Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Oesterreicher quote

I've added a quote from Monsignor Oesterreicher that I think has great relevance to this article. I believe it is in the right place but perhaps some of you veteran editors who have been editing this thing so harmoniously could take a look and see if that is so.--Mantanmoreland 15:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your quote is a reference to double standards with regards to criticizing Israel's policies. But prejudice against Israel isn't the same as anti-Semitism, although it is related and there is a bridge between the two. There is a lot of material for such a topic. Maybe one solution would be to break apart what is considered to be the components of the NAS theory and deal with them in separate sections -- one of them is the argument that an underlying anti-Semitism on behalf of the critics is the motivator for what is claimed to be double standards in criticism. --Ben Houston 23:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but note his use of the term "prejudice," meaning anti-Semitism. I think what makes this quote interesting is that Monsignor Oesterreicher was a critic of Israeli policies and also did not like it when Jewish leaders unfairly criticized the Vatican. Yet he had a clearthinking view of the whole concept of anti-Semitism. The double standard of which he speaks has been repeatedly also cited as a manifestation of the new anti-Semitism, very much as Monsignor Oesterreicher himself said. --Mantanmoreland 23:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote is a good one but it doesn't really belong in this article as it is -- it feels like it would be prefectly at home in an article that alleges specifically double standards with regards to criticism of Israel and the reasons for. The main issue is that the quote doesn't mention the term NAS. The connection to NAS is your own -- in your opinion he is describing a component of NAS. Thus (for the time being at least) it appears as if you did original research to make that connection. Now if someone else in a reputable source refers to Oesterreicher quote as relevant to NAS than it would pass the bar as being not OR but then you would have to mention who makes that connection and introduce the quote that way. Do you see what I mean here? The distinction between OR and non OR takes a while to get used to. --Ben Houston 23:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are making this more complex than it really is, Ben (and actually have done that generally in your comments). The quote clearly fits in to the evolution of the concept, particularly in the context quoted. No OR involved at all, unless you include reading the source before commenting on it.--Mantanmoreland 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Note this earlier in the article: "To this day [1983] he continues to be a strong champion of the Jews and the state of Israel whenever he thinks prejudice is at work. " Prejudice meaning anti-Semitism.--Mantanmoreland 23:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Others may have different views, I'm just stating my thoughts. I have in the past been ripped apart by editors more aggressive than myself for doing things like your addition that on other topics, I may have been taught by incorrect example. Also, I only gave my thoughts because in your first responses to me below you mentioned this quote. --Ben Houston 23:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak to who's been telling you what, but your interpretation of WP:NOR, what you posted on my talk page, is wildly off-base and wikilawyering.--Mantanmoreland 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, I'm not looking for a fight. I didn't even attempt to remove your quote from the context you put it in. I have though moved the historical uses of the term (that whole section, and it did contain your quote) into is own article to allow us to focus here on the modern meaning of the term. Feel free to duplicate your quote elsewhere in this article. I won't remove it. --Ben Houston 03:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutering critics

The article neuters critics. It does this in two ways. First, the arguments of critics are misportrayed as less critical then they actually are. This is most obvious if one compares Brian Klug's essay "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism" with the way his views are summarized in the article. The second method of neutering critics is by covering their views in the "What is the new anti-Semitism?" section. There are two subsections of this definition section, "An old phenomenon" and "New, but not anti-Semitism", which actually cover major criticism of the concept but they are subverted and misportrayed as implicitly supporting just with slightly different views of the topic. There should be a distinct criticism section and major critics should go there and their arguments should be accurately portrayed. Also criticisms within the criticism section should be organized topically (like the rest of the article) rather than by the name of the individual making the criticism unless absolutely necessary. --Ben Houston 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am largely in agreement with the basic points raised here. I've never been happy with the summary of Klug's article, nor with the representation of other critical views. (And frankly, I've never believed that "What is the new anti-Semitism?" is a proper section title.) CJCurrie 00:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on which specific parts of the criticisms are "misportrayed" - can you give examples? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, if a person's views are misrepresented, there should be no difficulty editing the quote as we would in any other article. --Leifern 17:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree: there should be no difficulty editing such quotes. CJCurrie 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CJ, I've got a few more Klug articles now, and his testimony to the British inquiry, so I'm hoping to clarify his views. The Nation article is not the best representation of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusing evidence with NAS's interpretation

The other serious issue with the article is its confusion of the listing of evidence of increased hostility and attacks towards Jewish people and symbols with the specific theory of NAS. The increase in hostility and attacks is real and it should be appropriately condemned and documented in Contemporary anti-Semitism. To view NAS as just describing the increase is to fundamentally misunderstand the concept (as defined by Foxman, Chesler and Klug) and the topic of this article. The concept of NAS, according to Foxman, Chesler and Klug, actually offers a way of understanding this increase as being part of a rising global coalition of anti-Semitism, the reawakening of an old hatred that is, for the most part, devoid of context. This is a specific interpretation of the evidence, an interpretation that leads one to draw specific conclusions, and it is the interpretation of this evidence that critics such as Brian Klug disagree with, not the evidence itself. (To understand where I am coming from I highly recommend reading Brian Klug's essay "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism", I am parroting him.) --Ben Houston 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC) [comment edited @ 05:46, 11 September 2006)

Actually there is a second important formulation of the concept "new anti-semitism" that doesn't posit a "rising global coalition" as claimed by Foxman and Chesler. From the perspective of someone whose goal is to fight against anti-semitism, the trends which comprise the concept "new anti-semitism" share one important characteristic: they are the key areas where anti-semitism must be fought today. The new trends (as opposed to pre-existing right-wing anti-Semitism) are all being driven by non-productive, but distinct, responses to the "unfolding tragedy in Israel." In this view, there is no claim that there is any real coordination or alliances between the separate trends. But still, the separate trends, when viewed collectively as the "new anti-semitism", pose a serious threat that requires major attention -- the new anti-semitism is a true multiheaded hydra. This is how Jonathan Sacks appears to view the concept [1]. His view is immune to the criticism of Brian Klug. --Ben Houston 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Article is about modern NAS theory, not term

The article is about the modern theory of NAS, not the term "New anti-Semitism" and its various meanings thoughout history. As such the section covering other historical uses of the term, Changing meanings, is too prominent and serves as a distraction. Could we do the dab thing and create other articles for each of those separate meanings? Or, if multiple other articles is overkill, could we create an article entitled "New anti-Semitism (term)" that describes the various historical uses and meanings of the term? To ensure clarity, but it might be going too far, we could rename this article as "New anti-Semitism (concept)" or "New anti-Semitism (theory)". Or could we make use of a wiktionary entry to cover the various meanings? This will allow us to again focus on the true topic of the article. (I believe that focusing this article will help to clarify that the evidence of an increase in attacks and hostility towards Jewish people and symbols is distinct from the specific and controversial interpretation of these events offered by the theory of NAS.) --Ben Houston 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point, Ben. I added a comment from Monsignor Oesterreicher that was spot-on the concept but did not involve use of the term "new anti-Semitism." I think that use of the term is relevant but I think the article indeed discusses the concept, and does so quite comprehensively in fact. So I am not sure what this point addresses.--Mantanmoreland 22:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. What are your thoughts about the two previous concerns I listed? --Ben Houston 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll go through the article again, but nothing stood out. On my first reading I thought that it actually was a thorough article and balanced. But I will read again.--Mantanmoreland 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read it through again. Actually I really don't share your concerns. Klug's very thought-provoking commentary is given fair and very prominent and respectful treatment, so maybe I am missing your point on that. I do think there could be more on the non-Jewish clergymen and political leaders who have spoken out on this issue. It is not just a "Jewish issue."--Mantanmoreland 23:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I have just now split out the historical uses of the term to the new article New anti-Semitism (term) to allow for a better focus in this article. I think they are appropriately linked together. --Ben Houston 03:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been editing this article for very long as you know, but I am a bit surprised you would engage in such a significant action without talking about it previously in this article. I must tell you that I think that there is no justification whatsoever for combing out the "historical uses of the term" as a separate article. The article you created is a candidate for speedy deletion if I have ever seen one. I suggest you not proceed with it. --Mantanmoreland 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted. In so doing there was an almost-edit conflict and I unintentionally reverted another editor's more minor changes. Whatever happens to those is a sep issue -- I strongly suggest that the massive move that I reverted not be reinstated.--Mantanmoreland 03:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mantanmoreland. I'm going to make a few more edits tonight if that is okay with you -- I am allowed to edit the article. I am not a vandal, I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year and racked up around 4000 edits now. I am not reverting your quote addition (though I moved it), could you not just blindly revert my attempt at improving the article? Thanks. --Ben Houston 04:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with BHouston on moving the piece out. The article is way to long, and it is a rather seperate issue. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bhouston, I agree with Mantanmoreland that the massive changes you've made need to be discussed first. I don't see the purpose in creating a fork from this article. I also don't understand the differentiation you are attempting to make in creating separate articles for "theory" and "term". Not only that but in the chunk you removed to the new "term" article , you added a new large section on "modern usage" which then goes on to discuss "concept"...which I thought you were supposedly trying to differentiate from "term". I think the solution to alleviating the length of this article is to address it in THIS article and NOT to create a POV fork that just adds even more verbage. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with Ben Houston here. While the tentative steps towards New anti-Semitism (term) may be a bit rough... this is typical of a newly created branch off of an existing article. (→Netscott) 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism or Anti-Zionism?

The article reads: "New anti-Semitism is the concept of an international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse. It has been described as a "kaleidoscope of old hatreds shattered and rearranged," [1] coming simultaneously from three political directions: the left, Islamism, and the far-right. " This sentenced is referenced to 5 different sources but looks strange to me. I am Persian. I have spent 23 years of my life in Iran watching TV, reading newspapers. There is no such thing as anti-Semitism BUT rather it is all Anti-Zionism. The government of Iran and the television are very careful when they talk about the Jews. They stress that we are bad with Zionism, those who they say have occupied Israel, NOT with Jews in general. Outside of Iran, the situation may be different but definitely not in Iran. The Qur'an respects Judaism and also talks about what it calls "good" Jews and "bad" Jews. Thus, I would like to suggest evaluation of the sources for this sentence. Please fill in the following why you think each of these sources pass WP:RS (i.e. they are academic peer-reviewed sources). Here is the link from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles): [2] ; BTW, it would be great if one can specify page or relevant paragraphs within each source so that one can check them easier. Thanks.

Source: http://israel.jcca.org/articles.htm?y=620051118152416 ; by Jonathan Sacks
- Aminz comment: It needs to be established that Jonathan Sacks has the required academic degree in the area he comments. The website by itself is not a reliable source unless the reliability of the author could be established. --Aminz 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Sacks is the Chief Rabbi in the UK, has a PhD in philosophy, and has been called as an expert witness to various inquiries into contemporary anti-Semitism, and so is definitely suitably qualified. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Source: Chesler, Phyllis. The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It, Jossey-Bass, 2003, pp. 158-159, 181
- I'm also not happy using Chesler as a source, because she has no relevant academic qualifications. However, her book is popular and often cited, so we can't ignore her entirely. Nothing in this article actually relies on her as a source; she is cited in this footnote only as a "see also." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Source: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/words_extremism_nas.htm by Kinsella, Warren
- Aminz Comment: Who is Warren Kinsella? Why is he/she notable? --Aminz 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  - I agree that we shouldn't use him as a source; not even in a footnote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1278580,00.html
- Comments:
- Aminz comment: Gurdian itself doesn't opinions on some issue I think, the author does. Author seems to be Jamie Doward. Please explain why this source is reliable? Thanks --Aminz 23:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  - It's The Guardian that's the reliable source in this case, not Jamie Doward. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Source: Todd M. Endelman "Antisemitism in Western Europe Today" in Contemporary Antisemitism: Canada and the World. University of Toronto Press, 2005, pp. 65-79
- Aminz comment: I liked this source. Would you please point to more particular pages of this book. Thanks --Aminz 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  - He is a suitably qualified academic source. Can you say what you mean by point to more pages? Do you mean use more of his material? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Source: Yehuda Bauer. "Problems of Contemporary Anti-Semitism"
- Comments:
- Aminz comment: It seems to be a good academic source. Please point me to a particular paragraph of this source which deals with the quoted sentence. Thanks --Aminz 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. --Aminz 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

- - There should be page numbers in the reference, Aminz. Did you find one without a full citation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I will appreciate if someone can add a source published by a more famous press. Thanks --Aminz 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Sacks is Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth, has a doctorate in Philosophy, and submitted evidence to the British parliament commissioned All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism in the UK. Phyllis Chesler is a professor emeritus of psychology and women's studies, human rights campaigner, and author of 13 books, including perhaps the best-selling book on New anti-Semitism, titled New anti-Semitism. Warren Kinsella is the author of a seminal and bestelling books on racists and antisemites Unholy Alliances and Web of Hate; he has frequently been called as an expert witness in trials of antisemites, including Ernst Zundel and David Irving. The Guardian is a highly respected British newspaper. I'm glad you approved of the other sources. Your personal experience in Iran is interesting, but not relevant to this article. If you read the article, you will note that many other sources (e.g. Wistrich) note the connections between far-left, far-right, and Islamism as key components of the New anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, when I wrote the above about Kinsella, I didn't know he'd been called as an expert witness. Still, it's worth pointing out that nothing in this article actually relies on Kinsella so far as I know. I think he's only referenced in a footnote as one of a number of authors saying something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Kinsella's Web of Hate contains favourable references to leaders of the Jewish Defence League; this might be seen to undercut his credibility somewhat, notwithstanding the legitimate work he's done. Chesler's The New Anti-Semitism is a polemic, and barely qualifies as serious literature. CJCurrie 17:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Statement withdrawn. Kinsella does not support the Jewish Defence League. 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, sure, that might undercut his credibility, or possibly not. Who knows? As for Chesler, not a great work for sure, which is why you don't see it quoted in this article, but the point is, for better or for worse, it's possibly the most widely read work on the topic. What makes Klug particularly reliable on the subject? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What follows is my attempt at a precise NPOV lead minus a mention of how critics view it. Aminz, your opinion? --Ben Houston 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism is a set of concepts that all deal with the following^[1]:

A "worldwide increase in the number of assaults on Jews (or persons perceived to be Jewish)"^[1] and Jewish symbols "by people who are identifiably from the Muslim community".^[2]
The appearance of "anti-Jewish slogans and graphics" at "marches opposing the invasion of Iraq."^[1]
The revival of "Jewish conspiracy theories [...] such as the widely circulated 'urban legend' that Jews were warned in advance to stay away from the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001."^[1]
That "certain public figures on both the right and the left have made negative generalizations about Jews and 'Jewish influence.'"^[1]

The new anti-Semitism, as a shorthand reference to just the above collection of recent trends, is generally viewed as "a clear and present danger"^[1] that must be addressed (ref: Sacks).

More controversially, some posit, that instead of just being a collection of relatively distinct trends, there are significant and explicit alliances or coalitions between the component trends and that the result is a new form of anti-semitism distinct from classical anti-semitism. They also include as an additional trend what they see "as an explosion of bias against Israel: in the media, in the United Nations, on college campuses and elsewhere."^[1]" For example, some claim that it is a "frightening coalition of anti-Jewish sentiment [that] is forming on a global scale" (ref: Foxman, "Never Again?") and it is a "war against the Jews [that] is being waged on many fronts -- militarily, politically, economically, and through propaganda -- and on all continents." (ref: Chesler, "The New Anti-Semitism") One critic of this formulation notes that "while the facts give cause for serious concern, the idea that they add up to a new kind of anti-Semitism is confused"^[1], and that allegations of a "global 'war against the Jews'" is as "much a figment of the imagination as its mirror image: a Jewish conspiracy against the world."^[1]

Almost all of your references are to Klug, and the intro now downplays the key components of New anti-Semitism, what makes it "New", such as the left and Islamism. It highlights minor issues (e.g. anti-Jewish slogans at marches), and has turned into a quote and bullet farm, making it almost unreadable. In the vein of Aminz's question, what exactly makes Klug an expert in this area, moreso than (or even as much as) any of the people mentioned above? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am basing it too much on Klug. It's just a draft to generate discussion anyways. I think that mentioning the high level descriptions of far left activists, Islamists and hard right is useful. Klug didn't mention them explicitly in description of Foxman and Chesler -- he used the above evidence. Stylistically, we do disagree on what makes an article readable. I find lists incredibly useful for improving article precision as well as thinking. On controversial topics I find full quotes to be useful since they avoid pitfalls of mis-interpretation as mentioned earlier. It is true that I can go overboard on quotes. --Ben Houston 05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ben, I personally think that "new anti-Semitism" is not a good term because it tries to tie anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, hence implying that whoever opposes the state of Israel actually opposes the whole Jewish community and actually wants to wipes off the whole Jewish community from the earth. This is not true. Jews living now in Iran don't face any particular hostility unless they would be suspected to have been connected to Israel. BUT, this is what *I* think. I am no scholar. I am sure many respected academics would support this idea if it is really true. Some Muslims may assaults on Jews (or persons perceived to be Jewish and Jewish symbols, but I am sure this is either in the context of their conflict with Israel, or has its roots in it. Part of it is natural. I think I can not help much with the article but can learn from it. Thanks to those who are working on this article. --Aminz 06:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite sure if this intro is better than the existing one, but it has one definite quality that should be added to the existing intro. Instead of starting with saying that NAS is a new thing and then saying that critics claim that this thing is more a collection of different phenomena, you present each phenomenon that the concept is supposed to cover, and then say that the proponents say that these trends put together is NAS. In scientific language one may say you are working inductively in stead of deductively. The good thing about this is that one leaves it to the reader wether to see this as one concept pointing to one phenomenon. And a key point of the controversy is well summarized here: "More controversially, some posit, that instead of just being a collection of relatively distinct trends, there are significant and explicit alliances or coalitions between the component trends and that the result is a new form of anti-semitism distinct from classical anti-semitism" pertn 17:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Some posit"? Everyone who writes on the topic discusses them as related trends. Even the critics (and there aren't many reliable or qualified ones) often try to criticize it in those terms. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you are trying to reply to my comment here? What you critizise is my quote from Ben Houston. What I agree with him on is that it (maybe) would be better to start with the trends which are more or less in dispute but generally accepted, and then note that some people regard these (or the sum of these) as a "wave" or the phenomenon called NAS. Instead, the article can be read more as "There is something called NAS, and here is the evidence" followed by the trends. It may be diffucult to do what I propose here in practice, since it may make the article a bit more complex, so I am not sure how to go about it, and I am very open to suggestions. pertn 11:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "more or less in dispute but generally accepted" means, or which elements are that, versus something else. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you see Bhouston's draft, he identifies a series of trends that of current anti-semitism that are generally recognized by most scholars. (there is not much dispute about, for instance an increasing anti-semitism among muslim immigrants in europe, for example). What is more controversial is the coining of the term NAS as a catch-all phrase, lumping these trends together. OK? :) pertn 08:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not aware of any serious commentary that doesn't deal with the issues as related matters. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are many commentors (such as Brian Klug) that do not group them beyond their shared temporal occurance and their shared trait of anti-Semitism or perception of anti-Semitism (as Klug argues is the case for much of the left.) They do together present a serious threat and most are in one way emminating/aggrevated by the Israel-Palestinian/Arab conflict, but saying they are linked more than that is controversial. There is some small evidence of linkages but not as much as is implied by some proponents of very inclusive NAS definitions. --Ben Houston 04:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The suggested change to the intro above removes elements that sources identify as key to the concept. We need to stick with what the sources say, and not redefine things based on editor personal opinion. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right MPerel. We should list the three trends as named - far left activists, hard right and Islamists -- they are basically implicitly covered in my list above (which is derived from the list given Klug based on his reading of Foxman and Chesler.) But I still strongly believe that separating out the undisputed trends from the more disputed wider claims is important in teasing apart the complexity inherent in this touchy subject. --Ben Houston 04:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion and a question

Suggestion: After carelessly reading this article by Lewis, I tend to agree with the 'existence' of the "new anti-semitism" to some extent. Why don't you guys start the references with a peer-reviewed academic sources published in a famous press rather than a Chief Rabbi. Speaking to myself, how can one expect a Muslim editor, knowing something about the history of Islam and Anti-Semitism, doesn't get suspicous of such a concept when he sees that a Rabbi is the very first reference to this concept.

New Anti-Semitism in Iran - The first picture of this article

Question: Please show me a reliable source (not from a Rabbi please) alluding that there is such anti-semitism in Iran. Lewis is always speaking about Arabic countries. Thanks.

--Aminz 03:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the sources used and quoted in the article. I'm not sure why you're focussing on Iran; the article doesn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Because lack of mention of existence of something doesn't imply it isn't so. I am sure there is no such anti-Semitism in Iran. People think of "Islamism" as also and to a good extent refering to Iran. :: Also, the first picture there can be added to anti-zionism and not anti-Semitism. It is relating to Zionist Jews and not Jews in general. --Aminz 21:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So, even though the article doesn't focus on Iran, you want us to find a source stating that there is such anti-Semitism in Iran? Sorry, that doesn't make much sense. Also, the image is here precisely because some people see it as anti-Zionist, others as anti-Semitic - a perfect illustration of the differing viewpoints. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no anti-semitism in Iran. But saying anti-semitism comes from Islamism makes it sound like that. 2. It is not a matter of our POV to decide whether something is anti-semitic. Anti-semitic has a definition. Lewis in this article explains this. Anti-Semitism is something quite different. It is marked by two special features. One of them is that Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others. We see plenty of examples of this at the present time. But there too one has to be careful. There can be different standards of judgment on other issues too, sometimes even involving Jews, without anti-Semitism or without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism... The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil.

Thus you need to show that this picture passes these two criteria. It doesn't. In Iran we see similar caricatures drawn for Bush and others. It is NOT specific to Jews. Secondly, I can not see how that picture accuses Jews, in general, of being cosmic evil. It is all about certain Jews. --Aminz 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Iran" and "Islamism" are not synonyms. Your POV regarding the picture is interesting, but this has already been discussed at length; please re-read earlier Talk: page statements for detail. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you please kindly show me where this picture has been discussed. I couldn't find it. Thanks. --Aminz 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I found the section "Demo poster image" and some sections around it discussing this picture but it doesn't address my point (or at least I couldn't find it). Could you please point me to the relevant section. Thanks --Aminz 07:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review the many discussions on this topic here and elsewhere. Also, please review this material:

The [Iranian] Government's anti-Israel policies, along with a perception among radical Muslims that all Jewish citizens support Zionism and the State of Israel, create a hostile atmosphere for the small [Jewish] community. For example, during the period covered by this report many newspapers celebrated the one-hundredth anniversary of the publishing of the anti-Semitic "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Jewish leaders reportedly are reluctant to draw attention to official mistreatment of their community due to fear of government reprisal [3]

--Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think I've found some discussion and have read them. I found nobody addressed specifically my points. Please let me know if this point is already addressed. New-Anti-Semitism has particular marks according to Lewis. Most of Lewis's article is devoted to explain what anti-Semitism is *not* rather than what is anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism has two marks. This picture doesn't have those. Thus according to academic standards this picture fails the requirements of being an example of anti-Semitism. It can be very well moved to anti-Zionism article.

Yes, there are discriminations in Iran directed to Jews, Muslim Sunnis, and even to maybe to some citizens compared to others. But that doesn’t automatically make it anti-muslim or anti-Semitism. It is not only towards Jews but also Christians, Bahais, ... Had Iran treated Jews by a different standards as it treated others, it would have passed the first requirement of being anti-Semitism. It can very well be included in an article about the situation of Jews in Iran. --Aminz 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lewis is one academic with one opinion; there are many other academics who have written on this topic, each with their own POV. Unsurprisingly, they do not all agree. Please do not focus so narrowly on the one article from the one author you have actually read, or on trying to make this article all about Iran. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, academics do not disagree in the way you think. Defending your POV based on the general unspecific and unestablished statements is not a decent academic-level discussion. --Aminz 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Aminz, academics do disagree in precisely this way. New anti-Semitism is a modern concept, and its parameters haven't all been worked out yet, as the article explains. Moreover, Lewis himself has unique views on anti-Semitism, at odds with most other reasearchers. As Lewis puts it in "Semites and anti-Semites", p. 22: The term anti-Semitism is often used to denote "normal" prejudice directed against Jews, and even to describe political or ideological opposition to Israel or to Zionism. This is misleading. In what follows it will be limited to the third category—the special and peculiar hatred of the Jews, which derives its unique power from the historical relationship between Judaism and Christianity, and the role assigned by Christians to the Jews in their writings and beliefs, more especially popular beliefs, concerning the genesis of their faith.

This view, however, is specific to Lewis, as other authors do not approach anti-Semitism with a standard different from that of any other "anti-...ism". For example, Meyer Weinberg in "Because They Were Jews: A History of Anti-Semitism", p. xii, writes: "In this work, antisemitism is understood as systematic opposition to Jews because they are Jewish." William I. Brustein in "Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust", p. 5, says: "By “popular anti-Semitism, ” I mean hostility (as expressed in sentiments, attitudes, or actions) to Jews as a collectivity rooted in the general population." Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Meyer Weinberg doesn't disagree with Lewis. The opposition to Jews because they are Jewish is anti-semitism. He is also pointing out the discrimination factor. We see all kinds of images drawn for many different people, including non-Jews. No discrimination here. William I. Brustein also doesn't contradict Lewis on the points I mentioned. His book is also about anti-semitism prior to the formation of Israel. That picture is about the state of Isreal, or the Jews who support it. Definitely not those who oppose it. --Aminz 00:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I think you are smart enough to have got my point about Iran. At least please do not ironically put something into my mouth. Thanks --Aminz 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't get your point, or if I do get it, I think it's wrong. Your narrow focus on Iran is not what this article is about - you are fighting problems that do not exist here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lewis and Taguieff

Aminz, thanks for finding the Bernard Lewis article, which is very interesting. I've added a section based on it, although I'm worried again about length, so maybe it should be cut down or incorporated into another section (or left out entirely if the length becomes a serious issue).

It would be good to find something from Edward Said. I know he mentioned Arab anti-Semitism in the Ron Rosenbaum book, but there might be a more detailed treatment somewhere. Aminz, I agree wholeheartedly about the need to focus on academic sources. If you have any others you can recommend, for or against the concept, they would be gratefully received. The source doesn't have to use the words "new anti-Semitism" (although preferably should), but it has to be clear that that's what's being discussed i.e. a new form of it, a new wave, etc.

I'm currently reading Pierre-André Taguieff's Rising from the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe, so I'll try to tidy our mention of him, which is currently secondhand, but without increasing the length. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I removed Lewis from the intro, for a number of reasons, primarily because if we start naming people in the lead, arguments will develop about who else must be named; and partly because the particular material you used from him would cover any form of anti-Semitism, not just the new anti-Semitism. I hope that's okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Is there any other respected academic scholar who disagrees with Lewis? Lewis basically tries to define the new anti-Semitism in his paper. So, I guess it is relevant to the lead. At least that's what I got from it. If you can show me a quote from another peer-reviewed academic source published in academic presses (e.g. Oxford, etc.) who doesn't agree with Lewis, I would be thankful and would learn something for myself. Thanks --Aminz 10:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Lewis's article defines the two criteria and then applies to many different cases and based on them evaluates whether it is new anti-semitism or not.I think mentioning those two criteria is quite important and informative.--Aminz 10:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I think if there are different views among scholars as to the definition of anti-semitism then all POV's must be named. So, I think " arguments will NOT develop about who else must be named"--Aminz 10:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those two criteria (holding Jews to different standards, and demonization) are important, but I think Lewis means them to apply to all anti-Semitism, not just the new. That is, I think that's part of his definition of anti-Semitism in general. Perhaps I read it wrong so I'll go back and look again. I found it quite a hard article to sum up, which is why what I wrote was on the long side, because I didn't want to leave out anything essential to his argument. His view seems to be that it was the movement of anti-Semitism into the Arab world that triggered the "newness," helped by the apparent support of the UN in the way it approached the refugee situation.

I don't know of anyone who disagrees with him as such. Part of the difficulty here is that it's a relatively recent subject of academic debate, and so only a few academics have written about it, and I'm not sure they've quite gotten round to addressing each other's specific points yet. However, I'm in the process of trying to pin down some more sources; it's just a question of time. Time finding them plus time reading them, so it's not a fast process. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please see how Lewis starts his article (titled "new anti-semitism"): 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. My quote was taken quite from the context of ongoing discussion. SlimVirgin, New anti-Semitic is anti-Semitic in the first place. SlimVirgin, honestly, don't you think adding Lewis's quote suits the intro and makes it informative? --Aminz 10:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind if I take the time to read the article through again? I'm fairly sure he means all anti-Semitism is defined by the two criteria, but I'd like to read it again just to check. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take your time. --Aminz 02:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So, can we have the quote back? --Aminz 00:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aminz, I looked at the article again, and that is Lewis's definition of anti-Semitism in general, not new anti-Semitism. He writes: "Anti-Semitism is something quite different. It is marked by two special features. One of them is that Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others ... The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil." He then goes on to explain about the three waves of anti-Semitism: religious, racial, and ideological. It is the ideological that he identifies as the new anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but new anti-semtism is anti-semtism. How is this: Bernard Lewis states that new Anti-Semitism is an ideological anti-semitism and like any kind of anti-semtism is marked by two special features: One of the features is that Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others, and the other one is accusation against Jews of cosmic evil. The new anti-semitism should be distinguished from criticizing the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism, Lewis states. ^[3] --Aminz 00:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no sense in putting it in the lead section though. It's not so special or succinct or interestingly written that it stands out, or a definition that everyone would agree with. The fact is that he defines new anti-Semitism in quite a complex way, which is why the section on him was longer than I wanted because I was worried if I missed out too much, I'd be misrepresenting him. So we can't sum it up in two sentences for the lead. Also, he's just one academic. There are lots of others we wouldn't be naming, which gets me back to my first point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons

Does anyone have feelings either way about whether the cartoon section should stay? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the issue -- either way is fine with me. --Ben Houston 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical background of term

Does anyone else have a view about the first section, "Changing meanings," added by ChrisO, that Bhouston keeps removing? [4] The first two paragraphs are not about this particular concept of new anti-Semitism, so I can see why we might want to remove them. But the third paragraph onwards does seem to be about this concept. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed from the intro that the term has been used for 100 years, because this concept has not been used for 100 years (how could it be, given that it's associated with the State of Israel?); to write that it was used 100 years ago is to confuse the usage of the words with the meaning of the concept. This is an article about the concept. I also slightly reordered the sentences in the first two paragraphs for flow, but with no content change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I also meant to say that I don't think we should say in the intro that it has been in use since X, because it's OR, unless we find someone authoritative who says it (and we've already had "since 1974" and "for 100 years"). The truth is that we don't know when the first usage of this particular concept was, so I feel we shouldn't try to appear to know more than we do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The main issue is whether the article is about the concept or about the term. Just logically, the fact that we discuss the history of the term's other meanings under the header "what is the concept of new anti-Semitism" seems incorrect. Maybe if the superheader was "what are the concepts of new anti-semitism?" then discussing its various other meanings would be appropriate. Earlier in the original discussion where I removed it, where was other voices of support for it -- see here:

Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Article_is_about_modern_NAS_theory.2C_not_term

The key to thinking clearly about stuff like this is focusing on what is relevant. Even for new readers who wish to learn about the modern concept having to read through significant, fairly unrelated historical uses of the term seems unnecessarily cumbersome and can act as a barrier/hurdle. I am partial to inverted pyramid style writing for newspapers/press releases -- in such a model this unrelated detailed history should either be at the very bottom or not in the article at all. I figured my compromise of moving it was decent. The article is already longer than necessary. --Ben Houston 23:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bans on Kosher meat section

While this is an interesting and well-sourced section, it does not appear to directly fall into the discussion of "New anti-Semitism", but rather parallel more "old-fashion" descriminatory policies. The bans on Kosher (and I assume Halal) meat does not have a connection, insofar as this section claims, with anti-Zionism or anti-Israel beliefs, which is the core "difference" between the "new" and the "old". The section would do better spun off into its own article (such as Bans on Kosher meat), or in talks of traditional antisemitic practices --Leflyman^Talk 14:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it seems out of place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto --I've removed that. Tis a bit of stretch I think. However I reinstated the JM Oesterreicher quote, as I do believe that the "double standard" re Israel that JMO mentioned is indeed widely regarded as an element of the New Anti-Semitism. As in many other things, the good monsignor was well ahead of his times.--Mantanmoreland 14:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the sources, it's cited as part of a new wave of anti-semitism so it's completely germane to the article and not a stretch at all particularly as it involves the animal rights movement and environmentalists who are generally seen as leftists. Farnsworth J 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why animal rights activists should be called anti-Semites. // Liftarn

Whether they should or not be called that is beside the point. The fact is that the bans have been noted by some as part of a "new wave of anti-Semtism in Europe" and thus it belongs here. I would be more willing to think that people aren't just trying to hide the information if they at least moved it to anti-Semitism rather than obliterate it altogether. Farnsworth J 21:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the term "New anti-Semitism" with a "new wave of anti-Semitism"; they are not synonyms. The "New" in this article is the use of anti-Zionist/Israeli sentiment and antagonism (yes, as increasingly voiced by some members of the Left) as a cover for the more overt forms of anti-Semitism. The section just doesn't belong here. --Leflyman^Talk 23:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman, read the first line of the article "New anti-Semitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, coming simultaneously from three political directions: the left, Islamism, and the far-right." Nothing there saying that new anti-Semitism only deals with anti-Israel sentiment. In fact, Israel isn't mentioned at all. The recent debates on kosher slaughter fit the definition given in the article as it's arguably part of the resurgence of attacks.Farnsworth J 14:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

But this campaign is aimed at both Jewish and Moslem forms of ritual slaughter. See this BBC article [5] It is an "animal rights" thing. I am surprised there is such an eagerness to expand the article.--Mantanmoreland 15:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Eight people (in this section and a previous one) have said the ritual slaughter section doesn't belong here, and only one in favor, so it should be removed again. If Farnsworth J can find stronger sources (academic, preferably), we can reconsider. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and I believe that Muslim ritual slaughter is also prohibited in the countries that have knocked out kosher slaughter. This all is far removed from the battlefield of NAS, which is essentially Israel-centered and is quite well defined in the intro. Same thing if people overturn tombstones in Jewish cemeteries or the like, this is not NAS.--Mantanmoreland 14:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created the article Bans on ritual slaughter for the removed content. It should likely clarify that Halal and Kosher meat are what are being banned under such legislation.--Leflyman^Talk 16:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree; good idea. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that having its own article is the best idea -- I actually made that suggestion way back on August 20th (see [6].) Its nice to move forward on this. --Ben Houston 23:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So no mention of the bans in either the Anti-Semitism or New anti-Semitism articles despite ample sources describing it as such? There should at least be a short metnion in both articles with a link to the new article. Farnsworth J 16:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Farnsworth. The connection is argued by many and it should be mentioned in at least the NAS article with a pointer to external article. The same goes for the academic boycotts. --Ben Houston 17:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am shaking my head trying to figure out why there is such enthusiasm to linking this ritual slaughter business to anti-Semitism, when it clearly is an animal rights issue and applies equally to Moslem and Jewish practices. Aren't we supposed to be selective and sparing in tagging things as anti-Semitic. We have a full-blown editing war about how the president of Iran, one of the leading Jew haters in the world, should not be put in the "anti-Semitic people" category, despite massive evidence backing that up. Yet here we have an animal rights protest being dabbed unfairly as anti-Semitic. I don't get it. Can someone explain this discrepency?--Mantanmoreland 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is clear that some reputable sources make the connection. I pushed for pulling it out into its own article so that space could be dedicated to the animal rights angle since I believe that was more the driving force. The previous issue was that since it was only a subsection of this article including the animal rights angle was considered to be off topic and thus repeatedly removed. I think that in its own article all angles can be covered accurately. There does seem to be some evidence of some anti-semitic overtones to some connected with the issue. --Ben Houston 20:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In the UK the issue has been raised by the British National Party who have a history of anti-semitism as well as Islamophobia. I recall that they have been accused of anti-semitism for this stance. So I would agree that the obvious solution for the article is to mention it briefly and refer the reader to the separate article. Itsmejudith 21:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found material from the Internet to support the idea that the opposition to ritual slaughter has an anti-semitic character and will add it to the Bans on ritual slaughter article. Itsmejudith 21:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"I am shaking my head trying to figure out why there is such enthusiasm to linking this ritual slaughter business to anti-Semitism, when it clearly is an animal rights issue and applies equally to Moslem and Jewish practices."

Believe it or not there are people in this world, particularly in Europe, who hate both Jews and Muslims. Look at the British National Party, the National Front in France and the neo-Nazis in Germany, for instance, all of whom support laws banning ritual slaughter, and are anti-Semitic and anti-Arab. That some left wing animal rights activists work with them on this issue is an illustration of the whole NAS argument. Also, there is a wing of the animal rights movement that is deeply fascist and xenophobic. And again, read the sources which clearly express the view that the anti-Kosher movement is anti-Semitic. Farnsworth J 01:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding this section. As written, it has nothing to do with new anti-Semitism. You said earlier that you'd look for an authoritative source, preferably a scholarly one, who links the bans on ritual slaughter to new anti-Semitism, so please do that. With a good source, I have no problem adding it, but the source must be talking about new anti-Semitism, and must be someone who's in a position to talk about it e.g. someone who has written or talked about it elsewhere. Why not look through the sources listed in the References section, and see whether any of them mention ritual slaughter bans? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the other examples (9/11, Jenin) have been removed because of length issues, so if you do find a source, we should create a new page with examples of new anti-Semitism, and the kosher section can go there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Since I think it's inappropriate for an article to become a good article while it's the subject of an arbitration request, I removed the nomination. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Cry Wolf" Cartoon

This cartoon is, I assume, intended to illustrate the concept of new anti-semitism. Either that or it is inserted as POV-pushing. Either way it is inappropriate for the article.--Mantanmoreland 13:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And why is is "inappropriate for the article"? It does illustrate another view on what NAS is. // Liftarn

What part of my comment didn't you understand?--Mantanmoreland 14:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why you find it "inappropriate for the article" as it does illustrate the concept of NAS. // Liftarn

It does depict a critical POV, and for that reason I've readded it as part of the criticism section. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's surely less objectionable in the criticism section. Still a bit uneasy about including a cartoon that perpetuates stereotypes (the side curls). When I first saw it I thought it was intended to be an example of prejudice and not criticism of the concept.--Mantanmoreland 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather ironic, actually, that this image is originally from the Beirut Indymedia site, where the cartoonist Latuff refers to it as being "on behalf of brave Palestinian people and their struggle against U.S. backed Israeli terror." [7] As Mantanmoreland pointed out above, it's not appropriate for the article. One might just as likely come away with the impression that Israeli Orthodox sheepherders are well armed -- perhaps because of rampant sheep theft in the area, and that Anglo guys like to wear the Palestinian flag and carry protest signs. In short, the cartoon is not notable, being self-published online, nor a good representation of the discussion in the article itself. --Leflyman^Talk 16:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't it "appropriate"? // Liftarn

Which part of "...the cartoon is not notable, being self-published online, nor a good representation of the discussion in the article itself" isn't clear?--Leflyman^Talk 16:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The cartoon itself may be non-notable, but it's from a well known cartoonist. It's not self published and it is an exellent illustration to what NAS is. // Liftarn

The image information at Image:Cry-wolf.png states that the cartoon was from the Beirut Indymedia site, where it was posted apparently by the artist himself. Unless you can find an actual print/media source for it, that makes it self-published. As for the cartoonist Carlos Latuff being notable, his "article" appears to be composed entirely of blog and partisan web-site sources. His only listed published works are in two Arabic and one Israeli newspapers, and an Italian magazine. Having four cartoons printed is not exactly "well-known". Now whether it's an "excellent illustration": the cartoon shows an apparent Israeli Jew (armed and with sidecurls) yelling at an Anglo guy with a protest sign. This is a more clearly an illustration of the sweeping accusatory stereotypes we're trying to avoid presenting in this article. --Leflyman^Talk 09:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would try to be more clear and say that the cartoon illustrates how some people percieve some definitions or uses of the concept of NAS. Jonathan Sacks, a Jewish religious leader in the UK, uses the term NAS in quite less generalizing ways that others such as Philis Chestler or Abraham Foxman. I've explained this in previous comments. Sacks' definitions from my perspective are not crying wolf in the least -- they are legitimate and nuanced. The modern concept of NAS has various narrow and wider definitions which unfortunately makes things difficult. --Ben Houston 07:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The cartoon isn't discussed in the article; its inclusion and any inference drawn from it would be a form of Original Research.--Leflyman^Talk 09:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said of soem other visual decorations to the article. // Liftarn

Zipperstein

Does anyone have thoughts on the Zipperstein section? I'm inclined to remove it because it's a weak argument, but I'm hesitating because he's a critic of the concept, and removing him would leave us with only Klug as a main academic opponent (plus Chomsky and Finkelstein). Is there another academic critic we could replace Zipperstein with? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Having just done another proofread of the article, it would be appreciated if some of those who say the article is POV would bring some good academic sources to the table with the POV they feel is not well represented. We have enough Klug, and I have another paper of his that gives up an update on his views, so that section can be improved. The Finkelstein paragraph is weak; if he devotes a third of his book to the new anti-Semitism, surely he does more than just criticize Chesler, who isn't even mentioned in our article. Could one of the people who have read it add something about his basic arguments? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll revise the Finkelstein section later this week. I agree that the paragraph, at present, is fairly weak: the Chesler criticism is hardly the main point of his book. I'm also inclined to keep Raab and Zipperstein, and I'm not certain what criteria you're using to describe their argument as "weak". CJCurrie 23:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the Zipperstein point hard to understand i.e. that the disproportionate criticism of Israel is just part of the disproportionate responses to everything since 9/11. It's an odd argument, but I may have misunderstood him. Maybe I should go back and read it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Further editing

I've just shaved another 26 kilobytes off the length. Will try to keep on tightening. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow; 26k isn't shaving, that's more like um, ritual slaughter :-P Seriously, though, rather than lopping off blocks of text, why not break-out some section into sub-articles, if the content is sufficiently developed and can stand alone? See: Wikipedia:Summary_style. --Leflyman^Talk 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, 33 kilobytes off altogether since I started. We're approaching manageable levels now, bearing in mind that a lot of the bytes are taken up by the footnotes. I took your advice and moved most of the on-campus stuff to Universities and anti-Semitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A good split; I'd say that the associated Academic boycotts section should likewise be developed as a separate article (Academic boycotts of Israel), differentiated from the Economic and political boycotts of Israel, which says very little about the prominence of on-campus movements. --Leflyman^Talk 18:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea to have something on that. Not sure we have enough on the subject in this article to justify starting another page. Do you think we do? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made a quick attempt to put together the Academic boycotts of Israel article. I've used a lot of material from old versions of this article, stuff from the new Academic boycotts of South Africa and from other related articles. Not perfect, but I think there is enough material to justify its existence. --Ben Houston 03:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In an effort to reduce length, I've removed the Focus section i.e. the examples of Jenin, 9/11 etc. If anyone thinks that's going too far, feel free to revert. The article is now 46 kilobytes shorter than it was earlier today, which makes it considerably easier to read, and I think the flow has improved too. The reason I chose the Focus section to remove is that the examples are not part of the argument about what new anti-Semitism is; rather, they're just illustrations of what the arguments are referring to, so I felt if anything had to go, that section was the best choice. However, as I said, if people disagree, please do revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restored some of the Klug/Wistrich correspondence. Wistrich is one of the most important academic experts on this topic, and we've barely touched on his views. By including him this way, it also draws out even more of Klug's view, and gives Klug the last word. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Leflyman

A couple months ago I figured that eventually there would be an article like Academic boycotts of Israel. In order to give such a potentially contentious article context I started work on a similar article relating to the academic boycott of South Africa. See:

Academic boycott of South Africa (I just moved it from a draft within my userspace, it needs major clean-up from other contributors, hint hint)

Many of the same issues arise with that boycott as with the current one, although of course there are many differences. Best. --Ben Houston 00:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Attacks in France

Removed this sentence from the responses section (European Union):

"According to the French Interior Minister, the number of anti-Semitic attacks in France in 2004 was more than double that of the same period in 2003."

The reference supplied [8] does not support the claim, with the most relevant section reading:

"In a March 2005 annual report to the Prime Minister, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (NCCHR) indicated that there were 1,565 racist and anti-Semitic incidents in 2004, nearly double the 833 recorded in 2003. The number of anti-Semitic incidents--including physical assaults, attacks against property, cemetery desecrations, threats, and reported insults--increased from 601 in 2003 to 970 in 2004. Disturbingly, the number of incidents occurring in schools nearly tripled. There have been no reported deaths due to anti-Semitic violence since 1995, but 36 persons were injured in anti-Semitic attacks in 2004."

Nor is the information supplied about the source accurate. There are other problems with the sentence apart from its sourcing, conflating France with the EU in particular. --Nydas 18:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, Nydas. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Earl Raab

I've taken the liberty of moving the Earl Raab paragraph from the "rebuttal" section to the "anti-Israelism" section. I hope this decision will not engender much controversy. CJCurrie 23:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It flows better. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Left to right move

Until the 1980s, Jews in the US were generally perceived as left of center. Sometime during the Reagan era, the organized Jewish community started supporting Republicans.[9] 25 years later, it's almost been forgotten that organized Jewry used to be leftist. Today, the Republican/Christian right seems to be strongly aligned with Israel. That's a huge change in position. (Most US Jews still vote Democratic; 77% voted for Kerry.[10]. The leadership, however, is further to the right.[11]).

In Israel, with the decline in Labor and the rise of Likud, something similar happened, with the ruling coalition moving further to the right.

The opposition from the Left has to be seen in this context. More on this later. There's a book on the shift, but I have to find the reference. --John Nagle 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The point you are bringing up is discussed partly in the article Israel lobby in the United States. It is just mentioned that the leadership of the so-called lobby is more aligned with the right-leaning than left. Interstingly, some people make the claim that the right-leaning is more influential because the republicans in power like that tilt -- an Israel at war is useful to the exercising of American power in the middle east (such as the goals expressed by groups like the PNAC and so forth), an Israel at peace with its neighbors would be of less value strategically. Thus those leaning right are given more influence/power and with that comes more funding (from people that want access or want proven results) and thus the whole formal lobbying infrastructure starts to lean more and more to the right because that is what is reinforced. I think there is some truth to this perspective, although there are clearly other currents at work. --Ben Houston 23:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your dictum that "[t]he opposition from the Left has to be seen in this context" is troubling from a policy perspective; has anyone commented on this in the context of New anti-Semitism? Perhaps suggested these "trends" are somehow related? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See this 2002 article in the Economist, "Anti-Semitism in Europe". This is a British perspective: "Politically once mostly on the left, many Jews moved to the right during Margaret Thatcher’s and John Major’s time in power." and "The most striking phenomenon, however, is the steady shift of sympathy away from Israel, especially on the left." So the Economist has tied the two trends together. It's not original research. --John Nagle 16:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't tie the two "trends" together that I can see. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; it mentions only the British case, and does not suggest that the two phenomena are related. What I find rather shocking, though, is John Nagle's use of the anti-Semitic "Jewish Tribal Review" website as a source. One need go no further than the Jews at the Steering Wheel page, which attempts to document the pernicious influence of Jews who have the temerity to head non-Jewish organizations. There, it views as "valid" questions such as "to what degree do these people have allegiance to the Jewish victimology tradition, by extension to what degree do they hold dear the state of Israel and/or other Judeocentric interests within their respective organization's policy? Also, to what degree do they reflect a "Jewish view of the world," so popularly declared as something very real in Jewish circles -- particularly in deconstructing and/or subverting the non-Jewish social, cultural, and political order?" Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The source isn't Jewish Tribal Review; it's the Economist. If you can get through the Economist's registration system, you can see the same article there. --John Nagle 18:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The source you used was JewishTribalReview. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

For a US reference, see this 2002 Salon article, "Jews and the GOP", especially page 2, "More visible anti-Semitism on the left than on the right?". Part of the point of that article is that tarring the Left with the brush of anti-Semitism is a feature of Republican political strategy. "Their reluctance to endorse all of Ariel Sharon's actions doesn't necessarily mean that those Democrats are anti-Israel, much less that the party is. But Republicans are trying to spin it that way." --John Nagle 18:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the point of that article is that tarring the Left with the brush of anti-Semitism is a feature of Republican political strategy. No, that's not part of the point of the article; it neither says nor implies that. You need to stick to what the sources actually say, rather than spinning conspiracy theories out of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Too much David Duke

Does David Duke really deserve two paragraphs, a picture, and a link to a video clip in this article? --John Nagle 19:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He's identified as among the most prominent far-right activist in the States, and he's been among the most active in trying to form alliances with Islamists. SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)

At this late date, Duke is a has-been. Thirty years ago, he was a political figure, but since he did jail time in 2002, he's been more of a joke. --John Nagle 19:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion, and it shows you haven't read any of the scholarly sources. What made you suddenly decide to start editing this article, as a matter of interest? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This always surprises me as well; everyone with a POV seems to think they know everything they need to about this subject without actually having to read any of the sources. I've been experiencing it here for well over a year now. As for why John is here? I suspect it has to do with his previous involvement in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid fiasco, as well as his insistence on using Wikipedia as a venue for exposing the great secret Israeli propaganda machine. I'm sure he can clarify further. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

People don't feel they can turn up to Special Relativity and start editing there without having read the sources. But they seem to feel they can do it here. I'll never stop being surprised by the sheer arrogance of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, giving David Duke so much space is "undue weight". And as it has been said befor, his anti-Semitism is old, not new. // Liftarn

Who has said the latter, Liftarn? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned that problem earlier. // Liftarn

No, Liftarn, which reliable source has said that Duke's anti-Semitism is "old, not new"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that's twisting the burden of proof there Jayjg. Who has associated David Duke with the 'new' anti-semitism? From my reading of the links (enemy of my enemy) Duke has been seen to be trying to build links with the Islamists, but, strictly speaking, it is an additional leap, and thus arguably WP:OR, to call his form of anti-semitism 'new', as opposed to 'old'. Of course there could well be someone that has called it 'new', I just can't see it in the sources provided. So you might disagree with Liftarn, but I think he certainly has a valid point. --Coroebus 15:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Jayjg, which reliable source has said that Duke's anti-Semitism new? // Liftarn

How's this, from the 2001/2002 annual report "General Analysis" produced by the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University, which begins with this clear notice:
The term ‘the new antisemitism’ refers to the current wave, which has swept much of the world since October 2000. It has been characterized as ‘political antisemitism’, on the one hand, because of its use by radical Islamists in their geo-political struggle against the West and its alleged spearhead the Jewish people and its state; and on the other, because of the association made in the media and by public figures between Israel and the Jewish people as an inseparable entity. In parallel, the barriers between antisemitism and anti-Zionism have been lifted and the two merged....
Thus, opportunistic antisemites such as Matt Hale, David Duke and William Pierce aimed at creating a new wave of antisemitism by convincing Americans that the terrorist attacks were the direct result of US support for Israel, and that this support stemmed from complete Jewish domination of the government.[12]

Duke is also discussed as being a news source for Arabic publications in the following year's (2002/3) annual report:

...In order to reinforce their case, Arab commentators quoted western sources which offered similar explanations for the September 11 events. Jawad al-Bashiti quoted American white supremacist David Duke in the Jordanian opposition paper al-‘Arab al-Yawm on 7 January 2002.[13]

--Leflyman^Talk 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And similarly, in Mark Strauss's 12 November 2003 Foreign Policy article "Antiglobalism's Jewish Problem", he notes:
The very same antiglobalization movement that prides itself on staging counter-protests against neo-Nazis who crash their rallies links arms with protestors who wave the swastika in the name of Palestinian rights.
...The far right sees nationalist movements and indigenous rights groups as allies in the assault against the multiculturalism of the new world order. And it sees the Palestinians, in particular, as a resistance movement against the modern-day Elders of Zion. American neo-Nazi David Duke summed up this worldview in an essay on his Web site: "These Jewish supremacists have a master plan that should be obvious for anyone to see. They consistently attempt to undermine the culture, racial identity and solidarity, economy, political independence of every nation.…[They] really think they have some divine right to rule over not only Palestine but over the rest of the world as well."(Reprint in YaleGlobal)
--Leflyman^Talk 19:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't think the second one shows it, but the first gets close to saying Duke is associated with new anti-semitism, though it still seems to have implications of bandwagon jumping by an 'old' anti-semite, rather than a manifestation of new anti-semitism itself to my eye. --Coroebus 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see the alleged far right/Islamist and left/Islamist alliances are the key features of it. Duke is mentioned by several sources as the most prominent example of it in the U.S. That's why we mention him too. Whether he could also be identified with classical anti-Semitism misses the point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If by 'the article' you mean -this- article (i.e. New anti-semitism) then your argument is dangerously close to original research. I think leflyman's approach is the way to go to justify inclusion of Duke. There's too many chains of inference with your approach. --Coroebus 14:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The sources mention David Duke, and so we mention David Duke. Where are the chains of inference? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I read you as saying that because this article says that right/Islamist alliance are key to it, therefore we can conclude that duke is a new anti-semite because he is involved in right/Islamist alliances. Which would be an inference, and thus, perhaps, OR. But if you're saying that the sources say that Dukes Islamist outreach is a manifestation of new anti-semitism, then obviously that isn't an inference. --Coroebus 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the latter. The sources say it, and that's why our article says it. The usual thing. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Gable quote

Why did you remove part of the Gable quote? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I put the removed part of the Gable quote back, and also put back the Gable quote that you removed. That should work. One of the original quotes really was out of context. The big problem he was talking about was Islamic violence in Manchester and Leeds; the article was about serious worries about real violence. --John Nagle 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

John, you're causing the writing to deteriorate. You wrote (your addition in bold): "Gerry Gable, publisher of Searchlight magazine, notes that "a lot of anti-semitism is driven by the left. There are elements who take up a position on Israel and Palestine which in reality puts them in league with anti-Semites" But in terms of actual events, he said "What has gone up, especially in Manchester and Leeds, are attacks on Jewish places of worship by people who are identifiably from the Muslim community.'"

This isn't helpful editing. We're trying to improve this article inch by inch. "But in terms of actual events" is meaningless editorializing (yours), and you've added materal about the Muslim community in the section about the left. We are using what Gable said about the left in the section about the left, not what he has said about everything else in his lifetime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Both quotes are from the same interview in the same article, which was about anti-Jewish violence. Gable reported that there was a real problem with attacks from the Muslim community, then later noted that "a lot of anti-semitism is driven by the left". Quoting only the latter, out of context, distorts his statement into something completely different. --John Nagle 20:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't see what the "context" adds, nor why you would include information about Muslim anti-Semitism in the section on anti-Semitism from the left - there's no distortion going on here, the point is perfectly clear, and neither point depends on the other. In addition, the article really doesn't need editorializing; there's a reason why "However" is one of the Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I did restore the "Anti-Semitism is crying wolf" cartoon, though; it's a good illustration of the POV of some of those who oppose the concept of New anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Gable reported that there was a real problem with attacks from the Muslim community, then later noted that "a lot of anti-semitism is driven by the left". Quoting only the latter, out of context, distorts his statement into something completely different."

No, it doesn't. Please learn how to edit, John. This is not an example of lifting a quote of context. He didn't say "A lot of it is driven by the left, but that's not what matters," or something similar where we omitted the last part of his sentence. He said very clearly what we quoted him as saying.

Again, can you say why you suddenly decided to edit this article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. Thanks. --John Nagle 20:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's hardly an answer, is it? And can you explain why, in your edits, you keep trying to pin anti-Semitism on Muslims? Just so you're aware, I'm strongly against Islamophobia. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard not to notice that. Anything to do with Muslims, or the right, is fine. Anything to do with the left has to have a spin put on it, so that it's really one of the other groups that's being discussed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not take a break from editing Israel-related articles for a while? The three of you (I'm including "Daniel575") edit mostly Israel/Jewish related articles. Try something else for a while. We could use tighter editing on some more technical subjects. Or go do RC patrol for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't think it's true that I edit mostly Israel/Jewish-related articles. But if it is true (about me or anyone else), it would likely indicate that that person knows a lot about the subject. People who know a lot about something should continue to edit in that area. On the other hand, people who know nothing about it probably shouldn't. This is one of Wikipedia's perennial problems: how to deal with editors who edit far outside their expertise. No one has come up with a solution yet, but one solution would be for editors to recognize when they know nothing about a subject, and either stay away from it, or educate themselves adequately before jumping in. Learning how to edit in general would be helpful too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It would help if people were even willing to read the literature about a subject before editing. Sadly, it rarely happens, especially with this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not suggesting people need Phds in a subject before they edit it (and even that isn't necessarily a guarantee of good editing), but at least to have read a couple of the scholarly books on the subject from the opposite of their own POV. I'm halfway through my second Norman Finkelstein, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you said you were going to read scholarly books on the subject from the opposite of your POV. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating how one self-determines oneself as qualified on the subject and also appoints oneself as qualified to determine who else is qualified. SV has already made clear in previous comments that I have to prove myself to her/him before I am allowed to edit this article and her working assumption is that I am not. It seems that you Nagle are also not qualified according to SV. Incredibly strange and at the same time fascinating in regards to how one's world view and relation to others must be constructed in order to rationalize such behavior. --Ben Houston 01:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nagle, I am sure you are aware of recent history: [14]. That RfA was motivated by these comments between various involved parties [15], [16], [17]. The article has gotten moderately better, although any changes I've attempted to make to the article are still reverted, albeit more slowly than before. --Ben Houston 21:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I didn't know there was an RfA on this article. Thanks. I'd been off doing consumerism and computer science articles for a while, and hadn't been tracking Israel issues closely. --John Nagle 22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in either John Nagle's edits or SlimVirgin's & Jayjg's to indicate that either ought to stay out of editing Jewish-related articles: folks (on both sides), someone not sharing your opinions doesn't mean they ought to go away.

On the other hand, John's "But in terms of actual events, he said" is blather, and SlimVirgin's to this article have done a lot to sharpen and clarify it. I don't think this has much to do with either's politics: I think it just shows that Slim is a better writer. And from what I can tell, she's done a fair bit of writing for the enemy here, and has done it pretty competently, although I'll admit I haven't sorted through exactly which edits are whose, maybe "the enemy" did most of his or her own writing. Still, the Klug material is now better expressed than I originally wrote it, and I didn't do the rewrite. - Jmabel | Talk 09:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Jmabel. I appreciate the feedback. I tried hard to write up all the positions fairly and accurately. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Latuff cartoon

JayJG: I did restore the "Anti-Semitism is crying wolf" cartoon, though; it's a good illustration of the POV of some of those who oppose the concept of New anti-Semitism.

In other words, it's good for a straw-man argument. Thanks Jay: you've given me sufficient grounds to delete it.

If you really want to use a cartoon, why not search out one that Tikkun ran a few years ago (in which members of that group were depicted protesting the occupation of Palestine, while a figure representing "right-wing Zionists" attacked them as anti-Semites and self-haters)? This image was actually attacked as "new anti-Semitism", if memory serves. CJCurrie 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is, almost certainly, the most blatant display of bad faith it has been my displeasure to witness in some time. Are you so suspicious of my motives, then, that you will immediately revert as a "strawman argument" any edit I make in support of someone discounting New anti-Semitism? If there was any credibility left in your claim for some sort of alleged neutrality regarding this article, or the editors here, it has completely vanished now. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've gone beyond the call of duty in assuming good faith during some past discussions on this page (for instance, by not making ad hominem attacks when challenged). It's possible that I interpreted your previous remark in an unfair or uncharitable light; if so, I apologize. I never thought the image was appropriate, however, and I stand by my argument in support of its removal. CJCurrie 01:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow the straw-man argument point. It's a good image to represent that POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It may represent Latuff's POV, but it's not the first thing readers should see in the "rebuttal" section. Or the second, third or fourth thing. In fact, it's probably best left out entirely.

The cartoon's presence in the article lends itself to a "straw-man argument" in the sense that it portrays NAS-critics in a questionable light at the very beginning of their section. Leaving aside the predictable question of whether of not the image is anti-Semitic (and I recognize that cogent arguments could be made on both sides), it's certain that many readers will conclude that it is. In fact, the cartoon's presence in the article seems calculated to lead readers toward that very conclusion -- and taint everything else in the section by association.

Moreover, I'm not certain that this particular Latuff cartoon (or *any* Latuff cartoon) is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. I'd never seen the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" image before this week, and I've not seen any evidence that it's of particular importance to the NAS debate.

By contrast, the Tikkun cartoon has been the subject of debate vis-a-vis "New anti-Semitism", and its presence would not poison the well for the rest of the section. (I'll find the publishing details of said image shortly, and you'll be able to judge for yourself.)

One way or the other, I'm certain we can find something better than the previous image. CJCurrie 03:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern was that you didn't object when Liftarn added it, but did object when Jayjg restored it. You can see why that looks problematic. As for the cartoon, I have no strong feelings about it either way. I thought it was a good illustration of that POV, but if you can find a better one, I'm sure I'll be fine with that too. I hope from now on we can judge content according to whether it improves the article, and not based on whether we normally agree with the person who added it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to go with CJ on this. My belief, as stated previously, is that neither the cartoon (nor the cartoonist) are notable enough to merit inclusion in this article. Just as we've had a fairly stringent standard for the scholarship/critical sources which discuss NAS, we should also apply that same selectivity to illustrations (decorative or otherwise)-- particularly ones, as in this case, which lead to problematic interpretations by readers. --Leflyman^Talk 03:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Any image that illustrates new anti-Semitism well is going to lead to problematic interpretations for readers; it goes to the heart of this article, and the concept, that some people see one idea in a set of words or images, and another group sees exactly the opposite. If we're looking for a "safe" image to illustrate the concept, we've kind of missed the point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with this reasoning. There are untold numbers of equally non-notable cartoons one could arbitrarily choose as an illustration. Heck, there were over 1000 created for the Iranian Anti-Israel/Holocaust cartoon exhibition (and 76 submitted for the Israeli Anti-Semitic Cartoon Contest). We shouldn't just inject a cartoon into an article, particularly for a controversial topic such as this one, because we think it "goes to the heart of the article"; more than anyone, you should appreciate how that would be a form of Original Research. (I note that an oddly ambiguous new section has been added to NOR which claims that "Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments" -- this is clearly inaccurate, especially in the case of topics such as this one.) --Leflyman^Talk 05:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Examples

I meant to say earlier that I removed the examples just to keep the length down. It might be worth starting a separate article for them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Radical" left?

CJCurrie, you've changed the definition of New anti-Semitism so that it is now coming from the "Radical" left, rather than just the left. Is that what the sources say? As far as I know, they indicate it comes from all over the left spectrum. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? How many sources identify the British Labour Party, or the German Social Democrats, as part of the "new anti-Semitism"? For that matter, where do we do this? When our article speaks of "the left", we're referring to the extra-parliamentary radical left: it seems fair to reflect this in the introductory language. CJCurrie 02:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wistrich is quite clear when he states that This anti-Zionism of the radical leftist camp, profoundly discriminatory towards Jewish nationalism, has now spread into the mainstream liberal left, whose rhetoric relentlessly seeks to undermine the moral and historical legitimacy of a Jewish state. Bauer is also clear when he says it is a basically upper middle class, intellectual phenomenon. It is widespread in the media, in universities, and in well manicured circles. Typical is the statement of the French ambassador to Britain at a cocktail party, later reported in the British Press, referring to Israel, with typical diplomatic politeness and finesse, as that "shitty little country.When Chesler talks about the New anti-Semitism from the left, she's talking about her old buddies; none of them are talking about wild-eyed Marxists. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The parliamentary inquiry also talked about "the left," without specifying. CJ, which sources are you using for it only being the radical left? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Jayjg and Slim, the sources don't make a claim about the radical left. If you can find sources that call it that it might be reasonable to note that some attribute it only to the radical left. (I don't like the term left in this context anyways as being vague and ill-defined and some of the sources seem to be using it to mean different things, but this WP:ORry.) JoshuaZ 03:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Even I agree. The opposition isn't coming from the "radical left", it's coming from the mainstream left. "New anti-semitism" as defined in this article is a catchall; it seems to include political opposition to Israel's policies from various leftish sources, general opposition from the Arab world, Islamic extremism in non-Arab countries, and the usual nuts on the far right like David Duke. The opposition from the left is the "new" part

Who gets to define this? Pipes? Chesler? According to Google, we're defining it here. We probably need a few cited definitions, rather than trying to define it in the lead paragraph. If someone can find good one-line definitions from Pipes and Chesler, who have the main books, that would help. The definition up now is from an op-ed piece in Ha'aretz by Rabbi Sacks. --John Nagle 03:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pipes hasn't written a book about this, and we're not really using Chesler as a source, but are trying to stick to more academic views. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, seven different sources are used for that definition, only one of which is by Sacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

John, please read the article and the sources before commenting. We don't use Pipes or Chesler, or Google, and Sacks was in the previous version but not in this one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Actually, the definition in the article now is very close to that cited in the first citation, which is by Sacks. The second citation is Chesler. Pipes only gets a minor reference, yet he's probably the most politically visible figure in "new anti-Semitism". He's been credited with coining the term. [18], although that source is iffy. He's a Bush presidential appointee[19] and heads several pro-Israel organizations. He's certainly more significant to the issue than David Duke. It will probably be necessary to add a Daniel Pipes section. --John Nagle 06:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

John, I have to ask you again to read the sources before commenting, because everything you've said so far has been factually inaccurate. Pipes is not a major figure in this debate at all (or even a minor one: none of the scholarly sources cite Pipes). He has not been credited with coining the term. We do not use Chesler or Sacks as sources; Chesler is currently a footnote and quite an unnecessary one. Please at least read the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition from the article: "New anti-Semitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, coming simultaneously from three political directions: the left, Islamism, and the far-right."

Definition from Sacks op-ed piece: "The new anti-Semitism is coming simultaneously from three different directions: first, a radicalized Islamic youth inflamed by extremist rhetoric; second, a left-wing anti-American cognitive elite with strong representation in the European media; third, a resurgent far right, as anti-Muslim as it is anti-Jewish." -- Sacks op-ed in Haaretz, "The New Antisemitism"

That's the source being used for the "three directions" definition: an op-ed piece. Other definitions have been suggested, and can be seen at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-16 New anti-Semitism, a formal mediation in which SlimVirgin refused to participate. Thanks. --John Nagle 16:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

John, please read something about the subject. Many, many sources have said the same thing. Some emphasize the left more than the far right and Islamism, but the three figure in all the definitions. And there was no formal mediation request related to this article. The medcabal is not formal, and the user who turned up to mediate had made about 30 article edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize what SlimVirgin has said here; the mediation cabal is neither official, nor formal, and the person who was "assigned" had 30 article edits, and left Wikipedia soon after. I'd also like to emphasize that reading the literature is crucial to being able to make informed comments on a subject. I hope that is quite clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Fischel has described it as an unlikely alliance of leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing anti-Semites, committed to the destruction of Israel, were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe from North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general. It is the forging of this unprecedented coalition of enemies that makes the “new” anti-Semitism unique.... That's Fischel, not Sacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add here that we did have informal mediation that we arranged ourselves with an experienced editor who's an Oxford academic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually going to say that, while I can see that some have argued that the right is part of the new anti-semitism, for others it is much more about the left and islamism e.g. "Some of the anti-Semitism seeping out the sewers was, to be sure, the sort of intolerance typically practiced by Canada’s far right – and therefore nothing dramatically new" [20], so I'm uncomfortable with the simulataneous directions claim, I think it needs modifying, it certainly isn't well supported by the references given (which aren't particularly academic). --Coroebus 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's well supported by the scholarly sources. This article has an extensive references section, so perhaps you could take a look through some of the articles. The books aren't online, of course, but the articles will give you an idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to look, but it really should be supported by that big list of refs after the claims, what else are they there for? I note (e.g. "Whereas Schoenfeld and Chesler find much of the new anti-Semitism emanating primarily from the Left, Foxman views the peril equally from both the Left and the radical Right...The evidence of a “new” anti-Semitism in these books, however, is at times misleading. Anti-Semitism in its modern form is a case of old wine in new bottles." [21]) that there is a suggestion elsewhere that the three-way convergence idea isn't exactly hegemonic. --Coroebus 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing to do is to read our article, as horrific a prospect as that undoubtedly is. ;-D The issue is quite nuanced, and our article reflects the different ways scholars have approached it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fischel himself (the source you use) is quite clear about this: In Europe during the past decade an unlikely alliance of leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing anti-Semites, committed to the destruction of Israel, were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe from North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general. It is the forging of this unprecedented coalition of enemies that makes the “new” anti-Semitism unique, an unprecedented configuration of forces whose militant, uncompromising support for the Palestinians makes little distinction between Israelis and Jews. That's Fischel's definition. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was his -definition-, but he does say it. But then he alse says "Schoenfeld and Chesler find much of the new anti-Semitism emanating primarily from the Left, Foxman views the peril equally from both the Left and the radical Right" implying that there is some disagreement as to the centrality of the right (this is, after all, a book review).--Coroebus 18:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that he has read the literature and come up with that definition. And it's more than a book review, it is a synthesis of what he found in 5 major books on the subject, and he's not just any reviewer, but a serious published author in his own right, and chair of a university history department writing in a prestigious literary journal. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It may surprise you, but I actually have read it. The relevant section is the "The far right and Islamism", which I don't think is particularly well sourced, in particular, the beginning relies rather heavily on a very small section from the all party enquiry which pretty much just says "The representative of Searchlight magazine drew our attention to a ‘symbiotic relationship’ between far right and Islamist extremists..." and "We saw evidence of shared use of materials. For example the same news articles referring to the Jewish community have appeared on the MPACUK website and white nationalist websites." Then we have an irrelevant Said quote. Followed by a more substantial reference to Michael's book which talks about a right/islamist convergence, but not explicitly about "new anti-semitism". --Coroebus 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the first sentence rewritten to say something like:

New anti-Semitism is the concept of an international resurgence in anti-Semitic beliefs, their expression in public discourse, and of attacks on Jewish symbols. It has been associated with the left, Islamism, and the far-right.

--Coroebus 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A key element of the New anti-Semitism is that these disparate groups with wildly variant philosophies have made common cause in this. As Fischel says It is the forging of this unprecedented coalition of enemies that makes the “new” anti-Semitism unique. Your proposal doesn't mention that. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But others think the unique element is its association with the left, or it's concentration on anti-Zionism and Israel, so the formulation I propose is sufficiently generic to allow these differences of emphasis. --Coroebus 06:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of things that people say make it new, but almost all that I am aware of include the fact that unusual allies have been formed, including the left and Muslim groups (along with the predictable right). Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The far right and Islamism

I have a problem with this section, and I think it needs rewriting. I think it combines two ideas that would be better tackled separately i.e. the far right and new anti-semitism, and Islamism and new anti-semitism. As it is, neither of these are covered on their own, only the matter of their convergence. While I think a section (or subsection) on convergence in ideology between the right and Islamism is valid, I think we need a stronger discussion of what we are claiming in this article are two separate threads of new anti-semitism (the left get their own). There's also an inherent tension in the convergence we assert where the right is 'new' anti-semitism because of a focus on Israel and zionism, while the Islamists are adopting 'old' anti-semitic motifs. Any comments? --Coroebus 06:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole left/right thing gets really complicated. Israel used to be run by a somewhat left-wing and mildly socialist Labor party, generally supported by Democrats in the US. Then Likud, which is more of a right-wing party, took over, and Likud is strongly supported by the Bush administration. Now we have left opposition to Israel, mostly in Europe but to some extent in the US. We have support of Israel from the Christian right in the US, and opposition to Israel from mainstream Protestant denominations in the US and the UK. The Islamic players are generally considered to be "right wing" in the West, but most of the Islamic states are so authoritarian that they don't have opposition parties, so a "left/right" distinction may not even be meaningful there. In the European countries that have sizable new Muslim populations, the classical right-wing parties are usually nationalist and don't like the Islamic influx.

It might be more helpful to look at this separately for the US, the UK, and perhaps the EU generally. The problems and politics are different. The US has a big Jewish lobby and a strong Christian right; the EU does not. Several EU countries have new and sizable Muslim populations not integrated into the general population; the US does not. So a country by country analysis thus may be more useful than a left/right analysis. The left/right distinction doesn't work across national boundaries here. --John Nagle 06:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather than making stuff up, we need to stick to what the sources are talking about, which are convergences and alliances between the Right, the Left, and Islamists. And by the way, the Labor party was fairly strongly (not mildly) socialist, and Likud is not in government right now. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

When you take a source that's writing about one country, and cite them for a statement that isn't confined to that country, you're "making stuff up". We need to go through all the references and determine what areas and what periods each is talking about. --John Nagle 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately that hasn't been done in this article. And it would be a very good idea if you did carefully read all the sources provided here; in fact, that would be a welcome change. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working through the online references and several of the books are on order. More on this later. --John Nagle 07:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that asking you to "work through" the reading before you comment on every single issue here would be completely out of line.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's just an empty talking point that Moshe here is repeating. I think its time to prove how ridiculous this talking point is -- I think it is time to thoroughly document how SlimVirgin's portrayal of the topic has changed (she has in the past included really different portrayals from what it is now, some very erroneous) even though all thorough out recent history she has continued to fight off others claiming that it is them that are misguided or lacking her understanding. It's a two way street -- to claim that only one side is fallible is seriously screwed-up. Its truly is strange and it seems designed to dominate an article more than anything else. --Ben Houston 08:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use the Talk: page to discuss improving the article, rather than pursuing some sort of personal vendetta against a particular editor; an editor who, I might add, has turned this article from a mess into a readable narrative using well-cited information from reliable sources, and who has contributed almost everything worth reading in this article, including, for example, the exemplary re-write of Klug's arguments against the notion of a "New anti-Semitism". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right that this talk page should stay focused. I apologize, I'm just thinking outloud about new ideas of dealing with the frustrations I run into. I do think that a thorough documentation of events and how things have changed over time is useful, it moves recollections of history from just consensual/subjective towards factual, even for people outside of Wikipedia it can be interesting to understand how things sometimes work here. --Ben Houston 18:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear... I am referring to Moshe's request to "work through" the readings. I was asked this as well. I have read through them. Moshe hasn't made any contributions to the actual content of this article -- just reverts for him in support of others -- thus if anyone hasn't read the material, my money is on Moshe. --Ben Houston 08:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Working through" the references involves more than just sticking them in useless citation templates. As for Moshe's contributions, his comment below regarding political rhetoric on the Talk: page (Axis of Evil etc.) was a cogent and useful addition to this discussion; the exact opposite of the comment he was responding to. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your above comment is rather silly anyways, to quote you- "to claim that only one side is fallible is seriously screwed-up". this does not make any sense as one could just as easily say that you and the people you support are trying to claim that only the people you oppose are fallible because you have not criticized anything about yourselves, at least slimvirgin and Jayjg have the ability to support an idea or position that comes from someone that they do not usually agree with, I have not once seen you do this and seriously question if you are even able to.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Moshe sidestepped nicely the main issue -- he's asking others to do readings he hasn't. Heh. The later part of his statement is sort of strange. I guess you/he haven't been following the talk on this page much or my recent suggestions. In general, the sweeping claim about me without any evidence is empty and comes across as reactionary, unthinking and prejudicial. And let's say that I didn't represent one side very well, I have never engaged in full scale tag-team protection (as what tends to go on here) of a one-sided view -- I don't behave exclusionary although being forcefully excluded is frustrating. Jayjg also had some issues recently when I ended up quoting him extensively Brian Klug (it was about 2 weeks ago on this page) and he kept responding as if it was completely new to him -- true strangeness. --Ben Houston 05:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"WAAAA! No one understands me!"- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading Klug and agreeing with him are two entirely different things. I don't base anything I say on the assumption that his arguments have any validity, as I find his arguments weak at best, and sometimes ludicrous. I hope that clears things up. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It was just strange how you seemed to be unfamiliar with them earlier. But thanks for sharing the POV you are coming to this article with, its appreciated to know your perspective on things. --Ben Houston 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That "semblance" was in your mind only. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Term? Concept?

That "New Anti-semitism" is a term is surely absolutely evident and uncontroversial. Surely the argument is about whether it is a concept or not. Most sources cited here tend to think it is (indeed they have been selected for citation here specifically because they have used the term in a way they find meaningful). However, there are also some sources cited that contest the conceptual utility of the term. Therefore there is an argument for not using the word "concept" in the lead. Itsmejudith 08:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Given it seems indisputable (except by HS, although I suspect that he might on reflection change that position) that the subject of the article is a "term", and given that its nature as a "concept" is disputed (or at least significantly more controversial), it would seem to be time for those who feel the change to "term" is unjustified to present their case here. 203.33.230.66 08:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is a phenomenon. A compromise has been reached to leave it as a "concept". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A "compromise"? Why are you saying this? Who did you compromise with? Please name a single editor who opposed the original wording and who now agrees with it as a result of this "compromise". 203.33.230.66 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember. Try searching the talk archives. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you're referring to a compromise reached between you and others, not including Itsmejudith or myself. Given such past compromises are not binding on present editors, and given the use of the term "term" is clearly less controversial than the use of the term "concept", I suggest again, here and now, that the change to "term" be made. If you disagree, please state your reasons here. 203.33.230.66 09:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"here and now" you need to cool down a bit. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That it's a concept is not disputed. What is disputed is whether it's a phenomenon. A concept can be an empty class. See Russell, Frege et al for more details. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is a real phenomenon. "New anti-semitism" is more of a political phrase, similar to "axis of evil". Both are phrases used to tie together disparite enemies for political purposes. --John Nagle 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Axis of evil article in Wikipedia reads much better than this one. That may give us some guidance on how this article can be improved. --John Nagle 18:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats a rather ridiculous comparison, "axis of evil" was some stupid rhetorical device that sought to conjure of images of WWII, "New anti-semitism" is actually a real phenomenon that is supported by thousands of statistics. The basis of AoE is inherantly not something that can be supported by anything since it is really just a polemical viewpoint, while NAS is really a rather matter of fact way of giving a name to something that is both new and anti-semitic. The only thing on this talk page that one can compare the axis of evil speech to is really everything you have written here: uninformed polemical rhetoric, designed to demonize and dismiss other viewpoints and individuals who you seem to see as your "enemies".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attack, we proceed to the argument. As Brian Klug points out in The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism, the term "new anti-semitism" is used to tie criticism of Israel to the concept of anti-Semitism, thus making criticism of Israel politically unacceptable. He quotes Foxman ("The harsh but un-deniable truth is this: what some like to call anti-Zionism is, in reality, anti-Semitism--always, everywhere, and for all time."), Sacks, and Dershowitz arguing to that end. Klug then argues against joining the two: "To argue that hostility to Israel and hostility to Jews are one and the same thing is to conflate the Jewish state with the Jewish people. In fact, Israel is one thing, Jewry another. Accordingly, anti-Zionism is one thing, anti-Semitism another." Whether or not the two should be tied together is a political position. The term "New anti-semitism" is thus a rhetorical device to support the position that they should be. --John Nagle 17:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick clarification: Sacks has made reasonable nuanced arguments in some of his writings that I have read. He does tend to properly differentiate between criticism of actors involved what he referred to as the shared tragedy (the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) and anti-Semitism. Sacks's use can easily be equated with more broader definitions of the term "new anti-Semitism" though, but from my reading to do so is a distortion of his position and concerns. Also Klug doesn't deal so much with Sacks writings. --Ben Houston 18:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Klug quotes Sacks as follows: In his contribution to their book, Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of Britain and the Commonwealth, explains: "What we are witnessing today is the second great mutation of antisemitism in modern times, from racial antisemitism to religious anti-Zionism (with the added premise that all Jews are Zionists)." Sometimes the point is made by equating the State of Israel in the "new" anti-Semitism with the individual Jew in the "old" variety. Rabbi Sacks himself draws this parallel in an article in the Guardian: "At times [anti-Semitism] has been directed against Jews as individuals. Today it is directed against Jews as a sovereign people." Klug clearly is reading Sacks to be saying that opposition to Israel is anti-Semitism. Other statements by Sacks may be inconsistent with that position, but that's what Sacks said to the Guardian. --John Nagle 18:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, k. I find that opposition to the existence of Israel is sort of out there. I know of very few people who ever take that position even in far left circles -- I've only seem people who don't think clearly make such comments, but they tend to talk about most things in somewhat imprecise ways thus I don't take them seriously. Thus to me equating opposition to Israel's existence to anti-Semitism isn't that big of an issue. I am not anti-Zionist and I think that taking anti-Zionist positions are not really useful and carry a lot of dangers. But it is one step in the chain of "logic" used to delegitimize criticism of Israel polices though -- equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and then equate criticism of Israel polices in the media or from other sources as veiled anti-Zionism and thus veiled anti-Semitism and thus delegitimize it. Sacks doesn't tend to make the fully connection though in my readings. There is real anti-Semitism directed against Jewish people and Israel, and such things would be of concern to someone in Sacks position thus I allow him those statements. From my perspective, it is the sweeping generalizations that Sacks' writings get sucked into (such as what this article is implicitly) that are the problem, not his writings or views in particular. --Ben Houston 19:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't consider support for a binational solution as anti-Zionism. --Ben Houston 19:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

An additional note: Here's the article by Sacks from which that quote came.[22] Sacks is exploring the question of how far criticism of Israel can go before it becomes anti-Semitism. --John Nagle 19:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You might not have noticed this, but this article doesn't quote Sacks, Foxman, or Dershowitz. We try to stick, as far as possible, to quoting academics and government organizations. You seem to be fighting a strawman. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg? Have you even read the article? Both Sacks and Foxman are referenced to support the existing article content. Sacks is actually the first reference of the whole article. --Ben Houston 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bhouston? Have you even read my previous statement? "This article doesn't quote Sacks, Foxman, or Dershowitz. We try to stick, as far as possible, to quoting academics and government organizations." The only quote from Foxman is in a footnote, where he is used by Klug (and editors here) as a platform to attack the concept of New anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we are being more precise now. Thank you. I was just making the point that your argument supporting your strawman suggestion has a few major holes. Specifically, your previous comment, by artificially focusing to just quotes, could let people draw the wrong conclusion. Also, Sacks from my perspective is a reputable and notable commentator and I never had any problem with citing him or quoting him, as long as he isn't co-opted to support things he doesn't. --Ben Houston 21:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think that Sacks is a moderate and appropriate. If you take his point of view he makes total sense. I think he bends over backwards in this paragraph: "Criticism of the New Zealand government? No. A denial of New Zealand's right to exist? Maybe. Seven thousand terrorist attacks on New Zealand citizens in the past year? Possibly. A series of claims at the UN Conference against Racism in Durban that New Zealand, because of its treatment of the Maori, is uniquely guilty of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, accompanied by grotesque Nazi-style posters? Perhaps." Terrorist attacks on Israel are evidence of anti-Semitism, although those attitudes are obviously driven by the shared tragedy of Palestinian-Israel conflict, but to take those attitudes out of context is to distort things. The many emotive accusations at the Durban conference were problematic since there was a mix of radicals and non-radicals and too many accusations which when lumped together can be perceived by Sacks comes across as too much even if the non-radicals were correct -- the Durban conference was clearly disorganized and ineffective as compared to a focused audience-tested effective political campaign that seeks mass approval such as Bush in 2004. What needs to occur is the advocacy of sensible simple positions within larger coordinated movements that are always aware of the sensitivities involved (such as don't make any stupid Nazi comparisons and watch how close one can be percieved to taking an anti-Zionist position.) I still think that Sacks is a smart guy although you have to understand his perspective, one just has to realize that he's writings are co-opted by others who think less clearly than him in some situations. --Ben Houston 19:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Term/concept contd/

Taking a closer look at who's being cited as supporting the definition of "new anti-semitism" is useful. Looking at notes 1-7, the ones being used to justify the definition of "new anti-semitism", which cited articles actually mention it? Note 1, Sacks, uses the term. Notes 2 and 3, Chelser and Kinsella, use it in the title. Note 4, the Guardian article, doesn't use the term, and is mostly about Islamic violence. Note 5, I don't have that book. Note 6, Bauer, doesn't use the term; it speaks of the "fourth wave of anti-semitism". Note 7, Strauss, does use the term. So, following the "Jayjg rule", that cites which don't mention the exact term can't be used, we should delete notes 4 and 6. This leaves us with Sacks, Chesler, Kinsella, Strauss, and possibly Endelman as authority for the phrase.

Now who are these people? Sacks is head rabbi in the UK. Chesler is a feminist activist. Kinsella is a "Toronto-based Canadian lawyer, author, musician, political consultant, lobbyist and commentator." Strauss is an American journalist and political writer (Foreign Policy, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). Endelman is "William Haber Professor of Modern Jewish History at the University of Michigan" and the only one with academic credentials on the subject. There's some discussion of his position in these notes on a 2003 conference, where Endelman and Dr. Steven Zipperstein from Stanford disagreed on the extent to which criticism of Israel should be considered anti-Semitism. Endelman himeself wasn't quoted as using the term, and no reference Google can find shows him using it. Does someone have his book? Does he actually use the term, or does he just see this as part of the long historical trend of anti-Semitism? An Endelman quote actually mentioning "new anti-Semitism" is needed. --John Nagle 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone has a valid objection, I'm going to delete Note 4 (Guardian article) and Note 6 (Bauer) from the lead paragraph, since they don't actually mention "new anti-Semitism" and shouldn't be used as authority for the term. Try to find a quote by Endelman actually mentioning "new anti-Semitism", or that goes, too, but I won't do that quickly; he's written a whole book and is a historian of anti-Semitism. If we lose Endelman, all the rest are basically pundits. Please try to find some serious academic support for the term, or at least support in the press from a non-partisan source. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to your removing footnotes. They all convey information that is relevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The irrelevant references may need to go in a different place. Probably the "further reading" section. Even you argue against using Chesler as an authority. But try to find a good quote from Endelman that actually uses the term "new anti-Semitism". He's the best reference in the list. --John Nagle 18:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the term, but about the concept. There's no need for sources to use the term "new anti-Semitism"; it only has to be clear that they are, indeed, talking about that. (At least one calls it "new anti-Jewishness," for example.) And what do you mean by "even you" argue against Chesler as an authority? When have I ever given the impression that I support using sources who are not academics working in a relevant discipline? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You did that on this talk page, where you wrote: I'm also not happy using Chesler as a source, because she has no relevant academic qualifications. However, her book is popular and often cited, so we can't ignore her entirely. Nothing in this article actually relies on her as a source; she is cited in this footnote only as a "see also." SlimVirgin (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I wrote. What I asked was what you meant by "even you." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Endelman does talk explicitly about new anti-Semitism. What made you think he didn't? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

John, I've just read back your posts to this page, and they're all based on misunderstandings because you haven't read the sources. Yet you post question after question, expecting other people to fill in the gaps for you. That is neither fair nor reasonable. We are all volunteers here. With respect, there's no reason I should have to spend time explaining issues to you that are already clearly explained and properly sourced. If you want to know more, you have to read the books. There's no getting round that; there's no shortcut. It's what I had to do too. Your comments aren't only false; they are also insulting e.g. "Please try to find some serious academic support ..." The article is full of "serious academic support," which was put together after a considerable amount of reading and work — research that you're now poo-pooing without having read it yourself. Please reconsider the reasonableness of that position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've ordered three of the books cited in this article; I'm reading Chesler now. The claimed "serious academic support" may not hold up under scrutiny; certainly, the seven references in the lead paragraph didn't. If you don't have the time to do the job properly, you're under no obligation to edit Wikipedia. Why not go and do something else for a while? Thanks. --John Nagle 19:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There's not much point in reading Chesler if it's this article you're interested in, because there's no information in the article that relies on her. The best people to read are Fischel, Taguieff, Cotler, Klug, Wistrich, Zipperstein, Lewis, Raab, Bauer, Finkelstein. If you want to cut the reading down to the bare bones, then read Klug and Wistrich. The article that best sums up Klug's position, if you want to read only one, is "In search of clarity" in Catalyst, link in the references section.

As for your final comment, you're being gratuitously rude so I won't respond. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Chesler's book just came in first; I'm waiting for the others. As to Klug, Klug is the author of "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism", after all, and in "In search of clarity" he questions the desirability of using the term "new anti-Semitism" in connection with political criticism of Israel. So he's not a good source for the term. The current lead paragraph doesn't cite him, anyway, so that's irrelevant to the validity of that list of seven citations. --John Nagle 20:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you're focusing so much on the first sentence. Once again (as several people have told you), this is not an article about the term, but about the concept. As such, Klug is an excellent source for it, because he explains what he think is wrong with it, and he has formulated arguments, rather than simply making claims. It's in reading the arguments for and against that the concept (its extent, whether it's valid) will become clearer to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We're making progress. There haven't been any substantive objections to the note by note analysis I made above; just attempts to change the subject. More later. --John Nagle 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also had problems with the opening sentence and refs given for it, good luck changing it, or even deleting the unrelated refs to be replaced by more relevant ones. --Coroebus 19:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

John, as stated a number of times, this article is about the current concept of New anti-Semitism, not the term, which, as discussed in New anti-Semitism (term), has actually covered a number of different phenomena, including, for example, what is now known as Racial anti-Semitism. Also, can you explain what makes, for example, Klug an authority on this subject, but people like Sacks, Chesler, and Foxman not authorities? And finally, please don't invent things like "the Jayjg rule", that's really verging on yet another personal attack. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who said that Chesler was problematic as an authority. That was first Jayjg, who, above, wrote "Pipes hasn't written a book about this, and we're not really using Chesler as a source, but are trying to stick to more academic views. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)". SlimVirgin, wrote "I'm also not happy using Chesler as a source, because she has no relevant academic qualifications. However, her book is popular and often cited, so we can't ignore her entirely. Nothing in this article actually relies on her as a source; she is cited in this footnote only as a "see also." SlimVirgin (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)". So it's an agreed position of Jayjg and SlimVirgin that Chesler isn't a good source, and it's too late for objections from them to the contrary. Thus, Chesler should come out of the footnote list in the lead paragraph as a justification for the definition. --John Nagle 18:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because she's not a preferred source of ours is no reason to remove her. But you didn't answer the question: what is it that makes you (you, John Nagle, not you, Jayjg or SlimVirgin) believe that Klug is an authority on it, but Sacks, Chesler, and Foxman aren't? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Klug isn't cited there. Foxman isn't cited either. We're looking at the seven existing citations on the lead line. Klug is cited in the lead paragraph, but not in support of the definition; Klug is cited as a critic of it.

Now if the phrase "new anti-Semitism" is viewed as a political loaded term, this becomes easier. We just have to track who's for it and who's against it, and what groups they speak for. In that case, more references are valid, but are viewed as partisan. --John Nagle 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

John, can you explain what makes you think, for example, that Klug is an authority on this subject, but people like Sacks, Chesler, and Foxman not authorities? You seem to be avoiding the question, but, given that you're trying to remove relevant citations, it's rather a critical one if we're trying to decide exactly who we should be quoting or citing in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Necessary and sufficient conditions

Anti-semitism is so emotive a topic that it helps to perform a thought experiment. Suppose someone were to claim that there is a form of prejudice called anti-kiwism, an irrational hatred of New Zealanders. What might convince us he was right? Criticism of the New Zealand government? No. A denial of New Zealand's right to exist? Maybe. Seven thousand terrorist attacks on New Zealand citizens in the past year? Possibly. A series of claims at the UN Conference against Racism in Durban that New Zealand, because of its treatment of the Maori, is uniquely guilty of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, accompanied by grotesque Nazi-style posters? Perhaps.

From the article: "Proponents of the concept argue that…"; "Critics of the concept argue that…"; "That there has been a resurgence of anti-Semitic attacks and attitudes is accepted by most opponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism." The article is about a contested idea. To some authorities it is self-evidently not only a concept but a tangible phenomenon, while to others it is an example of chaotic conceptualisation. Four authors are cited as proposers of this concept and each seems to define it in a different way. What is a necessary condition for an anti-semitic action or discourse to count as "new anti-semitism"? That the left should be involved? The far right? Muslims? Two of these in an unholy alliance? All three in an even less holy alliance? Simply that it is occurring in recent decades (e.g. the bans on ritual slaughter)? The article doesn't make this clear. Itsmejudith 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article repeats what the main sources are saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, I appreciate that you have been writing for the enemy. But it repeats what which sources are saying about what? Some are using the term "new anti-semitism" or directly stating that there is such a phenomenon. Others contest the term. The article makes that clear. So far so good for a Wikipedia entry about a contested idea. But already there is potential for disagreement. See talk: totalitarianism for a discussion of whether an article is about a term or about a reality that the term refers to. Itsmejudith 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about a term or about a phenomenon that a term might refer to. It is about a concept. People agree about some parts of the description of the concept and disagree about other parts. Some people think the concept is an empty class. Others think it refers to a phenomenon. The debate is relatively new. Yale University has just set up the first forum in North America devoted to the study of anti-Semitism in response to this confusion and to the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. Hopefully some good academic work will come out of that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope so too, starting with clearing up the conceputal confusion. I understand what you mean about a concept (or better its referent?) being an empty class. For example, many people believe that eco-terrorism is an empty class, and that is discussed in the relevant article. The problem is different here, in that there is disagreement about New anti-Semitism even as a term - i.e. its definition is still shifting and not yet settled. Itsmejudith 20:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously a concept, since differing terms have been used to describe it, though "New anti-Semitism" is the most commonly used one. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Er... lost me there. Different terms are used to describe peace and war - because they're different things. Itsmejudith 20:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And different terms are sometimes used to describe the same concept, especially when it's a fairly new concept, as in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg enforced very strict adherence on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid that any source referenced must make explicit references to Israeli apartheid. Thus any supporting information from a source that did not mention Israeli apartheid could not be used -- to do otherwise would involve original research. I trust he applies his high standards similarly across multiple articles. --Ben Houston 05:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Templates

John, please don't convert to templates. The templates are there for individual editors who may not know how to write citations. Once the citations are written, there's no need to add them, and they take up more space. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored citation templates. Some of the manually written citations for books didn't have ISBN numbers, so they didn't have hotlinks to the books. This is routine cleanup; see Hubbert peak theory for an example of an article that was cleaned up in that way. The citations do need some work; some of the same references appear both in the reference list and under "further reading". Those probably should be unduplicated. --John Nagle 06:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

But there's no need to add templates to remove duplication or to add an ISBN number. You also added page numbers to one citation in the References section, which isn't done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why no page numbers? --Coroebus 14:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Page numbers in the footnotes, but not in the References section. The latter is just a list of the publications used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You added only two ISBNs, so I've re-added them without using templates. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I could also only find two publications that were repeated in Refs and Further reading. I've removed them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation templates are a generally unhelpful imposition on the editor; they're a special language one must learn in order to cite references in one special way. They add useless verbiage to articles (albeit invisible), and impose an unhelpful burden on editors. The templates in question added nothing of value to this article, since the references were already cited and formatted properly. Let's leave citation templates for those who find comfort in procedure, and stick to more sensible methods of referencing in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

When Wikipedia starting using <ref>, I felt that was a step backwards from hotlinks; online navigation to the reference now took at least two clicks, and you couldn't just open the reference in another window or tab without losing your place. I was a bit annoyed when others started changing my hotlinks to "ref" style. But I accepted that Wikipedia style was changing, and the links had to be changed. This is similar. Think of it as a form of machine-readable markup. Not just people, but programs can read those templates. Wikipedia could, for example, have a bot that automatically conforms all book references to OCLI, filling in missing information. Accept that Wikipedia's house style improves over time and get with the program. --John Nagle 15:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

John, as much as you may personally like templates, they are neither recommended nor required on Wikipedia, and many editors strongly dislike them, because they're unnecessary, add extra words, and make editing harder. Also, you're not supposed to add them to citations that are already properly written.

I've removed your personal attack, and please note that Jay did not revert you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Header

Ken, regarding your header change, Klug is saying that what others are calling new anti-Semitism is new, and is a prejudice, but it's not anti-Semitism; hence the header. He says it is a "brand new bug" not a mutation of an existing virus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein

I've added a Finkelstein section as discussed earlier. I picked out what I saw as his strongest argument in Beyond Chutzpah and summarized it as accurately as I could. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the section is a good one. In early September I did drafted a similar section based on some stuff written by Brian Klug which I posted in my userspace here [23]. I'll reproduce it here, maybe you can integrate some of it into the current section:

The complex Israel-Jewish diaspora relationship

Klug writes that some NAS proponents claim that Arab and Muslim attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols outside of Israel, such as has occurred in France, are exhibiting a motif of classic anti-Semitism -- the "lumping all Jews together and holding them collectively responsible." Klug describes the reasoning of NAS proponents: "For it's not the Jews of France who are occupying the territories, it's the State of Israel. If the motive for these incidents was purely political, why didn't the protesters attack the Israeli embassy? Why attack individual Jews and Jewish institutions?" ^[4]

Klug goes on to state that things are not that simple and that this

"misconception goes to the heart of the complex situation in which Jews find themselves today. Israel does not regard itself as a state that just happens to be Jewish (like the medieval kingdom of the Khazars). It sees itself as (in Prime Minister Sharon's phrase) 'the Jewish collective,' the sovereign state of the Jewish people as a whole. In his speech at the Herzliya Conference in December, Sharon called the state 'a national and spiritual center for all Jews of the world,' and added, 'Aliyah [Jewish immigration] is the central goal of the State of Israel.' To what extent this view is reciprocated by Jews worldwide is hard to say. Many feel no particular connection to the state or strongly oppose its actions. On the other hand, in spring 2002, at the height of Israel's Operation Defensive Shield, Jews gathered in large numbers in numerous cities to demonstrate their solidarity, as Jews, with Israel. Many Jewish community leaders, religious and secular, publicly reinforce this identification with the state. All of which is liable to give the unreflective onlooker the impression that Jews are, as it were, lumping themselves together; that Israel is indeed 'the Jewish collective.'"^[4]

Klug cautions those that the complex relationship between the Jewish diaspora and Israel do not justify in any way "a single incident where Jews are attacked for being Jewish; such attacks are repugnant. But it does provide a context within which to make sense of them without seeing a global 'war against the Jews.'""

Hope it is interesting if nothing else. --Ben Houston 04:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the lengthy section outlining Finkelstein's views, I've removed this paragraph from the "Left and anti-Zionism" section:

Norman Finkelstein dedicates the first third of his book Beyond Chutzpah ^[5] to new anti-Semitism, arguing that the concept provides political cover to supporters of Israel, and that pro-Zionist groups such as the Anti-Defamation League have brought forward charges of "new anti-Semitism" several times since the early 1970s, each time with the intent of deflecting criticism of Israel. Finkelstein argues that Phyllis Chesler, in The New Anti-Semitism, "barely disguises that alleging a new anti-Semitism is simply the pretext for defending Israel." He writes that Chesler devotes eight pages to "A Brief History of Arab Attacks against Israel, 1908-1970s", but says nothing about Israel's actions against Arabs.^[6]

It's not specifically about the Left, the arguments themselves are quite vague and don't really address the points raised, and it generally tries to rebut two sources we haven't even quoted in the article. The new section is vastly superior to this. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need for it there now it has its own section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Rufin

CJ, you've rewritten the sentence to say "Rufin recommended criminalizing what he described as unfounded criticisms of Israel, including those which described it as a racist or apartheid state." This suggests there were other criticisms that he recommended criminalizing. Can you say what they were? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Rufin also makes reference to comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany. As long as we're talking, could you point out the exact passage in Rufin's report where he describes the comparisons to South Africa as "unfounded"? CJCurrie 04:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't remember, but it's either in the report or in interviews he gave. You could try the UPI article, and there's a link to the report on the page. He would hardly recommended criminalizing founded allegations. :-)

I would say that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany would be covered by describing it as a racist state. I'm not aware that he recommend criminalizing anything else, so we should probably tweak the sentence so it doesn't suggest he did. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is that he may not have used the term "unfounded". My recollection is that he used terms like "provocative", "troublesome" or somesuch.

Leaving that point aside for now, I don't have a problem with adjusting the language. CJCurrie 04:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look through the news reports, you'll see they all say "unfounded" e.g. here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept that (although the word "unfounded" is in quotations, of course). Are you okay with the current wording? CJCurrie 04:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine, thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What Rufin actually wrote on this was "C’est pourquoi nous invitons à réfléchir sur l’opportunité et l’applicabilité d’un texte de loi qui complèterait les dispositions de la loi du 1 juillet 1972 et celles de la loi du 13 juillet 1990 (dite loi Gayssot). Ce texte permettrait de punir ceux qui porteraient sans fondement à l’encontre de groupes, d’institutions ou d’Etats des accusations de racisme et utiliseraient à leur propos des comparaisons injustifiées avec l’apartheid ou le nazisme." Or, roughly, "This is why we propose to consider the appropriateness and the applicability of a text of law which complements/completes the provisions of the law of July 1, 1972 and those of the law of July 13, 1990 (known as law Gayssot). This text would make it possible to punish those who would make unfounded charges of racism against groups, institutions or States, or would make unjustified comparisons with apartheid or Nazism about them." Note that he said unfounded charges of racism but unjustified comparisons with apartheid or Nazism. "Unjustified" implies a requirement for more proof than "unfounded"; it's like the distinction between "preponderance of the evidence" and "probable cause". The Wikipedia article currently reads "Rufin recommended criminalizing what he described as unfounded criticisms of Israel, describing it as a racist or apartheid state." That mixes up the two standards. I'd suggest "Rufin recommended criminalizing unfounded charges of racism, or making unjustified comparisons with apartheid or Nazism, with respect to groups, institutions or States." That's closer to the original. Rufin also did not propose to actually write Israel into the law, which the current Wikipedia text implies. --John Nagle 06:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's your original research, John. We publish what the sources publish. If you can find a source discussing the unfounded/unjustified distinction in relation to Rufin and new anti-Semitism, by all means bring it forth. CJC, I'm surprised at you paying any attention to the above and even removing Finkelstein's response. Don't remove what reliable source say again, please, even if you disagree with them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Slim, I removed the statement pending clarification of its context. My intent was to return NF's quote, as soon as I was certain that it was properly represented.[24] This isn't "removing reliable sources" so much as "caution" and "concern for journalistic integrity". Anyway, the matter seems resolved now. CJCurrie 00:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, if I understand all this correctly, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's doing original research when he translates an article from the French and talks about what it means. That implies that I'm doing original research any time I consult a primary source and write in Wikipedia about what I think it means. ⟳ausa کui ^× 14:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(1) It's best to use a published translation; (2) it's best to use secondary sources in general in contested articles; (3) his analysis above about what he thinks the difference is between unfounded and unjustified is pure OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed to a direct quote from Rubin's text, to avoid any unfounded allegations of "original research". --John Nagle 19:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Forster and Epstein's place in this history

What's thinking on Forster and Epstein's "The New Anti-Semitism", their 1974 book? I've been reading it, and it's such a period piece. They were worried about now-defunct left-wing organizations of the 1960s, the Young Socialist Alliance, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Spartacus League, most of which barely made it to 1974. They make a key point: "In the United States the Radical Left sees the Jewish community and its institutions as part of the "Establishment", an affluent, smug, "liberal" obstacle to the growth of revolutionary conciousness". (p.9) That's where we are today, with leftist anti-globalism protestors being against Israel, as mentioned in the article. The "Establishment", in the US, UK, and Israel, has moved much further to the right since 1974, of course, leaving more room on the left for opposition.

I had no idea that Jesus Christ Superstar, the Broadway musical, was considered anti-Semitic, but this was apparently a big issue in 1973. "For Jews the rock opera was a disaster mitigated only by the fact that the lyrics were often unintelligble and that New York theater prices might well keep many people, even those who liked rock music, away".(p. 93)

Then there was a flap over a book on Meyer Lansky, "the man who organized crime", who was a fugitive hiding in Israel at the time. And Portnoy's Complaint, which was what passed for pornography back then, was considered anti-Semitic.

It's interesting seeing what people were wound up about in the not too distant past. It helps put the issue in perspective. --John Nagle 20:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What issue? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

~~Was there an updated second edition? I thought that there was only one version of the text.~~ Actually, this is probably the wrong time for humour ... CJCurrie 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Updated 04:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's never a wrong time for that, CJ, although I'm not sure I got the joke. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

the far right, in reality leftist

there is no anti-semitism on the right and never has been, it is exclusive property of the left as it always has been, including Nazi Germany, a totalitarian centre-left state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.49.1 (talk • contribs)

What the hell are you blabbering on about?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein section

There are a number of serious problems with the way Norman Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah" is presented in this article.

(i) The current summary is unduly focused on one aspect of NF's argument. Finkelstein makes several arguments against the "new anti-Semitism" in "Beyond Chutzpah", but the current version refers only to his suggestion that policies of the Israeli government may lead to animosity against Jews (or, more accurately, that such policies may lead to animosity against Israel and its vocal Jewish supporters in other nations). Casting a spotlight on this particular argument, which is not even NF's primary critique of "new anti-Semitism" proponents, seems both arbitrary and puzzling.

I read the book carefully and this is his strongest argument. If you think there's another one, please tell me what it is with page numbers, and why you think it's stronger. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the book carefully and this is his strongest argument. 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?

If you think there's another one, please tell me what it is with page numbers I will. CJCurrie 01:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(ii) The caption beside Finkelstein's image currently reads "Norman Finkelstein argues that Israel and its Jewish supporters may themselves be the cause of contemporary anti-Semitism.]]" While this statement is not inaccurate, the context seems skewed and much textual nuance is ignored. A neutral reader might even wonder if the quotation was designed to portray Finkelstein in the most questionable light possible. (As has already been mentioned, this is not even NF's primary argument.)

Stop this assuming bad faith nonsense. I've had enough of your complaints. It's a succinct summary of his views, and a perfectably respectable view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an arbitrary summarization of his views, taken from a peripheral argument. I don't believe that putting myself into the shoes of a neutral reader constitutes an assumption of bad faith. CJCurrie 01:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(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)

CJCurrie, rather than harping on about other people's contributions, could you please write up your section on Norman Finkelstein on a draft page so we can read and compare? I would very much like to see you make a contribution from scratch, which you have never done for as long as you've been complaining on this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out, the current Finkelstein section is riddled with inaccuracies and dubious assertions (most of which you did not actually address in your response). I don't believe that correcting a flawed section is an unreasonable act, nor do I believe that a draft page is a requisite first-step for making such a correction. Your final point is of no bearing to this argument one way or the other. In any event, I've almost finished my revisions and will welcome any constructive suggestions you may have. CJCurrie 01:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "riddled with inaccuracoes and dubious assertions." I'm tired of your hyberbole, so tone it down. If you think something can be done better, that doesn't mean the first attempt is "riddled with inaccuracies" inserted to do down your favorite author.

Will we ever see you write a section from the opposite POV, CJ? Will we ever see you write for the enemy? In fact, can you point me to a single example of you doing that during your entire time at Wikipedia? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done it many times, Slim. It's just that on this page, problems seem to surface most frequently in the sections about NAS-critics. Btw, you still haven't responded to my specific criticisms. CJCurrie 02:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you show me some examples? I've never seen you edit from a POV that you clearly disagree with. I do it all the time, and yet all you have for me is criticism and accusations because I'm not doing it exactly the way you would prefer me to. Therefore, I'd like to see some examples of your having done it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not completely certain how we got on this tangent, or what it has to do with the discussions on this page. If you want an example, though, feel free to peruse my work at Scott Reid (politician). Reid is a respected Canadian author and Conservative Party (of Canada) MP. I'm no fan of the Conservative Party, but I went out of my way to make this article balanced. It would appear that I was at least partly successful: Reid has it linked from his personal webpage. CJCurrie 22:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that example. I hope we'll soon see you writing in this article from the point of view of, say, Robert Wistrich. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Klug, Brian. The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism. The Nation, February 2, 2004, accessed January 9, 2006, p.1.
^ Jews predict record level of hate attacks
^ The New Anti-Semitism, Bernard Lewis, The American Scholar - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference brianklug was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Wiener, Jon. "Giving Chutzpah New Meaning", The Nation, July 11, 2005, p. 2.
^ Finkelstein, Norman G. Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, University of California Press, 2005, p. 34 and p. 51.
^ Finkelstein, Norman. Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, University of California Press, 2005, p. 80.

[Klug1-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ Klug, Brian. The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism. The Nation, February 2, 2004, accessed January 9, 2006, p.1.

[2] Jews predict record level of hate attacks

[3] The New Anti-Semitism, Bernard Lewis, The American Scholar - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36

[brianklug-4] Cite error: The named reference brianklug was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Wiener-5] Wiener, Jon. "Giving Chutzpah New Meaning", The Nation, July 11, 2005, p. 2.

[ngf34-6] Finkelstein, Norman G. Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, University of California Press, 2005, p. 34 and p. 51.

[Finkelstein80-7] Finkelstein, Norman. Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, University of California Press, 2005, p. 80.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]