave of anti-Semitism that almost all writers say began to sweep across Europe in the late 1990s/early 2000s. The mistake you repeatedly make on this page is to tell us what your personal opinions are, when all we're supposed to discuss and write about is what relevant, reliable sources say about this concept, not about some other. Also, I asked you before what you meant by the Jesus Christ Superstar thing "putting the issue in perspective," but you didn't reply and now you've said it again. What issue, and in perspective in what sense? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

History issues

One problem with the history section is that it jumps back and forth between European and US political issues, which tend to differ, without noting the differences clearly. The Trotskyists never had any real traction in the US. Abba Eban is cited as talking about the "new left" in the mid-1980s, quoted from "Anti-Semitism and Zionism: Selected Marxist Writings". But the quote doesn't make it clear whose "new left" he's talking about. US issues were quite different. Also, the role of the USSR in all this needs to be mentioned more. Several of the references mention the USSR, which was providing substantial aid to some Arab countries (especially Egypt) during that period, as being behind various anti-Israel actions. ("Nowhere in the world today is anti-Semitism masquerading under the guise of anti-Zionism more pervasively than in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" - Forster and Epstein, (1974) p. 221.) So there's a substantial Cold War aspect to this. --John Nagle 05:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the Forster and Epstein's work was perhaps a pre-cursor to the modern concept, but it's clearly not about the modern concept. Indeed, how could it be - New anti-Semitism describes events and trends that have mostly occurred in the 1990s and 2000s! This article needs to focus on the modern concept as it is currently deliniated, and studied by academics and other experts; older works which caught very early signs of the trend might be mildly interesting for historical reasons, but the article really can't spend huge amounts of time discussing them as well. Perhaps some of that material could be added to the Anti-Semitism article. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"New anti-Semitism describes events and trends that have mostly occurred in the 1990s and 2000s!" - that's a position statement and arguably original research. Actually, it looks from the cites like somebody (usually an official of the ADL) has relaunched "new anti-Semitism" each decade since at least the 1960s. It's branding, like "New Tide". A classic line in the advertising business is "The two most valuable words you can ever use in the headline are "free" and "new." You cannot always use "free," but you can nearly always use "new" if you try hard enough."[1] --John Nagle 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's what all the academics say, so it's hardly original research. What is original research is the conspiracy theory you are promoting that the Elders of Zion/ADL are promoting a "New anti-Semitism" brand. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, when Wistrich etc. talk about New anti-Semitism, is that part of the ADL conspiracy? When longtime left-wing activist Chesler starts noting anti-Semitism among her leftist friends, is it because she is in the pay of the ADL? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

John, all the academics who write about this agree that the concept this article discusses started in the 1990s/2000s, so that's not OR. The theory you're applying is Norman Finkelstein's. It's fine to add that to his section, but you can't diffuse it throughout the entire article as though it's a fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Relative positions of Graffiti and Anti-War images

I recently swapped the placements of the Manchester graffiti and San Francisco anti-war rally images. My reasoning, which I gave in the edit summary, was that it is very clear that the placard is meant as an example of anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism on the Left, whereas it is not clear at all what the political motivations of the person who made the graffiti were (he might have been left-wing, far-right-wing, or a Muslim who doesn't identify with either the political left or right). So, as I wrote in the summary, I thought both images would be more appropriate to their sections if reversed. But SlimVirgin reverted the change without any explanation, which I found a very surprising action from an administrator whom I have had a lot of respect for. I invite her to discuss why she felt the earlier positioning of the images was better, and where we should end up placing these two images. Andrew Levine 16:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, this has all been discussed before, so if you look through the archives and click on the links in the caption, you'll see why the main image is used. As for the other one, I was about to delete it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue was discussed before, but I don't believe there was ever a consensus agreement on the point. If the phrase "Counterfeit Jews" truly refers to the belief system of some obscure fringe-conspiracy group, then John Nagle's point is correct: it's "off in some weird land of its own", and doesn't deserve to be referenced in this article.

It might be worth noting that this particular matter (the meaning of the "Counterfeit Jews" reference) has been raised before, but never really addressed.

There were references to the phrase in the main body of the article, at one time, but they were quickly reverted. (In fairness, the reverts may have been for unrelated reasons.) [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7],

[8], [9], [10], [11]

In any event, I'm certain we can find a more suitable image. (Perhaps something that references the debate over "new anti-Semitism" would be appropriate.) CJCurrie 07:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC) amended 08:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

CJ, as a gesture of good faith, I'd like to see you start making edits to this article, or comments on the talk page, from the other POV, just for a change. You say you write for the enemy elsewhere, so please do it here, at least for a while. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"The other POV" is already well-represented. Now, could you please address the concerns raised here? CJCurrie 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For some strange reason it appears that everyone who is opposed to the concept of the New anti-Semitism also thinks that fascinating and highly thought-provoking image is "inappropriate", and should be deleted, or failing that at least hidden in some way, though the reasons put forward for its "inappropriateness" vary from day to day. If I weren't overflowing with good faith, I'd think the two were related. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Excuse me? I'm opposed to the concept, but I don't think I've ever suggested that the image be deleted. Clearly, everyone who thinks that the image should be deleted come from the "opposed to the concept" camp, but it would be surprising if that were otherwise, no? - Jmabel | Talk 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the fact that the current image represents the POV of a lunatic-fringe group, and doesn't address the actual debate over NAS. I'll grant that the image is fascinating (in the same sense as a train wreck), but I'd be hard pressed to find its "highly thought-provoking" aspects.

Before you ask, my preferred choice for an introductory image would be the caricature of Ariel Sharon as "Saturn devouring his children" published by The Independent a few years ago. Unlike the present image, that cartoon reflects the more substantive debates over accusations of "NAS" ... and it has the added advantage of being published by a non-fringe source. It's possible that copyright issues would prevent reproduction of the original, but it's been redrawn by amateurs a number of times since then -- surely one of those would be appropriate. CJCurrie 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's unsurprising you'd consider that one to be a better illustration, considering that that one was actually found to not be anti-Semitism, and won a bunch of awards. A strong argument for your side, no doubt, but hardly a good illustration of the concept. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a better illustration because it addresses the *debate* about NAS, and was argued pro and con. I'd be willing to consider something similar, if the Sharon example bothers you for some reason. CJCurrie 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you take a close look at the graffiti poster (Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg), you notice that it says in several places "Counterfeit Jews". That's apparently a phrase from the "End Times" Christians on the far right.[12] In fact, if you go to the page from which the poster was taken[13], the photographer notes "Notice the obscure reference to "Counterfeit Jews." This is apparently part of a little-known anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Africans are the real Hebrews of the Bible, and that those people who now call themselves Jews are all phonies, having stolen the title of the "chosen people" from the Africans, who are the true chosen people." Look up "counterfeit Jews" in Google, and you get a collection of wierd conspiracy theories. Here's an example.[14]. He has a theory that the Jews who emigrated from Russia to Israel after the demise of the USSR are gearing up for Communist Empire 2.0, or something like that. Anyway, that poster isn't "new anti-Semitism", or even mainstream "old anti-Semitism"; it's off in some wierd land of its own. (This is not unusual for San Francisco protest marches).

Finding some better image might be helpful. That one ends up looking silly when examined closely. --John Nagle 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that is weird. Maybe it doesn't belong in the article at all. In any event, the graffiti picture is clearly misplaced in its present state. Andrew Levine 18:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was thinking of deleting it anyway, so I'll go ahead and do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do delete it. You'll remember that a couple of months ago I was basically accused of anti-semitism for questioning its copyright status. Jayjg said, as if it was a crime, that I "didn't like" the image. Too right I don't like it. It must be in line for the most appalling image to appear in Wikipedia. Even so, if it was typical of the images to be seen on demonstrations in western countries then it should definitely be included. But it isn't typical of anything. In the end what does the existence of this image prove about anything? Just that there is an individual twisted enough to produce such a revolting thing. Which unfortunately we knew anyway. Itsmejudith 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the Community Security Trust one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally deleted the "graffii poster" picture, per above. Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg. I wanted to replace it with one of some leftist protest group burning the Israeli flag [15] but can't find anything with a suitable license. Can someone get copyright clearance? --John Nagle 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove that again. Just because people don't comment doesn't mean they agree with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See note above attributed to SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) reading Okay, I was thinking of deleting it anyway, so I'll go ahead and do that. A consensus for deletion seemed to have been reached, after considerable discussion. --John Nagle 04:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't play games; I wasn't talking about the main image. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's best to avoid this kind of deliberately provocative edit, John. Given that there was clearly no consensus for the image's removal, it's pretty extreme bad faith editing to pretend there was. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the main image on this article. It is entirely legal within Wikipedia, relevant to the content, and perfectly appropriate. --Leifern 21:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means do remove the image per User:Andrew Levine's and User:CJCurrie's well reasoned logic and the views of User:Itsmejudith (and myself obviously). (→Netscott) 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep looking for reasons to sweep the dirt under the rug. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Its worth looking at the page from which this photo originated. [16] The author of the page has another image of this poster next to an anti-capitalist poster by the same artist with some text below saying that the guys holding the posters seemed to be from ANSWER - to respond to Andrew Levine, I would say that given this, the political motivations of the artist are pretty clear. If this is the only objection to the image than I think it should be kept. It is very evocative. GabrielF 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The image does a good job of illustrating the concept. I think it should stay as well. FeloniousMonk 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to Felonius. -- Avi 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support a change, for reasons that I've already mentioned. The "Counterfeit Jews" reference in the poster makes it fairly obvious that it represents a lunatic-fringe minority view that predates the NAS debate. (Btw, the fact that people standing nearby "seemed to be from ANSWER" is not proof of a connection.)

On a totally unrelated matter, I just mentioned to Jay a few days ago that some people have been known to drag in 4-5 supporters to create a false appearance of consensus on disputed topics. Ghastly practice. I hope we never see it here. CJCurrie 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't merit a response. CJCurrie 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more than 4-5 people who watch this page regularly and only find a need to contribute sporadically, if at all. But to address your point, CJCurrie, I can think of far more ghastly reasons why some might be choosing to edit this article and its associated talk pages. Can't you? Dasondas 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I can think of several such reasons. Promoting anti-Semitism would be one. Using a dubious image to stifle the tone of discussion would be another. Insinuating that other contributors are anti-Semitic (It's a manipulation! My other favorite: the Joos made them do it.) would be a third. CJCurrie 00:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, then you won't mind me adding my two cents to the discussion. I note from one of your comments below that you don't dispute the anti-Semtic character of the image. That's good and will save me some time. I think the facts that this image so artfully combines diverse iconography using both classical and modern stereotypes and that it was presented publically at a politically left-leaning rally in a city internationally reknowned for liberal attitudes and progressive thought makes it a wonderful image to cap this article. Far from stifling the tone of discussion, I think it serves as a welcoming invitation -- as testified by the recent flurry of activity on this page surrounding discussion of its removal. I understand that you would prefer something more oriented towards the controversies surrounding the concept (and note the plural, for I think that we are talking about more than one debate, no?), but I weigh in with those, such as Elizmr, who would prefer to see the lead image illustrate the fact and not some rarified discussion about the nature of that fact. Dasondas 00:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the image appears to be presented with the intent of "proving" the existence of "new anti-Semitism". Since the entire concept is debated, this is fundamentally the wrong approach. In fact, it's probably OR.

Not at all. As has been said many times, some people will look at the poster and see anti-Zionist/anti-imperialist motifs; others will see anti-Semitism. It's therefore an excellent illustration of the concept. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Some might argue that the image signifies the convergence of several different strands into a new type of anti-Semitism. Others might argue that it signifies nothing more than the opportunism of an anti-Semitic group latching itself onto an anti-war rally. Neither view should be promoted on this page.

It might be worth noting that the image was added at a time with the article defined "new anti-Semitism" as "a perceived new wave of anti-Semitism around the world" (or words to that effect). It might have made sense at the time; it doesn't make sense now.

One way or the other, we can certainly find a more representative image. If Jay and others don't like the Ariel Sharon cartoon, could I suggest an Italian cartoon which featured an Israeli tank threatening the Baby Jesus outside a Palestinian church? (The caption read "Are they going to kill me again?" Unless some ambiguity in the word "they" was lost in translation, the image was both anti-Semitic and relevant to the present debate.) CJCurrie 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the image (or, rather, the presentation of the image) as trying to "prove" anything. I see it as illustrative of a phenomenon, and I don't think that it in any way stifles further discussion or debate about the nature of that phenomenon. In fact, as mentioned above, I think the image and its prominent use invites a lively discussion about that very nature. The image and the context of its use represent what many are calling "New anti-Semitism". Whether it is really new, or just what exactly it is, is a conversation that is practically compelled by that photo. IMO those who have nothing to say about that photo have nothing to say about the subject itself. If it mollifies you at all, I wouldn't have a problem adding to the caption a sentence that said, "Does this represent new anti-Semitism?" or somesuch, although perhaps some of the other editors would be more resistive. And just as we don't know the political motivations or tendencies of the creator of the placard, we can't say with any assurance at all that the use of the term "counterfeit Jew" demonstrates allegiance to a "fringe" group. The placard draws on so many varied motifs that the "counterfeit Jew" reference might have been nothing more than an ornamental afterthought. I agree with you that all we have is the image itself and the context of its public display. However, I think that this specific image and its specific context is enough to make it an emblem of the article itself, and I am sceptical that we will be able to do better. Your suggestion of the "Baby Jesus" image is superior to the "Ariel Sharon" image for a number of reasons, but to my mind it still fails on two significant points: 1) the tank notwithstanding, the main charge depicted is the ancient one of deicide -- nothing new about that, and 2) the political context that frames the image (the seige of the Church of Nativity) is dominant whereas with the San Francisco image the political context is subsumed into the wider theme of anti-Semitism writ large. Dasondas 02:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: (i) This article is about a concept, not a phenomenon. The only "phenomenon" definitively represented by the poster (crazed anti-Semite crashes anti-war party) has never struck me as particularly notworthly, and is certainly not central to the NAS debates. (ii) We may not know precisely what the demonstrator meant by "Counterfeit Jews", but there's nothing stopping us from clarifying the term's historical context. A question like "Does this represent new anti-Semitism?" would be an improvement over the current caption. (iii) The Italian cartoon was widely discussed in the context of "NAS". The SF poster was not. CJCurrie 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(i) I notice that it was you who made that original edit [17]. I am personally disturbed that anybody might suggest that it is debatable whether there has in recent years been an "international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols" or whether these attacks have been "coming simultaneously from three political directions: the left, Islamism, and the far-right". If the debate isn't about the resurgence of attacks or who is perpetrating them, then there is no reason to parse words and avoid calling it a phenomenon. If you want to debate what to call it (e.g. is there such a thing as new anti-Semitism as distinct from anti-Semitism), fine. If you want to debate whether it exists (e.g. are the resurgence of attacks against Jews and Jewish symbols conceptual rather than phenomenal), not fine. Perhaps it is time to revisit the language of that lead paragraph. (ii) If you want to try to develop a relevant sub-section in the article on "Counterfeit Jew", be my guest. (iii) Whose context? Dasondas 03:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(i) This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation. I didn't actually write that edit; Mel Etitis did, following mediation. I posted it, with the approval of all other major parties in the discussion. While I don't personally dispute that there has been an "international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols" from "the [far] left, Islamism and the far right", I dispute that this resurgence adds up to a "new anti-Semitism" in the sense that the term is generally defined. This goes to something else I've been arguing for a while: the term is used in more than one sense, and our article does not accurately reflect this; (ii) I'm not sure a full section is required. I was only thinking of adjusting the caption; (iii) the context in which the term is generally discussed by journalists, wherein the role of Israel is pivotal. CJCurrie 05:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The current illustration perfectly captures the debate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for awhile, but haven't edited. I wanted to say that I think the photograph really sums up the topic of the article in a way that words can't and I would vote for it to stay in the article. It is very hard to find images for Wikipedia that don't have copywrite restrictions. This one doesn't and it is good. The arguments to get rid of it do not seem convincing. Elizmr 23:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to address those arguments? CJCurrie 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK

• "it is very clear that the placard is meant as an example of anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism on the Left, whereas it is not clear at all what the political motivations of the person who made the graffiti". My response: it doesn't really matter what the motivations were for making the image, as much as what the image conveys
• It illustrates the belief system of some obscure fringe-conspiracy group. My response: sorry, didn't get that one
• The illustration should illustrate the DEBATE OVER the new antisemitism rather than the NAS itself. My response: I think it is preferable to illustrate the phenom rather than the debate over it.
• The photo of Sharon eating palestinians (or whatever) would be better. My response: I don't think so. Sharon is a specific figure and the illustration referred to was illustrating a specific point about him personally as well as a larger issue. One's feelings re: Sharon are mixed into one's response. This takes away from the understanding one may gain about the topic under discussion gained from looking at the image meant to illustrate it.
• It looks silly. My respose: This was my personal favorite comment,however it was not a substantive reason for deletingthe image. Elizmr 23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My response: it doesn't really matter what the motivations were for making the image, as much as what the image conveys

Actually, it does matter. See below.

My response: sorry, didn't get that one

"Counterfeit Jews" is an expression used by a lunatic-fringe right-wing movement in African-American culture, members of which believe that Africans are "the true Jews" and actual Jews are "counterfeit". (There are similar movements in other cultures, including the "British Israel" group.) I've never heard of the expression being used by any other organization. These idiots have been around for a long time, and they don't really have anything to do with the debates around "new anti-Semitism". The fact that one of their members seems to have infiltrated an anti-war march isn't particularly notable.

My response: I think it is preferable to illustrate the phenom rather than the debate over it.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. We chose the word "concept" for a reason: there is no consensus that "new anti-Semitism" is a phenomenon as opposed to a theory. The "poster" image is unquestionably anti-Semitic and recent, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the substantive debates around the concept.

I suspect that certain people want to use the poster to *demonstrate an example* of "NAS". It's becoming increasing clear, however, that it represents something else.

If you don't like the Sharon idea, something else can be found. I can't believe the current image is the best we can come up with. CJCurrie 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it. Do we really have a reliable source that the image is from an anti-war rally in San Francisco on February 16, 2003? For all we know he may have painted it himself just to make a point. // Liftarn

It's a manipulation! My other favorite: the Joos made them do it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the tone of discussion. CJCurrie 00:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

let me get this straight : there's actually an argument here that this poster with the swastikas and the devil and the star of david is not a good example to portray the issue in the article ??????? :-o surely I must be reading wrongly. I think this attempt to blank out the image is the weirdest reasoning in the history of wikipedia. Amoruso 00:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The image is certainly anti-Semitic, but it doesn't really address the debates about "new anti-Semitism". CJCurrie 00:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The image came from a left wing anti-war rally. Unless you have some reason to argue that some other type of anti-semitic kook happened to be hanging on at that rally it isn't clear to me what the objection is. JoshuaZ 00:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, I've been at several anti-war rallies and marches where we've had to make last-minute decisions what to do about people who were genuinely anti-war, but were also genuinely Antisemites, and genuinely right-wing (usually nativist). The decisions have varied. In general, there isn't much non-violent one can do to prevent people marching along with a crowd and waving pretty much whatever signs they want, especially when they insist on marching with you and waving their signs. Same problem in dealing with the LaRouchites (who are also genuinely anti-war, cryptically antisemitic, and certainly anti-left, if not clearly on the right). You usually just hope to outnumber them and have them get lost in the shuffle. So it's always hard to know just how much any one sign is reflective of a crowd. But, if nothing else, this one brings together a lot of the elements that are considered by some to combine to form a "new antisemitism", and (except in some the most tendentious hands) there is nothing in the thesis of "new antisemitism" that says that it is entirely a phenomenon of the left. - Jmabel | Talk 01:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That picture captures pretty much the nature of this slightly re-invented antisemitism. As do plenty of other pictures from the same site. Thank you also for pointing out that the problem isn't right or left as such, but rather a problem along a different axis. -- Olve 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If the poster image is to be retained, could I at least suggest that we explain the reference to "Counterfeit Jews". Attempts to do so in April were reverted without comment. CJCurrie 01:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of counterfeit Jews is one of the anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist motifs on the poster. It refers to the idea that European Jews aren't related, or aren't sufficiently closely related, to the Jews who lived in Palestine, and that they therefore have no historic claim to the land. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good ole OR there SlimVirgin... the only source talking about the counterfeit Jew aspect of the poster image (Zombie) is describing the phrase as being related to some crackpot, "This is apparently part of a little-known anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Africans are the real Hebrews of the Bible" group. Which is, given the fact that the gentleman holding the poster is himself of African ethnicity, a rather plausible explanation. Not even the source of the photograph describes it as exemplary of new antisemitism. (→Netscott) 02:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think it's OR? Anyway, that is just *one* of the anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist motifs; there's no need to focus on any one of them when there are so many to choose from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of a possible compromise here: what about including a section on Black Israelites, etc, and then leaving the pic as is? I have no special opinion about whether the pic in question is from such a group: I would lean towards no. But even if it were, a section on their antisemitism (which is not specifically right-wing, AFAICT) might render this discussion moot. IronDuke 03:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the image has anything to do with Black Israelites. It's a graffiti poster from an anti-war rally organized by ANSWER, among others, created by a graffiti artist one of whose images was previously involved in similar controversy. It's anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-globalization, and it features the anti-Semitic motifs that people who complain about new anti-Semitism refer to as the kaleidoscope of hatreds. This image, better than any other I've ever seen, encapsulates that kaleidoscope, with different people reading different things into it. It's therefore a perfect image for this article. That's part of why some people don't like it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you said it exactly...the image encapsulates and perfectly illustrates the kaleidoscope of hatreds that people who complain about new antisemitism say is at the heart of new antisemitism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the fact that it's making people uncomfortable is an indication of how effective it is. This is an uncomfortable topic, one that makes people on both sides angry (on and off Wikipedia), and left feeling they're being unjustly accused of something. The person who created the poster believes it's anti-Zionist; others looking at it believe differently, and it's perfectly possible that both sides are acting in good faith. Our job is simply to show it as a visual representation of the concept, its symbols, its fusion of several very different political positions and, in a sense, the tragedy of it, because of the failure of communication it represents. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in. The present image is highly appropriate in the given context, as the article goes on to show. I see absolutely no need to replace it. JFW | T@lk 13:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, just out of curiosity how were you, "asked to weigh in."? (→Netscott) 13:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Do I have to account for my participation in talk pages? Is there an audit trail? I fail to see why this is relevant to our present discussion. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your wording brought to mind User:CJCurrie's earlier comment (the lowest on the diff). (→Netscott) 22:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I suppose you mean his sad and bitter tirade about people not supporting him.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the image should remain for the reasons well-stated by Dasondas, Elizmr, GabrielF, SlimVirgin and many others. It is a good illustration of at least one of the strains of the "new Antisemitism", that is the ultra-left Anti-Israel crowd. As for CJCurrie's argument about the "Counterfeit Jews," I see no reason to conclude that a phrase like that is limited to one particular fringe group, and therefore no reason to believe that the creator of the poster is part of that group or even aware of its existence. Maybe he/she heard the phrase somewhere and thought it fit in well with the rest of the sign. 6SJ7 20:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Like a virus, antisemitic themes often mutate/reappear in new contexts and their carriers may promote some medieval or racist myth without even knowing its rich history. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder about 6SJ7's methodology in identifying the poster as representative of "ultra-left anti-Israel" sentiment. We may not be able to identify the designer's ideology to any degree of certainty, but no-one seems to be disputing that the phrase is most commonly associated with an *ultra-right* anti-Israel group. Occam's razor says this isn't a mutation at all. CJCurrie 03:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I could be wrong -- but I don't think so. I also notice that I violated my own general policy against using ideological labels except when absolutely necessary. But the fact is, I was not referring to the phrase "counterfeit Jews" as the basis for my labeling, I was referring to the entire poster, as well as the caption. I think of "anti-capitalist" sentiment as the province of the "far left" rather than the "far right" although I know that there are some people who go so far to the right that they come out as anti-capitalists as well. I also have never known the "far right" to use the Nazi swastika as a derogatory symbol, that seems more like a "far left" thing to me. There was also a reference to ANSWER which I am pretty sure is far-left, not far-right. I realize this last point may be "guilt by association" though I don't know that the person who drew the sign is actually "guilty" of anything other than hating Jewish people. As for razors, I prefer the no-brand triple-blade cartridge model they sell at Walmart. 6SJ7 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the derogatory use of a Nazi swastika would be out of place in most far-right images, but I think you may be extending too much credit to the sign's creator if you think he's capable of such rational insight. We may be extending him too much credit in assuming he comprehends any ideology. CJCurrie 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Relative positions of Graffiti and Anti-War images II

Remind me, Slim: how many credible sources have referenced this image in the context of "new anti-Semitism". CJCurrie 05:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least California's Green Internet Society uses the image . Surprisingly, they don't label it "new anti-Semitism", they just seem to be new anti-Semites. Maybe not a reputable source, though arguably relevant in this very context. Zionist International's skilled manipulators are ready to exploit the issue, of course, wondering why they didn't find the poster at a neo-Nazi or KKK rally. ...the image is a fitting as can be, every which way. --tickle me 08:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I really must say that the jist of the arguments about why the picture cannot stay really confuses me. First they tried to suggest that the copyright on the image was somehow illegal according to wikipedia. When this was shown not to make any sense according any copyright laws in the developed world they moved on to the cryptic accusation that the picture wasn't actually taken in the time or place it says it was, in this case people only had to point out that it was also possible the the picture of the Hagia Sophia was only a model in someone's bedroom (or bathroom maybe), then they suggested that by virtue of the fact that they disagree with the picture's inclusion we should completely accept every suggestion that they have made "as a sign of good faith", in this case others only pointed out that the fact that three or so editors are screaming at the top of their lungs should not be a reason for removing an image which adaquately conveys the article's subject. Now these same editors seem to be demanding that the image be taken down because the phrase "counterfeit Jews" must mean (without any source I might add) that the poster's creator must be "really really anti-semitic" which I suppose is a different variety of anti-semitism from the "New anti-semitism" that this article is actually about. If these arguments are the best that these editors can come up with over the course of 6 months, I think it might be time for them to consider moving on with their lives.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Another one was that we couldn't use it under our policies because we didn't know the name of the copyright holder. When we tracked down the name, we were told it had to be added to the image page. When I added it to the image page, I was told the image had to be deleted because we were libeling a living person. When I removed the name and added "name available on request," attempts were made to add the name to this article in order to promote the libel claim. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this: there's no logic in highlighting a lunatic fringe group when we could more easily find something that addresses the actual debates surrounding NAS. I have to wonder why every argument in favour of *finding something better* is so quickly shot down. CJCurrie 04:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie: Instead of making arguments, perhaps you could grace the community with an example of what you might regard as "something better"? If you have such a revulsion for the plain naked truth demonstrated by the image in question, why not find one that better presents your view of reality? Enough kneejerk remarks. A bit more "show" please, and a bit less "tell". Or do something constructive for the article, like fixing typos. Here's an example of how that's done. Thanks, Tomer^talk 08:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In fairness to CJCurrie, with whom I disagree vehemently on this particular point, he has suggested two alternatives (please scan the above discussion for more detail). Both of these, IMO and in the opinion of several other editors who have written, are seen to be inferior choices for a variety of reasons. So while agreeing with you, Tom, as to the substance of the argument we still should be fair to our opponents in the debate. Dasondas 08:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In fairness to me, with whom I agree wholeheartedly, I looked at CJCurrie's proposals, and they were utterly preposterous. Salut, Tomer^talk 08:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could have saved some talkpage space if you had said that in your first post. Dasondas 08:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...we could just petition to have the talk page deleted of course... The Project would probably be better off for it... Tomer^talk 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The connection between Israel (as JEWS like depicted), World Domination and Nazism is pretty much the definition/argument of new anti-semitism... I still didn't understand what's the debate about. Amoruso 10:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Boiled down to their essence, my objections are as follows:

(i) The current image is obviously anti-Semitic, but likely represents the POV of a fringe group whose existence predates the arguments over "new anti-Semitism". (ii) Much of the controversy around "NAS" concerns the sometimes ambiguous relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, and the point at which one is seen to carry over to the other. By choosing an unambiguously anti-Semitic image (and I don't believe any rational person would doubt that it is), we're diminishing the significance of the actual debate. (iii) The only POV that our image demonstrably represents is that of a single idiot in a single parade. Newspaper cartoons (such as the ones mentioned above) are undoubtedly of greater public significance.

I could add:

(iv) I would not object to the image appearing elsewhere in the article. I simply believe it does a poor job of encapsulating the *debates* around NAS, and hence makes a poor introductory image.

I don't think any of this is getting through ... CJCurrie 02:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It shows up on my screen... Tomer^talk 07:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, don't despair. Although there is a lot of heat around here, I still see plenty of light shining through the thicket of incivility and gibberish. Your message is getting through. Taking your points in order: i) while using a catchword of what appears to be a smallish clique peripheral to the larger discussion, we have no sound basis for speculating as to the afilliations of the people who designed and displayed the placard ii) this image, while clearly anti-Semitic, does make prolific use of common anti-Zionist iconography and invective and therefore invites the debate you seek by facilitating a discussion about the extent to which the anti-Zionist and anti-capitalist elements of the image reinforce or stand separate from the anti-Semitic conveyance. By seeking an image for which there will emerge a broad consensus as to its ambiguity between anti-Semitism and non-anti-Semitic anti-Zionism, I think you are in pursuit of a chimera. iii) Journalistic endorsement is certainly one medium of expression germane to this discussion, but so is public display at liberal political rallies. The range of populist political rhetoric witnessed at Durban and Porto Alegre are arguably more central to the debate at hand than the siege of the Church of the Nativity (to refer to one of your suggested alternatives to the current image) and this placard was far from the only one at that San Francisco anti-war rally expressing similar sentiments. iv) I have previously suggested that you might try negotiating the content of the caption under the photo rather than its removal to another location. I am much too new to this article and have far too little credibility here to attempt any type of mediation whatsoever, and, indeed, I don't yet know how I would react to any proposed changes in the captioning. However, it is the best suggestion I have for you at this point if you are looking for a productive compromise. Dasondas 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Forster and Epstein

Could we say more about what's meant by "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 Spartacus League"? It's currently not clear what it refers to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

They wrote "It is important to distinguish between the two left-wing movements in the world today: the democratic, liberal left and the totalitarian left". (p. 8) The "democratic liberal left" was seen as pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. The "totalitarian left" (or "Radical Left") "fails to eschew anti-Semitism and actively uses hostility against Jews as a weapon in its political struggle". They have a long list of organizations from the Radical Left; the ones listed were the ones notable enough to have Wikipedia entries.

What had them worried was that the Radical Left (usually called the New Left by its proponents) was closely tied to the Black Power and anti-war movements, which still had considerable political strength in 1974. Opposition to Israel from the Radical Left they trace to the Six-Day War of 1967. (p. 11) "New anti-Semitism", in their view, was born shortly after that war, when the Radical Left was at its peak, and grew as the Vietnam War wound down and attention moved to other conflicts.

So that's where and how they say "new anti-Semitism" started. --John Nagle 19:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. Perhaps some of it could be added to clarify the section? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Epstein had been running the ADL since 1947, and his previous books ("Danger on the Right", 1964, and "The Radical Right: Report on the John Birch Society and its Allies", 1967) were about trouble from the American political right.(p. 6). Trouble from the left was new and unexpected. So they titled their book "The New Anti-Semitism". --John Nagle 17:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews Against Zionism and Neturei Karta

Where do True Torah Jews Against Zionism fit into all this? They're a group of Orthodox Jews in New York who oppose Zionism. They apparently can turn out a crowd of 10,000 in New York City for a protest against the Israeli Embassy, so they're a reasonably large group. Their position statement begins "We implore and beseech our Jewish brethren to realize that the Zionists are not the saviors of the Jewish People and guarantors of their safety, but rather the instigators and original cause of Jewish suffering in the Holy Land and worldwide. The idea that Zionism and the State of “Israel” is the protector of Jews is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Jewish People. Indeed, where else since 1945 have Jews been in such physical danger as in the Zionist state?!"

There's also Neturei Karta, International Jews United Against Zionism, which has similar positions but seems to be more active in Britain and Israel. They report violence against Orthodox Jews in Israel by Zionists.[18] Is that "new anti-Semitism"?

Not sure what to make of this. --John Nagle 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is. Do you have a reliable source giving it as an example of new anti-Semitism? Somehow I doubt that you do, and if you don't, there's no point discussing it on this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in a "Jews Against Israel" article[19] defines Jewish opposition to Israel as "new anti-Semitism". "It is no longer relevant who the author is and whether he is Muslim, Christian, atheist, communist, Maoist, Trotskyite, Socialist, Liberal, neo-Nazi, Israeli or Diaspora Jew." They list Neturei Karta as one organization opposing Israel. So there's a reasonably authoritative, although not neutral, source for that definition, with an explicit reference to one of the groups mentioned. --John Nagle 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the purpose of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is supposed to present faithful descriptions of what reliable sources have said on a topic, then no, there doesn't appear to be much relevance. However, if the purpose of Wikipedia is to write original research in order to expose various Jewish and Zionist conspiracies, and to "out" the TRUTH about organizations like the ADL, then I can see where it would be quite relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A comment on this from a neutral party would be appreciated. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel Jay is any less neutral than yourself on this matter? Just curious. -- Avi 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who lives near NK members in the US, I can tell you that they are extremely fringe (lunatic fringe comes to mind). Even the anti-Zionist Satmar Chasidim did not consort with murderers of innnocent Jews, as does NK. Torah True whatever is even smaller and newer than NK. So we are talking about a few thousand people, at most, out of tens of millions of Jews, and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Jews worldwide. Both of these are classic cases of what WP:NPOV#Undue weight considers the tiny minority whose opinion does not belong in any article, other than the article about the fringe groups themselves. -- Avi 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering how frequently David Duke references appear in Israel-related articles, including this one, that seems to be a marginal argument. True Torah Jews claims to have mobilized 10,000 people for a demonstration in New York, and pictures do show a street full of people in black hats carrying their banners, so it's not just a few people. We still have that "counterfeit Jew" graffiti poster in the article, even though that's from an even smaller group. The notion of "undue weight" seems to vary depending on which side the organization is on. --John Nagle 20:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The million man march claimed a million people too, John. Pictures of 300 people look like a lot. They are so marginal as to be a violation of undue weight to add them. -- Avi 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Judaism has only a 0.22% market share worldwide.[20]. That's arguably marginal. More to the point, I'm the only editor so far in this section to cite any real sources, although Jayjg (talk · contribs) did add links of questionable relevancy to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Satan. I'm not seeing any counterarguments cited to reliable sources. I'll wait a day or two to see what comes in, but so far, I'm not seeing anything that justifies excluding this material from the article. --John Nagle 22:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than WP:NPOV#Undue weight, of course . Yes Judaism is marginal, but Anti-Semitism relates to Judaism, so that argument is specious and facetious. Secondly, according to your own statistics, NK would have approximately a 0.00000066% market share, do you realize how rediculous that sounds? I think I now need to ask for a “neutral” editor to weigh in, for you have not answered my points -- Avi 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Satmar sect (the "True Torah Jews"?) apparently number about 120,000, with the biggest concentration (25,000 to 50,000; numbers vary [21]) in Brooklyn, New York City. The Neturei Karta are apparently much smaller; the only number I can find is 1200, and that's not from a good source. The Satmar are numerous enough to be a force in New York City politics. --John Nagle 03:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

John, do you have a source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Satmar and Neturei Karta are quite different; the former dissassociate themselves from the latter, and, indeed, signed a joint media statement condeming NK a couple of years ago. As well, the paper you are citing states Many gentile assaults use statements from Israeli or Diaspora Jewish defamers as a way of legitimizing their attacks on Israel or Jews. Furthermore, a small number of anti-Israel Jews enable the media to present a Jewish community divided on key Israeli policy. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz mentions that the Boston Globe published two pictures of Israel's 55th anniversary parade: one of pro-Israel groups carrying flags and the other of the Neturei Karta, a small ultra-Orthodox group at a counter-demonstration, carrying banners that included the slogan "real Jews are anti-Zionists." This created the impression that an equal number of Neturei Karta and Zionists attended the parade. It doesn't bring Neturei Karta as an example of New anti-Semitism, but rather highlights the deceptive treatment of groups like NK which allows people to pretend that there is significant division in the Jewish community, rather than significant consensus with (as always) a few cranks disagreeing. In fact, your own section here is a perfect example of what Dershowitz and the paper are pointing out. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Neturei Karta is small enough to ignore, but Satmar is large enough to be notable. That's a start. --John Nagle 16:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Satmar <> Torah True Jews. The TTJ's might also be Satmar Chasidim for all I know (they could also have nothing to do with Satmar), but they are not operating under the auspices of the Satmar Rebbe and Satmar establishment as far as I can tell. -- Avi 05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

John, can you say whether you have a reliable source that gives Neturei Karta as an example of new anti-Semitism? The paper you cite from Gerstenfeld says the opposite: he discusses "gentile assaults" that use statements from "Israeli or Diaspora Jewish defamers as a way of legitimizing their attacks on Israel or Jews." An example he gives is the misuse of Neturei Karta, who are used to give the impression of significant opposition, when in fact they are a tiny, fringe ultra-Orthodox group.

You appear to be doing exactly what Gerstenfeld was describing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

Surprising. Indeed surprising. How come there is no mention of what Lewis's definition of Anti-Semitism is? And that what Anti-semtism is NOT. Who wrote this section? Please let me know. --Aminz 11:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You've already had this discussion, over a month ago: please see #Lewis and Taguieff above. Perhaps you forgot. In any event, can you please explicitly state exactly which sentences or paragraphs you think violate NPOV, and why? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, may I ask who wrote that summary. I have a few questions for that person. Thanks very much. --Aminz 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, why do you want to know? I suspect it was SlimVirgin, since (as I noted) you discussed it (above) with her at the time. Anyway, please explicitly state exactly which sentences or paragraphs you think violate NPOV, and why; otherwise the tag will have to go. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is surprising to me that there is no mention of Lewis's two criterion of checking whether something is anti-semitism or not (despite my discussions with SlimVirgin above). These were the main points of Lewis. This section is written in a way to make it sound as if Lewis is agreeing with what was already said in this article. Nothing about the following saying of Lewis for example:

There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic.

I added something to the intro but it was removed immediately; now I see this section. --Aminz 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, we discussed this before. This article is about the concept of the new anti-Semitism, so we are only interested in what Lewis has to say about that specifically. We can't go into his views in general; there isn't enough space for one thing but they also aren't relevant or, insofar as they are, he explains them himself in the article cited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you this question: The title of Lewis's article is about "new anti-semitism". Why does he talk about anti-semitism there? When he is talking about anti-semtism in modern world and its examples, is he talking about new-anti semtism or the old one? --Aminz 07:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

When he talks about anti-Semitism in the modern world, he's almost certainly talking about what he calls the third wave or new anti-Semitism. But it would depend on the context. Do you have an example? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The *opening* paragraph of his article on "new anti-semtism" reads

There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic.

Do you think this refers to current anti-semtism or the old one? --Aminz 07:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say it refers to any kind of anti-Semitism: religious, racial, or ideological. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly in the context of criticizing the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism. Do you think it is *not* in the context of new anti-semtism? (Also please note that this is the opening paragraph on the article). --Aminz 07:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I would say it refers to any kind of anti-Semitism. But I don't see the point of the question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question just to make sure I've understood it correctly: you think that the above quote is about anti-Semitism in general and therefore could not be used in this article since it is irrelevant to new anti-semitism. --Aminz 07:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Perhaps you could just make your point rather than asking me questions. The reason I left that quote out of the section is that other people have said the same thing, so it's not part of Lewis's unique argument about new anti-Semitism (as opposed to anti-Semitism in general), which is that he regards it as a third wave. We can't repeat everything that every source we use has ever said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why I asked just to make sure I haven't misunderstood your sentence "This article is about the concept of the new anti-Semitism, so we are only interested in what Lewis has to say about that specifically."

Here are my concrete suggestions:

Clearly Lewis is a proponent of the concept. But his POV is not included in the sentence :"Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland, are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism."

So, I suggest this:

"Some proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland, are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism. Other proponents hold that new anti-semtism does exist but it is "perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism" and even further "to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic".

Also,

We start the opening of the subsection on Lewis like the opening of his own article. --Aminz 08:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding Lewis to the intro, because we don't cite anyone else's particular views, but I've added something to his section to reflect your concerns. Does that help? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I modified it a bit. But Lewis is very notable. He is a proponent of the concept and doesn't "argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland, are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism." This sentence is quite unfactual. --Aminz 09:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the meaning of NAS? --Aminz 08:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lewis is very notable as a historian of Islam. What makes him notable on the topic of New anti-Semitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lewis for the third time

Aminz, the material you added to the intro has nothing to do with NAS. First, we can't single out Lewis's opinion for the lead, because why choose that source and not some other? More importantly, when he wrote: "to hate and persecute Jews is not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism," he wasn't talking only about new anti-Semitism. He was making a general point and using a rhetorical flourish to make it (because in reality, as you know and as Lewis knows, anyone who "hates and persecutes Jews" is going to turn out to be an anti-Semite). The material is completely inappropriate for the lead section because it's far too idiosyncratic and not on-topic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you keep trying to insert in various places that Lewis said that "criticism of the state of Israel or Zionism" is not necessarily anti-Semitism. But all the sources would agree with that, so it's inappropriate to attribute it only to him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making a section for me. :P Can you please solve this contradition for me. 1. "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism. " 2. Bernard Lewis is a renowned, distinguished, notable,... scholar. 3. Bernard Lewis is a proponent of the concept

(1 & 3) --> "Bernard Lewis argues that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism."

But this sentence is not correct --> The factuality of the intro is disputed. --Aminz 08:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think it is not correct? Lewis holds the view that NAS is ideological anti-Semitism, based on opposition to the State of Israel and involving the demonization of Israel/Jews and the holding of them to standards not applied to others. Those are his two key criteria. The lead describes proponents' views in general; we can't get into the specifics of what each person thinks in the lead section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Will read the article more closely again and will get back. :) --Aminz 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have only read Lewis's work(and part of Mark Cohen's work) about anti-semitism. It is a new concept for me hadn't heard before. So, that's all I knew about it and I try to be factual. --Aminz 08:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for telling us that. I think that may be the source of the problem. You appear to feel that Lewis's work is particularly important in the field of NAS, but it isn't. It's certainly worth mentioning, and even worth a section, but definitely not so important that it needs to be specifically highlighted in the lead or emphasized outside his section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lewis's area of expertise is not anti-semitism of course, but the template on "Anti-Semitism" mentions Lewis as one of the writers on Anti-Semtism and in any case, I am a fan of his. Anyways, the article should be written in a way (if necessary using weasel words) to avoid POV problems. --Aminz 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words are best avoided, and there's no POV problem with saying "proponents of the concept argue ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If a very recent reliable source says that "all proponents argue that way", then I'll have no objection to it. Please give me time to review Lewis's article again. Cheers, --Aminz 09:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine any source saying that every single proponent makes every single one of these points, but then if we had to source things that way, 99 per cent of the encyclopedia would have to be deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, Lewis is very notable when it comes to the history of Islam. What makes him particularly notable when it comes to New anti-Semitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not notable enough for his ideas to be singled out in the lead section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Two historical threads

I think I'm starting to see why we're having so much trouble here figuring out the history. There seem to be two main threads in "new anti-Semitism". The first is the left/liberal opposition from the New Left/Radical Left of the 1960s and starting at the Six-day war of 1967. That's what Forster and Epstein talk about, writing in 1974. That thread lives on, today tied to the anti-globalization movement. But it's mostly talk, not violence. Endelman, writing in 2005, describes it as "worrisome, but not yet threatening" (Endelman, "Antisemitism in Western Europe Today", p. 77)

The other thread stems from the movement of sizable Islamic populations into Western Europe. That's the part that dates from the 1990s. That's where the violence is coming from. "Muslim youth, drunk on the heady rhetoric of radical Islam, do threaten Jews". (Endelman, p. 77)

Most of the disagreement stems from different interpretations of how these two threads, both real and both called "new anti-Semitism", relate to each other. Sources disagree on this, and US and Western European views seem also to differ. --John Nagle 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Both strands together are being identified as NAS. What's your source for "That's the part that dates from the 1990s"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've been arguing for quite some time that the term has multiple meanings, and I am in general agreement with this assessment. CJCurrie 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Then find a source who backs you up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's turn that around: do you think a majority of writers on "NAS" are in agreement with the definition in this article? CJCurrie 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

All the books and articles by proponents that I have read describe those aspects; some concentrate more on one or another aspect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mightn't we clarify that in the intro? CJCurrie 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both these comments. It is bound to be difficult to write with consensus about such a strongly contested concept/notion. There has been similar controversy, for example, in how the article totalitarianism should be approached. But at least in that case the description of that concept is kept separate from the recounting of the history of the period to which it mainly relates. Telling the history of anti-semitism from the 1990s to the present would be a much easier task and one that is arguably more useful to the encyclopedia. If it were completed first then perhaps it would be possible to return to this article with new understandings. Itsmejudith 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's tough. The context back to the six-day war gives some sense of how the liberal left and radical Islam, rather unexpected allies, ended up on the same side in parts of Europe. But we could probably drop the material from the 1940s, Stalin, and the "Doctor's Plot", which really belongs to the history of Stalinism, and start at the six-day war in 1967. --John Nagle 22:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the editors who have done very little or no reading around the subject who are agreeing with the hypothesis (which is very unclear). There's not much point in that. We publish what the most authoritative sources on the subject have written. That is all we do. Therefore, those sources have to be read. There's no point in uninformed speculation about what they might say if you were to read them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

John, it was Chris O who added the large pre-1967 chunk, which was initially longer than this. I've never been very happy about its inclusion, as none of us has read the entire history of the development of anti-Semitism, so it's impossible to know whether the section is too selective. This is probably a good article to read about the background; it's Wistrich explaining what he sees as a new form of anti-Semitism (or new wave) to the President of Israel in 1984, where he talks about anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and the Soviet influence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not watching this talk very closely. What the Soviets (and many after them: notably the Left and the Arab world) called "anti-Zionism" - that includes the "Doctor's Plot", was very much antisemitism. Let me know if you need evidence. Stalinism is concerned with the political system, NKVD/KGB and the cult of personality. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming into New antisemitism

Courtesy notice because this page is so active. I think the move is due, per Talk:Antisemitism#Survey. Objections? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I would have opposed the anti-Semitism rename, but since it's happened we may as well be consistent. --Coroebus 16:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

None here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now to fixing double redirs]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

About the header

Ashibaka, I reverted your change of the first header, because the current header asks what the concept is, and the next few sections explain what it is; to use the word "emergence" instead would be incongruous with most of the sections, except for history, and it begs the question: emergence of what? We are saying it's a concept; by using the word "emergence," you're implying it's a real phenomenon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term "emergence", meaning the emergence of "New Antisemitism" as a phrase, isn't quite adequate to describe the subheadings. However, "What is the concept of the new anti-Semitism?" is a totally unacceptable heading because it is stated in the form of a question rather than a noun phrase. Besides, the entire article is supposed to answer that question. So, someone needs to come up with a good noun phrase for the subheadings, or remove the top-level heading entirely. (Also, someone needs to go substitute "antisemitism" for "anti-Semitism" throughout the article except for quotes... eew.) Ashibaka tock 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ashibaka, I personally don't see anything wrong with having a question as a header. The whole article doesn't answer that particular question, just the first section; the rest gives examples of where it's coming from and who has responded to it. So it seems appropriate in that sense. We could try "Arguments for and against the concept." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Although the history section wouldn't fit into that very well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit looks good, Ashibaka. Thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein & Laqueur

Finkelstein calls Walter Laqueur "an Israel stalwart" and attempts to describe Laqueur's position. I don't think NF does him justice: the stalwart left Israel in 1953. Here is something from Laqueur's 2006 book "Dying for Jerusalem: The Past, Present and Future of the Holiest City": "I never was a Zionist if this implied the ingathering of all the exiles, but I could not possibly be an anti-Zionist for it would have meant turning against those who had saved my life. The anti-Zionists would have make me believe, in effect, that I should have committed suicide together with thousands belonging to my generation rather than immigrate to a country that was not altogether empty." (p.15) I have provided a relevant (IMHO) Laqueur's quote in the article. Feel free to shuffle it around. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fact tag

I removed the fact tag from the intro that asked for a source for the claim that "classical" antisemitism was largely associated with the political right. I can't see who added it. Did someone really want a source for that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely do want a source for that, more than one in fact being that it is in the lead. What is the basis for largely associating traditional anti-Semitism with the political right? Dasondas 17:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dasondas, did you read the article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a source as requested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, um, yes I did read it and didn't find anything to support your contention. On the other hand, I did find this in the article (empahsis added) "[Dr. Brian] Klug defines classical antisemitism as 'an ingrained European fantasy about Jews as Jews,' arguing that whether Jews are seen as a race, religion, or ethnicity, and whether antisemitism comes from the right or the left, the antisemite's image of the Jew is always as 'a people set apart, not merely by their customs but by their collective character.'" I also note that Dr. Robert Wistrich, who is cited extensively in the article, had this to say in the lead of his 2005 article European anti-Semitism reinvents itself (again, emphasis added), "Once considered the preserve of reactionary clerics, conservative nationalists, fascist bigots, and ultra-radical leftists, Judeophobia has undergone a radical mutation in recent years." I don't doubt that other sources may place attribution squarely at the feet of the political right, but this is not a consensual POV nor is it historically accurate -- one need only think of Voltaire's "Jews are the enemy of mankind" or Stalin's purges to provide a modern historical frame for the counter-position to this article's (and, apparently, your own) thesis. SlimVirgin, I am quite open to discuss with you the manner in which we address this issue and the language to be used within the article, but address it we must. Do you have any thoughts on how to proceed? Dasondas 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by not finding anything in Endelman. He says explicitly:

[B]efore the Second World War, the right, rather than the left, was the paramount source of hatred and contempt for European Jews. Historically, liberalism promoted legal emancipation and social integration, the free movement of persons and property, while conservatism stood for the maintenance of the old regime, with its ranks, corporations, and restrictive practices. At the turn of the century, it was the left, not the right, that in France came to Dreyfus's defence and in Britain fought immigration restrictions. In Germany and Austria, the ferocity and omnipresence of antisemitism everwhere on the right guaranteed that Jews would find a political home om the left — whether among liberals, social democrats, or communists. This is no longer true." (Endelman, Todd. "Antisemitism in Western Europe today," in Penslar et al. Contemporary Antisemitism, 2005, p. 69)

The other sources you quote support the same position i.e. that it used to be largely (note: largely, not entirely) the preserve of the right, but now is not. Who would you say says otherwise? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My thinking is that making clear it was "largely" associated with the right takes care of any possible exceptions. We could add a foonote outlining the complexities if that would help. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(removing indent) First, thanks for providing the Endelman quote; as you know it does not appear in the article, so it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that I somehow missed it. Second, I have provided quotes from two eminent scholars who take issue with your thesis. As further evidence, I provide another quote from from Klug, "In Europe, its original home, antiSemitism is an old and deeply rooted cultural trait that from time to time (as in the League of Anti-Semites) has found political expression", and one more from Wistrich, "[W]e find across the cultural and political divides an astonishingly similar conspiracy theory of history, society and politics, integrated into a closed system of belief and salvationist politics whose exchatological drive is always directed against the Jews." It seems as if these two distinguished scholars, who in other respects are on opposite sides of important questions regarding this topic, theorize that "classical" anti-Semitism transcends in many aspects traditional policial labels, and therfore our article as currently written fails to incorporate the thinking of these scholars. So I take exception to your assertion that the qualifier 'largely' "takes care of any possible exceptions". Again, other than digging in, do you have any thoughts as to how to proceed? I have some, but I would prefer to defer to you to the extent possible given your long and important history with this article. Dasondas 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that there are many sources listed in the article who say the same thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right that it would be simplistic to say classical anti-Semitism was found only on the right, but that it was "largely associated with" the right is a statement I think no scholar would disagree with. Those details are best developed in the article on anti-Semitism. You said you had some thoughts about how to reword this. Can you say more? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me a little time to think about a formulation that might work well without disturbing the balance of the article. I'll try to get something done in the next few hours, but non-virtual life may intervene for a little while. However, it's important to me and I wouldn't have engaged you if I didn't intend to follow-through so don't worry -- I'm not going to be wasting your time. One possible line of attack may be to stress the racial rather than political underpinnings of classical anti-Semitism, as this is a line of argument for which there seems to be a wide scholarly consensus. Dasondas 21:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(removing indent) SlimVirgin, I suggest the following modification to the sentence in question, The concept is used to distinguish this wave from "classical" antisemitism which is widely considered by scholars and others to be rooted in concepts of religious or racial identity {footnotes here} and historically, with several important exceptions, has found expression in nationalist or reactionary political movements {more footnotes here, perhaps Endelman although I suspect there’s better to be found}. At the first set of footnotes I can cite Wistrich and Klug (I’ll spend some time looking for the best representative quotes to cite in the notes) and also Abba Eban who wrote in ‘My People’, "By far the most solid conceptual support for modern anti-Semitism as it developed in Western Europe came from the theory of racism which was a doctrinal element in conservative Geman nationalism in the nineteenth century." This solution would allow us to preserve (strengthen, actually) the article's existing argument for political association while simultaneously probing deeper into the underlying nature of the pathology -- all in one sentence. What do you think? (Btw, as an aside, the “important exceptions” that come readily to mind are Luther during the Protestant Reformation, Voltaire and others during the French Enlightenment, and Stalin during, well, Stalinism. Also as an aside, it’s important to recall that the nationalist anti-Semitisms of late 19th century Germany and Czarist Russia involved anti-capitalist motives while the reactionary anti-Semitism of the Nazis utilized the atheistic ideas of the left-Hegelians, whose philosophies informed not only the revolutionary Marx (in a Norm Finkelsteinian kind of way) but were perversely co-opted (along with the anti-Christian ideas of Nietzche) by Hitler who didn’t plan to let Christianity hang around much longer than he did Judaism. Both of these tendencies (anti-capitalism and anti-Christianity) are a far cry from what most readers would associate with the “political right” these days. Anyhow, these are all reasons why I had a visceral reaction to using the term “political right” – while perhaps it isn’t technically incorrect, it is IMHO quite misleading to phrase it as such without historical context – such context, as you rightly noted, being beyond the scope of the present article). I look forward to your comments. Dasondas 04:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder about the wisdom of producing more complexity in the intro. For Islamists, for example, their expressions of anti-Semitism are still rooted in religious identity, and yet are seen as very much part of the new anti-Semitism by those who believe it's a real phenomenon. Endelman is a good source by the way; he's William Haber Professor of Modern Jewish History at the University of Michigan, and so really couldn't be more appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First, on Endelman, I in no way meant to disparage him as a source; far from it. What I intended to convey was that in the cite you provided, my problem, as I mentioned above, is with the lack of historical context to distingusih between the "political right" of today and the "political right" of one hundred years ago. Endelman is obviously aware of the distinction; my comment was meant to suggest that there are certainly sources that make that distinction more explicit in the exposition. As to your point about Islamists, I will counter that their religious identity is inseparable from their political identity and that one of the key distinguishing features that scholars point to when arguing for the existence of new anti-Semitism is the emergence of political factors as the primary motivators of the phenomenon rather than as agency factors to more primal religious and/or racial expressions. The new element that allows observers to make a distinction between modern-day Islamic anti-Semitism and "classical" Islamic anti-Semitism is the political element of Israel rather than any recent innovations in Islamic religious identity or Islamic attitudes towards Judaism. As to your reluctance toward introducing more complexity, I'm reminded of Einstein's phrase (or, paraphrase perhaps) "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Right now, for all of the reasons I offered in my previous post, I think the lead is not as NPOV as it might be with respect to distinctions between "political right" and "political left", and a tad bit more complexity is needed to make the lead paragraph as simple as possible. Dasondas 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I can agree with your view that the religious identity of Islamists is separable from their political identity: one of the key factors of Islamism is the refusal to admit that separation. Secondly, it's far from clear what "classical" Islamic anti-Semitism would be; Bernard Lewis's argument, which I've seen many scholars agree with, is that Islamic anti-Semitism is relatively recent and taken entirely from the West, and that it developed in large part because of the situation in the British Mandate of Palestine and then Israel. It seems to me self-evident that, until very recently, and with the exception of the Soviet Union, anti-Semitism was regarded as largely (largely, not entirely) a phenomenon of the right, and that Jews found a natural home on the left for that reason, or in part for that reason; and that it was the left who defended and promoted Jewish interests. These are generalizations, of course, but that's okay for the lead section, so long as they're accurate generalizations, which I think this is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please re-read my post. I wrote, I will counter that their religious identity is inseparable from their political identity. This doesn't mean that I am arguing against the assertion; it means that I am using the assertion to counter the argument that you had made in your prior post. Perhaps I could have been more clear by writing I will counter your argument with the argument that... Be that as it may I think my point is sufficiently clear as written. I'm trying to engage you in a serious discussion about a serious issue, and I'd feel better about the exchange if I was more confident that you were treating me the same way. On your further point, while Bernard Lewis argues that Islamic anti-Semitism did not exist because there lacked what he called an "attribution of cosmic evil", other scholars such as Robert Wistrich observe that "scorn and contempt for Judaism (and Christianity) were well anchored in Muslim tradition." Certainly all are in agreement that, absent any basis for the charge of deicide, Jews historically fared better in Islamic lands than in Christian lands until the post WWII period. All also agree that modern Islamic anti-Semitism has borrowed quite liberally from the repertoire of European anti-Semitism. However, we are getting a little off point. By misreading my argument and attempting to correct me, you have actually wound up agreeing with me (at least partially) and reinforcing my point that "Politics" as the primary motive force of anti-Semitism, versus "Religion" or "Race", is one of the key distinguishing features that is used by those arguing for the existence of "new anti-Semitism". By insisting, as you are doing, that no mention whatsoever be made of the "classical" modes of religious and racial anti-Semitism in the lead of the article you are inhibiting clarity rather than by facilitating it. To compound the problem you are even attempting to prevent a neutral reference to the political dynamic of "classical" anti-Semitism. The Reformation and the Enlightenment are huge historic events, and you should think more deeply before cavalierly sweeping away the anti-Semitic character of both. But on your main point, you have even failed to extend me the very smallest of intellectual courtesies by ignoring the fact that I have completely agreed with your assertion that "classical" anti-Semitism is largely a phenomenon of what you call the "political right". We are not arguing about substance, we are arguing about nomenclature -- yet proper nomenclature is of great significance here. What I have now expended a great deal of time and energy doing is argue that the label "political right" is a misleading and over-simplified label to describe this phenomenon in this context, and I have suggested a fix that does not add a single additional sentence and is backed up by cites from some of our most distinguished sources. Given that you don't seem to have the time to even read my arguments carefully, let alone provide engaging counter-arguments, I am at a loss to understand why you are fighting so hard against this edit. Dasondas 04:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things- first of all, it is rather strange that you would imply that Slimvirgin did not properly read your post because she did not understand the "difference" between "arguing against the assertion" and "using the assertion to counter the argument that you had made in your prior post", frankly I do not think that there is any signifigant difference and if there is it is completly unmeaningful. You wrote something in your post that you assumed to be true, and Slimvirgin argued against it there is nothing to it.

Secondly, while you might be able to [just barely] say that in the period from 73 CE to 1948 CE Jews were slightly better off in Muslim lands than in Christian lands. However, this is very misleading since if it is true it really has nothing to do with any enlightened attitude of the Muslim rulers (except in isolated times and places like 10th century Al-Andalus), but rather has everything to do with Draconian Laws and wave after wave after wave of mass murder, forced conversions, and terrible persecutions intersparced with periods of sweet neglect (where they would only have to worry about being murdered by commoners) from the various crowns of Europe. In Muslims lands these kinds of persecutions were also common, but they might have been somewhat less serious than what would occur in Europe.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, as to your first point, the two interpretations of what I wrote mean exactly opposite things, not exactly the same thing. What I wrote (or what I intended to convey with what I wrote ) was that for Islamists there is no difference between their religious identity and their poltical identity. SlimVirgin thought I meant the opposite and argued accordingly. Hence my corrective. On your second point, what we were actually talking about is how various scholars of anti-Semitism view things not how you and I view them. Dasondas 05:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't just make what I said up, what I said can be found in any history book about the subject, it isn't just "the position of you or I", I felt like I should explain it as you expressed something that, as I said, was quite misleading given the actual dynamics of the period. I find your response actually quite condescending and uncalled for.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, the only thing I expressed was a completely accurate representation of the views of two leading scholars of anti-Semitism. Nothing in any of my posts on this thread is misleading. I have spent a lot of time and thought constructing arguments to support a very narrow point, and what was uncalled for was you jumping all over me without having carefully read what I wrote, and, in fact, having totally misunderstood it. It was not my intent, nor is it the purpose of this thread, to examine all points of view on the nature and extent of Islamic anti-Semitism. Nor do I feel I was condescending to you. What would have been condescending would have been to gratuitously point out to you that your previous statement that "in the period from 73 CE to 1948 CE Jews were slightly better off in Muslim lands than in Christian lands" is objectively false because there were no Muslim lands until approximately 622 CE. Dasondas 07:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I seriously am begining to question your reasoning ability. First of all, I am quite aware of the finer points of Islamic history (like when it started for instance), I assumed you would understand that the reason I chose 73 CE did not have anything to do with Islam, but rather was the date that the first Jewish revolt ended and the real history of the Jewish diaspora began. It doesn't matter that Muhammed was not born for another half-millenium, since I was focusing on Jewish settlement, hence the reason I stated Muslim lands rather than anything about caliphates, sultanates, or emirates. Although Jesus Christ had already been born and died, christianity was really not around as a seperate religion yet either, but again in both cases what matters in this context is the Jewish immigration.

Also, in almost every single one of your above posts you mentioned something about other users misreading what you wrote, it is possible that that can happen every now and then, but if three or so editors in a row "misunderstand" your point, it is likely that the fault lies elsewere, this combined with your complete non-comprehension of my posts leads me to suggest that you should find a hobby elsewhere.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize if I misread your post, but please assume good faith. A simple misreading doesn't imply disrespect.

Also, I'm not "fighting hard" against this edit at all. I just don't agree that it's necessary or helpful, or any more meaningful that what we have; it's basically the Bernard Lewis position, which is one opinion, albeit a very clear and respectable one. We currently say:

"New antisemitism is the concept of an international resurgence [blah, blah] coming simultaneously from three political directions: the left, Islamism, and the far-right ... The concept is used to distinguish this wave from "classical" antisemitism, which was largely associated with the political right."

You want to say:

"The concept is used to distinguish this wave from "classical" antisemitism, which is widely considered by scholars and others to be rooted in concepts of religious or racial identity and historically, with several important exceptions, has found expression in nationalist or reactionary political movements."

The problem is that we don't say in the lead how the new anti-Semitism isn't rooted in religious or racial identity, so we don't make clear what our juxtaposition is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, upon re-reading the post of mine that you mis-interpreted I can see how somebody who didn't actually write it could have reasonably read it in the contrary sense. The fault was mine for lack of clarity, and I apologize for coming down hard -- although despite my braying at no time did I suspend my assumption of good faith in your case. I'm well aware that you've put a great deal of time and effort into bringing this article up to standard, and that is the main reason that I am prepared to exert so much of my own energy in discussion before attempting an edit to the lead paragraph. On your other points, I'm kind of tired and will have to come back to the substance of our (very interesting, as far as I am concerned) conversation a little later. Dasondas 07:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means make your edit, Dasondas, and we can see how it flies. The only thing I'd caution is that the intro has been relatively stable since around April, and was agreed upon after mediation. Any tweaking it in one direction could provoke further tweaks in other directions; but if you can make the edit without affecting the POV balance (i.e. if all you do is refine and make it more accurate), there shouldn't be a problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin. I'll be out of pocket for a day or two, and that should give me a good distance from which to look at this in the cold light of day and decide how I want to proceed when I return. Dasondas 17:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

An aspect that I feel is missing

I feel that there is one aspect of the critizism of NAS that is missing. To me, it seems that the concept is often used to make ad hominem attacs on the critics of israel. The passage "critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate" doesn't cover this properly. I think Arjuna808s edit (of course rapidly deleted by al-Silverburg) speaks to this issue, when he includes that it is used to intimidate critics.

How does NAS "silence debate", if not by intimidation (of ad hominem attacs)? If we take the 2006_Norwegian_Jostein_Gaarder_controversy as an example, allegations of NAS in this case lead to the effective silencing of one critic of Israel. He withdrew from further debate. Commentators discussed the effect of Anti-semitism-allegations, I quote the wikipedia article: "The strong attacks and accusations about anti-Semitism against Gaarder have prompted commentators to voice criticism against what they perceive as a misuse of the label "anti-Semite" against critics of Israel.[26] Associate professor in Middle Eastern history Hilde Henriksen Waage at the University of Oslo commented that: "Any debate about the politics of the state of Israel drowns in accusations of anti-Semitism and racism" and intimated that Gaarder would not be safe in Norway after this op-ed.[27] The former prime minister of Norway Kåre Willoch critizised the attacks on Gaarder, stating that "whenever Israel's politics are critizised, there are attempts to divert the attention from what this is really about."[28]

Also, I earlier provided a review of a book about NAS in the well known journal Race & class [22] that claimed that the used of the concept had "the wiff of a witch-hunt" (check it out, especially the last sections of it). This reference was deemed not to be important enough to be included in the main article, but still I feel it points to an important critical issue about the concept, that it creates a climate of debate where critics of Israeli politics are always have to be afraid of being labeled as anti-semites. That is: a climate of intimidation. This might be regarded as my OR on the issue, but still I am quite sure that the people here with better knowledge of the different sources will be able to source it~, if they want to. pertn 11:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

An aspect? It seems to me the idea of NAS was invented with the sole purpose of silencing critics if Israel's policies. // Liftarn

Yes, I'm sure you do think that.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, criticizing Israel's policys is fine, Israelis do it all the time. When you start doing it with pictures of ugly jews eating poor defenseless babies, referring to jewish conspiracies, well, yeah, then it is antisemitism even if you're a good left wing multicultrual person. Elizmr 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that good people critizising israel now are accused of being a part of some "new" phenomenon or "wave" together with the people saying what you describe. Needless to say, all the people in my example from Norway here have been victims of antisemitism-accusations. pertn 12:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Pertn, do you have some better examples than the one you provided so far of "good people criticizing Israel" who are being accused of "being a part of some 'new' phenomenon or 'wave'"? Could it be that the people from your example are not "victims" but are indeed anti-Semites? Note, that I am not necesaarily calling them such, but didn't the article you linked to mention that there is a discussion about this very point? Would you care to present the other side? Do you think that it is "ad hominem", as you put it in an earlier post, to question the motives of Jaarder and his sympathizers after he wrote prominently in the essay of his you linked to, "We laugh at this people's capriciousness and weep at its misdeeds. To act as God's Chosen People is not only stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism." and "We have left the Middle Ages behind. We laugh uneasily at those who still believe that the god of flora, fauna and the galaxies has selected one people in particular as his favorite and given it silly, stone tablets, burning bushes and a license to kill."? As far as I'm concernec, you haven't yet made your point. Dasondas 13:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that a person still in his right mind, with some justification, could think of Jostein Gaarder as someone that might be harboring antisemitic feelings. This mainly because of his confused and pompous writing style. He has, though, repeadedly denied this several times (even in the interview accompanying the op-ed, he stressed this) and it is not at all in line with his thougth in general. The other two mentioned is a middle-east researcher and a Norway's former (conservative) prime minister (especially in the latter case the allegations are utterly absurd, and only linked to speculations about his "motives" for critizising Israel). The County of Soer Troendelag was accused of antisemittism (oh yes!) because of a proposed boychott of Israeli goods, so also has a series of news reporters because of alledged biases. BUT, let's put these Norwegian cases aside, I guess they are not very interesting internationally. You asked for examples of these attacs, so I propose you check the article I linked in the beginning here. Here, several such examples are listed. "This is the first time in the UK that such an ugly ‘hit-list’ of anti-Semitic ‘carriers’ has been published. And it includes not just obvious targets like Professor Steven Rose, the organiser of a scientific and academic boycott of Israel, and Tom Paulin, who has written pro-Palestinian poetry, but a host of others, from Archbishop Tutu and Milan Kundera to Louis de Bernie` res and Irvine Welsh, who have expressed disquiet at the treatment of the Palestinians." .. or maybe the most extreme case "..in Canada, where a Palestinian woman, who organised a pro-Palestinian demonstration after her niece was shot by the Israeli Defence Force, lost her job when she was ‘exposed’ in a local paper as an anti-Semite" I don't feel a need to prove that there is a witch hunt (as Bourne states), but I would like the article to include the fact that this is what many people believe that this concept primarlily (or at least prominently) is all about.

Pertn, I think the article does a decent job (although, IMO, there is still room for improvement) highlighting that one of the aspects of "New anti-Semitism" is the actual debate about whether it exists as a new dynamic or is simply a new manifestation of regular garden-variety anti-Semitism. Central to this debate is a discussion, also well-represented in the article (again, my opinion) about the ambiguities that exist on the borderlands between legitimate critical expression of Israel and genuine anti-Semitism. Quite obviously, there are people who have been and will continue to be unfairly labeled (sometimes quite publically) as anti-Semites; this is a grievous injury to those falsely accused and it damages the good-will and credibility of honest proponents on both sides of any political debate involving Israel. Equally pernicious, and again of great danger for the health of the debate from both sides, is the fact that many committed and irredeemable anti-Semites have found a socially and politically acceptable outlet for their primal hatreds through anti-Israeli expression. This is a messy business and unfortunately until we gain the ability to peer into the hearts of individual men and women, we will be stuck with these unfortunate cases on both sides of the issue. My feeling about the article here is that it does a pretty good job of bringing this dialectic to our attention in an objective and non-biased way. However, I appreciate that you may not see it that way. One way for you to proceed in this case would be to propose specific edits and present them here for discussion. This would be time-consuming and perhaps frustrating, but most of us have been through the process ourselves and I believe that your good-faith efforts would be met, for the most part, by good faith responses. Dasondas 15:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part. The article is thorough, and mentions most of the crucial points, though I do not feel that it is completely (!) balanced. I guess the main editors are proponents of the concept, and though they are doing a good job trying to balance it, it might not be that easy. (and I am not in a position to critizise them for that!!) You write that we will have to be stuck with this until : "until we gain the ability to peer into the hearts". That is the main problem of the concept. It is an accusation of an most often subconcious or hidden motivation. Pure antisemitism is usually manifest, but NAS amongst Israel-critizising left wingers, is something hidden in their souls. This makes for a crappy debate, and it is not something we are stuck with. If I claim that this or that opinion is linked to the one uttering them being closet-homosexuals, I will be stuck with making the right or wrong assumtions until I can "peer into their hearts". OR, I can accept the fact that one will have to use good faith and actually believe what people say about their intentions until proven otherwise. That is my opinion, from what you write (that is a messy business) I assume we do not disagree much about this really. pertn 09:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pertn, the critics discussed in the article, most of them well known academics, make precisely the point you're saying isn't in the article. Brian Klug says: "People of goodwill who support the Palestinians resent being falsely accused of being anti-Semites," and a lengthy section is devoted to his views. Earl Raab says: "charges of antisemitism based on anti-Israel remarks alone have proven to lack credibility in most circles." Bernard Lewis says: "it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic." Norman Finkelstein says the charge of new antisemitism: has been made to "immunize Israel from legitimate criticism." Tariq Ali says the charge is a "cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians," and "Zionist blackmail." Peter Beaumont says: "The reply to ... criticism [of Israel] ... is devastating in its simplicity: criticise Israel, and you are an anti-Semite just as surely as if you were throwing paint at a synagogue in Paris." Critics fear being accused of Europe's "last great taboo — the fear of being declared an anti-Semite." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Virgin. I was aware (and even moreso now) that this was included in the main part of the article. But I still feel that it somehow drowns. There are two reasons for this. a) it is too vaguely put in the intro. b)the statements you mention are from single voices, some of whom themselves are quite controversial (like finkelstein and chomsky). If you do agree with this, I suppose a possible remedy could be a separate section making a more generalized summation of these arguments. Remember, the reason I started this section was because of this [23] revert by Moshe, based on Original research. From what you write here it seems that the entry maybe wasn't OR anyway? It wasn't pretty poetry, but still it raised an issue.pertn 09:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jostein Gaarder controversy is a pretty bad example of people using the charge of antisemitism as a means to silence criticism of Israel. Gaarder's op-ed essentially vilified Judaism and by extension Jews, and Hilde Henriksen Waage - whose credibility is highly questionable to begin with - went so far as to say that Gaarder's life was in danger because he published it. Not long after, the synagogue in Oslo was shot at, and the attorney for one of the defendants felt that Gaarder's op-ed contributed to this vile act. Any reasonable person would conclude that Gaarder at best was woefully ignorant about Judaism, Jewish history, and the Arab-Israeli conflict; and that he engaged in naive cynicism toward Israel and Jews. --Leifern 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What you write here, leifern, essentially exemplifies the hysterical paranoia that usually accompanies the NAS-accusation-complex. It has quite a bit in common with the hysterical consperacy-theories that is a part of anti-semitism, and I guess it follows quite the same thought patterns. First of all: Waage herself has recieved numerous threaths to her life, so it is not strange that she sympathizes with Gaarder. And why is she not credible in your eyes (does she have the NAS-virus too, maybe?) As for the shooting, not a single serious commentator has made this absurd link. You know, that somethings occurs at the same time, synchronicity, does not mean that they are connected, or part of the same big plot (except in conspiracy theories). And with regards to gaarder, I agree he is a clown, but I feel it is highly tendedious and paranoid to speculate what is "behind" his incessant and repeated denials of any form of racist motivations. ANYWAY, I have already tried to close this discussion og norwegian events down, since I see it is really derailing the debate her. If you thought my example was bad, move on. Look into Jenny Bourne's examples instead. Are these people anti-semites too? My main issue here is that I would like to see this mechanism of NAS-allegations, that I and many with me regard as a prominent feature of the concept (and maybe the reason that it exists at all), to have a more prominent place in the article. As it is now, it too much portrays an image of an almost academic concept. I feel that is a bit deceptive, but it is a matter of degree, only. I'll move on to answer SlimVirgin about this balancing. She has a point (but so do I) pertn 09:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, Leifern, I keep forgetting that wikipedia is not a place for heated debates, so I apologize for attacking you a bit too harshly. However, you do direct similar accusations against 3. parties, and that is what I am reacting against. I will however try to keep a more moderate tone in the future. pertn 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think the article makes it abundantly clear that there are those who think that accusations of antisemitism are intended to muzzle critics of Israel. It is empirically provable that this is false, and the truth is rather the opposite. I have absolutely no idea what prejudices Gaarder has or hasn't, but it is pretty clear that his article promoted antisemitic ideas. He may have been sincere in thinking that he was only speaking up against an injustice, but we can only judge by the words in his article. As for Hilde Henriksen Waage, I think she's lying. But that, of course, is my opinion. Why don't you walk by the synagogue in Oslo on a Saturday morning, and you'll get a sense of whose life is threatened. --Leifern 11:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Pertn, one thing you mentioned above is the issue of intention. It's something this article doesn't really go into, mostly because of the length problem, but some of the proponents of the concept argue that intentions are not the issue, but consequences. The argument goes that a person may not intend to be anti-Semitic, but their actions have consequences that amount to it. The people who make this argument say we don't need to peer into hearts and souls; we need only look at the effect certain actions have on the world. For an example in another area, a person might not intend to be racist, but if you only employ people from certain schools because you like the education those schools offer, and if those schools happen to have higher intakes of one race than another, then your actions have consequences that might amount to racism.

What exactly do you feel needs to be added to the article to strengthen the points you're making? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Quoted with image:

"Dr. Brian Klug argues that the new prejudice is not antisemitism..."

Quoted in text:

"Klug writes that this is an outbreak of classical anti-Semitism, not the emergence of something new."

Of course he's speaking at two different times, but the most straightforward reading of this is a contradiction. To resolve this we need to interpret it as saying that there is some prejudice which is new (but not antisemitism) and some which is antisemitism (but not new). But nothing which is both.

Aside from seeming very strained, this interpretation means the section title only tells half the story. I'll rename the section to "A new phenomenon separate from antisemitism" if nobody objects. Ken Arromdee 05:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

From memory, he's talking about different things. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence to get rid of that confusion. I think he was talking about different things, but you're right that it wasn't clear. I think it's partly that he has changed his views somewhat since he wrote The Nation article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough to avoid all the contradictions.

Title: "A new phenomenon, but..."

Quote: "Klug argues that these incidents are not necessarily evidence of a new phenomenon"

Ken Arromdee 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He's agreeing that what others call "new antisemitism" is new and is a prejudice; but he's not keen on calling it antisemitism, because he feels there's insufficient historical and conceptual continuity between this "new bug," as he calls it, and antisemitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, he is saying that what is antisemitsm isn't new, and what is new isn't antisemitism. I've added explicit quotation of what I think is his key disagreement with the NAS theorists: "it is closer to the truth to say that anti-Zionism today takes the form of anti-Semitism rather than the other way round." - Jmabel | Talk 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Books/Articles that espouse New antisemitism

The Power of Israel in the United States is a book that appears to be classic New antisemitism (or maybe old antisemitism). Is there a place to collect these types of references or would inclusion decisions to polemic? Tbeatty 02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have read it and you have quotations from it that illustrate definitions of New antisemitism as given in this article, then it is relevant. If you are just judging from the title, then no. If you have a review that accuses the book of being new antisemitism then that is probably also relevant. Itsmejudith 14:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Isn't Holocaust denial a form of new antisemitism? The article almost makes no mention of that. Sofeil 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it fits the definition, at least as I understand it.--Mantanmoreland 18:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving?

This discussion page seems to be getting too long? Can someone go ahead and archive some of the old discussions? I'm new here so I don't want to do anything to provoke people. Sofeil 08:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sofeil. I'll archive it shortly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yale study

Reinoutr, I reverted your edits to this section because you inadvertently changed what the source said. I used a secondary source to avoid interpreting the study myself (OR), and so I used the examples that source used. If you look at the citation, you'll see the source is the study as cited by ... Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yale University - Reply

Today I changed the section about the Yale University study to better match the contents of the research article. The edit was reverted by SlimVirgin [24], with the comment that I should read ref carefully; there is a secondary source to avoid OR. Yet the secondary source (which is, being the Jerusalem Post, hardly neural in this issue) is sloppy in citing the original paper.

The original paper shows evidence (figure 3F of the paper) for seven of the "anti-semitic" statements that they are linked to what the authors call the "anti-Israel index" (and claims in the text evidence for the other statements). That does not include the statement about "irritating faults", and shows the strongest correlation for the "financial market" and "power in the business world" statements.

The fact that I am calling the Jerusalem Post not neutral in this issue, is based on the fact that the "irritating faults" and "shady practices" statements appear to be chosen because they are stronger to be used in a newspaper. The fact is, however, that other statements are more strongly correlated.

Finally, correctly quoting a scientific paper is not original research. It is making use of a primary source, which is allowed. Secondary sources are preferred, but obviously only when they are both correct and neutral. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How did you figure that the statements you chose rated highest? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the pertinent part of the policy: " ... edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the disputed statements from the article for now, leaving one exemplary statement that is supported by both the study and the secondary source. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you say how you figured the comments you cited to have rated the highest? Also, why is rating the highest the correct criteria you want to choose? Please find another secondary source if you don't like this one, but this is precisely why NOR recommends secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As a second comment on the entire Yale-study section, it is clearly a (hardly) adapted version of the Jerusalem Post article, coming very close to a copyright violation. It needs a total rewrite. An example:

Wikipedia: The percentage of those expressing anti-Semitic views increased with age and decreased with income level; men were more likely to be anti-Semitic than women; the degree of social interaction with Jews had no significant impact

Jerusalem Post: The Yale study found that the percentage of those holding anti-Semitic views increased with age and decreased with rising income levels; women were less likely to hold anti-Semitic views than men; the level of social interaction with Jews had no significant impact on anti-Semitic views;

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not a copyright violation because it's cited; and it's extremely important with something like this to stick very closely to what the source said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing is no excuse for copy/pasting statements, if it is a quote, it should have quotation marks. Still, I hope you can agree with limiting the section to mentioning only the statement that is supported also by the study. That way OR is not an issue, yet we are not presenting an incorrect statement. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I missed you remark above. With regard to how: see the study, Figure 3F. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

With or without quotes, it's not a copyright violation if it's cited, and I can only repeat that it's very important to stick closely to what the source said in an area like this. Can you tell me how you figured that the statements you first chose had rated highest, because the study does not in fact show that, as far I can see. What page were you looking at? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Page 556, Figure 3F. The highest frequency antisemitic statements correlating with people having answered positively to 3 or 4 anti-israel statements are "financial market", "business power" and "more loyal israel". All other statements are less correlated. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So why didn't you choose those three? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I did that because the correlation for "care jews only" is also high and very clear (more clear then for "loyal", because that one is also high for 0-3). But you are right, if I had been consequent I should have changed all. My main objection is that the quite harsh statement about "irritating faults" is not really supported by the original article. The "shady practices" statement does show correlation though, I'll put that one back. But I really object to including the "irritating faults" statements, since the research article does not show evidence to support it. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you were doing original research, deciding for yourself that (a) the correct criterion to use is the highest correlation (which is your OR), but then (b) not following that anyway, but choosing two that rated highest and one that did not (also your OR).

We must use a secondary source, precisely to avoid this. If you don't like the one chosen, find another one, but in the meantime, I'm restoring the previous one. See WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't think I didn't know where you were going with this exercise. Just remember for yourself that the inclusion of the "irritating faults" statement is not supported by the orginal study. But, have it your way.... BTW, please see WP:OWN. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do tell me where I'm going with this exercise, because I have no idea myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Deciding that the highest correlation is what is most significant does not sound like original research to me. It sounds like the honest way to report what a study showed. (Now, I agree that to not quite do that is another matter.) If a newspaper (or encyclopedia) article discussing an academic paper that reports several correlations doesn't convey which correlations were strongest, to me that suggests "spin". - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If there's a high correlation between innocuous statements against Israel and innocuous ones against Jews, but a slightly lower correlation of the former with some horrible statements about Jews, newspapers would report the lower because more significant. To choose which ones to highlight is original research, which is why we rely on secondary sources to show how the media reported what the report said, and not how we want to unpack it ourselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lewis Again :)

Hi SlimVirgin,

The following piece is also not about NAS, or it is?

Until the 19th century, Muslims had regarded Jews with what Lewis calls "amused, tolerant superiority" — they were seen as physically weak, cowardly, and unmilitary — and although Jews living in Muslim countries were not treated as equals, they were shown a certain amount of respect.

Cheers, --Aminz 06:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It gives the background to the new thing that Lewis wants to call NAS. Your edit was about Christianity. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I first wanted to add this part: "prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism."

But Lewis (and Cohen) also says that "Until relatively modern times, tolerance in the treatment of non-believers, at least as it is understood in west after John Locke, was neither valued, nor its absence condemned by both Muslims and Christians. The fair and usual definition of tolerance as understood and applied in pre-modern time was that: "I am in charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according to rules that I will lay down and enforce." "

I was afriad adding the prejudice piece without mentioning that that was the "fair" definition of tolerance in pre-modern times, would make the point unclear. So, I instead compared with Christianity. I am open to any suggestions. --Aminz 06:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see the words "New antisemitism" in the quotes above? Beit Or 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read my first post and SlimVirgin's reply. --Aminz 02:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be offensive; I read talk pages. You've tried to insert a comparison between Muslim and Christian antisemitism in the article on New antisemitism. The logical question is where did you see the New antisemitism discussed in the quotes you wanted to insert. Beit Or 09:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't offensive. Please assume good faith. The quote above: "Until the 19th century, Muslims had regarded Jews with what Lewis calls "amused, tolerant superiority" — they were seen as physically weak, cowardly, and unmilitary — and although Jews living in Muslim countries were not treated as equals, they were shown a certain amount of respect." is not about NAS either. It provides context. I wanted to add more context. That there was nothing in premodern times under Islam which could be called anti-semitism is definitely in the context. The question is how to present this. --Aminz 09:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling you for civility is not equivalent to not assuming good faith. The quote above provides good context on how Muslim antisemitism mutated in the course of time before reaching the stage of the New antisemitism. Your edit inserted a sentence on how Christians were busy persecuting each other and some more stuff irelevant to the New antisemitism in the Muslim world. Beit Or 09:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's focus on the point I've raised. I don't see discussing civility/good faith issues would be fruitful. I would like to know your view about "there was nothing in premodern times under Islam which could be called anti-semitism". --Aminz 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is Lewis's view, but it's not the ultimate truth, and there was more to your reverted edit than that. Beit Or 09:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, so that's part of the context. The discrimination Lewis is talking about should be viewed in the context of understanding of tolerance at that time. So, that is also part of the context. I am happy with including both these instead of the quote I mentioned. --Aminz 09:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot parse your comment. Who is part of what? Beit Or 09:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, we already have enough Lewis, and arguably too much. The only reason that section is as long as it is, is that I find Lewis's writing confusing, and so I was reluctant to summarize too much. We definitely don't need any more, especially when it's background only, and not even clearly that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Why SlimVirgin? Lewis says: "prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, but not what could be called anti-Semitism." Mark Cohen also says that. --Aminz 07:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

here http://www.meforum.org/article/396 Lewis says:

"President Khatami of Iran, in his interview on CNN, pointed out—correctly—that "anti-Semitism is indeed a Western phenomenon. It has no precedents in Islam or in the East. Jews and Muslims have lived harmoniously together for centuries." --Aminz 07:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source, and anyway, this page isn't about Anti-Semitism in Islam. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Which one ?? The website of The Middle East Forum? The website, I believe, should be reliable for articles signed by Lewis. I mean, if we can be sure that it is written by Lewis. The other article of Lewis also says that. Mark Cohen says that. Claude Cahen also says that... I know this article is not about Anti-Semitism. I am just explaining what Lewis said as he said it. I am not adding many words to the article. --Aminz 07:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact only the controversial author Bat Ye'or holds such kinds of extreme views about anti-semtism in Muslim lands. Lewis and many others have rejected her story of Dhimmitude as a myth, but of course a good anti-myth against the other myth that Muslim lands were paradise for Jews. I don't believe any truth-seeking person would give much weight to extreme voices in general. --Aminz 07:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about Lewis, Bat Ye'or, Islam, anti-Semitism in Islam, Christianity, or any of those other issues. We already have too much from Bernard Lewis, and the article is long. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, It is important to mention how new anti-semtism according to Lewis formed. I am adding a word to this article. I think my argument is clear. --Aminz 09:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The article already covers his opinions on how the New antisemitism formed in sufficient detail. Beit Or 14:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think I understand Lewis's idea of the new antisemitism, and I have tried to condense and re-explain what he means. Essentially, his argument depends on his redefining antisemitism as a prejudice or hostility marked by either of his two defining features of antisemitism. Thus, according to Lewis, hatred of the blacks is racism, hatred of Arabs is anti-Arabism, hatred of Poles is anti-Polonism, but hatred of Jews is not necessarily antisemitism. It becomes antisemitism only in either of the two cases mentioned above. Interestingly, a case can thus be made that Lewis himself falls under one his own criteria of antisemitism, namely, subjecting Jews to different standards. Beit Or 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

College campuses

There are a lot of examples of new anti-Semitism on college campuses around the Western world, from both professors and grassroots programs such as the Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine but I don't see significant mention of this aspect of the phenomenon. [25] --GHcool 17:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This link is not an example of anti-semitism. The Student Voice's claims were critical of Israel and not Judaism. The reference to the Nazis (which, if serious, would constitute anti-semitism, has a clear devil's advocate tone). Furthermore, the article itself is quite biased. It talks about Resolution 242, and attempts to disregard Israel's responsibilities under it by playing semantics. It could at a minimum be considered racially biased, if not outrightly racist. Overall, I would like to mention, there are clear cases of anti-semitism occurring today as a result of Israel's continued occupation of Palestine. These occur mostly in Europe, and include attacks on synagogues, and racial epithets hurled at Jews. Criticism of Israel is not anti-semtic in itself. Nlsanand 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move

If there are no objections within the next 24 hours, I will move this page to new anti-Semitism. Floaterfluss 20:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There is at least one objection. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Norman Stillman

Why is this section removed?? It is about the recent emergance of antisemitism among Muslims and argues why it happened. --Aminz 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the New antisemitism, please stick to the subject. Beit Or 21:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Normal Stillman is writing about the current antisemtism :

However due to the conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, these ideas started to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books. The antisemitism greatly increased from 1948 till it had its peak by the 1970s and then declined from 1980s and 1990s "as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved.

--Aminz 22:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, please join discussion. --Aminz 22:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see any. Beit Or 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The political anti-semitism in modern times among Muslims is not new anti-semitism?? Also, please don't remove the quote from Lewis. There was a long discussion over it. You might want to read it first. --Aminz 06:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Stillman never uses the phrase "new antisemitism". By your own standards of referencing that you advocate on Talk:Antisemitism, it's original research to say that his work is about the New antisemitism. Furthermore, that section contained a biased and badly written title and an equally slanted and irrelevant content that implied there was no antisemitism among Muslims before the 19th century. Beit Or 14:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that the same argument was given to you on the other article. Anyways. The modern antisemitism Stillman is talking about is 1. among muslims 2. related to israel 3. the only antisemitism that has ever exists among muslims. The term new anti-semitism refers to the antisemitism in modern times and distinguishes it from classical anti-semitism. --Aminz 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A superb example of palpable original research. Interestingly, however, the bulk of the section that you inserted , including its title, cannot possibly be about the New antisemitism because it's mostly about the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. This is not to mention the abvious tag that the title you have chosen is extremely biased. Beit Or 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not first half of 20th century. Stillman said the antisemitism had its peak at 1970s and then declined from 1980s and 1990s. He continues that we should yet see what's going to happen in 21th century. --Aminz 22:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one sentence out of a whole chapter with the phrase "new antisemitism" never mentioned. Beit Or 22:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The only antisemitism among Muslims have been in modern times and in connection with the formation of Israel. One can match this with Lewis's statements. --Aminz 22:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of these claims are nonsensical and flatly contradict the writings of Stillman, not to mention those of other scholars. Beit Or 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, please stop this obsession with Bernard Lewis. (1) It may be his opinion that anti-Semitism in Islam began with the establishment of a Jewish state, but not everyone agrees. (2) That should be discussed in Islam and anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism, or History of Anti-Semitism. (3) The only thing we care about here in relation to Islam is the extent to which writers have identified Islamic anti-Semitism as part of the concept of New antisemitism. What happened pre-Israel is not relevant here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Stillman says:

Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books (Stillman, New attitudes toward the Jew in the Arab world, in Jewish Social Studies, xxxvii [1975], 197-204; idem, Antisemitism in the contemporary Arab world, in Antisemitism in the contemporary world, ed. M. Curtis, Boulder and London 1986, 70-85). For more than two decades following 1948, this trend increased greatly, but peaked by the 1970s, and declined somewhat as the slow process of rapprochement between the Arab world and the state of Israel evolved in the 1980s and 1990s; it remains to be seen how the tensions arising in 2000 will affect the trend.

It is clearly talking about the recent antisemitism among Muslims and how it appeared. I am restoring the tag meanwhile we are discussing this. --Aminz 03:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with NEW antisemitism, which is about the RELATIONSHIP between the alleged antisemitism of the left, the far right, and Islam? We have already touched on these issues with Lewis, which is enough because it's not strictly on-topic, so to add more would be ridiculous. Please add it to Islam and antisemitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is on the concept of "new antisemitism" I think. While relationship between antisemitism coming from different groups might be also on topic, the question of how this kind of antisemitism appeared among Muslims is also on topic, unless the title of this page is moved to something else. I can also find many other things not necessarily relevant to the exact question of relationship.

SlimVirgin, addition of one important sentence of Lewis that criticism of state of Israel is not necessarily antisemitism is certainly most relevant to the article than how Muslims were thinking of Jews in the past. So, I don't see why addition of that only one sentence could be bad. While one can argue that addition of a paragraph may make article long, but addition of a sentence can not. At most it would be a personal feeling and it is not necessarily shared by others. Aside from these, it was Beit Or who rewrote that sentences and removed criticism of state of Israel after it was added per our discussion on the talk page. So, please support me since you were involved in that discussion.

The other point is that I think it is clear that Stillman is talking about new-antisemitism for the reasons I stated above: the dates, the political side of the story, etc etc. But if you still think Stillman is talking about something else, not the antisemitism in modern times among Arabs, then I'll request you to give me the most convincing reason of why you think the first picture of the article is relevant to "new antisemtism". I'll then try to prove that the case with Stillman's comment is not looser. Cheers, --Aminz 00:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Stillman is talking about an antisemitism that he alleges began in 1948, peaked in the 1970s, and lessened in the 80s and 90s. The New antisemitism is about antisemitism that started with the left in the late 80s, and gained significant ground through alliances with the far right, and Muslims in the 21st century. They're obviously different subjects, and they have nothing to do with the image at the top of the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I added your comment to the article. My impression of Stillman's comment that "it remains to be seen how the tensions arising in 2000 will affect the trend." is that the trend started before 21th but it seems you are arguing that something new happened after 2000, the time Stillman wrote his article. I am confused why Lewis et al haven't mentioned that. I've added your comment to the article, please source it. Thanks --Aminz 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please source your claim if you would like to use it as an argument in this section. --Aminz 08:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Very simple. You claimed: "The New antisemitism is about antisemitism that started with the left in the late 80s, and gained significant ground through alliances with the far right, and Muslims in the 21st century." Either please source it or take it back. --Aminz 06:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the article please. Are you serious? Take it back? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can source it, then why don't you add it to the intro so that everybody gets an idea of what new-antisemitism is about. I personally doubt it. Please instead of asking me to read the article, find the source which states that and add it to the article. It is the responsibility of the one who claims something to name a source, together with its page number. --Aminz 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, the entire article is about that. Please read the article and the sources provided. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please do me a favor. Add that to the intro and source it. I really doubt that everything mainly started in late 80s and among Muslims it mainly started in 21st century. Please do this favor to me. It shouldn't take much time of you if you have the sources ready. --Aminz 23:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead is fine as it is, Aminz. We discuss in the first section when various scholars believe it started, and then each section about those scholars' ideas says a bit more about what they think the concept consists of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The article says: "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" There is no reason then to believe that Stillman is not talking about New-Antisemtisim. Stillman wrote his article in the beginning of 21st century and is talking about the antisemitism which emerged among Arabs having its roots in politics. He is refering to New-Antisemitism, not to the old one. --Aminz 23:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the Muslim element; if you'll read just a little further, you'll note the leftist element, which starts becoming more prominent in the 80s. Then, as you go, you'll see discussion of the alliances that start forming post 9/11. Stillman is obviously talking about something else. Feel free to read the entire New antisemitism article when you have a chance. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Muslim anti-semitism; another source

The Encyclopedia of religion, in the anti-semitism article states the following about Islam (will post this on the antisemitism article as well) :

"The premodern world of Islam was quite different from premodern Christendom. The most obvious difference is the variety of populations encompassed within the world of premodern Islam, which was a rich melange of racial, ethic, and religious communities. Within this complex human tapestry, the Jews were by no means obvious as lone dissenters, as they had been earlier in the world of polytheism or subsequently in most of medieval Christendom. While occasionally invoking the ire of the prophet Muhammad(c.570-632) and his later followers, the Jews played no special role in the essential Muslim myth as the Jews did in the Christian myth. The dhimmi people, defined as those with a revealed religous faith, were accorded basic rights to security and religous identity in Islamic society and included Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. Lack of uniqueness ameliorated considerably the circumstances of Jews in the medieval world of Islam.

In the post-World War II period, however, the Jewish Zionist enterprise did take on elements of uniqueness: it was projected as the sole Western effort at recolonization within Islamic sphere. This perception has triggered intese antipathy for Zionism and its Jewish supporters, often viewed as indistinguishable, and has resulted in the revival of harshly negative imagery spawned in the altogether different sphere of medieval Christendom. Popular Muslim writing and journalism now regularly introduce themes such as ritual murder, Jewish manipulation of finance, and worldwide Jewish conspiracy, themes taken over with little difficulty from an entirely different ambience. Once again, these themes have proven flexible, readily transferable from milieu to milieu.

--Aminz 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The date of publication of the article (2005, revised by Robert Chazan) and the authors + other sources & discussions can be found here [26] --Aminz 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you equating Muslim antisemitism with New antisemitism? They are not identical. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the second paragraph above is not talking about new-antisemitism. "In the post-World War II period, however, the Jewish Zionist enterprise did take on elements of uniqueness...". The article is edited/revised in 2005 and is pretty recent. --Aminz 04:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack Fischel, chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that the new anti-Semitism is a new phenomenon stemming from what he calls an "unprecedented coalition" of enemies: "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe ... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.

It's just a little bit farther down in the article. Really, feel free to read the entire article, it will be most helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear. All I need is showing that the term new anti-semitism is used for the current "Popular Muslim writing and journalism now regularly introduce themes such as ritual murder, Jewish manipulation of finance, and worldwide Jewish conspiracy, themes taken over with little difficulty from an entirely different ambience" by some scholars. Would that suffice? --Aminz 04:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight; you're trying to create a definition for New antisemitism, and so you're now looking for sources to support your definition? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know that Lewis uses New Antisemitism in my way. I was just trying to get a confirmation from you at this step. --Aminz 09:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources you quote say exactly what Lewis says; Lewis seems to have his own idiosyncratic view, and of course, being a scholar of Islam, not antisemitism, he focuses on Islam. That said, an entire lengthy section is devoted to the view of Lewis who, again, is a scholar of Islam, not antisemitism. It seems that undue weight is already given to this essentially non-expert viewpoint; why would we want to add even more of the same? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bans_on_Kosher_meat

Why was this section removed from the article? Anyone know offhand? And if it's meant to remain removed from the article, the link to it from Kosher should be removed... Tomer^talk 07:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Tomer, it was removed because not entirely relevant, and because it was being added to various articles by sockpuppets in order to be disruptive. That aside, none of the academic sources on NAS mentions the bans as an example of it, and they affected Muslims and Jews equally. Plus, the page is already very long, so it was agreed we should leave out borderline material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Understandable...so what about removing the links to the no-longer-extant section elsewhence? Tomer^talk 02:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not sure where they are, so feel free. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on symbols?

"…attacks on Jewish symbols…" seems awfully narrow, especially in the first sentence of the article. Do citations from the NAS theorists really bear out "attacks on symbols" as being so central to their thesis? - Jmabel | Talk 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

They mean attacks on synagogues, cemeteries, and such like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved page

I've moved the page from new antisemitism to new anti-Semitism. Floaterfluss 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Be aware that there are many who will disagree. AnonMoos 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not do this again. This is discussed extensively and a unilateral move is completely inappropriate. --Leifern 18:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Now Kendrick has moved it too. Please leave it where it is. There was a poll to decide which spelling to adopt wiki-wide, and this is the spelling that's favored by academics and others who specialize in the study of antisemitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the page should not be moved. "New anti-Semitism" is a widely-used and widely-discussed term, and should remain the article title. (The same logic should apply to "Israeli Apartheid", but I'll leave that discussion for another day.) CJCurrie 02:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Never mind. I saw that Debate on new anti-Semitism had been moved recently, and rushed to the assumption that someone was trying to make a political statement by moving "NAS" to that title. Looking more closely at the situation, this obviously isn't correct. Apologies. I have no opinion on the hyphen change, on way or the other. CJCurrie 03:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It was agreed that antisemitism would be used wiki-wide. If you would read the academic sources, CJ, you'd see that most use "new antisemitism." And the same logic does apply to "Israeli apartheid." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got no opinion on this issue either but to stop casual name movers a brief history could be created at the old name. (→Netscott) 03:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A good idea at first glance, and one you might want to suggest at the Village Pump. Hornplease 21:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tag

Tags are used to indicate the dispute over the article as accurately as possible. All the Tags are made by wikipedians themselves. I haven't seen any policy which forbids usage of the added tag. This tag is pretty good since it is a real solution to prevention of edit warrings--Aminz 17:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK, if you can get consensus to include it, it will remain. Until then, discuss it on talk pages. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Content conflict specifics shouldn't be spilling over into the actual article itself imho... it is more logical to use a standard conflict tag and keep the conflict specifics on the talk pages is it not? (→Netscott) 17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not every content conflict warrants a tag, and sometimes tags are just a means for extreme minority views to deface articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We can have a normal POV tag here but in the Anti-semitism article, the two versions are completely different. So, it makes more sense to have the tag there. --Aminz 20:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If the two versions are very different, then this tag is more proper and more accurate. --Aminz 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, your issues have nothing to do with the topic of New antisemitism, but with other topics, such as Islam and antisemitism. Please focus your efforts in more relevant areas. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Enough about what the tag should look like

What's the dispute? Tomer^talk 10:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Norman Stillman section above. Thanks --Aminz 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, what is the point of adding a sentence to the lead and then also adding a fact tag? Please don't add it until you have a source, and preferably several sources if you want it in the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: my edit summary is misleading, because the diff made it look as though you were adding the sentence as a note inside the Strauss ref, and I wondered why you were both attributing it to Strauss and asking for a source. However, I see now that it's outside the ref, and therefore entirely unsourced, and it needs more than one source if it's to be stated as fact in the lead. Apologies for the confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I also had a hard time whenever I wanted to add it. I think it was important since I didn't really know that new-antisemitism among Arabs started 6 years ago. --Aminz 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither did I. What source says that? Beit Or 07:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg informed me of this and I am waiting for his sources. [27]. Do you now claim that he doesn't know what new-antisemitism is? --Aminz 07:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Aminz, you have always insisted on academic peer-reviewed sources; since when have you started accepting Wikipedians as reliable sources? Actually, Jayjg only said that the new antisemitism "gained gained significant ground through alliances with the far right, and Muslims in the 21st century." This is a far cry from your "new-antisemitism among Arabs started 6 years ago." You've added one more achivement to your already impressive record of source misrepresentation. Anyway, I'm not going to spend my time splitting hairs over what Jay said or did not say. Regards, Beit Or 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I added Jayjg's comment almost word by word and the fact tag was for added so that Jayjg might have time to source it since it is a pretty interesting comment. I was not editing the article, just commenting on the sentence. Okay before 6 years ago, antisemitism wasn't significant. That's pretty informative. Regards, --Aminz 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

These kinds of actions, including deliberately misconstruing what I've said, are WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Leftists as a major antisemitism-group??

This seems to me very absurd. Leftists are one of the key-arrangers of the Night of Broken Glass. It seems to me that this article is confusing antisemitism with criticism of the Israeli governments politics. I am very tired of people that can not see a difference between telling Israel to stop their brutal occupation of Palestine, and beeing an antisemitist. Mmarien 15:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's nice -- other people are very tired of what they see as highly disproportionate and hysterical denunciations of Israel (along with specious excuses and justifications offered on behalf of those who commit crimes against Israelis), and seek to enquire what motivates such selectivity. So what? Wikipedia is not a politics discussion forum... AnonMoos 15:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are trying to say that leftists are key-arrangers of demonstrations commemorating the Night of Broken Glass (as a bad thing)? Anyway, Jews are also tired of all those who put their antisemitism in a pretty box by pretending they're merely criticizing specific policies of the current elected government of the State of Israel, so perhaps you'll forgive us for occasionally not taking the time to properly place each critic on this scale. After all, it's not like the Jews don't have any cause to be a bit sensitive. Gzuckier 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, oh, oh, in Norway the Jewish community stays away from the Night of Broken Glass demonstrations, as they feel uncomfortable about what it's become. --Leifern 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"What it's become", Mr. Leifern, probably refers to the fact that it was a battleground between a few (a handful) notorious anti-arabic jews (the kahanists from NIS [28], Eretz Uriely [29] and wife) supported by a group of extreme pro-Israel supporters on one side, and a few pro-palestinians on the other. Several jews took part in the ordinary demonstrations. The jewish community has distanced itself from these people. So, you are right when you say it has chosen to not participate because of "What it's become", but when you are implying that it is because of NAS, you are spreading half-truths. Not very constructive.pertn 10:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are capable of seeing the numerous logical jumps your last statement required.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, yes I ment key-arrangers of the demonstrations. But do you really think that leftists are using the Night of Broken Glass to make up for their criticism of Israel? I don't buy this. I am an anti-racist, and for me it is not important if it is Israel or nazis that are beeing racists. My point is that you are overreacting when calling leftists antisemitists. This is the same thing as if I would say all Americans are Jews, because most of them support Israel. Mmarien 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, do you have an opinion on the brutal Russian occupation of Chechnya? The brutal Chinese occupation of Tibet? The brutal Sudanese ethnic cleansing of Darfur, which has killed hundreds of thousands and turned millions into refugees? What are your thoughts about the war in Sri Lanka? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. We have very few Wikipedia editors who think the Russian occupation of Chechnya is perfectly allright and that the Russians have a god given right to do that. // Liftarn 11:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's exactly the point. Though it's arguably vastly more brutal than what has happened in Israel and the West Bank etc., few Wikipedia editors are even aware of the Russian/Chechnya situation, and of those, almost none comment on it or feel a need to therefore insert anti-Russian POV into hundreds of articles. Why is that? The reason is quite obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting old, Jay. Let it go. Take the argument on its own merits, such as they are.Hornplease 05:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You're responding to a five day old comment, and Mmarien has mistaken this Talk: page for a message board. Let it go, Hornplease. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Five days isnt an eternity, you know. Some of us check articles infrequently. Hornplease 08:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Though mostly found by those on the far-left but not quite the extreme fringe, YES, let us just say that the number of left-wing/liberal anti-Semites is growing VERY rapidly in America (and in Europe it has been that way for quite a while now; both right and left-wingers are now anti-Semitic, with the left-wing gaining more and more anti-Semites all the time because The Right is shrinking there). While it's hard to track (people hate polls and don't always tell the truth when it comes to controversial issues), this is definitely happening. This "New anti-Semitism" of the left-wing is usually tied to the anti-capitalist (and pro-labor) movements, anti-globalization and anti-Semitism, anti-elitism/anti-clannishness, anti-racism (Israel's glaring status as a "racist ethnostate"), and the anti-war/Middle East peace movements. Interestingly, Karl Marx's anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic essay On the Jewish Question is a flagship work of The Left; it epitomizes many of the anti-Semitic feelings of The Left (though Marx was himself a Jew!), even in modern times. Central is the idea that JEW = CAPITALIST -- and since The Left is historically more socialistic than capitalistic, it's natural that some on The Left view Jews unfavorably because of their economic activities of the past and present. --172.163.93.102 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please would all contributors remember that this page is not for discussing political issues, however interesting, only about improvements to the encyclopedia. There is only one response that a Wikipedian with any length of experience should make to the new user Mmarien (to whom welcome). That is: it does not matter what we think, only what the sources say. In this case those sources that accept the validity of "New antisemitism" as a concept tend also to assert that it is associated with the political left. But there may be questions about how those sources should be handled and whether there are other sources that offer a contrary point of view. That is what we should be discussing here. Itsmejudith 12:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To ItsmeJudith: I agree with you. We should say what the sources say about this. One quite important source for this article quite clearly concludes that the evidence that the upsurge of antisemitism in Europe has an important leftist component, is scant. [30] See section 4 especially. Both questioning the "new" in "new antisemitism" (as I understand it) and underscoring that there is little statistical evidence that "leftists" are involved in antisemitic acts in Europe. Maybe this should be included. given that a report from this source is used in the Europe-section already. pertn 10:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Pertn, let me introduce you to an interesting Wikipedia policy; it's called Wikipedia:No original research. Enjoy! Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

my aggressive friend, how do you think that I do OR now? I wrote my interpretation of it on the discussion page, so I guess I'm guilty of doing OR here. I have not written doodly squat in the main article, but what I am saying is that it is quite easy to find a quote in the source I give here that will concur with my interpretation. Hence: I propose that we should quote research, not do it ourselves...pertn 10:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The report is not "a quite important source for this article", and your conclusion doesn't match what the report says; that's what I mean by OR. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Right at the top of this page it says: Be polite; no personal attacks; assume good faith; don't bite the newcomers. I'm amazed that one of the most experienced and prolific editors in the whole of Wikipedia finds that so hard to stick to.Itsmejudith 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't rude, I didn't attack anyone, and Pertn has been editing Wikipedia for over a year, so he's hardly a newcomer. I'm amazed that you would make so many false accusations regarding another editor in such a brief comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You were sarcastic. In my book sarcasm is rude. Pertn may not be a newcomer, but Mmarien was. You say she mistook the talk page for a bulletin board: not necessarily. She was raising an issue for consideration that might have moved the page towards a consensus for improvement. When someone comes new to a project, they're bound to stumble a bit and it is up to the more experienced people to point them in the right direction.Itsmejudith 08:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What on earth do you imagine Mmaerien's point that "might have moved the page towards a consensus for improvement" was? From what I could tell, she didn't like it that a number of sources insisted some leftists were antisemitic, and attempted to remove that from the article based on her own opinions. Where could we have gone from there? In addition, my comments were not sarcastic at all, though I admit they were exasperated, and perhaps curt. As for which comments you were responding to, it was clearly my comments to Pertn, not to Mmarien; this Talk: page is contentious enough as it is without dissembling. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pertn, please go ahead and add points from that EU report. (I'm sure you'll bear in mind the need to reflect accurately the balance of what the report finds.) Itsmejudith 13:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to speak for the whole gamut of people who write about new antisemitism, but I think it would be inaccurate to a) group all "leftists" as one unified movement; and b) assume that they are immune from bigotry just because they have (praiseworthy) anti-racist ideals. Further, this is a multifaceted issue that includes accusations ranging from outright hostility toward Jews as a people, tacit acceptance of such hostility, providing a pretext for antisemitism, not doing enough to draw distinctions between criticism and hostility, inadvertently promoting antisemitism, etc. I personally find laughable the argument that goes something like "we can't be antisemitic, we're socialists!" but that's an editorial comment. --Leifern 14:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough points, and though you don't directly relate them to improvements in the article, it should be possible to reflect them in the article. The question of antisemitism on the left is discussed very carefully by the McShane report and by the EU report that Pertn mentions and so we need to be sure that the conclusions of these two reports are fairly summarised.Itsmejudith 09:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and read the reports and do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope to have time to do that unless user:Pertn or anyone else does so before me. I'm also trying to help clear the backlog of articles to be wikified from August 2006. Is that the sound of everyone rushing to help out? ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs)

It has actually all been done already, as you'll see when you read the material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt that you have read it. What I see as relevant here is that the report states that there is little evidence of a change in antisemitic stereotypes, and also that the "typical" "New-antisemite" is a young arab male, and that there is little evidence in the direction of a major "leftist" component in the antisemitic attacks in Europe. Do you agree that this is a fair understanding of it? In addition to this, the report of course supports one of the basic tenets of the NAS-theories; that the rise in violence is linked to the Israeli policies. The report uses empirical evidence (and states lack of it), and that would be refreshing in this article.pertn 09:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (And that last comment was not a critizism of you and other editors. It has to do with the subject matter of the article. pertn 09:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Holocaust Fatigue

Is this the article where details on 'Holocaust Fatigue' belong?

I'm reluctant to add in details on it because even though examples of it are seemingly described online im unaware if there been any official announcement that 'Holocaust Fatigue' is

a) a tangible 'thing',

b) 'new antisemitism',

c) 'old antisemitism',

d) a mixture of 'old & new antisemitism', etc. or

e) an entirely new phenomena as yet undefined by the scholars arrayed in the article? Almost like a 'new, new antisemitism' for want of a better phrase.

The article as it stands only briefly speaks to this area (Bauer section).

Also is it possible to point out in a subsection some examples of the 'new antisemitism'? Some speeches given, words used, articles written, people found to be 'newly antisemitic' would be helpful in understanding what the thing all the academics are talking about actually is. D Mac Con Uladh 14:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz's edit

Aminz, we already have a summary of the main criticism in the lead. We don't need more and particularly not anything idiosyncratic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The article should be NPOV meaning it should include all POVs. The source I've provided contradicts what is written. The author believes: "Today, more and more, anti-Semitism has been redefined as anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel... One of the first manifestations of this redefinition may be found in the book The New Anti-Semitism by Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein, leaders of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith...." and goes on explaining the changing meaning of antisemitism as compared to the old one. --Aminz 08:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead already says: "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." Your edit simply repeated this with different words. There's no need for it, at least not in the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say that the critics think this concept emerged as a result of continuing re-definitions of anti-semitism to make it cover anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel. The article at the moment states how the concept emerged from the perspective of proponents and that's POV. --Aminz 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You could add that material to the history section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I added it. [31] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it to add it here?

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are coupled with antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Critics of the concept argue that the term has emerged as a result of recent gradual re-definitions of anti-semitism to cover anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel, it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate.

SlimVirgin, the intro already talks about 3 lines in details about the emergence of new-antisemitism from the perspective of proponents. One sentence regarding its emergence from the perspective of critics can make it NPOV. I personally found this article confusing when I was looking at it from the perspective of the literature I've read on anti-semitism itself. That some authors have recently redefined antisemitism was quite illuminative to me so I think it is better to be added to the intro (for people like me who don't read things in details).

--Aminz 08:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. the above suggestion also fits the following quote from the source:

"Today, more and more, anti-Semitism has been redefined as anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel. One cannot be critical of the Israeli prime minister, concerned about the question of the Palestinians, or dubious about the virtue of massive infusions of U.S. aid to Israel without subjecting oneself to the possibility of being called “anti-Semitic.”

--Aminz 08:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's too idiosyncratic a view for the lead, Aminz, and he's not an academic (even if he were, it's still too idiosyncratic). The lead should contain a summary of criticism and support that's common to many of the commentators. It fits in well in the history section where we talk about Forster and Epstein. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is not an academic but his paper is peer-reviewed and published in a press that specifically publishes academic sources. The lead is now saying: "The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism" It doesn't say that these writers re-defined antisemitism. There is a big difference between discovering anti-semitism somewhere, and defining it in order to cover a case. And the article has a POV in that regard. Although I think this point should be made in that very sentence but it can be mentioned at the end of intro. And lastly, he is not talking about Forster and Epstein alone. --Aminz 09:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're pushing for a fringe opinion to be inserted in the lead. The function of the intro is to summarize the most important points within the article rather than to dwell in details on every argument of the critics. Beit Or 09:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a fringe viewpoint. I suppose (a guess only) a majority of academics in Europe would agree with this to some extent. From an academic viewpoint I find it more interesting to look at the formation of the concept in light of the Israel-Palestine discourse, than to speculate about some alledged "wave" it is indended to cover. pertn 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, you don't know, but you're trying to guess. Beit Or 15:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My dearest friend! I am guessing that there is a majority, but you are right, I did not and still do not "know" that. I told you i "guessed". If you read my comment a few times, you will see that what I stated was that it was not a fringe viewpoint. From what I know about academics and politics in Europe, it would be wrong to claim that. To claim that it is a majority viewpoint would only by speculations and guessing, hence I write that I am only guessing. I am trying to discuss it fairly. I am no specialist on the subject but I also stated a reason why I personaly belive that the role of the concept of NAS in political discourse would be an attractive and interesting subject for research whereas NAS itself lacks so much presicion that it would be almost impossible to gain good results from research based on NAS as an analytical concept. pertn 19:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC) .... Let me add: I do not intend to add any of this into the article. This IS original research, and it is my opinions only. But when you claim that Aminz is introducing a "fringe" opinion, I propose you substansiate that claim. I do not have to "know" unless I want to include this in the main article. pertn 20:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Pertn, with respect, there's little point in not having read any of the sources, but nevertheless contributing an opinion about whether a viewpoint is "fringe" or not, especially given that you admit you're guessing. This is, as a matter of fact, a very unusual viewpoint in the literature, and it's therefore not appropriate for the lead. However, it's interesting and the source is a good one, so it's appropriate for the article, and is now included in it. We can't have every single viewpoint about NAS in the article, just as we can't have everything that's in the article in the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the discussion carefully before making your comments. Again, it seems that you base your critizism of my viewpoints without reading them carefully. (I will try to write more clearly in the future) In this "case" i have no major disagreement with you, I think. I just wanted to comment to Beit Or that I did not and do not (and I have read some of your sources) believe it is correct so say that the opinion Aminz is pushing is "fringe". Still I agree that it doesn't neccesarily mean that it needs to be a prominent part of the article. pertn 14:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV = All POVs. The intro like all other parts of the article must be NPOV.--Aminz 09:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. NPOV also encompasses not assigning undue weight to marginal views. Here, just like it was the case with Lewis, you've just discovered an opinion, found that you like it, and are pushing for it to be insterted into the lead, no matter how prevalent this view is among experts. Beit Or 09:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The intro should be written in a way that it includes all POV. That of Lewis, and all others. The intro according to the WP:Lead should be able to stand alone. --Aminz 10:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not say that the intro should include all POVs. The guideline says that the lead "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". Furthermore, "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." On this basis, fringe views and other details are usually excluded from the lead. Beit Or 10:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying New Anti-Semitism was already there and was then only observed is the POV of the proponents. And the lead should not take position. --Aminz 10:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead can't possibly include all POVs "[t]hat of Lewis, and all the others," because there's a ton of material out there about new antisemitism, so we must necessarily leave most of it out. Adding idiosyncratic material to the intro would lead to sentences like:

"Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism ... and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel ... are coupled with antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism, and that latent Western antisemitism has fastened onto the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to brand the Jews as mass murderers as a way of solving the West's own psychological problems caused by the Holocaust."

The last point is one made by Yehuda Bauer, an expert on antisemitism and one of the most respected sources in this area you could hope to find. However, his point is an idiosyncratic one, and while interesting enough for the article, is too unusual for the lead. Your Allan Brownfeld point is similar in that respect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But there is only one sentence from the perspective of critics in the intro: That "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." Except that, the rest is written from the prespective of proponents. I personally feel that if the article explains in 2.5 lines why New Anti-Semitism emerged from the perspective of proponents, only one sentence should be added from the perspective of critics. --Aminz 10:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The weight assigned to the criticism in the lead is commensurate with its weight in the article as a whole and in the scholarly debate, too. Beit Or 10:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And how do you know the ratio? --Aminz 10:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because he's read the article and some or all of the literature.

The lead has two paragraphs that are descriptive: what the concept is, when it entered common usage, what its relationship to classical AS is. Then the third paragraph contains two sentences: one saying what proponents argue and one saying what critics argue. It's balanced, clear, simple, and it's a compromise version that was worked out over many weeks. Also, everything in the proponents' sentence is commonly argued by proponents; everything in the critics' sentence is commonly argued by critics. There are no unusual or surprising views. It should be left that way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Should he prove the ratio to me, we would be able to use it. But I think it is only speculations. --Aminz 11:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentences on how the term has come to usage definitely has a POV. It says some writers observed waves of antisemitism. That's POV of proponents; might be true but it is not neutral. It doesn't say the term came into usage because anti-semitism was re-definded to cover certain things. The definition is also providing context for the POV of proponents. I am not saying which POV is correct or wrong. There is certainly anti-semitism but except the last sentence of the lead, the rest is written from the perspective of proponents. --Aminz 11:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, Allen Brownfeld is not an academic, but rather, an anti-Zionist activist who happens to write freelance articles and columns, sometimes for the WRMEA, but mostly as the editor of the inhouse publication of the American Council for Judaism. The American Council for Judaism is itself a tiny group that split from Reform Judaism when it became Zionist. Brownfeld's views are pretty much a tiny minority view, and SlimVirgin was being quite charitable when she included them so prominently in the article. You seem to have a habit of finding some small minority or idiosyncratic view on a Jewish related topic that happens to coincide with your own, and then try to promote it as if it were authoritative, insisting it come front and center, usually in the Lead. It's a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, yet when this is quite naturally resisted, you then ironically attempt to stick a POV tag on the article, even though your edits themselves are a violation of WP:NPOV. It's happened on half a dozen articles now, and it's very disruptive. Please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please desist accusations of WP:Point? I am asking this for the n^th time. Your approach only makes me to find even more and more sources in order to bring neutrality back to this article. No compromise on neutrality.

The work by Allen Brownfeld, unlike that of conservative journalist Johnson, is peer reviewed and published in a famous journal. I have read a few pages from the article and it is written scholarly. As far as I am concerned, all the intro except one sentence is written from the perspective of proponents and this should not remain. And I think SlimVirgin is nicer than you. I can see you and Beit Or aim to deny even existence of any dispute in the two other anti-semitism articles. And yes, I am more determined now to bring neutrality back to this article. --Aminz 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In a "famous journal"? Which one do you mean? And what do you mean by "peer-reviewed"? The existence of the dispute is well documented, and non-fringe sources have been brought to actually elucidate it. Please explain what Brownfeld's qualifications are.

P.S. You can't "bring neutrality" to an article by doing the exact opposite, and I'll stop pointing out your disruption when you stop disrupting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You can search the article in JSTOR and you might want to read Academic journal. --Aminz 23:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered my questions, though. Which "famous journal" was he published, and what do you mean by "peer-reviewed"? Also, what exactly are Brownfeld's qualifications? Does he teach this stuff at a University, for example? Does he have a doctorate in some relevant subject? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Brownfeld is not an academic so any publication of his is not reliable unless they are peer-reviewed and published through an academic press, in which case the reliability of material is not attained through him but through the acceptance of the editorial committee of the journal.

And I don't understand what you mean by "what do I mean by "peer-reviewed"". Whoever submits an article to a journal, the editorial committee reviews it and if it passes the thresholds it is reviewed and published. There is thus some guarantee of reliability. The journal is Journal of Palestine Studies. --Aminz 07:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You claimed Brownfeld had been published in a "famous journal" and had been "peer reviewed". Is the Journal of Palestine Studies a "famous journal"? Is it "peer-reviewed"? And what, again, are Brownfeld's qualifications to opine on this subject? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

JPS is a normal academic journal published and distributed by University of California Press, Berkley. Therefore articles in it count as reliable sources and whether the author of the article is notable or not isn't a relevant question. Itsmejudith 08:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to add that. Jay could have discovered that it was published by the UC press and archived by JSTOR with a single google search, if he was so inclined. (If.) On the whole, I can't disagree that some statement indicating that a significant number of academics believe that the discourse is being actively constructed to minimize criticism belongs in the lead; along with a simple summary of their views, the courtesy extended to those 'proponents' of the view. Also note that in order to analyse discourse on a subject, expertise in discourse can substitute expertise in the subject. Consider Sartre. Hornplease 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This journal is only printed by the UC Press for the Palestine Institute. It has its own editorial board, which includes the former PLO propagandist Rashid Khalidi, and its articles are not subjected to the UC Press editorial oversight. Even if they were, how would that be relevant? The arguments regarding expertise in discourse vs. expertise in subject are sophistry. Beit Or 13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Journal of Palestine Studies is published by UC Press, not merely printed by them - the distinction is crucial. Since it is within the stable of one of the world's most highly regarded academic publishing houses it is an academic journal in every sense of the term. Of course it has its own editorial board - it would not be an academic journal if it did not - and it chooses independently which experts to invite onto that editorial board. This is one of the most clear-cut cases of a reliable source for WP purposes. End of story, I sincerely hope. Itsmejudith 18:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked some very simple questions, which no-one has yet been able or willing to answer. According to whom is The Journal of Palestine Studies a "famous journal"? What evidence do we have that it is "peer reviewed"? What are Brownfeld's qualifications? And now, SlimVirgin adds another relevant question; who are the "significant number of academics"? Note, Brownfeld's views have actually been added to the article, so they aren't being "censored" or excluded in any way; thus I'm not sure how anything you have said is relevant to my questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who are the "significant number of academics"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Some other relevant sources

Virginia Q. Tilley in "The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock", University of Michigan Press states:

"Zionist discourse has long defined any criticism of Israel as "cover" or "code words" for anti-Semitism, and in the past decade, a wave of publications has emphasized afresh that talk of a multiethnic state reflects this "new anti-semitism" or "anti-Semitism without Jews." Under this banner, Zionist networks are commonly mobilized to target even Jewish advocates of the one-state solution as witting or unwitting architects of genecide. Professor Tony Judt, a senior scholar at New York University, met such an onslaught after publishing his landmark "Israel: An Alternative" [32]

--Aminz 06:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote-mining books.google.com for statements in agreement with your POV isn't the best way to write an article. Tilley's conspiratorial view of the world as being secretly undermined by "Zionist networks" is, um, "interesting", and she is indeed an associate professor of political science at a small private college, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, though it could be noted that the student body is no larger than that of a large high school, and the college itself does not even offer doctoral degrees. In any event, I'm not sure what this could possibly add to the introduction, which already says "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." That's essentially the claim that Tilley makes, though stated in a less inflammatory way. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison between new-antisemitism and old one

This seems to be a good source [33] --Aminz 06:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what's now called "modern antisemitism," or "racial antisemitism," not the same thing at all, as Bernard Lewis points out. Aminz, please stop changing the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead

I found the same arguments I was looking for not from the previous sources but from "Klug, Brian. The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism." Would you please explain why it was removed? I specified exactly what the critics object to. Of course they don't object to the existence of absurd conspiracy theories etc etc. --Aminz 07:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The material you added to the lead was almost incomprehensible, and the 1860s claim was, at best, an inaccurate reading of the source. The "New anti-semitism" that The Cambridge History of Twentieth Century Political Thought is referring to is, of course modern racial antisemitism. It is the term "antisemitism" itself that was coined in the 1860s, not the concept of "New antisemitism", which is a late 20th century/early 21st century phenomenon. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of New AntiSemitism

The lead says:" New antisemitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism." however the Brian Klug says:

So the question is this: What puts the "new" into "new anti-Semitism"? The answer, in a word, is anti-Zionism. The "vilification of Israel," Iganski and Kosmin argue, is "the core characteristic" of Judeophobia (their term for "new anti-Semitism")... Sometimes the point is made by equating the State of Israel in the "new" anti-Semitism with the individual Jew in the "old" variety.

The article's definition of "new" antisemitism is not the same as that of Brian Klug. So, the definition should change or alternative ones should be given. --Aminz 07:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We do say what Klug says (relevant points in bold): "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are coupled with antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can not see any mention that critics say what distinguishes antisemitism from "new antisemitism" is "anti-Zionism" but that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are separate things. --Aminz 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what it says above. Proponents of the concept say opposition to Israel constitutes or is coupled with antisemitism. Critics say that legitimate criticism of Israel (what you might want to call anti-Zionism) should not be equated with antisemitism. We can't say antisemitism and anti-Zionism are separate things, because not everyone believes they are separate things. We say: X says this, Y says that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the article says: Critics oppose the concept because it is used to .. or serves ... I think the critics oppose it because its definition equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. --Aminz 08:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Its definition doesn't equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It doesn't have a firm definition for one thing; there's a core description of the concept that most academics would agree with, but there are differences between them too. Secondly, no one says that criticism of Israel is antisemitism. Indeed, the repetition of that strawman is identified as one of the features of the new antisemitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed. Quoting Klug:

Foxman insists that he is not opposed to criticism of Israel. "In every public forum," he says, "I'm always careful to say that criticism of the state of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic." But "is not necessarily" implies "is possibly," and what this really means is "it's usually so." In his view, "most of the current attacks on Israel and Zionism are not, at bottom, about the policies and conduct of a particular nation-state. They are about Jews."... Now, if crossing the line is anti-Semitic, and if "most of the current attacks on Israel and Zionism" cross the line, it follows that most current attacks on Israel and Zionism are anti-Semitic. By extension, any attack aimed at a Jewish target is anti-Semitic if it is inspired by a position that crosses that line."

--Aminz 08:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Klug is not saying that criticism of Israel is antisemitism. He is saying that Foxman might be saying it. I don't know whether that's true of Foxman, but we don't use him as a source, so it doesn't really matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for "new anti-semitism" as stated in this article leave very little room for legitimate critisim of Israel without the possibility of being judged anti-semitic. Ironically, according to this article, I'm anti-semitic just for saying that!

Anti-semitism is very real, but it is also used by its very victims as a potent political tool.

Overall, while I find this article to be relatively biased, it also contains some very interesting thoughts.

67.81.33.213 05:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Tim

Man, do I have problems with this article! More to the point, I have a big problem with the term "new antisemitism (NAS)." I can accept the term "classic antisemitism" because it is pretty clear cut--and it actually exists.

The problem is rooted in the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. This means any attack on Israeli policy is considered an attack on the Jewish people, and therefore antisemitic.

Here is a quote from your article:

"He argues that antisemitism has expanded from hatred of Jews (classical antisemitism) to hatred of Jewish national aspirations (new antisemitism). [25]"

What are "Jewish national aspirations?" Are these no different from "Israeli national aspirations?" Nope.

Until you can separate the hatred of a people from the resentment of a government's policies and actions, I suggest you redefine NAS.

Here's where I agree with you! I agree that attacking Israeli policy is a tool used to mask antisemitism (ie, David Duke). But that is still good ol' classic antisemitism--NOT NAS!

204.149.81.4 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Tim

Better Definition. This seems pretty straight forward:

"New antisemitism is the legimitization of traditionally anti-semitic beliefs under the guise of criticism of Israel's continued occupation of Palestine and mistreatment of Palestinians."

Clearly, new antisemitism is not pure criticism of Israel. It must relate to some type of activity like:

• Holocaust Denial
• Racial Slurs
• Hate crimes
• Attacks on Judaism (not attacks on Israel)

I understand what new antisemitism is trying to say. However, this page must not be hijacked by Pro-Israeli zealots to demonize justified criticism of Israel's continued abuses. Nlsanand 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And/or:

• Specific obsession with and/or isolated focus on the misdeeds of Israel, individual Israeli political parties, the Israeli military, individual Israeli citizens, etc., to the exclusion of any similar or worse misdeeds by other countries, individuals, political entities, etc.; particularly those currently engaged in armed or political conflict with Israel.
• Criticism of political action by supporters of Israel abroad, to the exclusion of any similar political action by supporters of other countries.

Thus, we can manage that this page not be hijacked by Anti-Israeli zealots to whitewash continued abuses by nations not including Israel. Gzuckier 17:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with this above type of definition is that it would mean that every you criticize one thing you have to criticize everything that is like it. For instance, say I were to criticize the actions of Canadians in mistreatment of Chinese guestworkers during the construction of the railways. Is this racist against Canadians if we don't mention the mistreatment of guestworkers in other countries? No, in fact it would just be silly to have to go through that process every time.

Racism (of which anti-semitism, new anti-semitism, and modern day Israeli policies towards Palestinians are all subsets) is inherently a non-political act. It must be an act, that attempts to bring negative consequences on a group simply due to their ethnic origin. This does not have to be violent, however the comments of Gzuckier would suggest that any anti-Israeli comment must start with a proviso such as "Though there have been other apartheid regimes". While I don't disagree that Israel is not the only country worthy of criticism, let's not make this page a home for its apologists.

The definition of new anti-semitism as a term must relate solely to acts committed against Jews as an ethnic group and not Israelis as a national group. Nlsanand 07:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: proposed new post

I would use a broader term, such as "economic antisemitism."

I don't believe any socialist tyrant (such as Stalin) earnestly believed in the true ideals of communism--they just wanted a dictatorship. What better way to maintain control over the people than to repress them economically? Bigotry is more about power than hatred.

I do see your point where the anti-capitalist antisemite would spit hatred about the "greedy Jew." However I don't think this is a significant population and most of these people can be filed under "classical antisemite."

Another huge aspect of "economic antisemitism" (and other forms of bigotry) is a simple one--jealousy. Nothing makes a loser feel better about himself than lashing out at the more successful.

I think "economic antisemitism" should be the main article, with anti-captialist antisemitism as a chapter in that article. You know a lot more on the subject than me though!

Written in good faith

204.149.81.4 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Tim

I don't think it's spam and I personally think that the contributions should remain on the talk page. Having said that, there is much that I disagree with. Please bear in mind that talk pages must not be used for carrying on arguments, only for practical discussion around changes to articles. If you want to start a new article you should first consider what reliable sources you would have to base the article on. By "reliable sources" Wikipedia means books by academics or other respected commentators, articles in refereed academic journals and reports in serious newspapers or broadcast media. Some other kinds of sources are suitable depending on the type of article - for example an article about Charles Dickens can refer to his novels - but for writing an unbiased article on controversial political matters your choice is very restricted. I would be very surprised if there proved to be sufficient basis for an article on anti-capitalism and antisemitism. Bear in mind also that you would immediately be embroiled in an argument about whether the anti-capitalist movement is separate from the anti-globalization movement or whether these are just two words for the same phenomenon.Itsmejudith 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

See perhaps August Bebel#Quotes. But it is an entirely different topic than this one. - Jmabel | Talk 01:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Archived FAC nom

Premature FAC nom archived at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New antisemitism/archive1. Sandy (Talk) 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this original research?

How is what Jayjg removed original research? It is accurately cited to the Jewish Virtual Library. No, it didn't come from articles that used the phrase "New Anti-Semitism"—it was simply data about numbers of UN votes on Israel—but as far as I know there is no requirement that the source used for data be writing explicitly on the topic of the article. That leave us saying that an article on a person could only cite biographies of that person, or that an article on an artistic movement could not cull a date from an article about an individual who was part of the movement. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like original research to me. There is, however, a question of relevance. I for one cannot figure out how the United States vetoing resolutions against Israel is in any way directly related to the subject of this article. ==Taxico 09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein quote (again)

Concerning my most recent edit, I would refer readers to statements that I made on this forum last October:

(iii) The current version begins, "Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist at DePaul University, argues that proponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism are compelled to deny the causal relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, because to acknowledge the relationship would be admit that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism."

There are two problems with this statement.

First, both the sentence structure and meaning are extremely convoluted. The point could surely be expressed in a more lucid manner.

Second, it does not accurately reflect what NF actually writes. Finkelstein's argument (taken from his own words on pp. 77-78) can be summarized as follows:

a) "There is a broad consensus among those treating the topic that the emergence of the new anti-Semitism coincided with the latest flare-up in the Israel-Palestine conflict, reaching a peak during Operation Defensive Shield and the siege of Jenin in the spring of 2002 [...]."

b) "The causal relationship would seem to be that Israel's brutal repression of Palestinians evoked hostility toward the "Jewish state" and its vocal Jewish supporters abroad."

c) "Yet is precisely this causal relationship that Israel's apologists emphatically deny: if Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters themselves might be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing do because Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong."

It is not clear how this argument can be summarized to "proponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism are compelled to deny the causal relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel". First, NF is distinguishing between "contemporary anti-Semitism" and "hostility toward Israel and its vocal Jewish supporters abroad" in this section. Second, NF is referring to the relationship between such hostility and the policies of Israel, not criticism of Israel.

(iv) The current version reads, "Finkelstein rejects what he call this "doctrine of essential Jewish innocence." [7] On the contrary, he argues, it is Jews themselves who may be the cause of contemporary anti-Semitism, because "Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong.""

As noted above, this is not an accurate summarization. NF does not argue in this instance that "Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong" -- he rather presents this conclusion as the logical outcome of the aforementioned causal relationship. Also, it is not entirely accurate to summarize the phenomena described by NF as "contemporary anti-Semitism".

I'm going to make some significant adjustments to this section, including giving it a new title and placing it elsewhere in the text. I don't claim that my proposed version is perfect, and I welcome constructive edits and discussion to improve both readability and (if necessary) textual accuracy.

I hope this won't lead to yet another edit war, and I would encourage anyone who disagrees with my assessments (and my remedial actions) to discuss the matter here rather than using a blanket revert as a tool of first resort. CJCurrie 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The context is a bit different this time, but not by much, and the quote is still inappropriate as a summary of NF's argument. It shouldn't be too difficult to find a more suitable quote, in any event. CJCurrie 06:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's too much to read. Please make the point more succinctly, if possible, and please STOP the personal attack edit summaries; the material in this article is not "hopelessly slanted." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that you've written most of the NAS article, I have difficulty understanding how you could consider my last comments to be "too much to read". Also, could you please explain how describing one particular sentence as "hopelessly slanted" constitutes a personal attack?

I'll review the Finkelstein material again tomorrow, once I have the book in front of me. CJCurrie 07:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Here's a quick overview of events relating to this controversy:

1. On 11 October 2006, I indicated that I would change the wording in which this article that addresses Norman Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah" (here, with minor adjustments here, here and here). I had several concerns with the way Finkelstein's book was presented, and believed the overall effect was misleading to readers. (See below for details.)

2. SlimVirgin's response followed nine minutes later.

3. I responded here. The conversation then degenerated into a dispute as to whether or not I had ever "written for the enemy" on Wikipedia ([34]).

4. My adjustments to the article page appeared here, with a few very minor adjustments here.

5. SlimVirgin never responded to my arguments, and did not initially take issue with anything I had written on the article page. Instead, she re-inserted the material I had removed from the caption on 31 October 2006, in a slightly different form, in block-quotes, and without comment. I probably should have taken issue with this at the time, though perhaps I didn't notice; I can't recall offhand.

Here's an overview of the controversy itself:

I initially objected to an earlier introduction of the Finkelstein section, which read as follows: "Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist at DePaul University, argues that proponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism are compelled to deny the causal relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, because to acknowledge the relationship would be admit that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism."

My objection now is to the block-quote section, which reads as follows: "[I]f Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing so because Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong."

I still believe this quote is misleading, and still believe that it should be removed. I've already explained why in my 11 October post. For those who can't be bothered to read it, here's a quick summary:

(i) My most fundamental objection is that Finkelstein did not actually make the specific assertion attributed to him in the quote provided.

(ii) Even if he had, this is not his primary argument concerning "NAS".

(iii) Even if it were, the quote provided ignores a great deal of textual nuance and is misleading if presented in isolation.

More detail:

(i) The quoted text does not accurately reflect Finkelstein's argument, which can be summarized from his own words in the following manner (pp. 77-78):

a) There is a broad consensus among those treating the topic that the emergence of the new anti-Semitism coincided with the latest flare-up in the Israel-Palestine conflict, reaching a peak during Operation Defensive Shield and the siege of Jenin in the spring of 2002 [...].

b) The causal relationship would seem to be that Israel's brutal repression of Palestinians evoked hostility toward the "Jewish state" and its vocal Jewish supporters abroad.

c) Yet is precisely this causal relationship that Israel's apologists emphatically deny: if Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters themselves might be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing do because Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong. (emphasis in original)

Finkelstein does not present this conclusion as *his own argument* on this occasion, but rather presents it as the *logical outcome* of the arguments favoured by proponents of the term "new antisemitism". As Finkelstein is emphatically *not* a proponent of the term, it is difficult to see how this conclusion could apply to him. (Finkelstein's position is that much of what is called "new anti-Semitism" is not antisemitism at all, and it may be worth noting that all of the quotes cited above are taken from a section entitled "Mislabeling Legitimate Criticism of Israeli Policy".)

Readers may object that this is nit-picking, and that Finkelstein does accuse Israel of fomenting anti-Semitism elsewhere in the book (eg., p. 85). There is some validity to such an objection, and, by way of a pre-emptive response, I should note that I would not object to including in this article a quote or summary that accurately conveys his position on the matter. The current quote, however, does not accomplish this.

(ii) The block-quote is unduly focused on a peripheral aspect of NF's argument. Finkelstein makes several arguments against the concept of a "new anti-Semitism" in the first section of "Beyond Chutzpah". The text that SlimVirgin has chosen to highlight is taken from a four-page passage toward the section's end.

During our previous exchange, SlimVirgin indicated that she chose to highlight this point because she "read the book carefully", and concluded "this is his strongest argument. My response was: "In that case, why did NF only devote four pages to it? And what criteria are you using to describe it as his "strongest argument", apart from your own discretion? For that matter, why should we be making judgements as to the relative strengths and weaknesses of his arguments?" SlimVirgin did not respond.

Most of "Beyond Chutzpah"'s first section addresses what Finkelstein believes is the cynical use of the term "new antisemitism" for short-term political gain. If we are to represent his position fairly, we should focus on this aspect of his book.

(iii) In addition to all of the above, the block-quote ignores a good deal of textual nuance. A neutral reader might wonder if the quotation was designed to portray Finkelstein in a questionable light.

For all of these reasons, I believe the current block-quote is inappropriate. I plan to replace it with a different block-quote in a few moments.

If any readers object to my decision, I hope they will (i) read my arguments before reverting, and (ii) respond to my arguments rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks and contrived outrage. CJCurrie 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Birth of Israel

OK I expect to recive many answer and attacks that I am antisemit but I want little discussion. First I must say that I do not have problem with Jews but with state of Israel. Looking history in last 60 years for me state of Israel is born on Ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians. If you look number of Jews in Israel in 1907 (for example) and today .....Can somebody explain me what is great difference of Ethnic cleansing in Balkans between 1991-95 and similar thing in Israel 1947-1957 ? Because of that I support Palestinians and fight for freedom. Because of political reality in future must exist Israel and Palestina but until that day Palestinians are having full right to attack Israel. Let say this story in other way. If your house has been given to another person because of nationality are you having right to attack and kill that person which is now living in your house ? Answer of that question is answer if Palestinians are having right to attack Israel.Rjecina 07:09, 6 January 2007 (CET)

It's sad that you would think the answer was yes.Gzuckier 15:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New article which should probably be merged into this one

Misuse of Anti-Semitism ... -- AnonMoos 15:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That article is a quote. Half the quote can be found in footnote #31 already, and the idea in the other half is written into the first paragraph of the secton on Finkelstein. What else is there to merge? Gimmetrow 07:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Where's Mel Gibson and Christian Fundamentalist New Antisemitism?

The Passion of the Christ was roundly criticised for being Antisemetic, and others allege that fundamentalist Christianity itself, where every Jew who does not convert to Christianity will 'burn in hell', is intrinisically and inherently Antisemetic. Why are these issues ignored in this article? Christian Anti-Semitism: Past History Present Challenges Reflections in Light of Mel Gibsons The Passion of the Christ - - - Religious Tolerance - Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not new antisemitism, but old antisemitism (or even anti-Judaism). // Liftarn

I disagree. This aspect of Fundamentalist Christianity has really only gained prominence in the last 30 years - since the Left Behind books - and really taken off since the early 90's. This article starts in the 40's and the 6-day war in 67 - Fairness And Accuracy For All 11:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not only chronology -- old-style theological-based antisemitism is not considered "new", just because it continues to occur in recent years. And your knowledge of the history of U.S. Protestant fundamentalism does not appear to have very great depth -- back in the 1920's, many fundamentalists were openly hostile to Jews, while many of their counterparts of today find no difficulty in working with U.S. Jews (and also with Israelis) on a range of issues (without surrendering any of their ultimate theological claims). 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel Gibson is not a fundamentalist, but a conservative (reactionary?) Catholic. His views on the Jews seem to pretty clearly derive from old school Catholic anti-semitism (the kind eventually denounced at Vatican II). So he, at least, can hardly fall under the "new anti-semitism." The idea that Jews will burn in hell if they don't become Christians has been pretty standard in traditional Christianity for ages. It's just most people don't talk about it much. john k 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly say it was "roundly criticized." (Look up the definition of "roundly" sometime.) The criticism the film received in regards to alleged antisemitism was from a handful (if that) of far-left groups and individuals. The idea that the Christian belief that the unsaved will be condemned to Hell is not "intrinsically and inherently antisemitic" in any way, shape or form. The issues you bring up are most likely "ignored" simply because they are not notable. You could put all sorts of useless garbage in the article (and all other articles) based upon your questionable standards. Jinxmchue 21:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I find it odd that some people are so worried about imagined antisemitism in films like the Passion of the Christ, but then they completely ignore real antisemitism from militant groups in Islamic countries. Which is a bigger threat? Jinxmchue 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The film was widely criticized as anti-semitic, and whatever we may think of the Anti-Defamation League, it is hardly a "far-left group." Nor are the numerous scholars, many of them Catholics working at Catholic institutions, who condemned it as anti-semitic, or at least, as possibly encouraging anti-semitism. john k 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tariq Ali looks scary and evil

Surely the photograph of Tariq Ali in this article can be considered non-NPOV. He's shaking his fist; he's shot from a low angle so as to look malevolent. I have no intention of defending his position on this issue, but surely the article would be more balanced if critics of the concept weren't portrayed as scary and evil. -Maggie --70.48.204.210 02:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes him look scary or evil, but passionate and committed, but regardless, it's the best photo we have of him that has a free licence, which is why it was used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim - your help is needed over at Gog and Magog. Check recent edits of the section on "Gog and Magog and Ashkenazim" and my recent post on the talk page for an explanation. I only ask here because I can't work your talk page. Thanks, hon. - Maggie --67.71.120.202 16:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

If there's a scholarly consensus for the Okhrana as the forgers as various websites assert then scholarly refs can be provided. I will start to look it up. In the meantime, does Flannery not count as a religious rather than an academic source, and therefore to be treated with caution per WP guidelines? Suggest that all mention of the Protocols' authorship be left out until this point has been researched and debated. Thanks. Itsmejudith 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Which WP policy says we should treat religious sources with caution? And Flannery's work on antisemitism is widely regarded as a classic. Judith, why do you often question sources you disagree with, but never question sources you agree with? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS. NB, I said guidelines, not policy. And a quick search shows up Eisner 2005. Foreword by Umberto Eco, good publisher (W.W. Norton), don't know if author is an academic, book was reviewed by serious press, argues that it was a Russian secret police forgery. Now does that count as more recent scholarship shedding doubt on Flannery? I don't know: I haven't read the book or even the reviews. As it happens, I try to be consistent and prefer good sources to bad even if they don't coincide with my prejudices. Whether I get it right, only others can tell.Itsmejudith 01:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaargh! It's a comic novel. Probably all the better for that though. Itsmejudith 01:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

RS is a widely ignored guideline — the only pages about sources that matter are WP:NOR and WP:V — but even RS doesn't say what you're claiming. It says: "The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." Edward Flannery's work was not the publication of a religious group. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you don't want to use RS then maybe we should discuss here the principles for what constitutes a suitable source on this and related articles. I am most interested in history and there are extra guidelines for historical articles but you may not think that this article is really about history. Flannery maybe does not qualify as a historian, which I think is an important principle for history articles, but I am not going to push that here. The text you have quoted has a particular POV, which is OK if his POV is balanced. In this case it seems that on a point of fact his work is superseded by more recent scholarship. Itsmejudith 10:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard that the Protocols were anything but a Tsarist forgery. They were largely plagiarized from some non-anti-semitic French satires, which were, so far as I can tell, authored by political liberals. As far as I can tell, the socialist part comes up because the man many people thing was the author of the Protocols, Matvei Golovinski, was an agent provocateur for the Okhrana, and later supported the Bolsheviks. But he was, at the time, a radical right winger, and the idea that he specifically wrote it doesn't seem clear. The claim that the Protocols "came from socialist sources" is incredibly vague, and ought to be removed unless it can be clearly explained what this means. john k 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no longer in the article so it's a moot point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The point can be sourced to the US State Department if necessary (the report currently cited that mentions the EU research into antisemitic incidents).Itsmejudith 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)