Talk:New antisemitism

• Talk:New anti-Semitism/archive 1
• Talk:New anti-Semitism/archive 2
• Talk:New anti-Semitism/archive 3

There are still serious problems with this article

1) Encyclopedia articles may describe ideas or reality. They may do both in the same article but not at the same time. Some things are only ideas, such as, for example, a unicorn. There are no real unicorns, but that's not a problem. There's no need to create Unicorn (term) to distinguish it from real unicorns. The problem with this article on new anti-Semitism is that it often isn't clear whether the text refers to a concept, a term, or reality.

To take but one example: a concept can't be controversial as such. Only some claim made _about_ the concept can be controversial. Only the claim that there _is_ a new anti-Semitism, where "new anti-Semitism" is understood in a specific sense is controversial. There are also many claims involving the phrase "the new anti-Semitism" that are uncontroversial.

2)"The new anti-Semitism" isn't a single concept. It is a term or phrase. Different people who speak or write about "the new anti-Semitism" or "a new anti-Semitism" attach different meanings to the expression. There are several concepts of "new anti-Semitism". This is one factor which makes this Wikipedia article difficult to write. It isn't like writing an article about Paris or chimpanzees. Because of the NPOV principle we can't single out only one meaning of the term. I have given many examples here, and I will write more about the early history of the term below.

It is simply incorrect to say, as the current article does, that "[t]he adjective 'new' is used to distinguish this form of anti-Semitism as differing in its rhetoric, professed purpose, and place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism." _Most_ people use the term with this connotation, but many do not. And what exactly is a "proponent of the term new anti-Semitism"? Is that someone with a t-shirt saying "new anti-Semitism"?

3) Putting the word "new" in front of the word "anti-Semitism" is obviously not especially creative. As long as people have been talking about anti-Semitism, they have occasionally referred to some "new anti-Semitism". But the term acquired a more distinct meaning after World War II. "New anti-Semitism" generally meant post-Hitler anti-Semitism. It was an obvious fact the the defeat of Nazism was an enormous global setback for anti-Semitism. It didn't disappear completely, of course, but it became largely sub-surface. Until the early 1970s there are only occasional references to any "new anti-Semitism", usually with reference to Eastern Europe.

Perhaps the first mainstream reference to the new anti-Semitism as a major phenomenon was Lipset's 1971 article in New York Times. He made the typical observation that the new anti-Semitism was associated with the political left, whereas the old had been mainly a right-wing phenomenon. But he also _included_ the resurging right wing anti-Semitism as part of the phenomenon. The new anti-Semitism is often associated with criticism of Israel, but it differs from normal criticism of Israel, because it focuses on Jews as such and "implies that Jews are guilty of some primal evil". Lipset also discussed Arab anti-Semitism at some length.

The 1974 ADL report by Forster and Epstein was very different in it's approach. It was much more focused on criticism of Israel. The basic argument (also used by Abba Eban and others) was that any completely disproportionate criticism of Israel or Zionism was anti-Semitic in nature; if Jews were denied the rights granted to all other peoples, then that implied anti-Jewish intentions, sentiment or prejudice.

During the final decades of the 20th century there was still not much discussion of the "new anti-Semitism" outside academic and Jewish cirles. The discussion usually revolved around specific anti-Semitic acts (e.g. the 1982 attack on Rome's main synagogue). Some people, e.g. Per Ahlmark, 1989, have argued that the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon led to a radical rise of European anti-Semitism. "Before 1982, denying the Holocaust or trivializing it by cheap comparisons would have been unacceptable in the media. Now such comparisons are commonplace." (Ahlmark used the term "old-new anti-Semitism")

One important thread of the early "new anti-Semitism" discussion concerned the Nation of Islam in the US and related movements. In 1992 Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote about the book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. [1] He called it "the bible of the new [black] anti-Semitism", "one of the most sophisticated instances of hate literature yet compiled" which "massively mis-represents the historical record".

--Denis Diderot 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest some changes, Denis? If you could either edit the article directly or post suggested changes to the talk page it would be helpful. Homey 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest many changes, unless someone else fixes these problems, but I don't have enough time right now.

--Denis Diderot 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Inaccurate criticism"

SV wrote in her edit summary: "don't repeat inaccurate criticism from CJC" See direct quotation: "A direct quotation is a clear quotation said by a person and generally involves a whole sentence; it is absolutely verbatim in the order and is specific."

Clearly, parsing the sentence by including a period where one was not originally is a violation of this concept. The fact that you have now changed your rendering of the quotation to do away with the period you added suggests that, in fact, you know CJC's criticism was in fact valid. Homey 23:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to revert yourself or do I have to report the violation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already reported it and asked for another opinion. Now, can you actually respond to my point above regarding direct quotations and how your original quotation was made to look like a direct quoation when it wasn't due to your parsing a sentence and inserting a period where one was not originally? If you think CJC's criticism is inaccurate why did you change the paragraph in an attempt to remove the offending period? Homey 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it wasn't meant to be there. I had initially written ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk)

The addition to the quote used emotive and politically charged language. It is completley innappropriate for this article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire topic is politically charged and emotive (see the tag at the top of this page). Should we do away with the article entirely? Look, I'm sorry but the quotation accurately reflects the views of many critics of NAS. It therefore adds a necessary component to the intro. We can't exclude a critical view just because you don't like it or because it's "charged", if we did we'd have to get rid of most, if not all, of the article. SV felt it was necessary to include a quotation. Perhaps she can explain her reasoning. Myself, CJCurre and Jpgordon are all of the view that the quotation needs to be used in its entirety rather than parsed. Does anyone really believe that many critics of NAS don't see it as a cover for Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians? Does anyone really think it's more accurate to leave out reference to the Palestinians and imply that critics just view it as a cover for Israel's behavior in general. I think it's quite clear from the arguments we've heard that the real concern here is to hide the accusation of Israeli brutality towards Palestinians in the Occupied Territories -- frankly, that the same people who are trying to obscrure or hide this aspect of the criticism are the same who defend NAS as a theory lends credence to NAS critics.Homey 02:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make insinuations about other editors and their motives. Comment on content, not on other contributors. Please don't make me regret being lenient. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey, you're lucky you managed to charm someone into removing your 3RR block. Please stay away from the Talk: page for the duration of the 24 hours, particularly as you cannot seem to stop lacing your comments with WP:CIVIL violations. The talk page is for discussing article content, not making insinuations about other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I explicitly asked Katfan if posting to this talk page was ok, she said yes. As for my last statement can you please address my question... does anyone really think it's more accurate to bowlderise the Ali quotation by leaving out his reference to Israel's treatment of Palestinians?Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey's addition to the quote constitues a gratutitous appeal to emotions, it has nothing to do with reason. I don't really understand how you continue to argue for its inclusion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, it's not my "addition to the quote", I added nothing to it, I simply substituted SV's truncation of a sentence with a direct quotation (ie one in which the sentence being quoted is complete). I do not see how anyone can possibly claim this to be improper. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's nonsense to suggest that the whole quote "accurately reflects" the view of many NAS critics. That it's a "ploy" by Israel is a silly point to make, which is why I added Tariq Ali's name to it, so that people can see where it's coming from, because if you know his views, it will come as no surprise. I suppose it's Israel that's arranging for synagogues to be attacked and gravestones to be vandalized. Even you, when you first paraphrased it, changed what the source said and added Israel "and its supporters," because you realize that it's silly to say Israel is behind this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

SV, if it's valid for you to quote part of Ali's sentence why is it not valid to have a direct quotation that actually quotes what he said accurately?Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest the quote should not be used at all unless it is used in its entirety. The nuance of his statement changes when the only half of it is used -- it becomes an interpretation, not a quotation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Originally only 3 words were taken from the quotation, which is commonly done for intros. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

JP, how does the nuance change? That is, what do you understand from the shorter quote currently on the page, as opposed to the whole sentence? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the abbreviated form has him talking about all criticism of Israel; the fuller form has him talking specifically about criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. For me, it's the distinction between "I hate Israel" and "I hate Israel's treatment of Palestinians"; I don't know whether Ali would see it that way, but if we're going to cite him, we shouldn't broaden his accusation. Anyway, the Tariq Ali sentence isn't even necessary; the only thing it adds to what is said in the first sentence is the "cynical ploy" phrase. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly so; the Tariq Ali quote adds nothing to the first sentence except inflammatory rhetoric that actually undermines the argument of the critics. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro/lead is far too long as it is, and should definitely not contain any example quotes of opinions. If there are (generally accepted and uncontroversial) authoritative quotes on the nature ot the new anti-Semitism or the controversy, then such quotes, if very brief (<7 words) could possibly be useful. To put it differently: quotes used to exemplify arguments or positions in a controversy don't belong in the intro at all in any Wikipedia article, unless everyone on that side of the controversy agree that the quotes represent their opinion. (I.e. a quote from something like a manifesto, collective statement or white paper.) --Denis Diderot 07:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the lead is too long, because it's a long article, but I agree that the quote is inappropriate if it's used to have a pop at Israel and to include reference to Palestinians, given the article is not about them. If anyone is to be cited in the intro from either side, they should be academics and not political adventurers, and any quotes should be kept very brief i.e. two or three word phrases, not whole sentences. I've twice asked Homey to supply some scholarly material, but with no luck so far. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The lead should describe what the new anti-Semitism is as briefly as possible. That's the whole point. It's a service to readers. We don't want to waste their time. Then Wikipedia users may look at the table of contents or read the entire article, depending on their interests. NPOV implies that examples should be chosen fairly and represantively. That's impossible to do in a brief introduction and may be very difficult even in the main text, since NOR implies that we can't say that something is "representative" whithout clear and unambiguous evidence. On the other hand, excluding quotes because they contain stupid, ignorant or generally vile statments is incorrect. The criteria are: (a) Is this a notable opinion? (b) Does it represent the opinions as clearly as possible? (Wikipedia can't be clearer than the authors) (c) Does it stick to the article topic? (If it's a rambling quote, it needs to be broken apart.) Also, it's very important to quote in such a way that opinions aren't quoted as facts. Very often authors will make a controversial claim in passing as if it were a fact (for the propagandistic effect). Such quotes also need to be taken apart as to make clear that's it's merely the opinion of the author and not an established fact. To quote only academics in introductions doesn't help the least bit, since individual academics may have very strange opinions and represent no one but themselves. Very few academics share prof Neumann's opinion on the usefulness on anti-Semitism, for example. --Denis Diderot 13:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The lead should not be as brief as possible. Intros are meant to stand as mini-articles, giving the reader an overview of the contents. The recommendation for anything over 30,000 characters is three-four paragraphs, and this is 70,000. See WP:LEAD.

Todd Endelman and Yehuda Bauer) are mainstream, notable, and relevant specialists, particularly Bauer, who is very eminent (Endelman specializes in Jewish studies and Bauer is a Holocaust expert). Tariq Ali is not an academic, and although he is known, he is very extreme, not representative of mainstream opinion at all, and has no specialist background in this area. The other person, David Clerk, is not known at all, and we've seen no evidence that he has a specialist background, so we definitely shouldn't mention him in the intro, and probably not anywhere in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed David Clark because it's absurd to cite someone in the intro that no one's heard of and who isn't known to have a relevant background. I won't remove the Tariq Ali quote, but it should be replaced by a known scholar in a relevant discipline published somewhere more reputable than Counterpunch. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Opinions" by persons like Tariq Ali do not belong to Wikipedia at all because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, especially for bigots. Quoting Tariq Ali in this article is like quoting claim by David Duke that racism does not exist in articles on anti-Semitism or racism and presenting his opinions as legitimate criticism of the concept of racism. Pecher ^Talk 14:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We quote people's opinions all the time Pecher. If we did not we wouldn't have half the articles we do (including this one which consists entirely of people's opinions. Our task is not to censor opinions we don't like but make sure that the opinions cited are properly attributed. That's all. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And I agree that quoting something from Counterpunch is debasement of Wikipedia standards on reliable sources. Pecher ^Talk 14:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my previous comment: I'm only mildly at odds with the [[WP::Lead]] policy, so that's not the issue here. "As briefly as possible" means "As briefly as possible without decreasing readablity or the amount of information provided." (The whole article should be also as brief as possible in the same sense, but it's especially important for the lead.) To me, this is completely obvious. No one wants to read irrelevant or repetitious stuff.

I agree completely with what you say about Endelman, Bauer, Ali and Clerk. I think we both agree that opinions _about_ a controversy by generally acknowledged experts should be treated differently from opinions that form part of the controversy itself. (We may have a sociological study of a controversy, for example, that both sides regard as fair and accurate.) The difficulty is to represent the opinions of different sides in a controversy. So before referring to an opinion (and possibly quoting the author), we have to determine whether it's an authoritative opinion _about_ the controversy or an opinion that represents one side. In the latter case, the opinions should be presented only on the basis of notability. We can't say "these people clearly don't know what they are talking about" and ignore their opinions, even if they clearly don't know what they're talking about. It's that NPOV again.--Denis Diderot 15:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that Homeontherange and CJCurrie want to say that there is no such thing as "new anti-Semitism". They can find sources like Tariq Ali to support them — who is, as you put it very well, part of the debate, rather than a source who is simply speaking about the debate — but they can't find anyone serious to support them. The reason for that is that all the authoritative sources agree that it is a real phenomenon and also that it emanates from the left. I stand to be corrected, of course, and still hope that Homey or CJCurrie can find notable, scholarly sources from relevant fields, because then we could fashion a more intelligent article, which is above all what I would like to see. But the problem is that Homey and CJCurrie will claim that any scholar who states that new anti-Semitism is a real phenomenon, and that it stems from the left, is by definition part of the debate and representing one side only, no matter how eminent they are, because Homey and CJC will not shift from the view that the new anti-Semitism doesn't really exist, and that insofar as it might, it doesn't come from the left. We could drop them into an entire library full of books that show it does exist; they would simply dismiss them as evidence of how good Israel or Zionists are at propaganda. In other words, they're operating within a closed system of thought. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points, both of you. And to briefly get back to the question of why the abbreviated quote is still representative of Ali's views regarding "New anti-Semitism", the answer is quite obvious; the issue with Israel is its relationship with the Palestinians. That's what all the "criticism" is about, all the UN Resolutions, all the Human Rights groups reports etc. No-one really imagines that the "criticism" is about Israel's roads, or income tax system, or its representational system of government, or environmental policies, or its airport regulations, etc. What Israel is demonized for on a near-hourly basis in the U.N. is for its relationship with/treatment of Palestinians. Period. The attempt to insert into the introduction lengthy and near-hysterical rhetoric on the point from a notorious crank does not "clarify" what the criticism is about, but rather is yet another bald-faced attempted at that same demonization. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this to mediation. If you are confident that your position reflects Wikipedia policy than you have no reason to fear mediation. Homey 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Fear"? That's a highly emotive word. If I fear anything, it's that the mediation committee will assign a completely new editor to this case, one who has been editing for effectively under two weeks, who has no apparent experience with or knowledge of Wikipedia's policies or in dealing with Wikipedia content disputes.

Oh wait, that's exactly what it did. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Neumann

I just deleted the reference to the notorious anti semite Michael Neumann being Jewish, there is NO cite for that.Incorrect 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't he say he is in his article What is Antisemitism? ? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He says it in multiple places, both online and in print (The Politics of Anti-Semitism, The Case against Israel) Besides he looks Jewish and Neumann ain't exactly Fernandez in terms of names. I don't even know why we are debating this. There are plenty of citations and as far as I know no counter evidence at all Jbolden1517 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden1517, please enlighten us: what does it mean to "look Jewish?" I'm sitting here laughing. I seem to recall that the Museum of the Diaspora once had an exhibit that showed different faces of people who are Jewish to highlight just how diverse the Jewish population is. --Leifern 14:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It boggles the mind that you have now twice claimed that Neumann is Jewish because he "looks Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Read back. Did I actually say that? What do you hope to accomplish by starting a flame war? Jbolden1517 17:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "looks Jewish and has a Jewish-sounding name" isn't particularly usable data to support documenting someone as Jewish. However, him saying he's Jewish should suffice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you twice said "he looks Jewish", including just above. The fact that you provided other evidence is irrelevant to the fact that you considered his "looking Jewish" (and his "Jewish" name) to be corroborating evidence. BTW, "Neumann" is German. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And that's and accurate description of what I said. That there was a written record and his looks were corroborating evidence, which is different than what you said the first time. OK now what was your point in phrasing this in a way likely to start a flame war? What was the goal? jbolden1517^Talk 18:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does his Jewishness have any place in the article? Pecher ^Talk 19:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyways someone like Neuman would have reason to say he is Jewish when he isn't. And "looking Jewish" does not count as corroborating evidence, sorry. By that way, what do you mean by looking Jewish, because he has a mustache and wear glasses he is Jewish? What about the curly hair? he doesn't have that, I guess he can't be Jewish.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear about the point of this discussion. Are we now expected to list the ethnicities of our sources? On this article, or on every article? All the sources, or only some of them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we should list the ethnicities only of those sources when the Jewishness of the author can enhance the propaganda value of the author's anti-Jewish arguments. Pecher ^Talk 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I further propose that the ethnicities of editors on this page be declared if and only if their Jewishness enhances the view that the editor is part of a "cynical ploy" to protect Israel from criticism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Neumann is Jewish [2]. It's not disputed anywhere. More bio here. I don't think his Jewishness is relevant in this article.--Denis Diderot 12:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Question for SlimVirgin

Oh look, here's a European Union survey. Zionist plot. Obvious, innit.

Have you actually read the European Union survey? CJCurrie 02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why then are you suggesting that it blames recent manifestations of anti-Semitism on a Zionist plot, when it does nothing of the sort?

Feel free to provide a source to back up your original claim. CJCurrie 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Then how should I interpret "Oh look, here's a European Union survey. Zionist plot. Obvious, innit."? CJCurrie 01:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You've lifted it out of context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't dare go to civil engineering and start writing about how bridges are built. But you come here with a different attitude, for some reason. Heck, who needs to read anything for this? Here's good old Tariq Ali in Counterpunch, telling us what to think. Oh look, here's a European Union survey. Zionist plot. Obvious, innit.

Does "Zionist plot. Obvious, innit" refer to something other than "a European Union survey"? One way or the other, how should I interpret its meaning?

On another matter, are you seriously suggesting that understanding the NAS is as complicated as understanding civil engineering? CJCurrie 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

How dare Slim have the gall to ask someone if they have read relavent sources. Why doesn't she understand that only CJ is allowed to ask people that. She just kills me sometimes.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

SV commented on a specific source. CJCurrie 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Is anyone interested in finding an experienced editor who understands the content policies to be an informal mediator? I could probably find one who would be impartial if people think that would be helpful. The mediation committee is very tied up so formal mediation is probably not available. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to suggest a name. CJCurrie 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for someone then. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please work out your differences instead of edit warring. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Thanks for pointing out WP:NPA. I wasn't aware of it and will reaffirm my resolve to edit WP rather than.... Back to the topic. Can anyone say why the following is not a useful beginning:

The meaning of the term New anti-Semitism is debated. Its meaning has changed since the first recorded use in 1902 in an Encyclopedia Britannica article. At that time the term meant what some historians now call "modern anti-Semitism" (racial anti-Semitism, as opposed to pre-19th century anti-semitism which was mainly religious). The term was revived in 1971 in the New York Times Magazine and in 1974. The revival of the term sparked debate because etc etc

placed by Mccready 12:54, 28 April 2006

I can. You are getting into a great deal of complexity. Why would the first sentence or two address the fact that "new anti-semitism" used to mean racial anti-semitism as opposed to religious anti-semitism? Further I really question whether the term per say is debated. I think the debate is centered more on:

1. does the phenomena described the term "new-antisemitism" exist?
2. is the term deliberately biased and propagandistic? That is the phenomena may exist but not be "anti-semtic".
3. Should the moral force of anti-semitism (attacks on a discriminated against jewish minority) be treated the same when addressing people in power. In other words are Jews in Western Europe and America entitled to the same level of deference?

Those IMHO are the actual debates. The meaning of the term is pretty clear cut: "attacks on Jews or Israel motivated at their core by denial of the legitimacy of Judaism of the Jewish nation." So for example there are many on this board who are openly anti-zionists, that is they disagree that jews are a nation at all and thus attacks on legitimacy of the Jewish nation are justified. But as far as I can tell they don't disagree they are denying that Jews are a nation they just don't think such opinions are "anti-semetic". Just as anti-semitism has nothing to do with Semites "new anti-semitism" has very little to do with the racial anti-semitism.

The meaning of the term "new anti-Semitism" is not what people debate. Reasonable people either accept some existing definition or propose a new one. The debate concerns the nature of the new anti-Semitism. The main controversy concerns the relationship between the new anti-Semitism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hope your reference to 1902 is meant to be some sort of joke. --Denis Diderot 19:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware you are replying at the wrong level. You are replying to me and the 1902 quote is from McReady. Not really sure what your intent was. And actually he was arguing the definition is vague (i.e does it include racial anti-semitism)? jbolden1517^Talk 20:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ilka Schroder

I'd like to add a link to the "Organizations and forums whose stated aim is to fight anti-Semitism"

Ilka Schroder, a Christian German former member of the European parliament as part of the Green party has created an institute to fight new anti-semtiism. The main page is http://www.ilka.org/ and some pages are available in English at http://www.ilka.org/index_en.html.

Interesting. Thanks for posting it. We might want to mention her response to the EU report, if she's notable enough. [3] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Its been a few days an no one is objecting so I'll make it official

jbolden1517^Talk 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Slim Virgin's definition

[This originally was a response to a snip by me, but I moved it so that it gets pulled out of the silly conversation it was originally part of since it deserves a serious discussion jbolden1517^Talk 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)]

Again, this takes us back to the fundamental problem of people simply not having read up about it. The definition is not so vague, although we're not being allowed to flesh it out in the intro. It is a form of Judenhass that emanates from the left. It is characterized by the demonization of the world's only Jewish state and of Jews as an ethnicity and a religion. Israel's right to exist as an equal member of the world community is denied. The Jewish people's right of self-determination is denied. Double standards are applied, whereby the actions of the Jewish state are judged according to a different standard from, say, the actions of all the neighboring states around her. Jews as a people are held collectively responsible for the actions of the Jewish state. Symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism are used: for example, blood libels are resurrected, the Jewish state and Jewish people are associated with wild conspiracy theories involving Jews or Zionists or Israelis plotting to take over the world, or being in control of other governments, or being responsible behind the scenes for various acts of terror mistakenly attributed to others. Arab and Islamic anti-Semitism are excused and ignored. Straw-man attacks are engaged in (as in the current intro), whereby Jews are alleged to claim that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, and that is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable, and to deny that there is any such thing as the "new anti-Semitism." All of the above is accompanied by an international resurgence of violence against Jews and their synagogues and schools, particularly in Europe. It is found in conjunction with anti-Americanism (because Jews are believed either to control or be too influential with the American government), anti-Zionism, and the anti-globalization movement.

The above is the new anti-Semitism. We are not being allowed to say any of this in the intro, because people who have not read the literature are telling us there is no such phenomenon, even though they do know there is, because they almost certainly recognize the description. They may simply call it something else. If they do call it something else (or have no name for it), that is their original research. Authoritative sources are calling it "the new anti-Semitism." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done. I'd be happy with that intro-definition. I like it more than my definition (attacks on Jews or Israel motivated at their core by denial of the legitimacy of Judaism of the Jewish nation). What is the counter argument being offered against your definition? Simply that what's being described doesn't exist or is there another counter claim being made? Certainly we can have articles about non existent phenomena Abduction phenomenon Transubstantiation Timeline of Arda so in and of itself that argument wouldn't carry any weight in terms of a definition at least IMHO.

As an aside I think we should do another archive of this talk page to get rid of dead threads jbolden1517^Talk 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jb. All of the above can be sourced to books and papers about the new anti-Semitism. The counter-claim is that the campaign against the new anti-Semitism is a "cynical ploy" by Israel and Zionists to shield Israel from criticism. It's not clear whether the opponents are saying there is no such thing, or that there is but it's not important. The "cynical ploy" is from the Tariq Ali quote in the intro. No authoritative sources support the counter-claim to the best of my knowledge. We've asked Homeontherange and CJCurrie for good sources but the two in the intro (Tariq Ali and Derek someone) are the only two they've produced so far: one from a newspaper article and one in Counterpunch, which I would rule out as a source myself.

I'll do some archiving now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think either those 3 counter claims need to be in the introduction. There probably should be a "counter claims section" with:

1. new anti-semitism doesn't exist
2. its really just anti-zionism
3. ....

for example the Tired light article has theory rejected by just about everyone but the into focuses on describing the theory. The counter case is presented primarily in Redshift. Now if that is what is done for a theory that is almost universally rejected I see no reason to treat new anti-semitism that much worse. So I think Tariq Ali is good evidence that the left rejects claims of existence of new anti-semitism I can provide a bunch more links like that (http://www.zmag.org/racewatch/znet_antisemitism.htm). The article already does a pretty good job of presenting the counter case however. I can't see any reason to reject a clear cut structure with a simple statement in the intro. jbolden1517^Talk 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. We don't include the views of Holocaust deniers in the introduction to the Holocaust. All serious researchers of the Holocaust agree that it occurred in more or less the form we all know about. Similarly, all serious researchers of the new anti-Semitism agree that it exists and can be defined more or less as I defined it above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad analogy. First of all I think it's questionable, if not offensive, to compare those who question NAS to Holocaust deniers (talk about guilt by association). Second, SV's premise is incorrect - all NAS *proponents* agree there is a NAS but not all who research anti-Semitism share that conclusion. Frankly, having had a father and grandfather who survived detention in the Transnestria cocentration camps and a grandmother who died in Auschwitz I find the comparision personally offensive. Please don't trivialise the Holocaust for the purpose of creating a tortured analogy. Homey 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Quit the amateur dramatics. Several editors had family who died in the Holocaust and they don't feel the need to go around mentioning it during edit disputes. The analogy was simply that we don't give prominence in articles to people who take the view the topic isn't a valid one, unless there really are no reliable published sources on it. An example of the latter would be Islamofascism, which is discussed as a dubious term because, although there are sources, they are all or most of Counterpunch/Frontpagemag quality, with no scholarly papers. Not so with the new anti-Semitism. The researchers who write about new anti-Semitism are serious writers, and are no more "proponents" of it than scholars who write about the Holocaust are "proponents" of that. I wish you would try to address the substantive issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with SV's views -- I am of the opinion that she tends to see demons hiding in the dark and behaves often in an aggressive and unfair fashion which can cause anger/frustration in others which she then might be interpreting as confirming her theory of alterior motives, I think she tends to be unintentionally biased towards there being widespread anti-Semitism. (Although sometimes she does deal with anti-Semitic vandals but those are usually pretty incoherent and transparent.) Anyways, there are a significant number of individuals who believe that the label of anti-Semitism is too boardly applied in order to silence valid analysis or criticism. Some who have commented on this in academia are Norman Finkelstein, Michael Neumann, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Tony Judt, and Juan Cole -- all but Cole have spoken about it in reputable sources in scholarly books and papers. I do think that SV is leaving out significant counter information here. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. For the purpose of the definition of new anti-Semitism its complete irrelevant whether it is common, uncommon or doesn't exist at all. For an extreme example the definition of a "interior Saccheri parallelogram" is a parallelogram where each angle is less than 90 degrees. No such shape exist and no such shape could ever exist. That doesn't in any way interfere with the definition. Existence is not required to define things. Right now we are just trying to work out a definition not existence. Existence, frequency, etc.. comes later. I think the article should link to anti-zionism (the jewish people shouldn't have nation rights); as a justification for NAS. The question is what should be in the introduction not what should be in the counter case section.

Now I happen to believe that NAS exist and is very common. Further I happen to believe that Nuemann, Finkelstein, Judt are New Antisemites (they deny that the Jewish people have the same national rights as other people); so its not unreasonable that they would reject NAS. But again if I'm wrong I don't see how that changes the introduction. Moreover on teh acquisitions being too common I happen to agree, still doesn't change anything. The key thing is the introduction just has to make sure the question being debated / explained / explicated is clear; nothing more jbolden1517^Talk 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. Everything that I included in the definition above can be sourced to reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not to mention that LLG's comment was little more than a personal attack aimed at one of the editors. Pecher ^Talk 09:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Quit the amateur dramatics." No, an example of amateur dramatics is using specious analogies to the Holocaust or to Nazis, see Godwin's Law in an attempt to insulate your argument and discredit others. SV, plese try to restrict your arguments to the merits or demerits of various proposals rather than trying to discredit views you disagree with through gratuitous use of guilt by association. You seem addicted to the use of various logical fallacies whether they be this one, appeal to authority, or ones that CJCurrie has brought up. I think you know enough not to do this so please refrain from cheap debating union tricks from now on. Personally, I am offended when people invoke specious comparisons to the Holocaust to promote their particular argument whether it's "pro-lifers" describing abortion as a Holocaust or certain Israeli politicians comparing the Holocaust to the withdrawal of settlers or other policies or indeed if its anti-Zionists comparing the treatment of the Palestinians to the Holocaust. It's wrong and offensive in every instance, SV, including the case in which you did this and yes, I do find it personally offensive and revolting so please respect that and desist.Homey 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that the subject here is antisemitism and its denial, therefore I think Holocaust denial is very relevant. When Jews are casually being equated to Nazis, the Jewish state - to Nazi Germany and the Israeli flag is singled out to be burned at WWII commemoration [4], I find the invocation of the Godwin's Law ironic to say the least. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Also I do not remember it being us that brought up the "validity" of comparing the Israeli government to the Nazis.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody, not one person, is "denying" anti-Semitic incidents. What is contested is the classificatation of these incidents into a new genre of anti-Semitism. The comparison to the Holocaust and Holocaust denial is odious, manipulative, contemptable and offensive to many of us whose parents (in my case) suffered in the actual Holocaust. Thank you for the lecture on what I have a right to be offended by but you have no right to tell me not to be offended. Homey 12:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"I do not remember it being us that brought up the "validity" of comparing the Israeli government to the Nazis"

I don't think such comparisons are valid whether they come from Israeli politicians and right-wing Zionists who opposed Rabin or Sharon or whether it comes from opponents of Israel (I think I've made that quite clear and I'm unaware of anyone here saying such comparisons are valid). Please save your straw dog arguments for your echo chamber where you're much more likely to get away with false claims about what people who disagree with you are saying.Homey 13:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think I got mixed up, sombody was doing that on a different page. Anyways I do not appreciate the insult and do not think it was waranted, and I find it perplexing that you would even accuse me of a straw man argument when you are doing the same thing (except you are doing it on purpose) by suggesting that we are "using" the holocaust in an attempt to win the argument, when it is clear to me that no rational person would come to that conclusion.

Also as you should know, our personal histories are irrelevant so I do not understand why you would bring up the thing about your parents, it seems like you are attempting to suggest that your views are more valid because of their persecution which would constitute a logical fallacy (which I would call at-whay Finkelstein oes-day).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Also as you should know, our personal histories are irrelevant so I do not understand why you would bring up the thing about your parents"

Because, as the child of a Holocuast survivor I'm personally offended by frivolous and specious references to the Holocaust. Is that clear enough? It's a shame you can't even acknowledge my right to be offended. Homey 02:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be betting most of us are Jews here and have family that was affected by the holocaust. I find it offensive that you would suggest we would attempt to use it to gain an advantage on some stupid argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And yet, SV raised it. Homey 03:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change

Modern anti-Semitism sounds better. Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 11:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We could do that but it would be a completely different article "NAS" refers to a specific theory. Though perhaps having an article (or section in Anti-Semitism if there isn't one already) on modern anti-Semitis would help us sort out some of the mixture of streams occuring in the NAS article at present. Homey 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That'll work too. Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Like, maybe, Anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism in the 21st century. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we may need two separate articles -- one dealing with a perceived motivational shift in anti-Semitism, another dealing with recent occurrences of anti-Semitism.

As I've noted many times in this discussion, it seems inappropriate to equate the two when the "old" anti-Semitism has not disappeared. CJCurrie 01:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "modern anti-Semitism" is used by historians to mean different things. Some (e.g. Philip Burrin) trace it back to the 19th century, and describe it as a response to Jewish emancipation, where Jews began to be hated for their material success. It's important not to be simplistic about the different forms of anti-Semitism. Hence the importance of reading, erm, books. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use the term "modern anti-Semitism", Slim -- I wrote "recent occurrences of anti-Semitism", specifically to avoid this sort of ambiguity.

Hence the importance of reading, erm, books.

I've already read the 1974 book; I plan on reading Tanguieff this week, and I'll be tackling Rosenbaum after that. CJCurrie 01:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that (though I don't know what the 1974 book is). The Rosenbaum is good because it's a collection of papers from scholars, activists, writers, journalists (some more serious than others; some explicitly mentioning "new anti-Semitism", and some not), and there you'll see the different ways people are approaching this. There are more scholarly papers too. I'll maybe put one or two up later. Please understand that all I want for this page is an educated and intelligent article, rather than a knee-jerk thing (from either side). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The 1974 book was The New Anti-Semitism, which I've commented on in the archived section. CJCurrie 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple typo

Ref 74 and 75 are the same. Could someone fix it when the fighting is over.... Kjaergaard 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A note on sources

I've managed to snag a copy of Tanguieff's book, which I'll be reading in the upcoming week. The book itself is actually quite short, though unfortunately I'm busy with non-Wiki activities until Tuesday.

From what I can tell, it looks like another polemic. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. CJCurrie 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Testing the house

Can editors live with the intro in its current state? Homey 12:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• The "proponents" and "opponents" paragraphs should be deleted; everything that leads up to it is sufficient for an intro. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro is self contradictory. "The term was used... to describe a wave of anti-Semitism that has escalated, particularly in Western Europe, since the Second Intifada in 2000" i.e. what it describes is real. "Proponents of the term "... Left.. anti-Americanism...opposition to Zionism..."Third Worldism." " That is for proponents its about who. "Critics of the concept contend that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and that it is sometimes used to silence debate." Critics are about why the term shouldn't be used.

This is really confusing. IMHO

1. a clear cut definition (with no implication that the phenomena is real or not) -- SVs definition seems fine for this
2. clear indication that of who accused of doing these acts as part of the definition (since we aren't asserting accuracy) -- i.e. the actual vandalism and attacks
3. a clear indication of who is accused acting as apologists for these acts with a discussion that term is applied to the acts themselves or to the apologists (i.e. the terms describes two different activities) -- i.e. the left and anti globalism movement
4. then a statement about large counter cases: doubt about existence, term describes a real phenomena but the word choice is propagandistic, etc... [unsigned]

I'm not entirely happy with the current version, but I could live with it (for the most part).

I still think there are a number of improvements that should be made, and I certainly think it could be written more clearly. My suggestions, if the introduction is to be rewritten, are as follows:

(i) The introduction should state that the term "NAS" has emerged in response to a real phenomenon.

(ii) The introduction should clarify that there is disagreement as to the nature of the phenomenon.

(iii) The introduction should clarify that there is disagreement as to the extent of the phenomenon -- ie., that some believe it is applied too broadly.

(iv) The introduction should not define the NAS as both A) a contemporary international resurgence of anti-Semitism, and B) a perceived "new type" of anti-Semitism. As I've noted many times, these are not identical concepts -- the current international resurgence is premised in several sources, including "old" anti-Semitism. "B" may be a part of "A", but "B" does not equal "A".

The current introduction covers points (i) and (ii), and at least suggests (iii) -- reinserting the BFO quote would cover all bases. I still have serious concerns about (iv) that I'd like to see addressed. Comments welcome. CJCurrie 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The introduction clearly needs to be re-written. And regardless of what agreement is reached on the introduction, since every un-protecting of the page results almost immediately in Homey edit-warring and the page being re-protected, we're obviously going to need a mediator. Ideally one who has been editing for a least 3 weeks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm surprised at the sudden lack of interest in mediation here. Just a few days ago Homey was insisting on it, asking if I was "afraid" of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've e-mailed Homey, left a note here for him, and another one on his talk page, but he gives no response whatsoever, after having suggested mediation himself, after having twice requested page protection, and after violating 3RR several times and being blocked for it once. Yet now we've found a (very good) mediator, there's silence. We can always proceed without him. He'd then be skating on very thin ice if he turned up afterwards to start reverting again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A historic parallel

If one grants the theory of a "New anti-Semitism" (I myself have mixed feelings), there is an obvious parallel between the way that the rhetoric of Antisemetismus replaced the rhetoric of Judenhassen in the 19th century and the way that, in some cases, the rhetoric of "anti-Zionism" may now have supplanted "anti-Semitism", acting as a cover now that anti-Semitism is an equally discredited position. Does anyone know of someone citable who makes this argument? - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting argument, Joe. I haven't read it anywhere, but I'll take a look around. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also begging the question.Homey 06:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How so? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting things in that way assumes that the NAS theory is correct and that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. [ SV do you think that one can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic? [User:Homeontherange|Homey]] 14:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC) [sig moved for clarity]

It's not an example of begging the question. If it's seeking to explore the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, it's not simply assuming they're the same thing. And to answer your question, I believe they're separable, but not always separate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As has been explained before, the New anti-Semitism is a phenomenon, not a theory. Leftists object to it being described as "anti-Semitism", because they think it implicates them as anti-Semites - exactly as rightists, neo-Nazis, etc. all object to being described or implicated as anti-Semites. They all insist that the term "anti-Semitism" is simply used to stifle "valid criticism", whether of Israel, Jews, or both. But that doesn't mean the actual activities it describes are "theoretical". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, do you think the accusation of anti-Semitism has ever been wrongly made and, if so, do you think that the accusation was ever falsely made for puposes of political expediency?Homey 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey, do you think all accusations of anti-Semitism are wrongly made and, if so, do you think that the all accusations are falsely made for puposes of political expediency? Also, do you think David Duke is an anti-Semite? He insists he's just exposing Zionist crimes and Jewish ethnocentrism. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer your questions: No, of course not. Yes, Duke is an anti-Semite. Now, please answer my questions. Homey 14:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone have supported the indian wars without being a racist? Sure there are lots of possibilities some people might want economic expansion and would have displaced migratory whites with genocidal force. Others supported the missionary aspects and felt they justified the indian wars. Is it likely however. No by in large people who supported the Indian wars did not believe that brown people had the same kinds of property rights as white people. If it weren't racial they wouldn't have been quite so violent.

Similarly someone who denies that Jewish state should be dissolved has a pretty high burden to not be anti-semitic. But note I'm pretty generous in claiming people are really Zionists, the Satmar are technically anti-zionist they just move to Israel in large numbers, vote and pay taxes. That is they have moved from Joel Teitelbaum to Agudath Israel in their political orientation at this point they are basically Zionist in all but name (and they are an extreme case)

Finally there is no begging the question for purpose of an introduction. A term is a term is a term. Its entirely possible to argue that "new anti-semitism" is not a form of anti-semitism just like anti-semitism itsself has nothing to do with Semites. Jmabel's point is entirely in keeping with the spirit of NAS claims.

jbolden1517^Talk 14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone have supported the indian wars without being a racist

The more germane question is is it anti-Semitic to a)be opposed to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and b)be opposed to the legal, political and economic inequality of Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews and c) favour a secular state where Israeli Jews, Arabs and others are fully equal politically, economically, legally and socially regardless of religion, ethnicity or culture? Is it anti-Semitic to believe that Israeli Arabs should be able, in practice, to be in cabinet positions up to and including Prime Minister and that the state should belong to all of its citizens, not just those who belong to a particular religion. Is it anti-Semitic to believe that all those who were born in what is now Israel or whose parents or grandparents were born there have the right to be citizens? Is it anti-Semitic to believe that Israeli Arabs should be allowed to buy land owned by the Jewish National Fund, should be allowed to be members of kibbutzim, should be able to live in any community in Israel. Is it anti-Semitic to believe that schools in Israel should be desegregated and that the publically funded system of religious schools be replaced with a single, public, secular and integrated school system. Is it anti-Semitic to describe aspects of the situation of Israel as apartheid? Is it anti-Semitic when leaders of the anti-apartheid struggle such as Desmond Tutu make the comparison? Homey 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As reputable authorities repeatedly state in our article, criticizing Israel is not antisemitism, but singling it out for demonization uncomparable with other countries - is. As a matter of fact, it would be hard to criticize it more than Israeli press does it already. Here are some facts, figures, and statistics. I would expect the same zeal criticizing Israel's neighbors - from you, Mr. Tutu and others.

There is only one refugee population on the planet that passes their refugee status to the next generation. Could you explain why? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"As reputable authorities repeatedly state in our article, criticizing Israel is not antisemitism, but singling it out for demonization uncomparable with other countries - is"

Can one be anti-Zionist, ie opposed to the state of Israel without "demonizing" it? Please note, one who for a binational secular state that is not a "Jewish state" or "Palestinian state" per se can certainly be said to be opposed to the existence of a Jewish state. Is that anti-Semitic? If you want a state where Jews and Palestinians can live together side by side, a state where both are equal and welcome, a state that doesn't identify solely with one group or the other - if that's your position are you an anti-Semite? According to the dogma of New Anti-Semitism, yes, you are. Homey 14:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No according to the "dogma" of NAS arguing that Israel should not be allowed to be a Jewish state while being OK with:

1. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan
2. Vatican City
3. Kingdom of Saudi arabia explicitly declaring that the Quaron is the constitution and Sharia the law
4. Theravada Buddhism being the state religion of Myanmar

That's the real problem. Why the focus on Israel? jbolden1517^Talk 16:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"There is only one refugee population on the planet that passes their refugee status to the next generation."

Sorry, you've lost me. Are you speaking here of the Palestinian or Jewish peoples?Homey 14:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Palestinians, of course. Jewish refugees (as all other refugees) are integrated into the countries in which they live; their children do not inherit that status. Only Palestinians have the unique "hereditary refugee" status; as well, they are the only group that has a special U.N. refugee body devoted entirely to them, the UNRWA. Every other refugee in the world is supported by the UNHCR. Oh, and the UNRWA is the single largest UN body, with over 25,000 employees; 99% of the employees are Palestinians. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.

If, in fact, the Palestinians were the only people ever to be "hereditary refugees", the Babylonian exiles would never have returned and, indeed, Jews would have lost the "right of return" some time in the first century CE or so. Please set aside your double standard Jayjg. Homey 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey is engaging in original research. It doesn't matter what any of us thinks about anti-Semitism or new anti-Semitism. All that matters is what reputable sources say about it.

Can I have an answer please from Homey and CJCurrie about the mediation? The prospective mediator has agreed, and is a very neutral experienced editor. The other main disputants have agreed, and it was Homey's idea to proceed with mediation in the first place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Really SV, by this point you should be able to tell the difference between comments made on a talk page and edits to an article. The "original research" appelation cannot be applied to something someone is arguing in a talk page. Homey 14:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

But there's no point engaging in it on the talk page. It doesn't matter what we think about the topic, so you're just wasting time. Please say whether you agree to mediation. It was you who suggested it after all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to suggest we should hold off on mediation for a bit longer. I'm about to look over some of the source material recommended by SV, and would prefer to have the time to digest said material before mediation talks take place.

Please note that I was busy with non-Wiki matters for two days, and was not evading the question. CJCurrie 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries, CJ. Can I tell the mediator that you agree but would prefer that it start in, say, a week's time? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've said elsewhere that I would prefer to converse with the proposed mediator directly before agreeing. This isn't meant as a comment on the mediator's abilities; I simply want to be certain that the decision is appopropriate. CJCurrie 04:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough, CJ. You can e-mail him using the link on his page if you like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. CJCurrie 23:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, CJ. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)