Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 1

POV paragraph claims
"The cutting edge of this new anti-Semitism is&#8230;Holocaust denial, which moves inexorably from denying the Holocaust, to accusing Jews of fabricating the "hoax"&#8230;to indicting Jews for extorting false reparations from the innocent German people, to the building of their "illegal" State of Israel on the backs of the real indigenous owners, the Palestinians. Let there be no doubt about it, those who would seek to deny the Jewish people their past are the same people who, if given the chance, would deny the Jewish people their future."

POV. In fact, much of this article is POV. I think it needs objective revision: that is, describing the situation, not making generalizations. The UN Commission on Human Rights is an anti-Semitic organization? Please. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Non-objective
This article is filled with highly subjective and rhetorical language and does not conform to NPOV. There is also almost no mention of sources, and the only major citation presents a single POV, which has been quoted from Front Page Mag, a ridiculous right-wing magazine. I have made extensive changes, removing most 1)rhetorical tropes and 2)claims without sources; to whoever wrote this article, this is meant to be an article in an encyclopaedia, not an Opinion/Editorial piece. -- Simonides 05:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * RK, I see much of the material I removed was re-instated by you. You are not conforming to NPOV or formatting expectations - ex. providing sources - and if you continue reverting this article will be referred to third parties. In fact, the whole article is redundant given that there are already articles titled Anti-Semitism and History of Anti-Semitism which cover most of this material better and in greater detail. -- Simonides 01:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please provide sources and working links, and do not pile examples.
To anyone contributing to this article - please do not use unattributed quotes as "examples" - this is not credible; further do not quote from other articles on Wikipedia as an example of bias, as the articles are anonymous and changeable. The same with cites from a "website" - this is too vague, please provide an accurate and working link. Thirdly, a single credible example of a POV is enough, too many are not only redundant in a general article, but they indicate a bias. -- Simonides 01:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I have removed this quote and the header (not enough neutrality or credibility) posted by Humus:

"In his speech about the growing problem of anti-Semitism on U.S. campuses given at Berkeley University on April 29, 2004 (transcript), Professor of Law at Harvard University Law School Alan Dershowitz said, in particular: "Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic. That's just something made up by Israel's enemies."

You don't write an article by quoting what random people believe or notice; if it is true that no Jewish or Israeli leader has stated what Dershowitz states, then link to them as an example, not to Dershowitz. There has already been a lot of leeway granted in allowing the context-less quotes Cotler; don't keep pushing the envelope. -- Simonides 03:58, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Dershowitz is an authority and an alternative opinion. First you remove his attributed quotes, then "do not use unattributed quotes", then nothing to worry about, therefore the article is unnecessary. Reread what you just wrote. Link to them NOT saying this? Nonsense, but hey, gotta watch those who "keep pushing the envelope".  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 04:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Humus, I will be generous and assume you didn't understand what I wrote. Dershowitz says that no major Jewish or Israeli leader claims criticizing an Israeli policy is equal to anti-Semitism. If this is the case, then it should be easy to provide proof by linking to a quote by a major Jewish or Israeli leader who confirms that criticism of Israel is not equal to anti-Semitism. When you find it, post it. Secondly, let me explain by analogy why the quote is irrelevant and random: it doesn't make sense to defend a scientist's theories in an article about him, by quoting his fans - quote the scientist himself.


 * Not to mention your dear honorable Dershowitz is talking patent rubbish yet again - he says no major Isreali leader says "criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic" - notice there is no mention of which policy, it's any policy, which would include their policy of occupation, yet it is precisely criticism of that policy that has led Israeli politicians to be emphatic about the anti-Semitism of its critics. -- Simonides 04:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Simonides, there is a world of difference between "no major leader states that criticism equals antisemitism" and "one major leader states that criticism does not equal antisemitism." The latter can be proved by providing a link.  The former can only be supported by quoting an expert who has done an exhaustive review of statements made by the leaders in question.  Just two cents from the peanut gallery.


 * I'm not a native speaker, so let me make sure I understand what you're saying: I am confused by a two-line English phrase, and I hate Dershowitz, and I claim to be NPOV expert. Correct?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:40, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * From the elementary logic dept: criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government" does NOT automatically constitute anti-Semitism. For those who argue otherwise, proof please.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 22:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh, a nearly one month late reply, which attacks another strawman. Nobody wrote that criticizing Israeli policy automatically constitutes anti-Semitism, but I wrote that Israel has accused some critics of some of its policies of anti-Semitism; since Dershowitz does not specify which policies he is talking about, he's simply blabbering. -- Simonides 22:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would it be more neutral to have a Jewish POV?? Because all this criticism about non-neutrality seems to be directed that way. The resentment shown by some (not all) Jewish people to any sort of criticism or article related to a topic which speaks of them in a way that they don't approve, is overwhelming. Despite what you may think, speaking bluntly of things such as anti-semitism, without so much editing and censoring, is allowed today, since the Holocaust ended so long ago and very few loons are interested in reviving it. Today, you can speak of these topics as they are without necessarily being the next Eichmann. It's just like colored people who refuse to think they are racists. Please let us non-Jews express our opinions and speak of such topics freely.--Alejo NK 22:53, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding redirect: Fine with me, actually it was there until recently. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I haven't bothered working on this text after Simonides excised it from the primary article. I suspect honest mediation will return it to the main body, and I don't see any point in messing around with it until that mediation. Jayjg 22:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Term: "The New Antisemitism"
I think we should explain the term "The New Antisemitism" and what it refers to. I don't know where to put it but this article must to mention the wave of antisemitism atacks in Europe - sparked out in 2002 - in which attacks on Jews are commited mainly be European Islamists, and is justified by them on the ground of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We should also mention that the Jenin massacre allegation is regarded by many Jews as the new millenuim blood libel. MathKnight 17:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization
The article has two many section. We should reorginize it to sections and subsections. MathKnight 16:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest the following structure:


 * Overview (the "New Antisemitism" section is fit for that)
 * Manifestion of the new antisemitism (i.e. incidents)
 * Europe
 * UN
 * Holocaust and holocaust denial
 * Arab antisemitism
 * Antisemitism and anti-Zionism
 * Views by Jewish groups
 * References
 * External links

The idea is to copy&paste sections until this structure is formed, and also adding connecting paragraphs or sentences. MathKnight 16:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Canada in the EU?
Why exactly is Canada included in the subheading of the European Union?

Magen David Adom and IRC
I just wanted to explain the edit that I added today re. the Sharansky quote. I am Jewish and regularly give money to the Red Cross, so I was obviously very concerned when I read that they refuse to work with Magen David Adom. Therefore I phoned the Red Cross (London office) today and had a long chat with one of their employees. It turns out that the situation is, as I put in the edit, that MDA don't want to use the cross or crescent symbols and so they work with the IRC in an unofficial capacity. The IRC are actually in the middle of discussions to change the symbol to something with no religious connotations e.g. a lozenge. The URL I provided in the article gives more details which show that the Red Cross is by no means antisemitic and is not refusing to work with Israel, quite the reverse. I felt it was important to correct this - as a Jew, I am aware that there is indeed a lot of antisemitism especially around the issue of Israel, which makes it all the more important not to accuse people wrongly - especially not a humanitarian organisation like the Red Cross. Thanks for reading. Jessica


 * Hi Jessica. I don't think quotes should be broken up in that way; that is Sharansky's opinion, whether or not it is correct. As for the IRC, why is it that the IRC cannot accept the Magen David as a sign, when it uses the Cross and the Crescent, and even had the lion of Persia at one point?  Why is accepting the Magen David such a big issue for them, that they have to change everyone's symbol in order to avoid it? That is the question. Jayjg 20:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jessica's comments point starkly to the illegitimacy of the approach taken by this article, not only in terms of the obvious bias of its content, but of the inherent bias in the way it is structured and the seeming willingness of certain contributors to push a particular viewpoint at the expense of accuracy. If the views of Charansky are to be presented, then there is room for counterbalancing information. I had the same reaction to Charansky's ridiculous claim about how opposition to an Israeli state is, ipso facto, anti-Semitic. deeceevoice 07:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course there is room for counterbalancing information. I've said it a number of times before.  As soon as you find some published source which disputes Sharansky's claims, please feel free to enter the quotes in this article.  Just make sure that it is not your own original research. I don't understand why you have so much difficulty with this Wikipedia policy. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  08:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article is atrocious
Talk about violating NPOV! From the point of view of much of this piece, anyone or any thing (entity/organization) that criticizes Iraeli policies or Zionism is "anti-Semetic" -- which is a ridiculous term in that Arabs are Semitic peoples, too (but that's another discussion). And it's extremely poorly written. This needs major work. deeceevoice 15:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It definitely needs work, but at least it quote sources on the issue. As for "Arabs are Semites" too, that's a classic (and irrelevant) strawman argument. English is what it is, and the whole notion of a "Semitic" people is based on outdated 19th century notions anyway. Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That Arabs are Semitic is a matter of FACT. That some Jews have attempted to appropriate/bogard the term to make it synonymous with "Jew" is also fact, but that doesn't make it correct. Since you're so freaking fond of sources, here's one for you -- the Merriam-Webster dictionary:


 * Main Entry: [1]Se·mit·ic
 * Pronunciation: s&-'mi-tik also -'me-
 * Function: adjective
 * Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Semitic Shem
 * Date: 1813
 * 1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic [meaning Ethiopians, who are BLACK FOLKS/emphasis added]
 * 2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
 * 3 : JEWISH.

And, no, to point out the glaring and hackneyed misnomer is neither erecting a "strawman" argument nor "irrelevant." It is a necessary point of accuracy/clarification -- particularly when dealing with a part of the world where the two most important groups in a largely bilateral standoff (between Jews and Palestinians/Arabs) are both Semitic peoples, with non Jews constituting the vast majority of Semites in the region and worldwide. "Strawman"?!!! Do you even understand the meaning of the word? To recognize that Jews are not the only Semites in the Middle East and to use the term in a more accurate manner is not to deny the existence of anti-Jewish sentiment, but to merely to seek to define it in an unambiguous way. I NEVER use "anti-Semitic"; I simply use "anti-Jew." There's no ambiguity of terminology, no implication of the be-all/end-all-ness of the Zionist bullcrap about being "God's chosen people"/the only ones who matter, the only ones with a legitimate claim to Israel (Occupied Palestine) -- and it is far more accurate. Again, get a grip. deeceevoice 19:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * How unsurprising, you forgot to quote the definition of anti-Semitism. Here it is:
 * an·ti-Sem·i·tism (nt-sm-tzm, nt-)
 * n.
 * 1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
 * 2. Discrimination against Jews.
 * Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
 * The term was invented by a German anti-Semite as a nicer way of saying "Jew hatred". Jews didn't invent or appropriate it, and it's just too bad that English isn't a particularly logical language.  As for Zionists, the early ones were mostly atheists, they didn't believe in God, much less that God had a "chosen people".  And finally, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and this is all off topic. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  19:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The etymology and explanation of the term "anti-Semitic" is spelled out quite explicitly in the main article; see Anti-semitism. Perhaps a brief mention of the problem with the term, and a link to that section, might be useful. I'm not sure which Jews have attempted to "appropriate/bogard" the name for themselves; please elaborate. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Jpgordon. "Judeophobia" gave me a chuckle; it sounds like hydrophobia or agoraphobia, or some other such malady. For me, for many other anti-Zionists and for many Muslims, the term "anti-Semitism" is a sore spot. By using the term to describe solely anti-Jewish sentiment, the logical impression given is that Jews are the only Semites. I see it as exceedingly disrespectful to those who are excluded; it seems a malappropriation of the term. I agree with the article that attempting to redefine "anti-Semitic" as being against all Semites would be ridiculous/tilting at windmills. As I said before, I prefer a term that doesn't ignore/diss the majority of Semitic peoples on the planet: "anti-Jew/anti-Jewish" and, when the matter of the Israeli state is under discussion, or that particular aspect of Jewish theology, "anti-Zionist." deeceevoice 20:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Zionism is not just a theological concept, and its 19th and 20th century manifestation was generally non-religious, a nationalistic rather than theological movement. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that fact. In fact, this is one of the primary objections many Orthodox Jews have to Zionism -- plus the fact that it actually runs counter to Jewish theology and is considered heretical in that Zion is supposed to come after the Messiah and not before. So, unless Jews have all of a sudden claimed Jesus or some other deliverer, Israel isn't supposed to exist yet. deeceevoice 20:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deecee, if only for the utterly delusional point of view you're expressing here, you're hardly the one to try and establish Wikipedia's moral bearing on the issue. That anti-Semitism refers to and always has referred to Jews is not in question. Your choice of words is simply the result of your attempt at hijacking the term to make it take on some broader contextual meaning that simply doesn't exist (as jpgordon pointed out above, Anti-semitism provides all the proof necessary). Furthermore, your attacks on Zionism and Israel's existence itself provide ample evidence of your anti-Zionist leanings, which again diminishes your credibility to express anything close to an NPOV. This is an issue I'm certainly not neutral on; hence I'm leaving it be until I feel I can contribute to it in a thoughtful manner. You should follow suit. --Michaelk 06:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Get a grip! Yep.  I'm anti-Zionist, and I've said as much.  But, no.  No matter how much you and others want to rant, that does not make me anti-Jew, or "anti-Semitic," if you prefer.  Further, with regard to my anti-Zionist position "diminish[ing my] credibility," I couldn't care less what you think of my credibility as a result.  (Try telling some of my anti-Zionist, Jewish fellow activists that they're "anti-Semitic"!)  As much as true-believer Zionists like Sharansky would like the world to believe, everyone who opposes the Israeli state is not some slobbering, mental-cretin/half-wit, Jew hater.  I personally have come into contact with lots of Jews who think Israel is blasphemous and an obscenity, its racist policies a betrayl of Jewish religious and moral traditions.  And "attacks"?  LOL  WHAT attacks?  My previous contributions to this piece, in the article and in the discussion, have been perfectly legitimate -- simply attempts to put some balance into an article was grotesquely biased.  Another thing:  I haven't had anything to do with this article for weeks now; it's hardly a priority of mine, having come across it merely by accident.  Hopefully, since this article was placed on the "candidates for deletion" list, the ensuing discussion has resulted in a far more balanced article.  I wouldn't know; I haven't read it since.  And au contraire.  Having an informed opinion on a matter does not disqualify one from contributing information; quite the contrary.  But being unwilling to permit other informed points of view on a subject should.  If you'd like to move on, that's certainly your prerogative.  But keep your advice in that regard to yourself.  It's a wasted and ridiculous exercise.  Take me, for instance.  I'd be more than happy to tell you where to go, but I won't. :-p  deeceevoice 15:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course you've come into contact with lots of Jews who maintain the same propaganda-laden beliefs as your own. Birds of the feather, after all. Irregardless, I didn't call you anti-Semitic because the difference between attacking Jews and Israel is not lost on all. The fact that this article is marked for deletion is shameful, if only because it contains a good base that requires work. I'm sure its deletion will help many racists feel more comfortable, while furthering the cause of ignorance in the matter. You could tell me where to go, but because of people like you, I think my place is here making sure slanted POVs aren't passed off as gospel truth, even if "lots" of Jews agree with you. --Michaelk 18:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silly you. The issue here is not with whom I may or may not associate, but the fact that it is possible -- in fact, common -- for individuals (Jewish and non Jewish) to oppose an Israeli state and also not be "anti-Semitic." Equating the two is not only incorrect, but simply intellectually dishonest and intellectually immature. It'd be great sport to listen in as mental cretins of your ilk advanced your weak-minded commentaries on how "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" in a discussion with a couple of fur hat-, side curl-wearing, Hasidic Jews. They'd mop the floor with you. :-p The argument is ridiculous on its face and so obviously, pathetically flimsy and facile, that anyone with any modicum of intellectual honesty or sense of shame would have abandoned it long ago. But the simple fact is most Zionist true believers like Sharansky find it less troubling and easier to scream "anti-Semite!" than deal with the troublesome theological, moral, legal, human rights and strategic issues posed by the existence of Israel and its abhorrent treatment of Palestinians. With regard to votes for deletion -- actually, I think the topic is article-worthy, too. But I understand how someone would be frustrated with this (earlier and still?) piece-of-crap excuse for an article -- enough to try to "vote it off the island." My vote was for deletion, too, "unless" -- my way of calling attention to its blatant structural and substantive biases. I still haven't read the article lately, but the fact that people the likes of you are kvetching about it, IMO, is a damned good sign.


 * Mental cretins of my ilk, you say? In situations like this, Voltaire's tried and tested quote is best... Although my quote from above proves that I don't support that notion. Are you attempting to stereotype all Hassidic Jews or insult me, because it doesn't come across clearly. Besides, you basically agree that the article needs to be reworked. If only there was a Wiki "toolshed" where hot-button articles like these could be tinkered with in private or using a group effort. I'd give it a stab, but I think that the piece would come out slanted as a result of my POV. Next time I'm at a Council of Elder's meeting with those evil Jews you find in the Protocols, I'll let them know you support our fight. All jokes aside, I hope it can still be salvaged, although the prevailing opinion seems to be that it should just be removed. --Michaelk 22:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't project your warped prejudices about anti-Zionists onto me and then try to call it "humor." The "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. And, no. My visual characterization of a couple of Hasidic Jews is not an attempt to stereotype the whole of Hasidim; merely a convenient, shorthand allusion to, perhaps, the most devout of the "devout." If the subject matter cannot be approached in an intelligent and fair-minded manner, then it should be scrapped until such time as it can. deeceevoice 11:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No original research
I've removed the following paragraph:


 * Such charges of anti-Semitism directed at the United Nations are countered by those who observe that human rights violations by any state are right and proper matters for deliberation by that body, and the ongoing and long-standing offenses committed against Palestinians by Israel are certainly no exception. Israeli government policies vis-a-vis its Palestinian population have been criticized worldwide as being tantamount to apartheid, with the UN General Assembly, the European Union and the International Court of Justice in the Hague all calling for the dismantling of the West Bank wall. There have been calls for the paying of reparations to those Palestinians who have been harmed by its construction. Other concerns expressed by these and other institutions, including Amnesty International, include state-sponsored use of excessive and or indiscriminate force against Palestinians; bulldozing of Palestinian homes; discriminatory, racist legislation barring Palestinian-Israeli couples from living together, etc.

This paragraph appears to be original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. If you can find sources which promote this view as a counter-argument to the notion of the "new anti-Semitism" then it is perfectly reasonable to include them in the article, properly referenced. However, you cannot make up your own theses on the grounds that they are "irrefutable logic" and insert them into articles. Please follow Wikipedia policies regarding article content. Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Restored. This is simple fact and requires no documentation. The United Nations has the authority -- indeed, the responsibility -- to deliberate on, and make determinations with regard to, matters of human rights violations around the world, Israel included. The remainder of the information regarding charges of human rights violations and the posture of the various entities cited with regard to the wall is well-documented and in the public realm. Read a newspaper -- any newspaper -- or Google the Internet. So sorry the truth doesn't fit in with a very skewed article that wishes to paint any and everyone who doesn't go along with Zionism as "anti-Semitic." But that's the real world. Get a grip. deeceevoice 19:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please review No original research. This is not an article about the authority of the U.N., but about Modern anti-Semitism.  Some have argued that the actions of the U.N. are anti-Semitic; if there is a documented counter-argument by someone, you can certainly quote it in the article.  However, if you just thought it up as a rebuttal on your own, it's original research, which Wikipedia does not allow.  And please note the 3 revert rule as well, and do not violate it, which can lead to a banning. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  19:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, don't be an idiot. "The sun rises in the East." To make such a statement requires no documentation; it simply is fact. That the UN has the authority to do what it has done vis-a-vis Israel is a matter of record, and that is WIDELY ACCEPTED and acknowledged. Got a problem with someone stating that in this article? Then perhaps you'd better find another venue for your one-sided commentaries. deeceevoice 19:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't write the article, and your POV insertion must be sourced. Your claims and conclusions are not facts, but a counter-argument that you yourself have made up in response to material in the article.  This is original research, which Wikipedia does not allow.  Who are the "those who observe" you cite?  You?  And please note No personal attacks and Civility policies. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  19:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

deeceevoice, this isn't an editorial. Quote sources instead of writing original research and POV opinions. --MPerel 19:54, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Plain statements of fact require no "research" and are not violatative of NPOV. But to satisfy the intentionally obtuse, I've reworked the wording so that it is incontestible. deeceevoice 20:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Statements like "it is appropriate to acknowledge" and "are certainly no exception" are pure editorial, as is, indeed, the entire paragraph. In addition, the section is about anti-Semitism vis a vis Israel at the U.N., so counterclaims should also be about anti-Semitism vis a vis Israel at the U.N., and not your POV on the Arab-Israeli conflict.  And finally, referring to people as "intentionally obtuse" is a violation of the No personal attacks rule. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  20:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My comments were directed at the passage by Bayefsky [sp?]. I've reworked it slightly to make that more apparent. Regarding "intentionally obtuse". Gee, did I commit a faux-pas? Oops. My bad! :-p deeceevoice 21:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policies are no joke, and civility is considered the most important of all of them. Jayjg |  (Talk)  03:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is hilarious to listen to the watchmen of this ludicrous article talk about "editorializing" and "original research" when the whole article is practically just another long op-ed piece from a tabloid or some trashy neo-con "newspaper". Deeceevoice, good luck trying to reason with the more-Zionist-than-most-Israelis bunch on Wikipedia, I mostly gave up on them a while ago but you should realize they're part and parcel of editing here, they make edits (and accusations) en masse, no neutral sysop is willing to do anything about them (or can - they'd have to block a large number of characters (unmanageable), and then put up with being called anti-Semitic by every other know-nothing fundamentalist on the net (unpleasant)) and your protests will be largely ignored or reverted till you're fed up. Since the bottomline is usually "NPOV", for most uninformed outsiders it means an arbitrary line between outrageous hyperbole and various, confusing, out-of-context "facts", and that is the best you can hope for at the moment. -- Simonides 05:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah ah, how cute. Imagine a romantic hero, exhausted and unappreciated. Like Prometheus, he tries to bring the light of knowledge (about vile Zionist conspiracy) into the gullible and vulnerable world. Talk about "dribbling victimhood"...  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 07:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, at least the "long op-ed piece from a tabloid or some trashy neo-con "newspaper"" provides direct quotes and sourced material on the subject. Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3 Revert rule
You've violated the 3 Revert Rule, Deeceevoice, and this is the second time you've been warned. Continued violation will likely result in a one-day banning from Wikipedia. Jayjg |  (Talk)  19:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gee, I'm trembling in my boots. I've reworked the wording to say what I want to say. You can't touch it; it's completely accurate. deeceevoice 20:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it says what you "want it to say", because it is your personal editorial. And violation of the 3 Revert Rule is taken seriously at Wikipedia. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  20:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It says what I want it to say, because it is factual and seeks to restore some balance to a portion of this otherwise fairly decent article that is little more than a piece-of-crap diatribe. What? You wanna contest the FACT that the UN has the authority to deliberate and rule on cases of alleged human rights abuses? That it has determined repeatedly that Israel engages in human rights abuses against the Palestinian minority? Has the UN always acted properly and expeditiously in all matters of human rights abuses? Hell, no. We all remember Rwanda. But that doesn't mean it has no right to call Israel on the shyt it heaps on the Palestinians. You wanna try to make that argument stick? Well, lotsa luck with THAT one! ROTFLMBAO. deeceevoice 21:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The issue is not whether or not these things are facts. The question is whether or not they are a) relevant, and b) original research.  An article about anti-Semitism, quoting people who argue that U.N. actions are anti-Semitic, should be countered with arguments quoting other people who argue that U.N. actions are not anti-Semitic.  This isn't the place to discuss the U.N. mandate, or re-hash the Arab-Israeli conflict.  It is the place to present sourced arguments and counter arguments regarding the U.N. and anti-semitism. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  21:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * deeceevoice, it's nice that you're expressing yourself, but an opinion piece about the UN doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about Modern anti-Semitism. And reverting with slight rewords is still reverting. --MPerel 21:13, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

If you can convincingly and substantively challenge the accuracy of what I've written, then do so. Otherwise, give it a rest. You're boring me. deeceevoice 21:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, the question is not whether or not it is accurate, but whether is it relevant and not original research. It must be all 3 to be included in an article. Jayjg |  (Talk)  21:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And, AGAIN, it is accurate, relevant (as a response to the point about fairness/equal treatment rasied by the Bayevsky passage) and, as such, clearly not POV. I'm done on this -- unless and until you have something more substantive/on-point in the way of criticism. As it has been amended, the passage reads just fine -- on all three counts. deeceevoice 21:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * As it stands, the paragraph is wildly POV, full of unsubtantiated claims, etc. As well, it is about the prerogratives of the U.N. and who you think is the villain in the Arab-Israeli conflict, not about claims of anti-Semitism by the U.N.  Most importantly, though, have you read the No original research policy?  Who makes the argument you have made in the article? If the answer is "Deeceevoice", then it's original research. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  03:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is weak
No, it's not at all about who I think is a villain in the Arab-Israeli conflict; I merely make reference to UN rulings based on their mandate/authority to deliberate and act on alleged human rights abuses. By way of making it clear that such rulings are not the result of some entrenched anti-Israel/anti-Jew bias on the part of that body, I included information about similar findings by other bodies. The same can be said for the way the article presents arguments by Charansky, e.g., "While criticism of an Israeli policy may not be anti-Semitic, the denial of Israel's right to exist is always anti-Semitic," with absolutely no attempt whatsoever at critical examination. Charansky's claim ridiculous on its. I and many of my friends are opposed to the existence of an Israeli state, but we are hardly anti-Semitic. This is just bull. My (presently excised) comments simply provided a balance/counterpoint to the criticism about the UN already included by Bayevsky -- which this article as it stands now clearly seeks to exclude. IMO, this article is not a very intelligent, enlightening or credible elucidation -- and is far from an intelligent examination -- of the subject matter. It is weak as a result. deeceevoice 16:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sharansky's arguments may be sound, or they may be ridiculous. However the critical issue here is Wikipedia's rule of no original research; that is what this article is "seeking to exclude", and for good reason, since Wikipedia does not allow its articles to contain original research.  If you find someone who has published something saying "Sharansky's arguments are stupid for the following reasons..." or "Bayefsky's claim of anti-Semitism ignores the following points..." that's great, go quote the people and their counter-arguments.  However, you can't go ahead and make up your own counter-arguments, and, as your comment makes clear, this is exactly what you did. It is your opinion that "UN rulings [are] based on their mandate/authority to deliberate and act on alleged human rights abuses", and that this is relevant to the claim of anti-Semitism on the part of the U.N. It is your opinion  that the U.N. rulings are not "the result of some entrenched anti-Israel/anti-Jew bias on the part of that body." You may be right, you may be wrong, but it doesn't really matter, since original research cannot be included in an article. I strongly urge you to review the No original research policy. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  00:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scores of anti-Zionist Jewish groups?
"Today, worldwide there are scores of anti-Zionist Jewish groups in existence, the members of which consider Israel an illegitimate state. Many are Orthodox Jewish organizations and congregations who are members of the Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S. and Canada."

Can you name five of these groups? And what is the "Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S. and Canada" Can you name any that are members of it? Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I'll give you a hint; they're all the same group. The "Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S. and Canada" is Neturei Karta etc. And their websites are all dead, because it's only a few dozen people. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Internet says there are more than 400 member groups. You say they're only a handful? I'm interested in accuracy. Prove it. deeceevoice 20:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The Internet told you that? Could you provide a website which lists the names of the 400 member groups please? Even a two "score" names would do. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  20:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, the "Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S.A. and Canada" is an affiliate of the Neturai Karta, and, as far as I can tell, a nearly defunct organization. That's one organization, though you could claim it is two I suppose.  Jayjg  |  (Talk)  21:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I asked for proof. You've provided none. deeceevoice 16:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, you inserted all sorts of claims about this group and its "scores" of (now up to 400) member groups. You made the claim, you need to provide proof of it.  A link making the claim would be a good start. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  00:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why no mention of Arab-Israel conflict
There is no mention of Arab-Israeli conflict. It is a factor. Major or minor will be matter of personal opinion but at least some claim it is a factor so it should be mentioned too. And not only in Arab World but also outside it a simple example.

Zain 00:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you think should be mentioned, and where do you think it should be mentioned? Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * May be after the cleanup. Current structure is not very good. I'll prefer some structure like.
 * Remainder of earlier anti-sentiment.
 * Extension to earlier anti-sentiment
 * New Forms of anti-sentiment.


 * In current structure, sections don't follow a pattern, they come at random.


 * Zain 23:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indonesian refusal of help
Anyone know specifics of why Indonesia refused Israeli military medical assistance during the recovery process? Perhaps it has something to do with their predominantly muslim religious view? If so does this qualify as "Modern anti-Semitism"? Something that needs to be researched/discussed I think. ALKIVAR &trade; 00:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe it was Sri Lanka which refused assistance, and which has only a Muslim minority. However, last year, after the Iranian earthquake disaster, the Jahanbakhsh Khanjani, a spokesman for Iran's Interior Ministry, said "The Islamic Republic of Iran accepts all kinds of humanitarian aid from all countries and international organizations with the exception of the Zionist regime," following word that unofficial Israeli sources were considering sending aid to Iran. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  17:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The following is a request for confirmation, not an assertion. I was told Jews are not allowed to travel to Indonesia, (or was it Malaysia?), they can't get visas. 67.118.119.182 23:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
FYI, I'd like to cleanup this important article: some sections are quite good, but some are weak or contain duplicate text. As a goal, I would set to have a much tighter and streamlined version. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Work in progress: User:Humus_sapiens/project. Your participation in any form is welcome.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Please take a look. The main change is the structure: classification - manifestations - reactions. If no serious objections are heard, let's copy it over. It's not as small as I would like it to be and still a lot to be done.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's certainly better-organized than the previous version (at the risk of damning by faint praise). But it's still too long.  For a start the discussion of Scharansky's test, while useful and interesting, could be greatly edited down with no real loss of content. Mascarasnake 19:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've shortened it, and I'm sure a better job can be done still. The "new" text is in.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 23:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arn't Arabs semites too?
Arabs are semites too, why is everything on wiki so pro israel. (Comment by User:68.146.219.50 (contributions))


 * See Anti-semitism if you are confused by the term "anti-semitism" and its nearly exclusive application to the hatred of Jews. In short, the word was invented by Jew-haters to describe their own hatred of Jews; it does not and never has meant opposition to Semites as a class. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Amin_al-Husayni. People who hate jews don't neccesarilly hate arabs. Anti-semite is a misnomer tho. 00:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Attempting to define words by back-construction is a hazardous endeavor. "Anti-semitism" refers to prejudice agains Jews, despite the broader meaning of the term "semite."  This usage is not exclusive to English; for example in French "antisemitisme" is defined as "lutte contre les Juifs." Mascarasnake 01:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reaction Fjodorii on above remarks: even if the term antisemitism would, to a certain extent, be considered a misnomer, you cannot just withdraw this usage suddenly, for several reasons: (a) most important: historical reason. The term has been attributed this way for good reasons at the time, because the Jewish people were mostly known to be Semites (and the term semites was often used to indicate that kind of hatred). (b) Less important, but still: people who cry out loud today against usage of the term are often (not always!) revisionists, or in other ways attempting to vilify the Jewish people. One of the methods often used is - indeed - exactly that: swimming all possible waters to take as much advantage of arguments, without even asking if this is wise or good for a better understanding. So an anti-campaign was started (mostly from the Arab world, and Egypt for instance) to generate 'inflation' of the word anti-semitism. In fact what happens is that the historical ground on which the term originated (at a time that 'semites' was widely used as a vilification term for Jews), becomes denied, revised. That is, for short, my answer to the point you try to make here.

With kind regards and no hard feelings,

F.

Straw-man anti-Semitism - Fjodorii proposal
Fjodorii 19:17, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC): I shortened this whole section. Summary of events: Jayjg removed my contributions mainly with the arguments that I did not act according to the NPOV and No original research policies.

My main point: the Straw-man anti-Semitism subsection started with the statement: "One common form of anti-Semitism is the statement that Jews claim that all criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism. This claim is then used to criticise Jewish groups as unreasonable."

I see a fallacy argument here: People who just think that Jewish groups explain all criticism against the state of Israel as anti-Semitism, are most certainly making an error. But this in itself is not anti-Semitism. We should be careful by raising that suggestion too directly.

So I changed that paragraph into the following: "A rather special case is what we could call Self-inflicted simulative anti-Semitism. This is the purposeful statement that 'Jews claim that all criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism'. This claim is then used to criticise Jewish groups as unreasonable. It is not necessarily an anti-Semitism of its own - it may be caused by ignorance, having taken over the idea from others. But it certainly is one of those things that indirectly contribute to the penetration of anti-Semitism into modern societies."

Reaction from Jayjg:
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, F. Regarding your edits, the phrase "Self-inflicted simulative anti-Semitism" is difficult to understand, certainly more confusing than "strawman anti-Semitism".  The rest of your edit appears to be your own feelings on the matter; have recognized sources said the same thing that you were trying to say?  Ideally you shouldn't get your own thoughts on the page at all, but should be getting the thoughts of various published authors on the subject onto the page instead.  That is what NPOV is all about. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  21:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reaction F: You are not talking about the issue at stake. The main point is clear: what is described as "strawman anti-Semitism" cannot be defined as "anti-Semitism", for the simple reason that it bases an insult of antisemitism on the fact that the opinion of the opponents is about antisemitism. You cannot just call antisemitism any argument that reveals ignorance about what antisemitism exactly means. This is not about talking 'from my feelings'. I agree that my title "Self-inflicted simulative anti-Semitism" sounds complicated, but the title is not the real point here. About the request for "sources": if the issue at stake is an erroneous argumentation, how could I add a source? You want a link? Maybe one who explains the fallacy of the "false cause" is a good one here? E.g. False Cause. But that's not a link that should be placed on the antisemitism page of course.

New explanation from Jayjg:
 * I'll try to state this as clearly as I can. The WP:NPOV policy demands that points of view be stated as points of view, and the No original research policy states that you can't put your own research and arguments into an article, but instead must present the published arguments of significant authors.  So, if Mr. X claims "so and so is anti-Semitism, because...", then you state in the article "Mr. X states that so and so is anti-Semitism, and gives the following as evidence...".  Now, you may think Mr. X is completely wrong, for a number of reasons.  However, you can't state "Mr. X is wrong because...", as that would be original research on your part.  What you can do, however, is find some other significant author who disagrees with Mr. X, and then state that person's position.  So, you could state "However, Dr. Y states that Mr. X's thesis is completely incorrect, for the following reasons...".  Thus, in this article, you need to find sources which state that various actions by the U.N., or individuals, or countries, are not manifestations of "Modern anti-Semitism".  You can't just make up your own argument.  As for Wikipedia policy, just as one editor can add something, so another editor can immediately remove it if it violates Wikipedia policy. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  18:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re-edit by user Humus_sapiens. (Note Fjodorii). In the meantime, above user did a re-edit of the paragraph and, apparently understood my point. Although, not yet quite, because he makes the difference between anti-Jewish hostility and anti-Semitism - but many people would still understand these terms as identical (the adaptation just reduces the impact by using a less used term). To refect what I think is logically correct, he should rather have said "anti-Jewish tendencies". And even then it does not correctly reflect the point.

F. to Jayjg: My point is that this is a case of reflection of anti-Semitic underlying tendencies in someone's opinion, resulting in exaggeration. That is not full proof anti-Semitism. In a direct accusation based on an indirect argument, one can only point directly at the least scenario - in this case: possible anti-Jewish sentiments. Alternatively, of course, one can point to the worst scenario, but then he cannot wrap it into a direct accusation - it has to be indirect. The original statement linked a direct accusation with an indirect argument. Still, today, with Humus_sapiens adaptation, this is not really rectified.

So a better presentation needs, in my opinion, always a bit more words, just because it is an indirect kind of argumentation. Something like this:
 * One common reflection of the underlaying anti-Jewish attitudes nowadays is in the allegation that "Jews claim that all criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism". This is an "accusation of attitude", and may, as an argument, have been risen from ignorance, not realising that no Jew argues that way. The proof is often in the pudding: the underlaying anti-Semitic attitudes often come to the surface when foretold opinion is faced with the question to come up with proof, like names of multiple, reasonable, influential Jewish thinkers or writers who would talk or write like that. The allegation then often reveals real, underlaying anti-Jewish sentiments, when the accuser becomes angry or starts to insult anyway. The argument then converts quickly into obstinate criticism against Jewish groups being unreasonable, overly anxious or unable to withstand criticism. It thus becomes proof of the often hidden agenda behind the strawman methodics, which is real anti-Semitic sentiments. And certainly, this is all too often a part of that "machinery" of contributions to the global penetration of anti-Semitism into all societies that do not pay attention to these mechanisms.

Reaction of user Slrubenstein now:
 * I've read through this exchange and have to say, I do not understand what F. means by "indirect." I do have a comment about the above paragraph, the one F seems to want to add to the article: F, it sounds like these are your ideas.  If this is the case, then this passage is unacceptable. It is not unacceptable because you are wrong -- it is not a matter of right or wrong.  It is unacceptable because editors of Wikipedia are not to express their own views in articles, period.


 * The reason I think that the above paragraph reflects F's ideas (aside from his or her personal investment) is the style in which it was written. F says that a proper presentation of the view needs to be like this passage.  F, you are wrong: wikipedia requires a very different presentation.  Again, I am not speaking of the nature of the view or argument.  It is not a matter of simple versus complex views, or direct or indirect views.  "Direct" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.  It has to do with bedrock wikipedia standards such as NPOV, no original research, and cite your sources.


 * Let me focus on one simple example -- the sentence, "This is an "accusation of attitude", and may, as an argument, have been risen from ignorance, not realising that no Jew argues that way." To identify a proposition as "an accusation of attitude" is an act of interpretation.  Whose interpretation is this?  Are you summarizing a book or article you read?  Please provide the citation.


 * The rest of the paragraph provides a close reading and analysis of the proposition. Agfain, who has done this close reading or analysis?  Please cite your source. Slrubenstein 23:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reaction Fjodorii: I understand all these points. But you cannot just refuse to recognize that the original passage (just before my adaptation) was not guaranteed free from POV or free from feelings. Or, to put it differently, you say "Direct has nothing whatsoever to do with it.", but IF a piece of text reveals a direct accusation where only an indirect accusation can be defended by logic reason, why is it forbitten for me to adapt it? In the end, my impression is that after all, POV has become the definition of everything that is already on wikipedia for some time, and NPOV is when someone thinks he sees some error in the "POV" and does a correction. Of course you will deny that. But why is it that all the arguments I heard until now, seem like arguments just made up to avoid reckognizing that you cannot call anti-Semitism the simple fact that someone thinks that Jews are using the term anti-Semitism all too quickly? Not every mistake that happans at the edges of the subjects Jews and anti-Semitism can simply be called anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism. I could also put it this way: a fallacious argument certainly reveals POV, not NPOV, as all fallacy imply bias in the reasoning itself. The NPOV page sais "Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view" - indeed, popular view is a well-known fallacy argument. And so is the fallacy of "false cause". And thus if using a "false couse" argumentation is biased, it is POV, and a candidate for correction. Making the argument that it is "my own sentiments" that triggers me to that correction means endless discussions and never get anything done (except, probably, for a happy few, who are administrators). I hope my argument makes some sense, finally. With kind regards and no hard feelings.Fjodorii 19:17, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)


 * Please review NPOV and No original research again. NPOV is about citing different POVs, not aboutensuring that there is no POV in an articles.  And "No original research" is about quoting others, not your own opinions.  It doesn't matter if your opinion is right or wrong, you must quote someone else who makes this argument, not your own views. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  02:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy style reasoning
"One common form of anti-Jewish hostility is an allegation that "Jews claim that all criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism". This allegation is then used to criticise Jewish groups as unreasonable, overly anxious or unable to withstand criticism. However, no Jewish groups officially hold such a position."

---> this sounds a little bit over the top. While it refutes a general accusation it is itself a general accusation with a conspiracy pattern.

states or people
"he term new, or modern anti-Semitism was coined at the outset of the 21st century to describe waves of attacks around the globe directed at Jews and Jewish institutions. Core themes of the phenomenon include:


 * Misrepresentation or singling out for obloquy Zionism, a political movement of Jewish self-determination
 * Denying the State of Israel the right to exist as equal member of the world community"

a) governments of people? In fact the term relates to people, not to governments. But may be the term went fuzzy. Everybody is free to question the rights of states not only the state of israel in particular. Imagine persons who reject the concept of a national state.

Furthermore we have to question whether I. was a "semite state".

b) Zionism is deeply rooted in 19 century European imperialism. So the focus has to be on singling out. The world changed since then and such a remark fortifies a "truth" about cultural history.

For NPOV we shall simply adopt the popper criteria.


 * I'm not exactly sure what is being talked about here, but Zionism emerged (and was perceived) as an anti-imperialist movement. The Turks wanted to keep the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs wanted Pan-Arab Caliphate, the Russian Empire was expelling the Jews en-masse (more than 2 million in period 1881-1920) and the British Empire did not allow them into the British Mandate of Palestine and cut 75% of it to Trans-Jordan. What Jewish Empire are you talking about?
 * On the other point: "Imagine persons who reject the concept of a national state." I personally have no problem with that. I would just advise that person to start with a state other than Jewish. For example, start with Germany, Italy and Japan: they started World War(s), after all. Sorry in advance if I misunderstood.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph
I wanted to change the first sentence from:

The term new, or modern anti-Semitism was coined at the outset of the 21st century to describe waves of attacks around the globe directed at Jews and Jewish institutions. Core themes of the phenomenon include:

to:

The term new, or modern anti-Semitism was coined at the outset of the 21st century to describe discrimination directed at Jews and Jewish institutions around the world.

But I dont know if physical violence falls under the term discrimination. From the definition on wikipedia: discrimination generally refers to treating one group of people less well than another on such grounds as their race (racism), gender (sexism), religion (religious discrimination) etc.


 * The new antisemitism consists more of incitement, demonization, hatred and violence than discrimination. MathKnight 07:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For those interested in bringing some semblance of balance to this piece
I haven't the time or the patience, but today I read an op-ed piece in the New York Times, "Playing the Holocaust Card," by Ami Eden of The Forward that may provide some grist for those who are unimpressed with the tiresome over-the-top rhetoric of this piece and wish to do something about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/gst/forgot.html?key=543979834995352

Have at it. deeceevoice 21:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bringing more balance to the article
I have added some of the views of critics of the new anti-semitism concept as well as those who believe the anti-semitism lable is being abused by supporters of Israel to shield it from critism. I think this should help to make the article more NPOV. -Cab88
 * It will only help if you can bring sources for those arguments. Could you do so please?  Quotes would be best, but summaries and links will do too.  Otherwise it is original research. Jayjg (talk)  16:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And for the above reason, I've commented out the section until such sources are brought. --MPerel( talk 16:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Content for my addition was durived from the article "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism" by Brian Klug, published in the nation and linked to at the button of this article. See also this article: "Criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitism" By MICHAEL NEUMANN -Cab88


 * In case the article doesn't make it clear (as it should), the big difference is when "criticism" is applied to delegitimize Israel's existence. I think that having some rational criticism is healthy, but IMHO it belongs to the "Responses & reactions" section and should not be the last word in the article. How about putting it somewhere between international & Jewish responses? Also, it would be a good occasion to remove the POV tag.   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 21:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should this article be called "New anti-Semitism"
The phenomenon being described here is typically called "New anti-Semitism". I think "Modern anti-Semitism" is more about "classical" anti-Semitism that has happened in modern times. Should this article be re-titled "New anti-Semitism", describe only that phenomenon, and all other undisputed forms of anti-Semitism in modern times be returned to the original article? Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the non-controversial examples of modern anti-semitism should be discussed in the original anti-semitism article and this article be reserved for discussing the controversial concept of "new anti-semitism". -Cab88 16:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon's re-direct?
Chamaeleon, if you object to parts of this article please bring your concerns here, rather than turning it into a re-direct. The information was moved out of the Anti-Semitism article almost a year ago because people objected to having it there. Jayjg (talk) 14:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The information does indeed belong there in Anti-Semitism, and in Anti-Zionism too. The POV, however, does not belong in Wikipedia at all.  How long have you guys got away with this article existing? Chamaeleon 15:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The article was created by User:Cautious in late May of 2004. Who are "you guys" and what do you mean by "got away with"? Jayjg (talk)  15:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a long time (if it has been as POV for all that time). "You guys" are Wikipedians who wish to push a Zionist POV.  I presume you defendthe article as in was in your last edit?  Well, that version pushed a very strong POV, and so certain conclusions can be reached about anyone supporting it.  Don't be offended: it's no personal attack.  It's just that I really can't tolerate that sort of thing in this project.  Please work with me to keep the slurs out of these articles.  Oh, and "got away with" implies a bad action that has escaped notice.  Chamaeleon 16:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's best not to characterize Wikipedians; for example, I suspect you would be prefer not to be characterized as a Wikipedian who wishes to push an anti-Israel POV. And personal attacks are indeed any statements which reflect negatively on individuals, rather than on their edits.  I don't "defend" the article; rather, I defend Wikipedia policy.  The problem with the article up until now has been its structure, which is confused, and its lack of balance.  However, some editors have come here and tried to "solve" the problem by inserting their own arguments refuting the ideas presented here; this is, in fact, one of the primary examples given for original research, which Wikipedia forbids.  Luckily you have come along and actually provided some cited information which will help balance the article.  That is what it needs more of, and I hope you continue to do so.  It might be worthwhile discussing here how we can re-organize it a little as well, for clarity. Jayjg (talk)  16:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to make this article less POV, then that is great, but not sufficient. It should not even exist, because putting controversial stuff into a separate article is honey for POV bears.  This is accepted on Wikipedia.  A further reason for it not existing is that the title implies that such a thing exists.  We would not have an article called Jewish lies, no matter how balanced we made its contents, become the title prejudges the matter.  I have therefore made a VfD entry.  Furthermore, you have to try pretty hard to make "you guys" sound like one of the scurrilous ad hominem attacks that you are incorrectly trying to accuse me of. Chamaeleon 17:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If I'm "willing to make this article less POV"? I'm eager to make all articles less POV.  Having the details of this topic in the article made the whole anti-Semitism article honey for POV bears; as it is, it still attracts far too much POV attention.  As for whether it exists, the phenomenon is certainly well enough documented, though I understand there are critics who argue that it is not a form of anti-Semitism.  Both sides should be presented, from published sources.  As for "you guys", I simply asked what you meant by it.  It was you who clarified that it meant "Wikipedians who wish to push a Zionist POV", while simultaneously protesting that is was not a personal attack. In any event, arguments which focus on individuals, rather than their arguments, are by definition ad hominem. Jayjg (talk)  17:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever. If I give evidence of your being less than eager to reduce POV, you will pull out the "ad hominem card" from your pocket.  OK, let's censor that line of argument.  Instead, let's focus on the issues.  You can try to interpret policy however you like, but at the end of the day, you cannot possibly defend the New anti-Semitism article.  Its content is utterly offensive, and you cannot expect me to tolerate it any more than I would tolerate an article on Jewish lies or Black violence.  In case you can't see what is offensive, it's this: I read that article and find myself being called an anti-Semite.
 * "[S]ingling out for obloquy Zionism" &mdash; I don't generally, but I might easily decide to single out Israel (or Iraq, or Indonesia, or my own country...) for criticism. After all, one cannot  be an activist in all domains at the same time.  This is close to calling me an anti-Semite.
 * "Denying the State of Israel the right to exist as equal member of the world community" &mdash; Israel should indeed be a pariah state until it sorts of its human rights abuses. So I am called an anti-Semite.
 * "Equating Jews with Nazis" &mdash; Well, nobody "equates" them with Nazis, but many people have pointed out that Jews abusing Palestinians is no better than Germans abusing Jews. This comparison is the sort of thing meant.  I make it, so I am called an anti-Semite.
 * "[I]t is alleged that Jews claim that any and all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism" &mdash; Not all Jews obviously, but a vocal minority in groups such as the ADL do indeed attack anyone who criticises Israel. Indeed, see above: I have already qualified as anti-Semitic on three counts by such people.  Four now, merely by defending myself.
 * "the singling out of Israel for differential, if not discriminatory, treatment amongst the family of nations" &mdash; Well, allowing Israel to possess WMDs is differential treatment, but I don't think that was meant. I presume my belief that Israel should be subjected to some sort of UN sanctions would come under this category.
 * Etc. etc. So, that's at least five counts of anti-Semitism. I certainly know of others who have been called anti-Semites by the ADL for the very beliefs I have just described, so it hardly my imaginative interpretation.  I feel that this brings the whole ad hominem thing into perspective.  This article insults me.  Note that it does not say that person X claims that to believe Y makes someone an anti-Semite, but instead directly says that "Core themes of the phenomenon" include my beliefs.  If you allow it say that, you are calling me an anti-Semite. Chamaeleon 18:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) "[S]ingling out for obloquy Zionism" &mdash; I don't generally, but I might easily decide to single out Israel (or Iraq, or Indonesia, or my own country...) for criticism.  After all, one cannot  be an activist in all domains at the same time.  This is close to calling me an anti-Semite. Somehow, only is Israel is singled out like this. Not Sudan, not Cambodia, not Syria, not even North Korea, although the latest killed far more man then Israel (Israel killed about 1000-2000 innocent civilians and about 1000-2000 terrorists during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, in Darfur about 50,000 innocent civilians were killed).
 * 2) "Denying the State of Israel the right to exist as equal member of the world community" &mdash; Israel should indeed be a pariah state until it sorts of its human rights abuses.  So I am called an anti-Semite. Even if we suppose that Israel is abusing human rights so badly it deserve to be a pharia state (which is of course not true, Israel does not deserve to be a pharia state nor abusing human rights far than any democratic country in a state of warfare) it is wierd why you insist only Israel should be exterminated ("denying Israel a right to exist") while countries like Belgium (Congo), Russia, Sudan, Syria and Iran can continue to exist and continue to to remain dictatorships (last three). The attidute of "they all bad, but lets punish only the Jews" is clearly antisemitic.
 * 3) "Equating Jews with Nazis" &mdash; Well, nobody "equates" them with Nazis, but many people have pointed out that Jews abusing Palestinians is no better than Germans abusing Jews.  This comparison is the sort of thing meant.  I make it, so I am called an anti-Semite. This exactly of equating Jews with Nazis. This equation meant to delegitimize the Jews right to exist and encourage their extermination.
 * 4) Have France or India been dismanteled from nukes?
 * 5) You might want to check why do you so hate Israel and single it out as the only wrongdoer in the world, is it maybe because Israel is the only Jewish state in the world? If you are from a country in war with Israel, it may be understood as a national enemity and therefore won't count as antisemitism. But when one sees a man attempt to murder and a Jew attempting thief and decided to arrest the Jew because his Jewishness makes the theft harder than murder, than there are certainly antisemitic roots in his decision. The article explain it pretty well. MathKnight 18:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, you haven't demonstrated that, by the criteria set in the article, I am innocent of anti-Semitism. So, you admit that this article calls me an anti-Semite.  If we couple this with the fact that I am obviously not, then this article is personally offensive to me and many others.  That is what I was arguing.


 * Now, if you want to discuss particular issues relating to Israel, well OK, but briefly. You make yet another straw-man argument with the "only is Israel is singled out like this".  I even gave three other examples of countries I might decide to focus on.  Your adding four more that deserve criticism proves zero.  The country that gets most international criticism is probably actually the US, not Israel.  And, within the US, the countries that get attacked the most are probably N Korea, Iraq (which was even invaded!), etc.  As for nukes, the fact that the world (or chunks of it) has not yet been annihilated is hardly an argument for them.  As for "exterminating" Israel, who said we should do that?  Stop making Jews out to be victims.  It just gives ammo to anti-Semites. Chamaeleon 18:59, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you think that the arguments made by those who describe the New anti-Semitism are wrong or incorrect, you need to bring cited examples of other published authors who disagree with them. Chomsky was a good start; Chamaeleon vs. MathKnight on the Talk: page doesn't cut it. Jayjg (talk) 20:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Straw man again. MathKnight was the one wanting to argue the case for Israel. I mentioned certain arguments against it purely in the context of demonstrating that the definition in the article would accuse me of anti-Semitism. Note that I am talking about the definition given my the article, not a definition given by someone else and reported by the article. I don't need to cite anyone in order to be against the article as it stands, any more than I would need to cite anyone to be against an article called Jewish lies or Why the earth is flat. Stop pretending this is about policy or suchlike: this is about the fact that you actually believe that people like me are anti-Semites and write articles that say so. How can you expect us to accept that? Chamaeleon 20:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Chamaeleon, please stop trying to personalize this. "People like you" etc. simply doesn't help.  The New anti-Semitism has been described and defined by a number of high profile authors; bring similarly high profile authors who refute it, and, with some copyediting, we will have a nice little NPOV article here. Jayjg (talk)  20:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It is personal. You would take Jewish lies personally. Chamaeleon 21:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Original research not on New anti-Semtism commented out
I've commented out some original research recently inserted into the introduction:
 * The term represents a shift in the meaning of the term anti-Semitism, to apply to an apparent rise in anti-Semitic vandalism; to claim an allegiance between anti-Semitic vandals and left-wing activists seeking Israeli compromises on the Palestinian question.


 * Some Jewish groups opposed to making compromises may not only view Pro-Palestinian activism as a threat to the security of Israel, but as a threat toward Jews and Jewish causes. With the recent crackdown on hardline right-wing groups in Israel, the issue of security for Israeli citizens is a controversial one, and political discussions regarding compromises in security bring both rational and irrational responses from various camps.


 * As world integration has led to a rise in humanist view, so too has the cause of Palestinian human rights gained in prominence. However, these causes are seen by some Jews as a Trojan Horse; a stage for the escalation of a wider anti-Jewish climate. For them, the lessons of recent history show the potential for escalated anti-Semitism, and hence recent attacks raise legitimate cause for alarm. In the minds of some, the increase in irrational (anti-Semitic) violence and attacks are a reflection of a political climate where rational criticism toward Israeli policy has gained legitimacy.

This is not only a POV essay, and original research, but it is not on the topic. The proponents of the view that there is a "New Anti-Semitism" are quite clear to state that simple criticism of Israel is not "The New anti-Semitism"; in fact, this phenomenon itself is discussed under "Strawman anti-Semitism". As well, the mini-essay proports to do some sort of psychological analysis of the people who believe there is a "New anti-Semitism", rather than reporting on the beliefs about the existence or non-existence of the phenomenon today. Part of the problem in this article is that it already has too much off-topic information in it. It doesn't need more off-topic information. Please restrict the article to a discussion of "The New anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Its funny how three small paragraphs - that attempt to place an article about an admittedly polemic neologism into some context - can be called "original research." At least you left "waves of attacks" in quotes - which gives some context - sort of. Now, if someone please can categorically separate "political attacks" from "vandalism and violence," the article might be on its way to some balance. As I see it, the article's problem is based in its use of the word "attacks" as all one kind and therefore all one theme (that might be a good sentence to add to the top). Regardless of the number of wonderful right-wingers attributed, its basically an article about a particularly POV term. Which is perfecly fine as long as its framed that way.  "Not simple criticism of Israel" :That one can claim that mere misunderstanding of the fuzzy bounds of the very fuzzy "New anti-Semitism" neologism is itself "Strawman anti-Semitism," speaks volumes of original research indeed. ;) -==SV 20:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The notion is only fuzzy for people who insist on making it fuzzy. When the people who promote the notion insist that simple criticism of Israel or its policies is not anti-Semitism, it's hard to understand why people keep protesting that "criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism". Since both sides agree with that, it's clear that the critics are making a strawman argument. Jayjg (talk)  20:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you know, the whole notion of having an encyclopedia is to one degree or other about dealing with things which may be somewhat fuzzy - in a way that makes them less so. But this only works if the articles are written in a... ...non-fuzzy way, yes? It seems to me that you should agree with this. Wink wink. There are no sides here - simply individuals of various clarities and fuzinesses, doing our best to organize the tokens of the English language in a way which is most clear. No? -==SV 23:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, sure. Anyway, it would be lovely to have some more cited criticisms of New anti-Semitism in the article, if you can find them. Jayjg (talk)  23:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Im sure it would. -==SV 22:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If this article ever gets to a state worth adding to, someone might like to quote from Abe Foxman (ADL boss)'s "Anti-Zionism is antisemitism, period." speech which can be found on the ADL site. Have fun. --Zero 14:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea. It would be helpful it you participated in re-working this. Jayjg (talk)  15:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re-write of article
Chamaeleon, re-writes are done on temporary pages; one doesn't delete an entire article (except for the parts advancing your own argument) and say "ok, now we'll start a re-write". Jayjg (talk) 15:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg is correct here. Re-write on temp page. The solution to POV problems is not replacing them with different POV problems. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, he's trying to push his Zionist POV. Chamaeleon 17:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please restrict discussion to the article, and try to avoid ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon's new section
Chamaeleon, your new section generally consisted of information that was not about the New anti-Semitism, or original research. For example, you brought an article from the World Union of Jewish Students which was drawing links between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism as "evidence" of something; but since the article did not discuss the concept of "The New anti-Semitism", or describe what they were talking about as "New anti-Semitism", your inclusion was not on topic. As well, your statement that its conclusion was a "non sequitur" is clearly POV. As well, the quote about Chomsky's relations with the Jewish community vis a vis criticism of Israel belongs, perhaps in an article about Chomsky; however, he is not talking about the New anti-Semitism. The second quote, which was actually about the New anti-Semitism was mostly a copy of information already in the criticism section, and other parts were unreferenced. I've incorporated any relevant information into the Criticism section. Please note that this article must cite people who support or criticize the notion of "New anti-Semitism"; you can't just devise your own arguments against the idea, that is original research. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Manifestations of the New anti-Semitism section
Who says these are manifestations of the New anti-Semitism? Are these taken from various articles or books describing the phenomenon? If so, they need to be attributed to a source. If not, they are original research. Jayjg (talk) 22:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Foxman quote - anti-Zionism, not criticism of Israel
Foxman has stated that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic, not criticism of Israel. These are quite different things, and people who conflate the two notions are doing exactly what the critics of "Strawman anti-Semitism" complain about. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hair-splitting. So it's ok to criticise Israel as long as you don't oppose Zionism? The fact remains that Foxman conflates anti-Semitism with anti-ZionismAndyL 06:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It's hardly "hair-splitting". Some of the sources provided are quite clear to distunguish between the two.  Anti-Zionism is the philosophical position that Israel should not exist as a state; anti-Israel criticism, on the other hand, is criticism of the actions of Israel.  The people who support the idea that there is a "New anti-Semitism" are quite clear that criticism of Israel is legitimate. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  15:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In sensitive matters, I prefer hair-splitting to throwing away baby with the bathwater. IMHO, the difference is fundamental between criticizing particular policies or politicians with denying a state the right to exist. These days, "opposing Zionism" too often implies destruction of the Jewish state and/or dead Jews. I believe that is what Foxman meant.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not for us to finesse or gloss Foxman. The fact is that statement's like those made like Foxman certainly make it appear that some Zionists conflate all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Defenders of Foxman can parse and reinterpret the statement if they wish but that doesn't change the impression he creates through his use of words and their plain meaning. At a minimum they conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism despite the fact that one *can* be anti-Zionist without hating Jews. AndyL 13:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it's not for use to try to make Foxman say something which he clearly hasn't said, or finesse his position on Zionism into a position on criticism of Israel. Foxman is very clear that it is anti-Zionism which he believes is anti-Semitism, not criticism of Israel.  Foxman's actual view is certainly a contentious point, and counter views should be brought, but you can't counter it by addressing a point he hasn't made. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  15:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Anti-Zionism does not necessarily imply even denying Israel's right to exist as a state, certainly doesn't mean denying the right of those Jews currently living in Israel to remain there, and only by an enormous stretch could it be taken to inherently imply anti-Semitism.
 * The last position&mdash;anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism&mdash; would require the absurd position of considering the Satmars anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitic Hasids?! I hope we can just dismiss that one out of hand.
 * The other two are subtler, but there are self-described "anti-Zionists" who advocate a unitary secular state in Israel/Palestine, and there are even those who say that the Israeli state is an established fact, that the positive part of the Zionist mission is accomplished, and in today's world Zionism has become a tool of oppression against others (e.g. in the laws that limit who can own what land in Israel). Neither of these is an inherently anti-Semitic position, and it's not hard to find Jews who hold these positions. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to defend Foxman's position; that is not what Talk: pages are for. Rather, I am pointing out that his position is not that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, but rather that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.  Foxman's actual position should be reported here, as should any citations which oppose it. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  15:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and what of the post-Zionists who see Zionism as arcane?AndyL 14:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a question you need to ask Foxman, not this Talk: page. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Foxman's actual position should be reported here, as should any citations which oppose it." Unless you are suggesting the Foxman quotation is wrong then his actual position *is* being reported here. It is not for us to tell people how to interpret it or to rule that those who interpret it as meaning any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic are reading into Foxman's comments unless Foxman himself has issued a further statement in which he says his comments have been misinterpreted by his critics. He has not said that so nor should we. AndyL 16:09, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Right. And Foxman has said anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, not criticism of Israel. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  16:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "Let’s be clear. No one who is serious about these issues is seeking to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. Identifying the sources of this new anti-Semitism and finding ways to combat it, not politics, are the goals of these endeavors." Abraham Foxman  Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  16:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By all means put that quotation in too though, personally, I think Foxman is at best sending a mixed message, at worst throwing out weasal words since his application of the term "new anti-semitism" is contingent on whether or not he views a particular criticism of Israel as "legitimate". I suspect the bar he sets for criticism to be "legitimate" is quite high. Indeed, I would like to see an example of criticsm Foxman does see as legitimate, particularly considering his condemnation of relatively mild criticism expressed in the pages of the New York Times or on fairly pro-Israel outlets such as CNN. AndyL 18:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Since when CNN became pro-Israel? See . To the point: "Anti-Bias Education is an essential building block of America’s public diplomacy. Our experience has exposed a broad lack of understanding of what distinguishes legitimate political criticism from stereotyping which can foment hatred and breed incitement." Statement of Abraham H. Foxman, National Director Anti-Defamation League Before the House Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East April 18, 2002   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 20:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The intro

 * Some Jewish groups oppose the continued definition of Israel as a "Jewish state". Some Haredi groups regard both the State of Israel and Zionism as secularist heresies, and a few such organizations (most notably Neturei Karta) have called for the transformation of the region into a unitary state of Palestine. 
 * A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the State of Israel and Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism. Former Knesset MK Tamar Gozansky is one such figure, while prominent Jewish thinkers such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber articulated similar views in the mid-twentieth century.
 * Comparisons between Jewish politicians and Nazis are an increasingly frequent feature of Israeli politics, wherein right-wing Zionists in particular have equated polticians such as Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and, most recently, Ariel Sharon with Adolf Hitler.

I've moved this paragraph to talk and replaced it with link to New anti-Semitism. All 3 points use the dubious argument "if some Jews do it, then it must be legit". By this definition, it's OK to use the N-word because some African-Americans use it. First two points attempt to explain religious and political (Jewish only) opposition to Zionism. We have bunch of long articles dedicated to these topics and these confusing examples don't belong to this article's intro. If Neturei Karta should be mentioned here, it's only because utilizing marginal elements of a targeted group against the rest of the group is a time-proven tactic. In case of Jews, compare with Judenrat, Yevsektsiya, AZCSP, HAMAS' and Taliban's Jewish lawyer Stanley Cohen, etc. IMHO, the intro should be as clean as possible. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"All 3 points use the dubious argument "if some Jews do it, then it must be legit". I would say they use the argument that if these people use the an argument without being anti-Semites then how can one conclude that these other peple are anti-Semites because they use those same arguments? I think to be balanced the balance has to occur throughout the article, partiularly in the definition and opening paragraphs, rather than relegating criticism to the end. (Research of the way people read newspapers is that most people read only the first few paragraphs rather than the whole article so if one is to be NPOV it's important to make sure that the first few paragraphs are balanced. Then we can get into he said, she said sections. AndyL 13:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My concern, as always, is more with whether or not it is original research. If these arguments are used by opponents of the idea of a "New anti-Semitism", then I think it should go in the intro.  If it is original research brought by one editor to counter the idea, then it should not be in the article at all. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  15:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Responding to both points:


 * (i) To Humus sapiens -- it isn't simply a case of saying "if some Jews do it, it must be legit".  The point is that some (I might say *several*) Jewish groups and prominent Jewish intellectuals have engaged in public discourse on the subjects of Israel and Zionism, arguing that support for the State of Israel (either in its current form, or in general) is not universally shared within the Jewish community.  Some groups have explicitly denied the connection between anti-Semitism and "opposing the state of Israel".  (Neturei Karta, who are admittedly an extreme example, take the exact opposite view -- they believe that *support* for the modern state of Israel is a betrayal of Judaism.  Should you or other readers consider NK to be *too* extreme [which is not entirely unreasonable ...], please consider the views of Satmar or Tikkun in their place.)  By definition, proponents of this view would take issue with the term "new anti-Semitism", as it has generally been used to date.


 * The objection may be raised that such groups are not a majority within the Jewish community. True enough, and this fact was duly noted.  But they exist and are not insignificant, either numerically or as players in the intellectual discourse on this subject.  Their views certainly deserve to be mentioned in an article of this sort (preferably next to similar claims from the opposing side).


 * This article is, of course, not intended to confer exclusive legitimacy on *either* position -- but to ignore the views expressed on one or the other side seems intellectually clumsy, if not entirely biased.


 * (Incidentally, I'm at a loss to understand how referencing figures as respected as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber can be likened to the Taliban's hiring of a Jewish lawyer for obvious PR purposes.)


 * Using the names of Buber and Arendt as a cover for today's anti-Semites is wrong: both fought anti-Semitism half-a-century ago. Calling Jews Nazis is anti-Semitic, no matter who does it. There was no objections to what I said earlier, so I'm going to change the text accordingly.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 11:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "a cover for today's anti-Semites"? Where do you get that? Neither anti-statism nor strong support for separation of religion and state is inherently anti-semitic. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * If only one particular state is selected for "anti-statism" (IOW, destruction), what would you call it, an experiment? "Listen to the criticism of any other country: It is always a political party, a program, a policy, or a person that is criticized, never the legitimacy of a society. Except for Israel."   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 20:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (Where to begin ...)


 * In the first place, Israel isn't always singled out on this front. A decade ago, there was much discussion (to say nothing of warfare) as to whether or not the former Yugoslavian republics constituted legitimate independent states.  I've met people from the former Yugoslavia who were sickened by the country's decent into nationalism and warfare, and who opposed the creation of an independent Croatian state and a de facto independent Serbia.  Many people on the left and right also criticize the legitimacy of Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states.  The legitimacy of the new Iraq is questioned by many.  The legitimacy of the PR China is also questioned in some circles, especially as regards its actions in Tibet (similarly Indonesia in Aceh, Sri Lanka in the Tamil regions, India AND Pakistan in Kashmir, Turkey in the Kurdish regions and so forth [note that I'm not making any statements as to the specific controversies in any of these disputed territories]).


 * IMO, proponents of the term "new anti-Semitism" have done a useful service by pointing out that Israel is sometimes unfairly singled out for criticism. But let's not pretend there isn't similar opposition to other states.


 * In any event, this specific point of controversy is somewhat off-topic from the main discussion.


 * Second, I agree that using the names of Buber and Arendt as a cover for today's anti-Semites is wrong. Both opposed anti-Semitism in various forms throughout their lives, and both merit respect as such.  Both also opposed the creation of Israel as a "Jewish state".  Arendt in particular supported the creation of a single, bi-cultural state, along the lines of what Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and others have recommended in more recent years (albeit in a changed cultural context).  My recollection is that she didn't appreciate being called "self-hating".


 * The opinions of Buber and Arendt are relevant to this discussion. I do not consider your decision to remove the reference to them as legitimate, and I will return it accordingly.  (And I hope you don't honestly believe that I was using their names as a cover for today's anti-Semites.) CJCurrie 21:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You weren't but watch this info being reused by them. In general, I object to attempts to turn this article into a description of Jewish intellectual discussion of what the State of Israel should or shouldn't be, and then used by its haters as a lever to destroy it.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 22:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My point -- and I speak only for myself here -- is twofold: (1) the fact that particular information could be used by anti-Semites is not a legitimate argument against its inclusion in an encyclopedia. (2) Suppression of the information that certain views were held by prominent Jews can amount to an effort to de-legitimize those views, and to present them as if the only people who hold these views are anti-Semites. The latter seems to be the heart of the matter here: suppressing indications that quite a few of us Jews are unhappy with some aspects of Israeli government policy makes it easier to construct a bogus argument that these positions are held almost exclusively by enemies of the Jews, and then to suggest that the "few" Jews who hold these positions are self-haters, allied with the anti-Semites. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:38, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * (ii) To Jayjg: Well, this one's fairly simple to answer.  Check out the following website: .  This 2004 article (written, if it need be said, by a Jewish-Israeli peace activist, and a former soldier in the Israeli military at that) specifically criticizes the use of the term "new anti-Semitism", and draws attention to both haredi and secular opposition to the State of Israel.


 * I found this website after about five seconds of google searching. I'm sure that are many more like it out there.  (Note also that I do not personally endorse everything said in this article, etc.)


 * I do not, for these reasons, believe that the decision to remove the quoted passage from the article was legitimate. Accordingly, I will return it.  Anyone who objects to this course of action should be prepared to respond to the points raised herein.  CJCurrie 00:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "My concern, as always, is more with whether or not it is original research. If these arguments are used by opponents of the idea of a "New anti-Semitism", then I think it should go in the intro." They are arguments used by opponents of the term, see the article The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism by Brian Klug in The Nation. AndyL 07:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much improved
I haven't been more than casually involved in this article, but I do have to say, I think it is much improved over the last few days. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion results
This article was listed on Votes for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy on February 2005. The result of this nomination was keep but cleanup. Please see this page's entry for archive of the debate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Explaining My Recent Reversion
While some of Guy Montag's points from the first paragraph might be suitable additions to the "reported characteristics of the new anti-Semitism" section of the introduction, the rest of his edit was extremely POV.

If Mr. Montag is reading this, I would encourage him to recognize that the very nature of the term "new anti-Semitism" is highly controversial, and that the purpose of this article is to convey the arguments made by *both* its proponents and opponents. Revising the sections dealing with "arguments made by proponents" is (or can be) acceptable; deleting entire sections and presenting the term as universally accepted is not. CJCurrie 03:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my previous comments as regards "deleting entire sections", as Mr. Montag did not actually do this as regards the visible article. (The hidden text near the start of the article has fooled me more than once; I'll remove it entirely after writing this addendum.)  My other concerns still stand.  CJCurrie 06:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism
A further issue, which the article does not currently engage, is what one might call a chain-of-association fallacy in some claims of a "new anti-Semitism". I don't have citations, and my framing of this is not as articulate as I'd like it to be, so I'm keeping this to the talk page, but someone may want to pursue this.

What I see is a tendency first to consider only the descendants of Revisionist Zionism, such as the settler movement, the only "true" Zionists; then, even (for example) Labor Zionists, or those who favor a two state solution, or the New Refuseniks, or (especially) those who advocate a unitary secular state (even insofar as they are the intellectual heirs of a cultural Zionism that was not oriented toward the creation of a Jewish state, only with an in-gathering) can be called "anti-Zionist", though usually not "anti-Semites", although some will call them "self-hating Jews"; and finally, Gentiles, and even diaspora Jews, who hold the same position as these latter classes of Zionists are then called not merely "anti-Zionist", but "New anti-Semites".

Understand, I believe that plain old anti-Semitism is alive and well, but I find "new anti-Semitism" largely to be a way of discrediting a wide political swath that is not at all anti-Semitic, or not necessarily at all anti-Semitic, and variously may or may not be anti-Zionist, but is quite opposed to the present government of Israel. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * On closer read, I see that the Brian Klug section covers this pretty well. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:17, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Biased internal link
Why on earth do the words "Arab media" link to an article entitled "Arab antisemitism"? Isn't that begging the question? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:53, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)