Talk:New antisemitism

NPOV

While I wouldn't claim this article as a model of NPOV (there is a bit of a bias, in that once one is past the lead section, the exposition of claims of a "New anti-Semitism" runs so long as to place the opposite arguments awfully far down the article), but it seems to me that at this point it is a fairly good job for such an inherently controversial subject. I would hope that we are in a position to soon get the NPOV label off of the article. I would appreciate if those who feel it still belongs there could make it clear exactly what about the article they feel still merits the label. Bullet lists rather than essays, please. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

False allegations

This needs clarification. There is no introduction to this subsection which explains who or what is to be falsely alleged and how that relates to anti-Semitism. Please include some criteria for inclusion so that readers can understand why the material which follows is relevant.

Thanks --Uncle Bungle 13:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A number of writers, politicians, public figures etc. have made the claim that one of the manifestations of the "New anti-Semitism" involves false allegations made about Israel and Jews, with the intent of stirring up hatred against them. The section lists examples they commonly use to support that claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Jayjg for clarification. Is there proof then that Terje Roed-Larsen made the claim of atrocities in Jenin "with the intent of stirring up hatred"? --Uncle Bungle 16:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proof? Why would that be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• pounding my fists on the desk laughing* OMG, thats priceless! *pins it on the wall* "Proof? Why would that be relevant? -Jayjg"

You have stated that the section is about "false allegations made about Israel and Jews, with the intent of stirring up hatred against them". So if you can't prove that Terje Roed-Larsen made those claims with the intent of stirring up hatred, it has no business in the section. The media makes huge mistakes and trumps up shaky reports ALL THE TIME without any specific racial bias. That, sir, is why proof is relevant. --Uncle Bungle 18:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It's purpose is not to "prove" or "disprove" things, or to do any other kind of original research, but rather to report on them in a WP:NPOV way. That is what this article does. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No original research in this question about a neologism. If the story about Jenin was infact to incite anti-Semitism, then that should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Seriously, its just as likely that the whole thing was a media error, not racism, and thats why unless it can be proven to be racism, it has to go. --Uncle Bungle 18:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. The phenomenon has been written about at length by quite a number of respected authors and others, and has even been given full length book treatements. And it's hardly a "neologism" any more; it's been around for half a decade, and gets over 30,000 Google hits. Wikipedia is reporting on the claims of those who support it, and the claims of those who decry it, the essence of NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Way to focus on the irrelevant part of the statement. Let me try again: If the story about Jenin was infact to incite anti-Semitism, then that should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Seriously, its just as likely that the whole thing was a media error, not racism, and thats why unless it can be proven to be racism, it has to go. --Uncle Bungle 20:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to make a case again, Uncle Bungle. Advocates of the idea of "New anti-Semitism" bring the histrionics about Jenin as a major example of the phenomenon they claim exists. The fact that you think it was just "media error, not racism" isn't particularly relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Equating Jews with Nazis

I am looking for some clarification on the idea that is it anti-Semetic to equate Jews with Nazis. Is this every time without exception? After all the Stern Gang and Baruch Goldstein were all Jewish.

The Nazi regime was clearly guilty of some unspeakable acts. From invading their neighbours and persuing weapons of mass destruction to confiscating poperty, imprisoning dissidents, separing people from their families and business, and yes, even murdering children. If the actions of an individual or an organization are so extreme as to remind one of the Nazis, should not that individual or organizations behaviour supercede their ethnic or religous background?

Throughout the second world war the Nazis murdered over twenty five million Russians (combined civilian and combatant). When Niall Ferguson compared Putin with Hiter [1] could his statements not also be called racist?

Please consider the following:

What if a non-Jew were to become prime minister of Israel. Could that individual be associated with Nazis (because of their actions in that capacity)?

What if a Jew somewhere were to setup a blatantly Fascist state, opress the occupants and invade neighbours? Could that individual be associated with Nazis (because of their actions in that capacity)? I feel that these are legitimate questions that would be asked by any reader, and worthy of at least some examination. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 14:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking this question here; is the article itself not clear enough? If you'd like more information on the reasoning of those who suggest that equating Jews and/or Israel with Nazis is part of the "New anti-Semitism", you'd probably be best of reading their works; obviously this article cannot reproduce their arguments in full. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, it isn't. Aside from the "3 D's of Natan Sharansky" who is quoted "the comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of the Palestinian refugee camps to Auschwitz... can only be considered anti-Semitic.", there is no explanation of that claim. In fact, even Sharanskys quote doesn't explain why just that he considers it to be true. While obviously this article "can not reproduce their arguments in full" at the very least it could reproduce a fragment of their arguments, rather than exclusively their claims. See questions above, still unanswered. --Uncle Bungle 16:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've provided a link to Sharansky's article in the Wikipedia article itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Those who draw such analogies either do not know anything about Nazi Germany or, more plausibly, are deliberately trying to paint modern-day Israel as the embodiment of evil. " - Natan Sharansky That didn't explain a whole lot about why.

"do not know anything about Nazi Germany" if that is the case, then what is it people who draw such analogies should know?

"deliberately trying to paint modern-day Israel as the embodiment of evil" thats a nice generalization, but not backed with anything.

That was a great op-ed piece (is that the same conference my Powell quote is from?) but not much else. Still looking for an explanation as to why the above questions are inherently racist.

--Uncle Bungle 18:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject." - from Wikipedia:Talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Bungle, you seem to be trying to make a case here. Editors are not allowed to do original research or construct their own cases for certain positions. See Wikipedia:No original research. Our job is to characterize disputes, not engage in them. We simply report what others say, so long as it's relevant and the sources are credible. If you feel their arguments are poor, there's nothing we can do about that. SlimVirgin 19:03, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I'm not trying to make a case, simply searching for clarification on a vague statement. But you're right, thats not the job of editors, however maddening. I still think that above examples are very relevant, and so it seems I'm going to have to research the issue in depth, to see if there are so called credible sources who agrees with me. I'll delete some of this section for the sake of saving space, and instead work towards debunking the ridicilous claim that its racist to equate Jews (in their capacity as officials of the state of Israel) with Nazis. --Uncle Bungle 20:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you wouldn't delete anything from talk pages. I'll archive so there's less text here. SlimVirgin 20:30, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky quote

Although the quote of Chomsky is correct, Chomsky's quote appears to be incorrect. He refers to Necessary Illusions where this passage occurs on p 317:

These two aspects of "the real anti-Semitism," ADL-style, were illustrated during the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign. The Democratic Party was denounced for anti-Semitism on the grounds that its convention dared to debate a resolution calling for a two-state political settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In contrast, when an array of Nazi sympathizers and anti-Semites were exposed in August 1988 in the Bush presidential campaign, the major Jewish organizations and leaders were, for the most part, "curiously blasé about both the revelations and Bush's response to them," largely ignoring the matter, John Judis comments.116 The New Republic dismissed as a minor matter the "antique and anemic forms of anti-Semitism" of virulent anti-Semites and Nazi and fascist sympathizers at a high level of the Republican campaign organization. The editors stressed, rather, the "comfortable haven for Jew-hatred on the left, including the left wing of the Democratic Party," parts of the Jackson campaign, and "the ranks of increasingly well-organized Arab activists," all of whom supported the two-state resolution at the Party convention and thus qualify as "Jew-haters."117

The note (117) gives references as follows: Judis, In These Times, Sept. 28; New Republic, Oct. 3, 1988. See David Corn, Nation, Oct. 24, 1988, for more on the "haven" for "anti-Semites and fascist sympathizers" in the Republican party. Also Holly Sklar, Z Magazine, Nov. 1988; Charles Allen, Village Voice, Nov. 1, 1988. On the downplaying of the story by the New York Times, see FAIR, Extra!, Sept./Oct. 1988.

In the New Republic , Oct 3, there was a very short (1 page, 1 column) piece called "Anti-Semitism, Left and Right" (page 9). But this article only contains the second and third quotes given by Chomsky. The first and fourth quotes don't occur at all. It refers to "old-fashioned right-wing anti-Semites" ("seven aging Eastern European fascists in the Republican apparatus") and "the anti-Semitism of native-born bigots on the right". It subsequently refers to this kind of anti-Semitism as "rather abstract and altogether without an agenda". The "salient anti-Semitism" of the left, on the other hand, is described as dangerous because it has an agenda. One tenet is "the delegimitization of the Jewish national movement".

There is no reference to the two-state resolution at all. Chomsky's description seems to be tendentious and inaccurate. (Denis Diderot 17 March 2005)

Hmm. TNR charges for online access, and I don't really plan either to spend money or make a special trip to the library to verify this (the passage isn't mine, I'm just remarking). I suspect that the 4th quote ("Jew-haters") is a scare-quote, not intended as a quote from TNR. But it sounds like the passage could at least use a rewrite noting TNR's "seven aging Eastern European fascists in the Republican apparatus" and pointing out that part of what Chomsky quotes may not be accurately quoted. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Neumann

When Neumann's criticism in Counterpunch is discussed, shouldn't his subsequent email exchange with the "Jewish Tribal Review" be mentioned?. Here are some quotes attributed to Neumann:

"I'm not quite sure whether you guys are antisemtic in the 'bad' sense or not"

"I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable antisemitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious racist antisemitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care. "

"My messages were not thought out with the deliberation I would take in making public pronouncements, and there is absolutely no question but that Zionists could twist them and misuse them."

When the exchange was published against his will at www.jewishtribalreview.org/neumann2.htm, Neumann's judgment was questioned

Neumann's defence is here

(unsigned, anonymous, 18 March 2005)

I don't think these particular e-mail quotes, which I believe have been taken out of context and incorrectly interpreted, are really relevant to this particular article. This article is about the claimed phenomenon "new anti-Semitism". Neumann's arguments against some of the claims made in favor of it are include as part of the counter balance those in favor . It is not about Neumann or anyone else quoted in the article. A separate article on Neumann would might be an appropriate place for the controversy over his e-mail to the Jewish Tribal Review. They do not make any argument for or against the points he makes in the Counterpunch article, they appear to be taken out of context and thus I don't see this as the place for them. Exactly what he meant by them is debatable and their inclusion would come across to me as a sort of adhominum argument to try to discredit the him and thus in turn the argument he makes in the counterpunch article by claiming these quotes prove him to be an anti-Semite/self-hating Jew and thus invalidating his arguments which it wouldn't even if were true. --Cab88

Straw-man anti-Semitism

Without passing judgment on the merits of this section, its recent placement in the article as a level-2 header, subordinating several unrelated sections that follow, is clearly wrong. Would someone please work out where they meant to put this in the article, or if it's just the header level that's wrong, or what? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Christiaan's edits

Christiaan, please note that arguments for one side are not supposed to be turned into arguments for the other side; this violates NPOV. Each side must be allowed to make its argument. Also, the organizations in question fight anti-Semitism, if you can find widely accepted views that say they do not, then you can question it, not until then. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well you only need to look at our own criticism section to see that this is disputed to some degree. I don't have strong feelings either way to be honest, just thought it was a good edit by Chamaeleon. Maybe "whose stated aim" would be better. —Christiaan 19:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no preference for "alleged", "whose stated aim", "claim to" or any other version. I'm completely open on that one, and so is Christiaan. What is unacceptable is the version that flat-out says that the ADL is an organisation that combats anti-Semitism. I have never seen a statement from the ADL condemning anti-Semitism, only ones condemning leftists. Chamaeleon 20:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see you reverted my edit which changed 'Accusations of bigotry effectively inhibit debate by demonizing one party to the debate to Accusations of anti-Semitism can and are used in an attempt to discredit and demonise those who criticise Israeli actions, which is more accurate. Why did you revert this? —Christiaan 20:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon, please seek consensus here for your edit. It's bad English apart from anything else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:03, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

"Straw-man anti-Semitism" is a straw-man itself

I remember when I was reasonably young and I was hearing a lot about Israel and Palestine on the telly. At the time I remember thinking to myself that both peoples were as bad as each other; always attacking and counter-attacking. As a young ignorant mind this is how it appeared to me through my television anyway. Eventually I took just a cursory look at the situation away from my television and what struck me was the overwhelming injustice that had been dealt to the Palestinian people. After that I remember debating the situation with someone and being called anti-Semitic for my troubles. What was most interesting is that I didn't even really know what a Jew was, or even what really happened in the Nazi Holocaust, such is my ability to have large gaps of knowledge. So I was looking at the situation with truly fresh eyes for what it was. Alas not any more. To this day I remember that and realise how easy and unjust it is to demonise one's opponent simply by labelling them. Never since have I ever been able to articulate my views as an anti-Zionist without being accused of anti-Semitism. And for writing that last sentence I am by definition of this article an anti-Semite.—Christiaan 19:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)