Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 10

Straw men galore
"Some hold that one of the new forms of anti-Semitism is the claim that Jews view all criticisms of Israel or of Zionism as anti-Semitic." - uh, who claims that "Jews view all criticisms of Israel or of Zionism as anti-Semitic"? Answer: nobody I've ever heard of. With some effort, you might be able to find someone making the massive over-generalization that Jews view all opposition to Israel, or enmity towards Israel, as anti-Semitic, but even that will be difficult. "Straw man" is right! - Mustafaa 08:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed. That whole fourth section needs a good pruning. -- Viajero 10:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Would whoever added this "straw man" section in the first place care to source either claim? Who says that this is "one of the new forms of anti-Semitism, and who says that "Jews view all criticisms of Israel or of Zionism as anti-Semitic"?  If this claim is sourced, it can be edited into an acceptable state; if not, it should simply be removed. - Mustafaa 23:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What the ADL is trying to do is equate all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. http://www.cairotimes.com/news/antisemitism.html
 * What is more, the use of "antisemitism" has long been an opportunistic ploy of supporters of Israel to counter criticism of Israel http://www.swans.com/library/art8/herman05.html
 * whereas the anti-semitic classic relates every calamity to Jewish conspiracy, Jews relate to anti-semitic conspiracy every criticism of Israel. http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h092903.html
 * The Zionists refuse to separate criticism of Israel from criticism of Jews. http://www.studentorg.vcu.edu/fpn/antisemitism.html
 * And don't fall for the huff-and-puff of those individuals who attempt to bluff and bully you into silence by using this stupid and senseless word 'antisemitism'. Users of this word are morally and intellectually bankrupt because they use the racist concept to pervert humanity, and that cannot be good. From Kerry Bolton 21 August 2003 This article from the Waikato Times is interesting because shortly after, Edwards was on Paul Holmes' radio show, and both were discussing Jewish influence over the media very frankly. Both talked of the barrage of mail from Zionist interests which follows any criticism of Israel. I recall that years ago Holmes concluded one of his TV shows with a slight criticism of Israel. The next evening he was making a statement clarifiying that he and the station were not "anti-semitic." http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Racecard/antisemitism4.htm
 * Only one vital step to go now in this tawdry logic: Israel is a Jewish state, therefore any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. http://www.eclipsereview.org/issue9/antisemitism.htm
 * The greatest ideological weapon in the Zionist arsenal is the charge of antisemitism...If I accomplish nothing else in this talk, I hope to create space for some who are repelled by Israeli actions but are held back from condemning Zionism by a desire not to be antisemitic. http://racetraitor.org/massarttalk.html


 * Is that enough sources, or do you need more? Jayjg 18:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, that's enough sources for claim (2), though a few of them don't belong in the list. Now how about claim (1) - who says that this is "one of the new forms of anti-Semitism?" - Mustafaa 18:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not my section or claim, I was just responding to the request for sources. I don't see the actual sentence or section in the article, but as you've presented it here it's a bit too convoluted to make any strong point.  I think it's an important point that many view anti-Zionism as a cover for anti-Semitism and/or a form of anti-Semitism and/or anti-Semitic in result, if not intent. Jayjg 19:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definition, again
Since I added the template, I read up a little, and that led me to rewrite the intro as a line by line definition. It's modeled after the compromise at terrorism. And because I lack tact and good judgement, I thought I'd submit it for review here on the talk, rather than just leave things be. Thanks, -Stevertigo 18:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--clip --/clip
 * 1) Anti-Semitism is the persecution of Jews
 * 2)  Anti-Semitism refers to the history of persecution toward Jews, dating back thousands of years.
 * 3) Anti-Semitism refers to an overt irrational animus toward Jews as an ethnicity, culture or religion, that at times has escalated into violent persecution.
 * 4) "Anti-Semitism" can refer to a percieved latent animus toward Jews.
 * 5) "Anti-Semitism" is a characterisation of political speech and opinion as belonging to (or exacerbating of) irrational persecutory sentiments toward Jews.


 * Would this mean that anyone who persecutes any Jew for any reason is an AS? The current def is: it is animosity towards them as a religious or ethnic group.
 * Any "ism" has its history, which should not be a part of its definition.
 * It is in a human nature to rationalize our actions or beliefs. Never met (or read about) any AS who would admit their hatred is irrational. There is always a "good" reason, even if it is self-contradictory: Jews brought about Communism (alt: Capitalism, etc), they are powerful and mean (alt: they dribble their victimhood and make industry out of it), etc.
 * I see the same subjectivity problem with perception and characterisation.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 22:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why is this article still protected?
Why is this article still protected? As far as I can tell, the only problem is User Simonides. He is outrageously violating our NPOV policy. Our NPOV policy says that we do not just state a fact; rather, we say that Group A believes position B, while Group C believes position D. That is all that was added. We said that according to groups A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, anti-Semitism was resurgent across the globe; links were then given so that people could follow up on this (e.g. the the report on resurgent anti-Semitism by the European Union). Incredibly, Simonides repeatedly deleted all this NPOV data, then added polemical personal remarks denying that this phenomenom exists, offered us no sources, and repeatedly has given us a loony conspirary theory about "special interest groups" (i.e. the Jews.) RK

Simonides then states that there are no sources to support the idea that anti-Semitism is on a resurgence...yet it is Simonides himself who keeps deleting all of these sources. Note that Simonides is deleting sources from the European Union, the Secretary General of the UN, many researchers, and then denying that any sources exist. That is called trolling. RK 00:58, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * RK, may I help? Let's start with "being better than our opponents", so as to take the moral high ground. I'm going to refator your remarks above accordingly, if I may. --Uncle Ed 22:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dealing with doubt
I think that removing evidence and than claiming that the lack of presented evidence proves that there is no evidence whatever is rather a transparent tactic of denial. It has no place in Wikipedia collaboration, but there is a similar tactic which does have a place.

A contributor may edit an article so as to cast doubt upon a piece of evidence, for example by listing the names of people and organizations who disbelieve in the authenticity of that particular piece of evidence.

Rather than deleting sources, it's better to add a comment such as so and so doubts the veracity of this source -- thus-providing a source for the doubt. --Uncle Ed 22:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's better to add comments; it's best to know whether someone is lying before you rush to their defense. -- Simonides 23:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh?
Posted by Ed Poor: "For instance, if God proposed to punish the ancient Israelites for disobedience to His will, ought this to be considered anti-Semitic? Rabbis generally say no (or "I should say not!")."

"God"? "His Will"? Rabbinic exclamations? What is this doing here as an example? I don't see the need for a vague, presumptuous, hypothetical and theological passage on a secular encyclopedia article, but if the majority can agree it is essential, then it should at least be reworded. -- Simonides 23:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * But this is not a "secular encyclopedia article". It's a neutral article on a people who claim a history of connection to God (via Judaism). Indeed, the claim of being the "chosen people" is of central relevance to the issue of why so many people hate (or oppose) Jews.


 * Anyway, the point is that the Old Testament which Jews themselves revere contains dozens if not hundreds of adverse remarks about the ancient Jews; and Jewish leaders do not generally call these biblical remarks "anti-Semitic". So it's plain that the making of adverse or criticl remarks is not necessarily anti-Semitic -- it's more complex than that. --Uncle Ed 02:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * 1)Neutral and secular are synonymous in the current context. 2)Many major religions claim a history of connection to their idols or gods - the Jewish do so in their own way. "The claim of being the chosen people" is not "of central relevance" to anti-Semitism, it is only one among several factors - it might be central to a specific anti-Semite's agenda, or a Jewish fundamentalist agenda, but it has no other privilege, and highlighting it only encourages the two extreme interpretations.3)There is a clear difference between the passage I removed and your explanation above. The removed passage uses terms like "God" and "His Will", capitalized, without any self-consciousness, ie without a concern for whether there are such things beyond theological confines. Your explanation, on the other hand, makes a historical generalization, without theological presumptions. But in either case I do not believe it worthy of inclusion as an example. -- Simonides 06:00, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Surely you're not saying Wikipedia is obligated to write a "secular" article about a major religion ("the Jewish" as you put it) and how people hate or oppose them -- merely to be "neutral". --Uncle Ed 14:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Neutral and secular are never synonymous when discussing religion, as secularism is itself a POV. It's significant enough to be well worth presenting, but it (secularism) should be presented neutrally as one more Point Of View. Wesley 16:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Secular, as an adjective, simply means "not overtly religious"; in this case, since I removed the above passage on account of its overt religiosity, being neutral and being secular are synonymous. In that sense, an article that refers to any religious group needs to remain secular, without inserting fluff like "His Will", that assumes specific religious beliefs among its readers. Nowhere was secularism as a doctrine brought up. -- Simonides 22:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

deleted text
I removed the following paragraph because I couldn't make heads or tails of what it was trying to say:
 * While many more subtle manifestations of Church anti-Semitism can be traced to anti-Jewish sentiment in Egypt, these more blatant early accusations of theological anti-Semitism has been particularly prevalent in Christianity. Anti-Egyptian sentiment and the rejection of the Exodus mythology were not co-opted by the Church since they countered Christian doctrine.

"early accusations of theological anti-Semitism" to me means that someone was accusing Christians of theological anti-Semitism. It seems unlikely that such accusations would have come from Christians, but that's what the rest of the sentence seems to say. Next, is the Church supposed to have co-opted the Exodus mythology, or to have co-opted the rejection of the Exodus mythology. If this can be clarified, then it might be possible to examine it for accuracy. Wesley 16:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Problems defining anti-Semitism
One problem with saying what anti-Semitism _is_, is that we Jewish people are very sensitive -- and especially wary since the Holocaust. I think this sensitivity and wariness can sometimes blind us to the distinction between:
 * valid criticisms of the behavior or thinkng of Jewish individuals or groups; and,
 * completely unwarranted criticism or persecution

But I am not a "self-hating Jew", and I don't think it's _all_ our fault that the subject of anti-Semitism is so muddled. At least 75% of the problem (maybe 98%?) comes from groups so vehemently hostile to us that they feel no qualms whatsoever about telling outright lies. This morning's New York Sun has an article by MEMRI's head, listing four categories of these lies.

In the face of unremitting hostility, one is apt to become tongue-tied or even confused. As Christian psychiatrist M. Scott Peck says, one of the touchstones of evil is that one becomes confused in its presence.

I condemn anti-Semitism, of course, but the challenge we Wikipedians face is how to write about it:
 * accurately -- which is hard, since its practitioners lie about it
 * neutrally -- which is even harder: how can one write about murder without getting upset?

That's where I'm coming from, and I hope it helps us all with the article. --Uncle Ed 21:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There are no real problems defining anti-Semitism among the sane and perceptive. Only ignoramuses, or rather weasely people involved in politics, or attention-grabbing simpletons see criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism or (when it applies) self-hate, a view that has been actively promoted by some Israeli politicians and is disowned by most self-respecting Israelis. The problem on this page, however, is constant vandalism and a subsequent revision of history by the vandals to make themselves seem like persecuted victims - when irrelevant material is removed after explanations, they keep pasting it back in; they remove neutralizing comments and POVs; they delete work without explanation and then cry "censorship" when their own additions have been removed after discussion; it is clearly difficult to work with such immature characters. -- Simonides 22:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The purpose of talk pages is to facilitate work on the article. As Ed remarks, the article should be neutral and accurate.  Statements like "Only ignoramuses, or rather weasly people involved in politics, or attention-grabbing simpletons" in no way assist in writing such an article.  It is a fact that many people consider at least some criticisms of Israel to be anti-Semitic.  How many people and who, and how many criticisms (some, most, or all) and which, are empirical questions we should research and try to answer.  But it is clear that a significant number of people believe this, and it is antithetical to Wikipedia to judge them as ignorant or weasely.  We could also give space to two (logical) other views, that all criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitic (off hand I know of no one who believes this and would like to see hard evidence that a significant number of people believe this), and that no criticism of Israel can possibly be anti-Semitic (a position which, on its face, would seem hard to sustain and I no of no public figure who claims this -- but would be happy to see evidence that some significant number of people believe this).  These remarks are meant to constructively guide us in working on this section.  Can anyone suggest a more constructive approach that works within our goals of being encyclopedic and maintain NPOV? Slrubenstein


 * The statement was a reply to Ed's "problem". There are plenty of statements on this page that do not assist in writing a good article, so your objection is superfluous. As for the latter point, you seem to be confusing the terms "criticism" and "hate/prejudice/etc." I understand this confusion is rather popular these days, with the preponderance of the inane rhetoric of the so-called War on Terror. But "criticism" simply means making comments, analyses, etc, some of which may be disagreeable but which still refer to something concrete - in that respect, a Japanese person living abroad, or someone descended from Japanese persons, who criticizes Japanese culture/ media/ policy etc is no more "anti-Japanese" than a Jew in a similar position. There is a lot of baseless prejudice directed at Israel, and at many other nations; but that is different from criticism, because criticism is something legitimate. Calling Jews or perhaps Israelis, say, money-grabbers, is not criticism; it's prejudice. Saying Israelis occupy disputed land is not prejudice, it is criticism. Now the criticism may be motivated by anti-Semitism, but when the criticism is legitimate the motivation is not only difficult to prove, but it becomes redundant. You can simply go around saying all criticism is motivated by racism or prejudice of some sort, and everything becomes a farce. So a "constructive" approach should always include being careful with the words in use, despite their inherent vagueness, instead of bandying them around to mean whatever they could possibly mean, which is what some members are engaged in here. If I call them simple-minded, I'm actually being generous in trying to account for the constant vandalism, lies, slander, propaganda and the basic ignorance, fear and prejudice that constitute their discussions, which is not going to change overnight. Being constructive would also include keeping them in check, so that even-handedness prevails over piles of garbage. -- Simonides 02:14, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarificaton. I think your distinction between criticism and prejudice/hatred is valid and valuable.  Given how contentious this issue is, I suggest not only being careful about which words you use, but being more explicit so that other readers (and remember, most readers of Wikipedia are not going to be as careful with words as most editors) will be clear.  You may want to specify "criticism of Israeli politics or policies" or "specific criticisms (as opposed to general hatred)" Slrubenstein