Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 1

Unsorted text
The very name of Anti-Semitism is an atavistic misnomer. Who still really harbor hostility against the Jewish people or Israel because "they belong to the Semitic race", even more ridiculous to say its because of the Linguistic family Hebrew belongs to. ---
 * While some aspects of the anti-Semitism phenomenon are similar to xenophobia, which is the fear of foreign culture, anti-Semitism is distinct in Western culture, because it hold hostility against the parent culture of most modern Westen cultures.

European culture is based on civilization of Greeks and Romans, which were heavily influenced by ancient civilizations of Middle East, and also on "barbaric" cultures of Germanic, Slavic and other tribes. But it has very little to do with Jewish culture. With exception of some borrowings in religious matters (which certainly weren't dominant even for that), there has been no significant influence from Jewish culture on European. And no way it is some kind of "parent culture". Taw 14:21 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)


 * The error is in the very notion of "parent culture" or even the idea that one culture is based on some other culture. All cultures are constantly changing, and often frequently borrowing from other cultures.  "western culture," to whatever extent it is real, is "based"  not only on Hebrew culture and Hellenic and Roman culture, but on African and Chinese cultures too.


 * When people make any claim that one culture is based on another ("parent") culture, they are making an ideological claim that specifies one set of relationships for a particular purpose. English claims that European culture is based on Roman civilization was meaningful at a time when they were building empire.  Claims to Greek antecedents were useful when people were advocating democratic government.


 * Richard Rubenstein has argued that there is something sepcial about Anti-Semitism because of the important connection between Hebrew culture and modern European culture (I don't buy the argument but I think it is fascinating and worth reading and thinking about). His point is that Christianity claims to be the heirs to the covenant between God and the Children of Israel, and that much of the language of the New Testament comes from or refers to the Hebrew Bible.  I certainly do think it is fair to say that many Christians do not view Jews simply as another people (and thus potential objects of xenophobia), but rather as people with whom they have a special, perhaps strange relationship.  Perhaps even a relationship they want to deny.


 * As for more general Jewish influence on European culture, I would suggest that many traditions in music stem from the Biblical Psalms, and that there has been a literary influence as well (Auerbach wrote an essay on this in his book Mimesis. In many parts of Europe, Jews preceded current dominant populations, and were long-time participants in public life; I can't see how you can study European history without studying Jewish history (meaning, more specifically, the history of the Jewish community in Europe).  Europe is a place, and the culture of Europe is the culture of that place, and Jews have been active occupants of that place for millenia.  Deal with it. Slrubenstein

Earlier discussions have been archived to
 * Talk:Anti-Semitism/archive
 * Talk:Anti-Semitism/archive2

Just wanted to open the page by saying: Nicely put, April. I for one appreciated what you said. Danny (who also happens to be Jewish).

How can you say this? GrahamN posted attacks against all Zionists, in which derides every one of them as racists, and that he literally hates them. How is that you don't disagree? (I haven't seen on word of disagreement from anyone here yet, and in the real world silence is tacit consent. That may be unfortunate, but its a fact.) April then says that I should not slander others as racist. I agree, but huh? It was GrahamN who denounced every Jewish and Christian Zionist in the world as a racist, who denounced them all as evil, and then bluntly stated that he hates them. It is this explicit hatespeech I object to. I assume you don't approve of it either. RK

However, since you insist, and since I cynically believe you can find examples of almost anyone doing almost anything to anyone else... I did a web search. For a beginning, see this link: http://www.io.com/~jewishwb/iris/archives/551.html ... "With my own eyes, I wept. I wept that a Jewish policeman would attack a Jewish child. I wept that a Jewish government would use violence against Jewish citizens." ... This was not chosen because it's the best source, but because it was the first allegation I found. Thirty-second search. Please don't make me search for more and better sources - I will almost certainly find 'em, people being people the world over, and this sort of thing depresses me.) Note that I do not have the slightest idea whether this is a true or a false allegation. It is an allegation, ergo such allegations exist, ergo I deplore the actions cited in the allegation if in fact those actions happened as described. So am I anti-Semetic for condemning the hypotheitical actions of a hypothetical Jewish policeman against a hypothetical Jewish child? I think not.


 * First off, I udnerstand that what you are proposing is an example. But my response is this - of course a person would be an anti-Semite if they did such a heinous thing. Only a person filled with hatred towards Jews would dig for unsubstantiated rumors slander about Jews, and then justify condemning Jews (qua Jews) in public for said totally unfounded rumor. RK


 * Further, let us for the sake of argument say that the story was true. Only an anti-Semite would use the religion of a criminal to attack Jews as a people. When a (Catholic Christian) policeman was recently arrested in my own state for unnecessary violence against a (presumable Christian) citizen, did I go to the Wikipedia entry on Christianity and use this as an example of a legitimate NPOV opinion against Christians? Of course not. Did anyone else? No. Only a bigoted Christian-hater would do such a thing. So what worries me is that you propose that such actions are acceptable towards Jews, yet it is obvious that no one here would allow such an unfair action to be used on Wikipedia to slander Christians, Muslims, atheists or Hindus. This in of itself is the problem. What about this is so confusing? RK

While I want to speak up in self-defense, I also don't want to clutter Wikipedia with more of this. I have therefore created a meta link: Anti-Semitism vs Anti-Zionism. I politely request that this dispute be taken there, where it is more apt. I shall respond to the above points on the meta page, and to any future points in this debate there also, in order to encourage this. -- April

Guys, Wikipedia is not the place to argue about your personal politics, religion, or character. It's a place to rationally discuss what belongs in encyclopedia articles. Go shout at each other in the meta link above and leave the rest of us alone to get some useful work done. --LDC
 * Yes, that would be nice. --KQ

I've unlocked this page by request (I don't know who locked it). But please, do take your dispute to the meta link. If you manage to hash out something useful, bring it into the article. --Stephen Gilbert

I wasn't a party to the dispute -- I just wanted to explain my modifications to the page. I removed the quotes -- in the MLK case my reason can be seen at Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.. In respect to the other two -- I don't think articles should include extended quotes from people, unless they are a generally recognized authority (e.g. academic researchers--and on a topic as controversial as this, I wouldn't even quote academics, because there is no academic consensus on what they'd be saying), or the topic of the article is the quote (e.g. discussion of meaning of a bible verse), or the quote is short and famous (quoting from speeches by MLK or JFK or Churchill or someone like that would be okay on an article about them, or about World War II/Civil Rights movement/West Berlin). And above all quotes should be short, and should not be a substitute for actual article text.

I hope the content of the quotes is still reflected in my summaries of the arguments; if I have missed something significant, please add it.

I have also change the section on anti-Zionism a lot, because it was strongly biased against anti-Zionism. Basically: The original section did not do this; I have tried, although I may have missed some things, and I may have unbalanced it too far the other way. I also tried to elaborate on exactly what people opposed to Zionism mean when they call it racist, or they say they oppose Israel's existence. The article took the worst possible bunch of anti-Zionists (e.g. people who might say "Zionists, like all Jews, are racist pigs who think they are better than everyone else, and they should all be drowned in the Mediterranean sea")--which admittedly do exist--but it ignored people like me, who oppose Zionism, but do NOT endorse those kind of things.
 * 1) whether anti-Zionism is antisemitic or not is controversial (I think we can all agree that some incarnations of anti-Zionism are antisemitic -- but some people here appear to believe anti-Zionism is antisemitic in and of itself, or at least in all its significant current incarnations)
 * 2) hence, with regard to the controversial forms of anti-Zionism, the article should not come to an opinion as to whether they are antisemitic or not
 * 3) rather, it should just describe each sides arguments, as fairly as possible

Finally, I want to try as much as possible to avoid argue about whether anti-Zionism is or is not antisemitic (my view is that many anti-Zionists are antisemitic, but not all are, e.g. me). But I'd be happy to hear how I've got one side or the other of the argument wrong, or left important things out, or given more space to one side than the other, or something like that. - SJK 6 Sep 2002

I broke the article into 2 pieces: anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. This is not because I believe anything in particular about either idea, but because it will allow contributors to report on the various ideas and their relationship to one another more easily.

Some people think anti-Zionism is necessarily anti-Semitic. (I'm inclined to agree with them, but I'm not a spokesman for any cause, so my POV won't be going into any article). Let's write about groups and their spokesman who:
 * 1) do believe that Zionism is racist
 * 2) do not believe that Zionism is racist
 * 3) do believe that anti-Zionisim is anti-Semetic
 * 4) do not believe that anti-Zionism in anti-Semitic

--Ed Poor 14:03 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

I big chunks of text, from Zionism to anti-Zionism. My purpose in re-organizing was to make it easier for the reader to understand the various views:
 * some people hate Jews, which is anti-Semitism
 * some people believe Jews deserve their own nation, which (I think) is Zionism
 * some people oppose Zionism, for various reasons, which is anti-Zionism

--Ed Poor 15:01 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

The linking of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism seems very controversial and not NPOV. Not to mention that it's perhaps better placed under Anti-Zionism, which seems more NPOV as currently written. Among prominent American anti-Zionists, for example, are several Jews (Noam Chomsky being probably the most famous); some claim they are in fact anti-Semites, but this is a controversial claim, not a neutral statement of fact. There are also several anti-Zionist Orthodox Jewish sects, most notably the Satmars, who oppose Zionism on religious rather than anti-Semitic grounds. In any case, it seems extremely objective to imply that nearly all anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic. The strongest claim that's justifiable is that perhaps "most" are, with an explicit proviso that there are some who are not (with a statement of a few of these exceptions, as I've just mentioned above). But this is a controversial enough article that I'll solicit some feedback before making edits. -- Delirium

I think it is interesting that before the Holocaust, Zionists were actually a minority among Jews. Most Jews were not Zionists and a large number were anti-Zionists. Danny

IIRC, part of the reason for Zionists being a minority amongst religious Jews were somewhat circumstantial and cultural: the prominent Zionists were from the European secular "elite," and so were naturally opposed by religious Jews, particularly those not from Europe. But this really should all be in an article somewhere, eh? --- Delirium

Actually, that's not exact. There were religious reasons underlying the opposition. On the other hand, I was referring more to the Bund (socialist Jewish cultural autonomists) and the Communists in Eastern Europe, the Jewish Territorialists (looking for a homeland anywhere else but Palestine), the Reform Movement in America and Germany, etc. Eastern European Zionists were generally not of the elite, and the big fight in the Zionist Congress (I think it was 1902, but I could be off by a couple of years)was over the Uganda/Argentina debate. Danny


 * Since Judaism carries beliefs which predate other religious traditions, and does not hold aspects of other traditions, Jews have faced a long history of hateful discrimination by people of different faiths.

Isn't this a claim that every religion could make? The christians could point to roman burnings, the arabs to the crusades, pagans to the inquisition, atheists to the historical inability to swear an oath in british courts, members of every religion in countries with state atheism, all non-Muslims in countries under Sharia law.

The paragraph is also arguing that religious anti-Semitism is down to doctrinal differences and the comparative age of Judaism. While those may be factors, I think that's a massive over-simplification.

Finally, I'm not clear on the difference between hateful discrimination and non-hateful discrimination. Martin

Time for a better definition. Furthermore, there are various causes of anti-Semitism in various historical periods. For instance, Graeco-Roman anti-Semitism was distinctly different from contemporary anti-Semitism and was based on social, rather than racial or religious reasons. Cicero didn't care whether Jews rejected Jesus or not (see Pro Flacco, for instance). Many historians argue that the rise of anti-Semitism after the Crusades was linked with the rise of an indigenous middle class among returning serfs who fought in the Holy Land and sought to assume the role of international traders that was long held by the Jews of Europe (that is not to say that they did not claim religious sanction for blood libels, etc., but their primary motivating factor was economic, not religious--see, for instance, Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew). Of course, at other times, motivations were primarily religious (though not necessarily anti-Jewish as anti-non-Christian--both variations existed) and racial (for example, the Nazi period). Danny 23:33 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

For 208, I'm kind of surprised that you cite Nightline as a source. Hardly a bastion of academic integrity. It's an old debate on these pages, and frankly, I do not very much like the page as it stands--too much on anti-Zionism, not enough on anti-Semitism. However, I will reiterate some of the points made in the past. 1) Anti-Semitism is a recent term coined to describe a specific phenomenon--the dislike of Jews. It was coined as a euphemism but it was coined with a very specific meaning in mind--dislike of Jews. As for the euphemistic part of it, your argument seems to me to be very much like arguing that a kitchen is also a WC (watercloset, a euphemistic term for a bathroom, itself a euphemism). My kitchen has running water; it also has a closet, therefore it is a WC. Euphemisms don't work like that. I'll get back to that in a moment. First I want to add that Semitic itself is not an ethnic group--it is a language group. Indo-European is also a language group but it is not an ethnicity. African Americans speak English; so do Native Americans, however, they are not of the same family/places of origin as, say, British Americans. They are people that speak the same language and in most cases share the same basic culture. Similarly, not all people who live in Egypt today are of the same basic ethnicity as people in Saudi Arabia. They speak the same language, share many of the same cultural components (religion, customs, taboos, etc.), but they also have different histories. Similarly, assume for a moment that European Jews are descended predominantly from the Khazars--that does not mean that Jews who live in Israel do not speak a Semitic language, any more than it means that Jews who spoke Yiddish are a Germanic people. Language is not a sole determinant of ethnicity. When the term anti-Semitism was coined, it was based on a foggy notion of race and ethnicity that by modern standards is simply incorrect. It seems, therefore, that to coopt anti-Semitism for other ethnic groups only serves to perpetuate that myth of distinctive racial origins. That is what happens when a euphemism is taken as fact. I reject the notion that Arabs are a Semitic people, just like I reject the notion that Jews are a Semitic people. Of course, there are people today who do claim that the Arabs (but not [Indo-European] Persians or [Turkic] Turks) are Semites and that anti-Semitism is inclusive of them. I think that can be worked into the article, but it seems to me to be historically inaccurate to coopt Arab peoples into the history of the hatred of Jews. Since that is a relatively new term, I think it should be clarified as such--even in the first paragraph. On the other hand, the general meaning of the term as it is used to describe an important, largely European phenomenon should not be expanded into oblivion. I'll wait for your comments before I make a change. Danny 02:07 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Trimmed up a little, those last two paragraphs would make a very good summary at the top of the article itself. Tannin 02:20 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC) (PS: I know better than to dive into a hotly controversial topic without reading the whole thing carefully, consulting references, and sleeping on it first. I know better, don't mean I do better. Oh well....)


 * Thanks, Tannin. I'm waiting to get my head bitten off from any number of directions for writing them. ;-) Danny 02:24 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

- I made some changes to the article, especially in the section which mistakenly claimed that Judaism does not allow people from any group to join, and is not universalist. I am not sure how this claim crept in. I am taking this opportunity to point out that traditional rabbinic Judaism has never had such a view, and still does not (with the exception of certain Ultra-Orthodox communities today.) I inser for clarification an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity on this topic. RK


 * Judaism does not characterize itself as a religion (although one can speak of the Jewish religion and religious Jews). The subject of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) is the history of the Children of Israel (also called Hebrews), especially in terms of their relationship with God. Thus, Judaism has also been characterized as a culture or as a civilization. Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan defines Judaism as an evolving religious civilization. One crucial sign of this is that one need not believe, or even do, anything to be Jewish; The historic definition of 'Jewishness' requires only that one be born of a Jewish mother, or that one converts to Judaism in accord with Jewish law. (Today, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews also include those born of Jewish fathers and gentile mothers if the children are raised as Jews.)


 * To Jews, Jewish peoplehood is closely tied to their relationship with God, and thus has a strong theological component. This relationship is encapsulated in the notion that Jews are a chosen people. Although many non-Jews have taken this as a sign of arrogance or exclusivity, Jewish scholars and theologians have emphasized that a special relationship between Jews and God does not in any way preclude other nations having their own relationship with God. For Jews, being "chosen" fundamentally means that Jews have chosen to obey a certain set of laws (see Torah and halakha) as an expression of their covenant with God. Jews hold that other nations and peoples are not required or expected to obey these laws, and face no penalty for not obeying them. Thus, as a national religion, Judaism has no problem with the notion that others have their own paths to God (or "salvation").


 * Christianity, on the other hand, is characterized by its break with Jewish identity and its claim to universality. As a religion claiming universality, Christianity has had to struggle with religions that make radically different claims about Gods. Most Christians believe that Christianity represents the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham and the nation of Israel, that Israel would be a blessing to all nations. This crucial difference between the two religions has other implications. For example, conversion to Judaism is more like a form of adoption (i.e. becoming a member of the nation, in part by metaphorically becoming a child of Abraham), whereas conversion to Christianity is explicitly a declaration of faith. Depending on the denomination, this conversion has a social component, as the individual is in many ways adopted into the Church, with a strong family model.


 * In contrast to the cultural identity shared by Jews, Christianity has been incorporated by many different cultures around the world. In most cases, there has been at least some difficulty in discerning which teachings and practices are central to Christianity and cannot be changed, and which are "merely" cultural and can be adapted to a new culture without compromising the faith. The doctrine of the Incarnation has often been applied to mean that the Church itself can be enfleshed in a new cultural setting without compromising its essence.

RK, just for your general knowledge, the definition which I put in and which you reverted for your own statement (which is inaccurate on a number of levels) is almost a direct quote from David Berger, Professor of History at Brooklyn College and at City University of New York in the introduction to the book he edited History and Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism. You can find it on page 3. In case you want to challenge his scholarship, I'd remind you that you have actually cited him yourself in the Schneersohn article. It's been a pleasure. Danny 16:17 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Danny, Prof. Berger does not limit the meaning of the word anti-Semitism to the brief snippet you want to use. It means much more than you are willing to admit, and I cannot fathom why you are resiting the standard definition of this word. The word means what most people say it means, not what you'd like it to mean. Therefore I currently disagree with this overly brief definition for two reasons: (1) Wikipedia requires a consensus. What others writers on this subject also should be considered. Wouldn't you agree? (2) On this point you are incorrect. By snipping everything he has written to a couple of sentences, you are distoring his person's views, and making it look as if he has a uniquely narrow definition of the word. Last point - In other Wikipedia articles the introduction and summary discussed a subject far more fully. Why are you so against it for this article? RK


 * Finally, I take offense at your false implication that I am challenging Prof. Berger's scholarship. I have done no such thing. Further, you are very confused, as you never mentioned the results of his scholarship! Rather you only snipped a couple of sentences out of one of his many writings, and mistakenly believe that is all that he has to say on the meaning of the word "anti-Semitism". That is out of line, as well as incorrect. RK

Jewish self-hatred
[If the Neturei Karta are] not saying [hateful] things about themselves, it follows that they are not saying these things about all Jews, only some. Either way, they are not saying anything anti-Semitic; of course they aren't, because they are Jews, and a Jewish anti-Semite is an oxymoron. -- Simon J Kissane


 * No, they don't teach hatred of themselves - but they do teach hatred of all other Jews in the world. RK

[The Neturei Karta ] can't be antisemites because they are Jews. To take a different example: suppose some guy, let's call him Jack, is a Protestant and he hates Catholics. Now it is true that he is anti-Catholic, but he isn't anti-Christian because he is a Christian. Or another example: Ahmed is a Sunni and he hates Shi'a. Now it is true he is anti-Shi'a, but he is not anti-Muslim because he is a Muslim. In the same way, Neturei Karta may well be anti-Reform Judaism, anti-Masorti, anti-Modern Orthodox, and anti heaps of other Jewish groups as well, but that doesn't make them antisemitic any more than Jack hating Catholics makes him anti-Christian or Ahmed hating Shi'a makes him anti-Muslim. "Jewish anti-Semtitism" is an invention of intra-Jewish propaganda, plain and simple. -- SJK.

I have absolutely nothing against Jews as a religion or an ethnic group. I do disagree with many of Israel's policies, and disagree with Zionism; but my reasons for doing so are not anti-Semitic at all. You seem to almost want to redefine anti-Semitism to mean "anyone who disagrees with me". I not only find that sort of rhetoric very offensive to myself, I also think it shows disrespect to the victims of real anti-Semitism. -- Simon J Kissane

As I said above, "ultra-Orthodox antisemitism" does not exist. Ultra-Orthodox are Jews, Jews cannot be anti-Semites, therefore there is no such thing as ultra-Orthodox antisemitism. To say this isn't to be antisemitic, it is to apply simple logic and common sense. Claiming that some ultra-Orthodox groups are antisemitic is simply propaganda. I am not denying the existence of antisemitism. Plenty of it exists in the world. All I am denying is that there are Jewish antisemites. A Jewish antisemite is like a black white supremacist -- they simply can't exist. SJK


 * Anyone who claims that black racists don't exists has never lived in the black community. There are a small number of self-hating black people, and the rest of the black community is not at all happy about this. And I am not talking about black Republicans, who some ultra-liberal black extremists pretend are anti-black (they are not, of course.) Rather, I am talking about black people who really don't like other black people. Just because they shouldn't exist doesn't mean that they don't exist. RK

If Neteuri Karta hate all other Jews (which I somewhat doubt, but I will take your word for it for the sake of the argument), they are still not anti-Semites, because they are Jews. They both consider themselves Jews, and they are generally recognized to be Jews. Therefore they cannot be antisemites. Plenty of other people can be and are antisemites. But for a Jew it is impossible to be an antisemite. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this simple piece of common sense. SJK

In Sudan IIRC its a case of Arabs enslaving blacks, not blacks enslaving each other -- but even if it isn't in that case, it's true that blacks have enslaved each other plenty of times before in history. But that isn't racism. How can it be possibly racist for a black person to enslave another black person? Immoral, yes; but racist, no. SJK

RK, have you ever considered that someone might disagree equally with policies that Israel has and policies that other countries have, yet publicly put most emphasis on Israeli misdeeds because of considerations of political relavance. The Middle East Conflict is a topic of constant interest in international politics. And one might simply evaluate that, looking at the evidence, Israel at present is more in the wrong than the Arabs are. Whether one is right or wrong to think that, it need not in any way be motivated by anti-Semitism. -- SJK


 * I disagree; I still hold that there are are black racists, there are self-hating homoseuxals, and there are some anti-Semitic ultra-Orthodox Jews. Police have documented attacks on homosexuals by men who have later turned out to have latent homosexual tendencies. Similarly, in Israel and America hatespeech is published against all Jews on the planet, by certain ultra-Orthodox sects. (The propagators of the hatred, of course, somehow find a way not to target themselves). RK

- SJK is saying that by definition a person cannot practice racism towards other members of his ethnic group.


 * But obviously a person can do this! Daniel C. Boyer


 * Police reports prove this wrong. We are trying to describe the real world, not what we wish the world would be look. RK

If racism means to view some other group of people as inferior to your own because of their race, it would be impossible to do this if you were actually a member of this racial group. Unless racism is defined differently then I suppose that what RK is suggesting is a contradiction. -- sodium


 * Hating Jews isn't racism because Judaism isn't a race. Similarly, hating homosexuals isn't racism, because homosexuals aren't a race. Third, anyone who does such things developes elaborate psychological defense mechanisms to rationalise why they themselves don't fall into the category that they are attacking. I thunk you are describing what you think ought to exist, rather than what does exist. RK


 * No, you have missed the point entirely...

I don't believe I have missed the point. I was trying to sum up SJKs position: "All I am denying is that there are Jewish antisemites."


 * First off, hating Jews isn't racism because Judaism isn't a race. Similarly, hating homosexuals isn't racism, because homosexuals aren't a race

Actually Judaism is a race as well as a religion, stated on the main Anti-Semitism page. This is irrelevant anyway, broadly I was talking about any group which finds any other group inferior because of some attribute.


 * [Second], you totally misunderstand the psychology of the people who do such things

SJK was simply arguing over the *definition* of antisemitism. Antisemites claim Jews are inferior because of their race/religion. You have to be from another race/religion to do this - it is impossible to find yourself inferior. Inferior to what? Are you saying that some Jews hate the rest of the jewish community? This would undoubtedly be a bad thing, but it is not antisemitism. -- sodium


 * I see what you mean, but this is not the sole definition of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jewish people, period. There are many who hate Jews only because of their beliefs and practices, and not because of their ethnicity. These people don't argue that Jews are inherently inferior in a genetic or spritual sense; they hate something about Jewish people; something which may be real, such as their resistence to assimilation, or ability to gain good jobs. Or they may believe something which is imaginary, such as the belief that Jews are greedy and spiteful. RK

I'm sure a lot of people would still consider a Jew hating (or believing inferior) his own race to be antisemitic or racist, but I would call that some form of self-loathing, since at least its not based on a superiority complex. And yes, it does exist.

Moved sentence
I moved the following sentence down here because it is to terse: Paul taught that the Jews were no longer in a special relationship with God, and that in God's eyes only Christians were the true offspring of Abraham.

Paul gives a detailed account in Romans 10 and 11. Can somebody give a more accurate summary, please? -- Di Stroppo


 * To be precise: I'm just saying that the cited sentence does not give an account of what Paul is teaching and that somebody should come up with a better summary. -- Di Stroppo


 * An article on anti-semitism is not, I think, the place to detail a complex Christian theology. But for present purposes (i.e. citing some of the verses that illustrate this particular pointand have been used to legitimize and motivate anti-semitism), I'd think II Corinthians 5-10 and Galetians 2: 14-16 would suffice -- and Hebrews 8: 13: "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." -- SR

Spelling/title
I would like to suggest we use the spelling "antisemitism" rather than "anti-Semitism". Not only is it easier to type (and I say it looks nicer too), but it is preferred by a several Jewish authors on the grounds that it discourages somewhat silly arguments like "Arabs are Semites too!", which although maybe etymologically correct don't fit with how the word is actually used. Comments? -- SJK

Which is the preferred spelling: anti-semitism or anti-Semitism? I think anti-Semitism is much more appropriate, but we have many examples of both.


 * It doesn't make much difference. I personally prefer anti-semitism because I like lowercase letters, but I wouldn't go out of my way to spell-check a whole article to make it conform.

anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism
''There is little or no debate in the Jewish community. Even Europeans (who are much more anti-Semitic than Americans) admit that its probably wrong to say that Jews and Jews alone are forbidden from having a land of their own.''

You yourself said that the Neturei Karta are anti-Zionist and Jewish. Whether you consider them anti-Semitic or not, that means that there is debate within the Jewish community. And, by the way, when you describe anti-Zionism as saying the Jews and Jews alone should have no land, you are assuming that everyone is in favor of racial or religious nation-states. One may also be anti-Zionist by being opposed to these in general, right?


 * As I see Neturei Karta, they are an extremely marginal segment of the Jewish public, both from the point of view of sheer numbers and that of their social status in the general Jewish community. Because of that, the fact that they have a different opinion than most of the community does not qualify as a debate that goes on inside it. In regard to the second point, being anti-Zionist today (that is, insisting that Israel's existence as such must be stopped), should be accompanied with denying the right of Palestinians for an indepentent state and combined with some sort of a solution how to prevent Arabs from fulfilling their promise of throwing 5 million Israeli Jews to the sea, or otherwise it's either hipocrisy or anti-Semitism of genocidal proportions. --Uriyan

Someone writes "You yourself said that the Neturei Karta are anti-Zionist and Jewish. Whether you consider them anti-Semitic or not, that means that there is debate within the Jewish community." My response: No, it means no such thing! Consider: There are a tiny, insignifcant percent of black people out there who somehow have becom racist, and who hate blacks, call them "niggers", and slander all other blacks in hateful terms. Would any sane person then conclude that "there is debate within the black community" whether blacks are dumb niggers to be despised? No! No such debate in the black community exists. The simply fact of the matter is that in every large group, you can always find a insignificant, tiny fringe group that hurls hatespeech at other members of the group. This doesn't prove anything except that self-hatred is an interesting psychological phenomenon to study. RK


 * RK, while I do not like what Neturei Karta says, there is a certain religious legitimacy to their opinions, which were accepted by the bulk of Orthodox Jewry till 1938. They are just hold-overs. In that case, condemning them as anti-Semitic is rather harsh. See, for instance, VaYoel Moshe on the three oaths. Furthermore, they do not hate Jews. They believe that Jews have abandoned their religion, and respond in a fervent manner. Kanaim pog'im bo, you know. Danny

Church of Stan
Previously I had written this statement "Are you asking why this theology is considered anti-Semitism by Jews? An analogy - imagine that a new religion was created, and in it people around the world claimed that God no longer loves Christians, but that God only loves the members of the new Church of Stan; further, they teach that 'Stanians' are now the new Christians, and that all the old Christians will be damned unless they convert to Stanism. I think that most people would argree that such a hypothetical action is anti-Christian, yet this is what Paul and his followers did to the Jews." I was trying to use a made-up name. To my surprise, there was a recent comment about this; evidently someone has created a religion is called Stanism!


 * Frater Parvise writes "STAN does NOT claim that Christians will be damned unless they convert; as STAN is all there is, including ALL the religions of the world, Christians are already Stanists. See the New Church of STAN doctrine at http://www.pantribe.net. [Frater Parvise]