Talk:New antisemitism

Archives

Aminz's edit

Aminz, we already have a summary of the main criticism in the lead. We don't need more and particularly not anything idiosyncratic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The article should be NPOV meaning it should include all POVs. The source I've provided contradicts what is written. The author believes: "Today, more and more, anti-Semitism has been redefined as anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel... One of the first manifestations of this redefinition may be found in the book The New Anti-Semitism by Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein, leaders of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith...." and goes on explaining the changing meaning of antisemitism as compared to the old one. --Aminz 08:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead already says: "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." Your edit simply repeated this with different words. There's no need for it, at least not in the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say that the critics think this concept emerged as a result of continuing re-definitions of anti-semitism to make it cover anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel. The article at the moment states how the concept emerged from the perspective of proponents and that's POV. --Aminz 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You could add that material to the history section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I added it. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it to add it here?

Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are coupled with antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Critics of the concept argue that the term has emerged as a result of recent gradual re-definitions of anti-semitism to cover anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel, it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate.

SlimVirgin, the intro already talks about 3 lines in details about the emergence of new-antisemitism from the perspective of proponents. One sentence regarding its emergence from the perspective of critics can make it NPOV. I personally found this article confusing when I was looking at it from the perspective of the literature I've read on anti-semitism itself. That some authors have recently redefined antisemitism was quite illuminative to me so I think it is better to be added to the intro (for people like me who don't read things in details).

--Aminz 08:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. the above suggestion also fits the following quote from the source:

"Today, more and more, anti-Semitism has been redefined as anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel. One cannot be critical of the Israeli prime minister, concerned about the question of the Palestinians, or dubious about the virtue of massive infusions of U.S. aid to Israel without subjecting oneself to the possibility of being called “anti-Semitic.”

--Aminz 08:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's too idiosyncratic a view for the lead, Aminz, and he's not an academic (even if he were, it's still too idiosyncratic). The lead should contain a summary of criticism and support that's common to many of the commentators. It fits in well in the history section where we talk about Forster and Epstein. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is not an academic but his paper is peer-reviewed and published in a press that specifically publishes academic sources. The lead is now saying: "The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism" It doesn't say that these writers re-defined antisemitism. There is a big difference between discovering anti-semitism somewhere, and defining it in order to cover a case. And the article has a POV in that regard. Although I think this point should be made in that very sentence but it can be mentioned at the end of intro. And lastly, he is not talking about Forster and Epstein alone. --Aminz 09:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're pushing for a fringe opinion to be inserted in the lead. The function of the intro is to summarize the most important points within the article rather than to dwell in details on every argument of the critics. Beit Or 09:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a fringe viewpoint. I suppose (a guess only) a majority of academics in Europe would agree with this to some extent. From an academic viewpoint I find it more interesting to look at the formation of the concept in light of the Israel-Palestine discourse, than to speculate about some alledged "wave" it is indended to cover. pertn 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, you don't know, but you're trying to guess. Beit Or 15:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My dearest friend! I am guessing that there is a majority, but you are right, I did not and still do not "know" that. I told you i "guessed". If you read my comment a few times, you will see that what I stated was that it was not a fringe viewpoint. From what I know about academics and politics in Europe, it would be wrong to claim that. To claim that it is a majority viewpoint would only by speculations and guessing, hence I write that I am only guessing. I am trying to discuss it fairly. I am no specialist on the subject but I also stated a reason why I personaly belive that the role of the concept of NAS in political discourse would be an attractive and interesting subject for research whereas NAS itself lacks so much presicion that it would be almost impossible to gain good results from research based on NAS as an analytical concept. pertn 19:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC) .... Let me add: I do not intend to add any of this into the article. This IS original research, and it is my opinions only. But when you claim that Aminz is introducing a "fringe" opinion, I propose you substansiate that claim. I do not have to "know" unless I want to include this in the main article. pertn 20:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Pertn, with respect, there's little point in not having read any of the sources, but nevertheless contributing an opinion about whether a viewpoint is "fringe" or not, especially given that you admit you're guessing. This is, as a matter of fact, a very unusual viewpoint in the literature, and it's therefore not appropriate for the lead. However, it's interesting and the source is a good one, so it's appropriate for the article, and is now included in it. We can't have every single viewpoint about NAS in the article, just as we can't have everything that's in the article in the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the discussion carefully before making your comments. Again, it seems that you base your critizism of my viewpoints without reading them carefully. (I will try to write more clearly in the future) In this "case" i have no major disagreement with you, I think. I just wanted to comment to Beit Or that I did not and do not (and I have read some of your sources) believe it is correct so say that the opinion Aminz is pushing is "fringe". Still I agree that it doesn't neccesarily mean that it needs to be a prominent part of the article. pertn 14:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV = All POVs. The intro like all other parts of the article must be NPOV.--Aminz 09:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. NPOV also encompasses not assigning undue weight to marginal views. Here, just like it was the case with Lewis, you've just discovered an opinion, found that you like it, and are pushing for it to be insterted into the lead, no matter how prevalent this view is among experts. Beit Or 09:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The intro should be written in a way that it includes all POV. That of Lewis, and all others. The intro according to the WP:Lead should be able to stand alone. --Aminz 10:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not say that the intro should include all POVs. The guideline says that the lead "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". Furthermore, "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." On this basis, fringe views and other details are usually excluded from the lead. Beit Or 10:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying New Anti-Semitism was already there and was then only observed is the POV of the proponents. And the lead should not take position. --Aminz 10:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead can't possibly include all POVs "[t]hat of Lewis, and all the others," because there's a ton of material out there about new antisemitism, so we must necessarily leave most of it out. Adding idiosyncratic material to the intro would lead to sentences like:

"Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism ... and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel ... are coupled with antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism, and that latent Western antisemitism has fastened onto the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to brand the Jews as mass murderers as a way of solving the West's own psychological problems caused by the Holocaust."

The last point is one made by Yehuda Bauer, an expert on antisemitism and one of the most respected sources in this area you could hope to find. However, his point is an idiosyncratic one, and while interesting enough for the article, is too unusual for the lead. Your Allan Brownfeld point is similar in that respect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But there is only one sentence from the perspective of critics in the intro: That "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." Except that, the rest is written from the prespective of proponents. I personally feel that if the article explains in 2.5 lines why New Anti-Semitism emerged from the perspective of proponents, only one sentence should be added from the perspective of critics. --Aminz 10:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The weight assigned to the criticism in the lead is commensurate with its weight in the article as a whole and in the scholarly debate, too. Beit Or 10:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And how do you know the ratio? --Aminz 10:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because he's read the article and some or all of the literature.

The lead has two paragraphs that are descriptive: what the concept is, when it entered common usage, what its relationship to classical AS is. Then the third paragraph contains two sentences: one saying what proponents argue and one saying what critics argue. It's balanced, clear, simple, and it's a compromise version that was worked out over many weeks. Also, everything in the proponents' sentence is commonly argued by proponents; everything in the critics' sentence is commonly argued by critics. There are no unusual or surprising views. It should be left that way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Should he prove the ratio to me, we would be able to use it. But I think it is only speculations. --Aminz 11:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentences on how the term has come to usage definitely has a POV. It says some writers observed waves of antisemitism. That's POV of proponents; might be true but it is not neutral. It doesn't say the term came into usage because anti-semitism was re-definded to cover certain things. The definition is also providing context for the POV of proponents. I am not saying which POV is correct or wrong. There is certainly anti-semitism but except the last sentence of the lead, the rest is written from the perspective of proponents. --Aminz 11:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, Allen Brownfeld is not an academic, but rather, an anti-Zionist activist who happens to write freelance articles and columns, sometimes for the WRMEA, but mostly as the editor of the inhouse publication of the American Council for Judaism. The American Council for Judaism is itself a tiny group that split from Reform Judaism when it became Zionist. Brownfeld's views are pretty much a tiny minority view, and SlimVirgin was being quite charitable when she included them so prominently in the article. You seem to have a habit of finding some small minority or idiosyncratic view on a Jewish related topic that happens to coincide with your own, and then try to promote it as if it were authoritative, insisting it come front and center, usually in the Lead. It's a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight, yet when this is quite naturally resisted, you then ironically attempt to stick a POV tag on the article, even though your edits themselves are a violation of WP:NPOV. It's happened on half a dozen articles now, and it's very disruptive. Please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please desist accusations of WP:Point? I am asking this for the n^th time. Your approach only makes me to find even more and more sources in order to bring neutrality back to this article. No compromise on neutrality.

The work by Allen Brownfeld, unlike that of conservative journalist Johnson, is peer reviewed and published in a famous journal. I have read a few pages from the article and it is written scholarly. As far as I am concerned, all the intro except one sentence is written from the perspective of proponents and this should not remain. And I think SlimVirgin is nicer than you. I can see you and Beit Or aim to deny even existence of any dispute in the two other anti-semitism articles. And yes, I am more determined now to bring neutrality back to this article. --Aminz 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In a "famous journal"? Which one do you mean? And what do you mean by "peer-reviewed"? The existence of the dispute is well documented, and non-fringe sources have been brought to actually elucidate it. Please explain what Brownfeld's qualifications are.

P.S. You can't "bring neutrality" to an article by doing the exact opposite, and I'll stop pointing out your disruption when you stop disrupting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You can search the article in JSTOR and you might want to read Academic journal. --Aminz 23:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered my questions, though. Which "famous journal" was he published, and what do you mean by "peer-reviewed"? Also, what exactly are Brownfeld's qualifications? Does he teach this stuff at a University, for example? Does he have a doctorate in some relevant subject? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Brownfeld is not an academic so any publication of his is not reliable unless they are peer-reviewed and published through an academic press, in which case the reliability of material is not attained through him but through the acceptance of the editorial committee of the journal.

And I don't understand what you mean by "what do I mean by "peer-reviewed"". Whoever submits an article to a journal, the editorial committee reviews it and if it passes the thresholds it is reviewed and published. There is thus some guarantee of reliability. The journal is Journal of Palestine Studies. --Aminz 07:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You claimed Brownfeld had been published in a "famous journal" and had been "peer reviewed". Is the Journal of Palestine Studies a "famous journal"? Is it "peer-reviewed"? And what, again, are Brownfeld's qualifications to opine on this subject? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

JPS is a normal academic journal published and distributed by University of California Press, Berkley. Therefore articles in it count as reliable sources and whether the author of the article is notable or not isn't a relevant question. Itsmejudith 08:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to add that. Jay could have discovered that it was published by the UC press and archived by JSTOR with a single google search, if he was so inclined. (If.) On the whole, I can't disagree that some statement indicating that a significant number of academics believe that the discourse is being actively constructed to minimize criticism belongs in the lead; along with a simple summary of their views, the courtesy extended to those 'proponents' of the view. Also note that in order to analyse discourse on a subject, expertise in discourse can substitute expertise in the subject. Consider Sartre. Hornplease 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This journal is only printed by the UC Press for the Palestine Institute. It has its own editorial board, which includes the former PLO propagandist Rashid Khalidi, and its articles are not subjected to the UC Press editorial oversight. Even if they were, how would that be relevant? The arguments regarding expertise in discourse vs. expertise in subject are sophistry. Beit Or 13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Journal of Palestine Studies is published by UC Press, not merely printed by them - the distinction is crucial. Since it is within the stable of one of the world's most highly regarded academic publishing houses it is an academic journal in every sense of the term. Of course it has its own editorial board - it would not be an academic journal if it did not - and it chooses independently which experts to invite onto that editorial board. This is one of the most clear-cut cases of a reliable source for WP purposes. End of story, I sincerely hope. Itsmejudith 18:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked some very simple questions, which no-one has yet been able or willing to answer. According to whom is The Journal of Palestine Studies a "famous journal"? What evidence do we have that it is "peer reviewed"? What are Brownfeld's qualifications? And now, SlimVirgin adds another relevant question; who are the "significant number of academics"? Note, Brownfeld's views have actually been added to the article, so they aren't being "censored" or excluded in any way; thus I'm not sure how anything you have said is relevant to my questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who are the "significant number of academics"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Some other relevant sources

Virginia Q. Tilley in "The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock", University of Michigan Press states:

"Zionist discourse has long defined any criticism of Israel as "cover" or "code words" for anti-Semitism, and in the past decade, a wave of publications has emphasized afresh that talk of a multiethnic state reflects this "new anti-semitism" or "anti-Semitism without Jews." Under this banner, Zionist networks are commonly mobilized to target even Jewish advocates of the one-state solution as witting or unwitting architects of genecide. Professor Tony Judt, a senior scholar at New York University, met such an onslaught after publishing his landmark "Israel: An Alternative" [2]

--Aminz 06:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Quote-mining books.google.com for statements in agreement with your POV isn't the best way to write an article. Tilley's conspiratorial view of the world as being secretly undermined by "Zionist networks" is, um, "interesting", and she is indeed an associate professor of political science at a small private college, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, though it could be noted that the student body is no larger than that of a large high school, and the college itself does not even offer doctoral degrees. In any event, I'm not sure what this could possibly add to the introduction, which already says "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." That's essentially the claim that Tilley makes, though stated in a less inflammatory way. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison between new-antisemitism and old one

This seems to be a good source [3] --Aminz 06:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what's now called "modern antisemitism," or "racial antisemitism," not the same thing at all, as Bernard Lewis points out. Aminz, please stop changing the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead

I found the same arguments I was looking for not from the previous sources but from "Klug, Brian. The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism." Would you please explain why it was removed? I specified exactly what the critics object to. Of course they don't object to the existence of absurd conspiracy theories etc etc. --Aminz 07:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The material you added to the lead was almost incomprehensible, and the 1860s claim was, at best, an inaccurate reading of the source. The "New anti-semitism" that The Cambridge History of Twentieth Century Political Thought is referring to is, of course modern racial antisemitism. It is the term "antisemitism" itself that was coined in the 1860s, not the concept of "New antisemitism", which is a late 20th century/early 21st century phenomenon. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of New AntiSemitism

The lead says:" New antisemitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism." however the Brian Klug says:

So the question is this: What puts the "new" into "new anti-Semitism"? The answer, in a word, is anti-Zionism. The "vilification of Israel," Iganski and Kosmin argue, is "the core characteristic" of Judeophobia (their term for "new anti-Semitism")... Sometimes the point is made by equating the State of Israel in the "new" anti-Semitism with the individual Jew in the "old" variety.

The article's definition of "new" antisemitism is not the same as that of Brian Klug. So, the definition should change or alternative ones should be given. --Aminz 07:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We do say what Klug says (relevant points in bold): "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are coupled with antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can not see any mention that critics say what distinguishes antisemitism from "new antisemitism" is "anti-Zionism" but that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are separate things. --Aminz 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what it says above. Proponents of the concept say opposition to Israel constitutes or is coupled with antisemitism. Critics say that legitimate criticism of Israel (what you might want to call anti-Zionism) should not be equated with antisemitism. We can't say antisemitism and anti-Zionism are separate things, because not everyone believes they are separate things. We say: X says this, Y says that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the article says: Critics oppose the concept because it is used to .. or serves ... I think the critics oppose it because its definition equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. --Aminz 08:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Its definition doesn't equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It doesn't have a firm definition for one thing; there's a core description of the concept that most academics would agree with, but there are differences between them too. Secondly, no one says that criticism of Israel is antisemitism. Indeed, the repetition of that strawman is identified as one of the features of the new antisemitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed. Quoting Klug:

Foxman insists that he is not opposed to criticism of Israel. "In every public forum," he says, "I'm always careful to say that criticism of the state of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic." But "is not necessarily" implies "is possibly," and what this really means is "it's usually so." In his view, "most of the current attacks on Israel and Zionism are not, at bottom, about the policies and conduct of a particular nation-state. They are about Jews."... Now, if crossing the line is anti-Semitic, and if "most of the current attacks on Israel and Zionism" cross the line, it follows that most current attacks on Israel and Zionism are anti-Semitic. By extension, any attack aimed at a Jewish target is anti-Semitic if it is inspired by a position that crosses that line."

--Aminz 08:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Klug is not saying that criticism of Israel is antisemitism. He is saying that Foxman might be saying it. I don't know whether that's true of Foxman, but we don't use him as a source, so it doesn't really matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for "new anti-semitism" as stated in this article leave very little room for legitimate critisim of Israel without the possibility of being judged anti-semitic. Ironically, according to this article, I'm anti-semitic just for saying that!

Anti-semitism is very real, but it is also used by its very victims as a potent political tool.

Overall, while I find this article to be relatively biased, it also contains some very interesting thoughts.

67.81.33.213 05:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Tim

Man, do I have problems with this article! More to the point, I have a big problem with the term "new antisemitism (NAS)." I can accept the term "classic antisemitism" because it is pretty clear cut--and it actually exists.

The problem is rooted in the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. This means any attack on Israeli policy is considered an attack on the Jewish people, and therefore antisemitic.

Here is a quote from your article:

"He argues that antisemitism has expanded from hatred of Jews (classical antisemitism) to hatred of Jewish national aspirations (new antisemitism). [25]"

What are "Jewish national aspirations?" Are these no different from "Israeli national aspirations?" Nope.

Until you can separate the hatred of a people from the resentment of a government's policies and actions, I suggest you redefine NAS.

Here's where I agree with you! I agree that attacking Israeli policy is a tool used to mask antisemitism (ie, David Duke). But that is still good ol' classic antisemitism--NOT NAS!

204.149.81.4 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Tim

Better Definition. This seems pretty straight forward:

"New antisemitism is the legimitization of traditionally anti-semitic beliefs under the guise of criticism of Israel's continued occupation of Palestine and mistreatment of Palestinians."

Clearly, new antisemitism is not pure criticism of Israel. It must relate to some type of activity like:

• Holocaust Denial
• Racial Slurs
• Hate crimes
• Attacks on Judaism (not attacks on Israel)

I understand what new antisemitism is trying to say. However, this page must not be hijacked by Pro-Israeli zealots to demonize justified criticism of Israel's continued abuses. Nlsanand 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And/or:

• Specific obsession with and/or isolated focus on the misdeeds of Israel, individual Israeli political parties, the Israeli military, individual Israeli citizens, etc., to the exclusion of any similar or worse misdeeds by other countries, individuals, political entities, etc.; particularly those currently engaged in armed or political conflict with Israel.
• Criticism of political action by supporters of Israel abroad, to the exclusion of any similar political action by supporters of other countries.

Thus, we can manage that this page not be hijacked by Anti-Israeli zealots to whitewash continued abuses by nations not including Israel. Gzuckier 17:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with this above type of definition is that it would mean that every you criticize one thing you have to criticize everything that is like it. For instance, say I were to criticize the actions of Canadians in mistreatment of Chinese guestworkers during the construction of the railways. Is this racist against Canadians if we don't mention the mistreatment of guestworkers in other countries? No, in fact it would just be silly to have to go through that process every time.

Racism (of which anti-semitism, new anti-semitism, and modern day Israeli policies towards Palestinians are all subsets) is inherently a non-political act. It must be an act, that attempts to bring negative consequences on a group simply due to their ethnic origin. This does not have to be violent, however the comments of Gzuckier would suggest that any anti-Israeli comment must start with a proviso such as "Though there have been other apartheid regimes". While I don't disagree that Israel is not the only country worthy of criticism, let's not make this page a home for its apologists.

The definition of new anti-semitism as a term must relate solely to acts committed against Jews as an ethnic group and not Israelis as a national group. Nlsanand 07:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: proposed new post

I would use a broader term, such as "economic antisemitism."

I don't believe any socialist tyrant (such as Stalin) earnestly believed in the true ideals of communism--they just wanted a dictatorship. What better way to maintain control over the people than to repress them economically? Bigotry is more about power than hatred.

I do see your point where the anti-capitalist antisemite would spit hatred about the "greedy Jew." However I don't think this is a significant population and most of these people can be filed under "classical antisemite."

Another huge aspect of "economic antisemitism" (and other forms of bigotry) is a simple one--jealousy. Nothing makes a loser feel better about himself than lashing out at the more successful.

I think "economic antisemitism" should be the main article, with anti-captialist antisemitism as a chapter in that article. You know a lot more on the subject than me though!

Written in good faith

204.149.81.4 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Tim

I don't think it's spam and I personally think that the contributions should remain on the talk page. Having said that, there is much that I disagree with. Please bear in mind that talk pages must not be used for carrying on arguments, only for practical discussion around changes to articles. If you want to start a new article you should first consider what reliable sources you would have to base the article on. By "reliable sources" Wikipedia means books by academics or other respected commentators, articles in refereed academic journals and reports in serious newspapers or broadcast media. Some other kinds of sources are suitable depending on the type of article - for example an article about Charles Dickens can refer to his novels - but for writing an unbiased article on controversial political matters your choice is very restricted. I would be very surprised if there proved to be sufficient basis for an article on anti-capitalism and antisemitism. Bear in mind also that you would immediately be embroiled in an argument about whether the anti-capitalist movement is separate from the anti-globalization movement or whether these are just two words for the same phenomenon.Itsmejudith 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

See perhaps August Bebel#Quotes. But it is an entirely different topic than this one. - Jmabel | Talk 01:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Archived FAC nom

Premature FAC nom archived at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New antisemitism/archive1. Sandy (Talk) 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How is this original research?

How is what Jayjg removed original research? It is accurately cited to the Jewish Virtual Library. No, it didn't come from articles that used the phrase "New Anti-Semitism"—it was simply data about numbers of UN votes on Israel—but as far as I know there is no requirement that the source used for data be writing explicitly on the topic of the article. That leave us saying that an article on a person could only cite biographies of that person, or that an article on an artistic movement could not cull a date from an article about an individual who was part of the movement. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like original research to me. There is, however, a question of relevance. I for one cannot figure out how the United States vetoing resolutions against Israel is in any way directly related to the subject of this article. ==Taxico 09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein quote (again)

Concerning my most recent edit, I would refer readers to statements that I made on this forum last October:

(iii) The current version begins, "Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist at DePaul University, argues that proponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism are compelled to deny the causal relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, because to acknowledge the relationship would be admit that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism."

There are two problems with this statement.

First, both the sentence structure and meaning are extremely convoluted. The point could surely be expressed in a more lucid manner.

Second, it does not accurately reflect what NF actually writes. Finkelstein's argument (taken from his own words on pp. 77-78) can be summarized as follows:

a) "There is a broad consensus among those treating the topic that the emergence of the new anti-Semitism coincided with the latest flare-up in the Israel-Palestine conflict, reaching a peak during Operation Defensive Shield and the siege of Jenin in the spring of 2002 [...]."

b) "The causal relationship would seem to be that Israel's brutal repression of Palestinians evoked hostility toward the "Jewish state" and its vocal Jewish supporters abroad."

c) "Yet is precisely this causal relationship that Israel's apologists emphatically deny: if Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters themselves might be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing do because Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong."

It is not clear how this argument can be summarized to "proponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism are compelled to deny the causal relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel". First, NF is distinguishing between "contemporary anti-Semitism" and "hostility toward Israel and its vocal Jewish supporters abroad" in this section. Second, NF is referring to the relationship between such hostility and the policies of Israel, not criticism of Israel.

(iv) The current version reads, "Finkelstein rejects what he call this "doctrine of essential Jewish innocence." [7] On the contrary, he argues, it is Jews themselves who may be the cause of contemporary anti-Semitism, because "Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong.""

As noted above, this is not an accurate summarization. NF does not argue in this instance that "Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong" -- he rather presents this conclusion as the logical outcome of the aforementioned causal relationship. Also, it is not entirely accurate to summarize the phenomena described by NF as "contemporary anti-Semitism".

I'm going to make some significant adjustments to this section, including giving it a new title and placing it elsewhere in the text. I don't claim that my proposed version is perfect, and I welcome constructive edits and discussion to improve both readability and (if necessary) textual accuracy.

I hope this won't lead to yet another edit war, and I would encourage anyone who disagrees with my assessments (and my remedial actions) to discuss the matter here rather than using a blanket revert as a tool of first resort. CJCurrie 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The context is a bit different this time, but not by much, and the quote is still inappropriate as a summary of NF's argument. It shouldn't be too difficult to find a more suitable quote, in any event. CJCurrie 06:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's too much to read. Please make the point more succinctly, if possible, and please STOP the personal attack edit summaries; the material in this article is not "hopelessly slanted." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that you've written most of the NAS article, I have difficulty understanding how you could consider my last comments to be "too much to read". Also, could you please explain how describing one particular sentence as "hopelessly slanted" constitutes a personal attack?

I'll review the Finkelstein material again tomorrow, once I have the book in front of me. CJCurrie 07:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Here's a quick overview of events relating to this controversy:

1. On 11 October 2006, I indicated that I would change the wording in which this article that addresses Norman Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah" (here, with minor adjustments here, here and here). I had several concerns with the way Finkelstein's book was presented, and believed the overall effect was misleading to readers. (See below for details.)

2. SlimVirgin's response followed nine minutes later.

3. I responded here. The conversation then degenerated into a dispute as to whether or not I had ever "written for the enemy" on Wikipedia ([4]).

4. My adjustments to the article page appeared here, with a few very minor adjustments here.

5. SlimVirgin never responded to my arguments, and did not initially take issue with anything I had written on the article page. Instead, she re-inserted the material I had removed from the caption on 31 October 2006, in a slightly different form, in block-quotes, and without comment. I probably should have taken issue with this at the time, though perhaps I didn't notice; I can't recall offhand.

Here's an overview of the controversy itself:

I initially objected to an earlier introduction of the Finkelstein section, which read as follows: "Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist at DePaul University, argues that proponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism are compelled to deny the causal relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, because to acknowledge the relationship would be admit that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism."

My objection now is to the block-quote section, which reads as follows: "[I]f Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing so because Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong."

I still believe this quote is misleading, and still believe that it should be removed. I've already explained why in my 11 October post. For those who can't be bothered to read it, here's a quick summary:

(i) My most fundamental objection is that Finkelstein did not actually make the specific assertion attributed to him in the quote provided.

(ii) Even if he had, this is not his primary argument concerning "NAS".

(iii) Even if it were, the quote provided ignores a great deal of textual nuance and is misleading if presented in isolation.

More detail:

(i) The quoted text does not accurately reflect Finkelstein's argument, which can be summarized from his own words in the following manner (pp. 77-78):

a) There is a broad consensus among those treating the topic that the emergence of the new anti-Semitism coincided with the latest flare-up in the Israel-Palestine conflict, reaching a peak during Operation Defensive Shield and the siege of Jenin in the spring of 2002 [...].

b) The causal relationship would seem to be that Israel's brutal repression of Palestinians evoked hostility toward the "Jewish state" and its vocal Jewish supporters abroad.

c) Yet is precisely this causal relationship that Israel's apologists emphatically deny: if Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters themselves might be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing do because Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong. (emphasis in original)

Finkelstein does not present this conclusion as *his own argument* on this occasion, but rather presents it as the *logical outcome* of the arguments favoured by proponents of the term "new antisemitism". As Finkelstein is emphatically *not* a proponent of the term, it is difficult to see how this conclusion could apply to him. (Finkelstein's position is that much of what is called "new anti-Semitism" is not antisemitism at all, and it may be worth noting that all of the quotes cited above are taken from a section entitled "Mislabeling Legitimate Criticism of Israeli Policy".)

Readers may object that this is nit-picking, and that Finkelstein does accuse Israel of fomenting anti-Semitism elsewhere in the book (eg., p. 85). There is some validity to such an objection, and, by way of a pre-emptive response, I should note that I would not object to including in this article a quote or summary that accurately conveys his position on the matter. The current quote, however, does not accomplish this.

(ii) The block-quote is unduly focused on a peripheral aspect of NF's argument. Finkelstein makes several arguments against the concept of a "new anti-Semitism" in the first section of "Beyond Chutzpah". The text that SlimVirgin has chosen to highlight is taken from a four-page passage toward the section's end.

During our previous exchange, SlimVirgin indicated that she chose to highlight this point because she "read the book carefully", and concluded "this is his strongest argument. My response was: "In that case, why did NF only devote four pages to it? And what criteria are you using to describe it as his "strongest argument", apart from your own discretion? For that matter, why should we be making judgements as to the relative strengths and weaknesses of his arguments?" SlimVirgin did not respond.

Most of "Beyond Chutzpah"'s first section addresses what Finkelstein believes is the cynical use of the term "new antisemitism" for short-term political gain. If we are to represent his position fairly, we should focus on this aspect of his book.

(iii) In addition to all of the above, the block-quote ignores a good deal of textual nuance. A neutral reader might wonder if the quotation was designed to portray Finkelstein in a questionable light.

For all of these reasons, I believe the current block-quote is inappropriate. I plan to replace it with a different block-quote in a few moments.

If any readers object to my decision, I hope they will (i) read my arguments before reverting, and (ii) respond to my arguments rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks and contrived outrage. CJCurrie 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Birth of Israel

OK I expect to recive many answer and attacks that I am antisemit but I want little discussion. First I must say that I do not have problem with Jews but with state of Israel. Looking history in last 60 years for me state of Israel is born on Ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians. If you look number of Jews in Israel in 1907 (for example) and today .....Can somebody explain me what is great difference of Ethnic cleansing in Balkans between 1991-95 and similar thing in Israel 1947-1957 ? Because of that I support Palestinians and fight for freedom. Because of political reality in future must exist Israel and Palestina but until that day Palestinians are having full right to attack Israel. Let say this story in other way. If your house has been given to another person because of nationality are you having right to attack and kill that person which is now living in your house ? Answer of that question is answer if Palestinians are having right to attack Israel.Rjecina 07:09, 6 January 2007 (CET)

It's sad that you would think the answer was yes.Gzuckier 15:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

New article which should probably be merged into this one

Misuse of Anti-Semitism ... -- AnonMoos 15:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That article is a quote. Half the quote can be found in footnote #31 already, and the idea in the other half is written into the first paragraph of the secton on Finkelstein. What else is there to merge? Gimmetrow 07:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Where's Mel Gibson and Christian Fundamentalist New Antisemitism?

The Passion of the Christ was roundly criticised for being Antisemetic, and others allege that fundamentalist Christianity itself, where every Jew who does not convert to Christianity will 'burn in hell', is intrinisically and inherently Antisemetic. Why are these issues ignored in this article? Christian Anti-Semitism: Past History Present Challenges Reflections in Light of Mel Gibsons The Passion of the Christ - - - Religious Tolerance - Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not new antisemitism, but old antisemitism (or even anti-Judaism). // Liftarn

I disagree. This aspect of Fundamentalist Christianity has really only gained prominence in the last 30 years - since the Left Behind books - and really taken off since the early 90's. This article starts in the 40's and the 6-day war in 67 - Fairness And Accuracy For All 11:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not only chronology -- old-style theological-based antisemitism is not considered "new", just because it continues to occur in recent years. And your knowledge of the history of U.S. Protestant fundamentalism does not appear to have very great depth -- back in the 1920's, many fundamentalists were openly hostile to Jews, while many of their counterparts of today find no difficulty in working with U.S. Jews (and also with Israelis) on a range of issues (without surrendering any of their ultimate theological claims). 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mel Gibson is not a fundamentalist, but a conservative (reactionary?) Catholic. His views on the Jews seem to pretty clearly derive from old school Catholic anti-semitism (the kind eventually denounced at Vatican II). So he, at least, can hardly fall under the "new anti-semitism." The idea that Jews will burn in hell if they don't become Christians has been pretty standard in traditional Christianity for ages. It's just most people don't talk about it much. john k 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly say it was "roundly criticized." (Look up the definition of "roundly" sometime.) The criticism the film received in regards to alleged antisemitism was from a handful (if that) of far-left groups and individuals. The idea that the Christian belief that the unsaved will be condemned to Hell is not "intrinsically and inherently antisemitic" in any way, shape or form. The issues you bring up are most likely "ignored" simply because they are not notable. You could put all sorts of useless garbage in the article (and all other articles) based upon your questionable standards. Jinxmchue 21:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I find it odd that some people are so worried about imagined antisemitism in films like the Passion of the Christ, but then they completely ignore real antisemitism from militant groups in Islamic countries. Which is a bigger threat? Jinxmchue 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The film was widely criticized as anti-semitic, and whatever we may think of the Anti-Defamation League, it is hardly a "far-left group." Nor are the numerous scholars, many of them Catholics working at Catholic institutions, who condemned it as anti-semitic, or at least, as possibly encouraging anti-semitism. john k 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tariq Ali looks scary and evil

Surely the photograph of Tariq Ali in this article can be considered non-NPOV. He's shaking his fist; he's shot from a low angle so as to look malevolent. I have no intention of defending his position on this issue, but surely the article would be more balanced if critics of the concept weren't portrayed as scary and evil. -Maggie --70.48.204.210 02:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes him look scary or evil, but passionate and committed, but regardless, it's the best photo we have of him that has a free licence, which is why it was used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim - your help is needed over at Gog and Magog. Check recent edits of the section on "Gog and Magog and Ashkenazim" and my recent post on the talk page for an explanation. I only ask here because I can't work your talk page. Thanks, hon. - Maggie --67.71.120.202 16:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

If there's a scholarly consensus for the Okhrana as the forgers as various websites assert then scholarly refs can be provided. I will start to look it up. In the meantime, does Flannery not count as a religious rather than an academic source, and therefore to be treated with caution per WP guidelines? Suggest that all mention of the Protocols' authorship be left out until this point has been researched and debated. Thanks. Itsmejudith 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Which WP policy says we should treat religious sources with caution? And Flannery's work on antisemitism is widely regarded as a classic. Judith, why do you often question sources you disagree with, but never question sources you agree with? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS. NB, I said guidelines, not policy. And a quick search shows up Eisner 2005. Foreword by Umberto Eco, good publisher (W.W. Norton), don't know if author is an academic, book was reviewed by serious press, argues that it was a Russian secret police forgery. Now does that count as more recent scholarship shedding doubt on Flannery? I don't know: I haven't read the book or even the reviews. As it happens, I try to be consistent and prefer good sources to bad even if they don't coincide with my prejudices. Whether I get it right, only others can tell.Itsmejudith 01:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaargh! It's a comic novel. Probably all the better for that though. Itsmejudith 01:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

RS is a widely ignored guideline — the only pages about sources that matter are WP:NOR and WP:V — but even RS doesn't say what you're claiming. It says: "The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." Edward Flannery's work was not the publication of a religious group. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you don't want to use RS then maybe we should discuss here the principles for what constitutes a suitable source on this and related articles. I am most interested in history and there are extra guidelines for historical articles but you may not think that this article is really about history. Flannery maybe does not qualify as a historian, which I think is an important principle for history articles, but I am not going to push that here. The text you have quoted has a particular POV, which is OK if his POV is balanced. In this case it seems that on a point of fact his work is superseded by more recent scholarship. Itsmejudith 10:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard that the Protocols were anything but a Tsarist forgery. They were largely plagiarized from some non-anti-semitic French satires, which were, so far as I can tell, authored by political liberals. As far as I can tell, the socialist part comes up because the man many people thing was the author of the Protocols, Matvei Golovinski, was an agent provocateur for the Okhrana, and later supported the Bolsheviks. But he was, at the time, a radical right winger, and the idea that he specifically wrote it doesn't seem clear. The claim that the Protocols "came from socialist sources" is incredibly vague, and ought to be removed unless it can be clearly explained what this means. john k 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no longer in the article so it's a moot point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The point can be sourced to the US State Department if necessary (the report currently cited that mentions the EU research into antisemitic incidents).Itsmejudith 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions about reverts

OK, there are some things I should probably have raised here before adding the material from the EU report, but I'd like to raise the issues now, post-reverting.

1) I don't think it's appropriate to quote the US State Department reporting what the EU is saying when the full texts of the EU reports are available on-line. The most recent EU report is nuanced differently from the State Department report. I believe I summarised it quite fairly but probably more detail could be added.

2) the EU's Working Definition offers clear criteria to establish a borderline between legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and anti-Semitism masquerading as criticism. If that isn't relevant to the question of whether criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic, then I don't really see what is. It's been put back under "Responses", but while the investigation of the issue by the EU is a Response (to real incidents, to their discussion in the media, possibly not to the emergence of New antisemitism as a "concept" though), the Working Definition is more than just a Response; it is an important contribution to the definition of contemporary anti-Semitism and deserves a more prominent place in the article.

3) quoting the Working Definition's criteria without the concluding statement - that criticism of Israel on the same basis as criticism of any other government is legitimate - does not adequately represent the position of the EU report authors, and thus could be regarded as selective quotation.Itsmejudith 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Their response to the new outbreaks of antisemitism and the scholarly work on new antisemitism was to produce a new working definition of what counts as antisemitism. That's one of the reasons it's in the responses section; the other reason is that that section is devoted to area-specific responses. Your edit pointlessly split up the EU response.

As for the working definition, we quote it. You want to add material that is not part of the working definition.

By the way, I haven't yet checked that you've correctly quoted the sources. All I did was move the material into the appropriate section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the final sentence is part of the (draft) Working Definition. Although not bullet-pointed it is an essential part of the distinction that the EU authors make. As you can probably see, its inclusion or omission alters the whole tenor of the paragraph. Unless you have further arguments to make, which of course I would be pleased to listen to, we seem to be at stalemate on this and I think it may be appropriate to put out an RfC.Itsmejudith 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If the authors of the report had wanted it to be part of the definition, they'd have included it in the bullet points. Listen to this very carefully, please: no one, and I do mean no one, argues that criticism of Israel is, in and of itself, antisemitism. In fact, one of the examples given of the new antisemitism is that political activists on the left and far right keep raising this as a strawman argument to make Jews/Zionists/Israelis look ridiculous. So please stop implying that it might be so by including edits that suggest it needs to be refuted, and please don't decide on behalf of the European Union which sentences in their reports they really ought to have bulleted, and thank heavens we're around to correct them. They include in their definition that criticism of Israel that involves double standards is an example of antisemitism, which implies that criticism of Israel that doesn't involve double standards isn't, so what you're trying to add is anyway repetitive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If the authors of the report had wanted it to be part of the definition, they'd have included it in the bullet points. With respect, Slim, this argument doesn't make any sense. We're not compelled to leave a critical aspect of the Working Definition out of the article, merely because it wasn't included in the EU's bullet summary. If the passage is a important as Judith believes (and I'm not taking a position on this matter), it should be returned.

... and I can't see how referencing the point constitutes a strawman argument, extrapolations notwithstanding. CJCurrie 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Making a weak argument on behalf of your opponents is a straw man tactic. Reliable sources which talk about New antisemitism do not assert that "all criticism of Israel is antisemitism", but those who oppose the concept keep raising it anyway as if they do. As for the bullet points, they list the EU's definition. Something that they say is not antisemitism, of course, cannot be part of a definition of what antisemitism is. That's just simple logic. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The EUMC thought it was necessary to make this clarification; how could we decide it's not relevant? It's right there, and directly applicable to the definition and its proper interpretation.

Regarding the general points above, I think many here simply miss the point. This isn't to rebut the definition, but to clarify it. Without it, one simply has no idea exactly what the definition means; the scope is potentially limitless. This vagueness is what drives people nuts, not any explicit claim that criticizing Israel is always antisemitic. That's why an effective definition of this sort has to clarify, "This is what we're getting at, except that we don't mean this," just as it did. Without the general clarification, the definition would need to have been written completely differently. Mackan79 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Slimvirgin: "Listen to this very carefully, please: no one, and I do mean no one, argues that criticism of Israel is, in and of itself, antisemitism." Of course few argues this stance, because it is impossible to make serious arguments for it. However I've seen several people making innuendos in that direction. It is quite clear that accusations of antisemitism has been used against several people whose only "qualification " is critizisism of Israel (plus speculations of "hidden" motivation etc). This is OK so far SV, but you really get rediculous when you now are starting to argue or imply that it may be antisemitic to say that antisemitism-accusations are sometimes used to silence critisism of Israel... Because it makes zionsists etc look rediculous. Come on! pertn 09:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the latter so I don't know where you get that idea from. As for the former, no one — not "few," but no one — argues that criticism of Israel is in and of itself antisemitism, and I've never seen anyone serious, or in fact anyone at all, make "innuendos in that direction." Israel is the most self-critical society in the Middle East, as well as one of the most self-critical in the world, and clearly all Israelis can't be cast as antisemites. It's a strawman argument. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"I didn't say the latter so I don't know where you get that idea from." What did I not understand? I got it from this sentence: "In fact, one of the examples given of the new antisemitism is that political activists on the left and far right keep raising this [that some say that critisism of Israel = antisemitism] as a strawman argument to make Jews/Zionists/Israelis look ridiculous." pertn 08:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Everybody knows that every critic can't be an antisemite, but the whole question a definition like this is trying to resolve is who are the antisemites, and how can you tell? That's the vexing question. When the definition says, essentially, "An antisemite is something more than this but less than this," you can't just cut off the second part. If not for its relevance, after all, why else did they say it? Mackan79 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The EU working definition is listed in bulleted points. We repeat what they are. No commentary is needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the bullet points but completes the bullet points to make the whole definition. Otherwise, why did the UK parliamentary inquiry include this sentence when they quoted the definition? They obviously thought it was relevant and so should we. As for "no-one" says that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, well I would agree that no-one who was seriously engaged in the debate would make such an argument. But it surfaces, for example, in letters to the newspapers. It can easily be shown that this idea is frequently referred to. It may well be a straw man argument but it is one that sources engage with. If they are misguided in doing so, then that is their problem. It is not up to us to define the terms of the debate, only to reflect it.Itsmejudith 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, isn't the source cited here actually the wrong one? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the correct one is here [5]. As it makes clear, the working definition isn't limited to the bullet points, but in fact is reflected in the entire document. The relevant part then provides five examples of potential antisemitism and one counter-example (of course, you wouldn't bullet a single point anyway). Is this a matter of space, or what? With all due respect, the EUMC clearly didn't see it as just a straw man, but as necessary for achieving some kind of clarity of scope. Mackan79 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this quote interesting from Abraham Foxman [6],

Foxman insists that he is not opposed to criticism of Israel. "In every public forum," he says, "I'm always careful to say that criticism of the state of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic." But "is not necessarily" implies "is possibly," and what this really means is "it's usually so."

In a way, I think it proves both of our points: Nobody says any criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but it's still a point which requires clarification, straw man or not. Mackan79 16:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that Foxman is only used in this article by critics of the concept, who like to wave him around to prove their own points. He isn't used in this article to actually support the concept; more scholarly sources are used instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I simply thought it was interesting that even Foxman would say he always clarifies that criticizing Israel isn't necessarily antisemitic. It suggests there's a greater reason for doing so than erecting straw men for ridicule, which obviously isn't Foxman's intent -- or the EUMC's for that matter either. In the end, I'd think the only real question must be what the EUMC thought was appropriate and relevant, though, since that's who we're quoting. When they list 5 examples and one counter-example, I don't see how one possibly omits the counter-example, which is directly applicable.

Simply to your concern, though, it's quite possible the EUMC's intent was actually to prevent anti-Zionists from even trying with the straw man. By making the clarification, you preempt that whole defense. Mackan79 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Single Sentence Lead

Slim, I think the lead as is is problematic. First, New Antisemitism is not accurately summarized in a paragraph as "the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism. [1]" It's a theory (or possibly a series of theories) regarding such a resurgence, and a theory directly and very much tied to the relationship between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. I understand there are issues to reconcile here, but I'm pretty sure a single sentence paragraph trying to distill New Antisemitism isn't the way to do it. (Comare Zionism, with four completely different ideas in the lead paragraph). Mackan79 14:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Zionism is actually a good example. Wouldn't it be problematic to split the first sentence into its own paragraph? I think the response would be "of course you can't do that; the essential information has to go in the first paragraph." Mackan79 14:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. The lead is a compromise agreed after a discussion lasting several months and then mediation, and the sentence you mention is accurate. There is no alternative concept. This is the concept of an international resurgence etc and acceptance of antisemitic etc coming from three political directions etc. There isn't any other such concept, and that it is a concept is a fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not a single-sentence lead. It's three paragraphs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How can whether something is a concept or not be a fact? To be a concept an idea has to have conceptual coherence. And the definition of new antisemitism is still fluid, and some authors, cited in the article, dispute that it has any utility. So its status as a concept is a matter of opinion, not fact.Itsmejudith 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your source for saying that "to be a concept an idea has to have conceptual coherence"? That sounds to me like "to be a concept, an idea has to be a concept." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It may to some extent be the theory on that, but it's also commonly used for something much more specific. The result, then, is that some people acknowledge a resurgance of antisemitism as described in the first paragraph, but actually reject the "New Antisemitism" label as generally used. So what about them, then? They've just been defined as following a theory they thought they rejected.

Please read the first sentence carefully, and show me one serious (or otherwise) commentator who would agree with that sentence, but who rejects the concept of new antisemitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In this article,[7] The Myth of New Antisemitism, Klug seems to acknowledge an upsurge, etc, while rejecting the concept in total. I don't know if he says whether it comes from the left or right or Islam. Would he endorse the sentence? I'm not sure, but that's not really the question I'm getting at, but simply whether the first sentence gives any clear idea whether a Klug qualifies or not. I think the average, or even exceptional, person who reads the first sentence thinks, "Oh, ok, so this is a theory that antisemitism is on the rise, and moving to the left." Yet, to my knowledge, the primary debate and dividing point over "New Antisemitism" is actually whether the "new" Antisemitism is and should be described as excessive opposition to Israel. Thus, I simply think a really clear definition which really wanted people to understand what people mean by "New Antisemitism," as it is most commonly used, could better clarify the extent "New Antisemitism" posits not just an upsurge in antisemitism, or a change in direction, but a change of form as well. Mackan79 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply for comparison, I'd invite anyone to check out this definition of "Originalism". Also a contentious issue, very similar problem, but handled with extreme precision and delicacy, and by strong supporters of the theory. I actually found it to be a good lesson in parsing things out, when I found it. In any case, I don't aim to change the whole definition, which I think is basically good, but I do think combining the first two paragraphs would be better. Mostly just a thought... Mackan79 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed page move to Contemporary antisemitism

Hi, What would be the postives/negatives of renaming this article to Contemporary antisemitism? It would necesitate a number of changes in the article, but I think it would be a cleaner article once it was done. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ben, the article's about the concept of new antisemitism, and that's what most commentators call it. The expression tends to be used interchangeably with "contemporary antisemitism," but not invariably. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"New antisemitism" is a term that is largley unrelated to actual (traditional or contemporary) antisemitism so such a move would not be a good idea. // Liftarn

If this article is about the "concept" and not about the actual antisemitic acts/beliefs, does that mean that the "response" section is about the responses to this concept. It is not. It is about the responses to antisemitic acts and beliefs. Be it "New Antisemitism" or not. Hence, I believe that an encyclopedia should have an article about contemporary antisemitism and focus on the facts, antisemitic attacks, slander and beliefs. Not start with some vague concept and try to prove its existense by refering to the facts. pertn 09:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Pertn, please review WP:NOR. This article summarizes scholarly thought on the topic, as it should; articles should not be what you are proposing, that is, masses of original research based on what individual editors imagine the "facts" to be. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You do not want to understand. And you are making wild accusations and assumptions here. Why should I really care to answer? pertn 21:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I understand your most recent comment, that's true. You seem to want to gather together some set of "facts, antisemitic attacks, slander and beliefs" that you think constitute "contemporary antisemitism", which you also think are some sort of "facts", rather than a "vague concept". That is a classic example of original research. This article itself quotes scholarly sources which list a number of "facts, antisemitic attacks, slander and beliefs" that the sources attribute to "New antisemitism"; however, by quoting the examples the sources bring, rather than whatever we happen to dig up on our own, we avoid the pitfall of original research. Why should Wikipedia have an article on your personal take on "contemporary antisemitism", whatever you think that is, rather than simply quoting what reliable sources have to say about "New antisemitism"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can not see why you believe that I want to do OR here. I do not at all intend to dig up my own research. There are numerous sources doing research on antisemitism today without limiting themselves to be looking for NAS. There are also reports, statistics (commented by researchers and media) etc. To quote what these say about antisemitism today would do. Of course, the ones that do believe that NAS is a useful conccept should be included as well, and of course the concept NAS is a part of Antisemitism today. But to view modern antisemitism a priori through lenses tuned in on an imagined coupeling/conspiracy/entity of the right, the left and the arabs/muslimis is to start in the wrong end. The correct way to present antisemitism today is to start with a general article about what researchers say about antisemitism today, and then be more specific about different theories and interpretations later on. As it is now, the concept is introduced and then all kinds of data and sources is included to "prove" that NAS is a valid concept. (almost seems like OR to me) OK: To put it simply and plain so that no one misunderstands: 1: I do not propose OR, I propose an article about CAS following normap WP standards. 2: I think it is better to start with a broad article closest possible to the empirical evidence and the common ground amongst researchers. pertn 21:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is about actual antisemitism it should be in that article. If it is about "New Antisemitism" it should be here. // Liftarn

User:Liftarn, please re-read WP:SOAP. It applies to Wikipedia Talk: pages as much as it applies to articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Please read what I wrote again. It's not a hint of soapboxing in my comment, just a clearification about what the different articles are about. // Liftarn

It was a political statement about "real" antisemitism vs. "new antisemitism". Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. It was a clearification. If they were the same thing then we wouldn't need two articles, would we? "New2 antisemitism" is the concept of claiming things that are not a form of traditional antisemitism is a form of antisemitism. // Liftarn

We can have material split across three articles, if that is the best way to do it. Or we can have two articles, with a redirect from new antisemtitism to contemporary antisemitism, or vice versa. The advantage of multiple articles is that it gives a sharper focus on a specific issue. The disadvantage is duplication.

The problem I have with the current article is that it isn't clear to me what the distinction between new antisemitism and 'old' antisemitism is, or even if there is one. Some duplication is OK but when I have no way to decide what should go into new antisemitism and what should go into antisemitism, I think there's a problem. The advantage of contemporary antisemitism over new antisemitism is that it has quite a clear definition. The advantage of new antisemitism over contemporary antisemitism could be that new antisemitism is not just antisemitism in the here and now but somehow something different. That we have a history of new antisemitism suggests that a difference exists, but I don't see what that difference is.

The current introduction says that new antisemitism is "the wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks." But it then says what is different about new antisemitism is that old antisemitism "was largely associated with the political right." So I'm confused. Is it the distinguishing factor the timing, or is it more to do with the source, in which case perhaps we should be talking not about new antisemitism but about new antisemites; a new chorus singing an old song? In the introduction we mention anti-zionism in passing, but we don't make clear what the relationship between it and new antisemitism is, we just say that there is one.

The history section talks about a Soviet new anti-Semitism, and says this antisemtism was "close to its modern form". But it doesn't explain what close means. Presumably there are important ways in which it is similar and ways in which it is different, but the article doesn't explain what they are.

Further down, we seem to be equating new antisemitism with anti-zionism. Maybe this is the crux of my issues with this article. We have anti-zionism; hatred of/opposition to an jewish state. We have anti-semitism; hatred of/opposition to the jewish race (common usage. technically arabs are also semites, but lets not go there now). We can also identify anti-Israel sentiment; opposition to some or all aspects of Israel. These things all overlap, but it's hard to say that any of them are the same, or a subset of each other. For example there were jews opposed to the creation of Israel because it was man-made, not created by god. And some dislike of Israel is anti-semitic, but not all of it. The boundaries are fuzzy, but for each of these concepts there is a clear and unmistakable core. I can't say that for new-antisemtism. I can't identify what new-antisemitism is that old-antisemtism is not.

To me, new antisemitism seems to be a grab bag of an expression that mixes some different issues: 1. the apparent resurgence in antisemitism, which I suggest properly belongs at contemporary antisemitism; 2. the difficulty in distinguishing between legitimate/illegitimate criticism of israel, which I suggest belongs here, or possibly at anti-zionism; and 3. the changing nature of the anti-semite (left/right/arab/european/russian/...) which I suggest belongs at contemporary antisemitism and/or at antisemitism. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben, we publish what reliable sources publish. The issues on this page are the issues that reliable sources discuss, and they tend to use the term "new antisemitism" to describe it. Some sources do use the term "contemporary antisemitism" instead, so we don't absolutely insist that "new antisemitism" be used before material is included in this article, but it has to be clear that that's what's being discussed (i.e. the concept of a new form of antisemitism created by an inadvertent alliance between the far right, left, and Islamism, focusing on Jews as an ideological group rather than a racial or religious category, and often centering on attacks on Israel). It's a very well-known term now, with many books and papers about it, including academic ones from specialist writers, so there's no reason for Wikipedia to ignore it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with this is simply that, no matter how you slice it, putting this kind of article together requires a lot of original synthesis. We have to decide if the five scholars talking about New Antisemitism are actually talking about the same thing. We have to decide ourselves how to present it, as a unified theory, or a poorly unified theory, or as two words which simply often get used together. Or we could present it as a unified theory to some, but then as used very differently by others.

In any case, I don't think we need an article on contemporary antisemitism, because I don't think "antisemitism" is a dated term. I think it applies today as much as it applied in the past. Contemporary antisemitism should be what antisemitism is about, to the extent it isn't discussing history. My hope, thus, would simply be that there would be a little more clarity about New Antisemitism, the extent to which it means different things to different people, and then what it means to those different people, a little more like the definition of originalism. Mackan79 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"New antisemitism" isn't really about a contemporary resurgence of old-style theological or "biological" antisemitisms; those remain "old", however recently they may occur -- unless, of course, there's an apparent meeting of ideological opposites or a paradoxical convergence of long-term political enemies based on a commonality of Jew-hating (in which case it then becomes relevant to "new" style antisemitism). A move to "contemporary antisemitism" would only obscure these important distinctions... AnonMoos 00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "New antisemitism" is the proper name for this article. No other name would be appropriate. --GHcool 06:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion. This article is about the general concept of antisemitism, including the main definitions. History of antisemitism does what it should, i.e. provide a history, chronologically. Timeline of antisemitism either remains appended to History of antisemitism or becomes an article in its own right. History of antisemitism has sub-articles dealing with different periods, including for the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. New antisemitism presents all the different ways that term is used and commentary on it.Itsmejudith 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No. That would make this page indistinguishable from Antisemitism which it isn't. I'm not convinced that everything here belongs here, but this isn't the solution. Ben Aveling 10:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't an article about the term, but about the concept. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very subtle distinction. I'd hope the two are close enough that we can deal with them together. That is, I think we should be trying to talk about new-antisemitism, not about terms and concepts of new-antisemitism. I've adjusted the intro accordingly. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben, if we remove the word "concept," we leave the impression that Wikipedia is saying there definitely is such a thing as new antisemitism. It was for that reason that the mediator suggested we make clear that we're talking about the concept, and leave open whether the concept refers to anything in the world. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The cost is that the whole thing becomes very abstract. What if, instead of talking about 'the concept of new antisemitism' as something that may or may not exist, we talk about new antisemitism as something that definetly exists but has unclear boundaries. That is, we say "This is what new antisemitism looks like. If certain critics are right, there are no instances of new antisemitism." How would something like this sound as an introduction?

deindent

New antisemitism is an alleged international resurgence of antisemitism and the mainstream acceptance both of antisemitic beliefs and of the legitimacy of their public expression. New antisemitism differs from classical antisemitism in that classical antisemites tend to be from the 'right',whereas new-antisemitism comes from three political directions: the 'left', 'far-right', and Islamism.

New-antisemitism overlaps with anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland. The boundary between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel is often disputed, and there are charges that the expression new-antisemitism is a tool to deligitimise valid criticism.

Allegations of new-antisemitism escalated in Western Europe and world-wide in the aftermath of the Second Intifada, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks.

reindent

I've tried to talk about it as a real thing, the extent of which is debated, rather than as some abstract concept. I've dropped the refs only to make it easier for me to see the whole while I was editing. Presumably, some or all of them would still be required.

The bigfoot article starts by saying bigfoot probably doesn't exist, but this is what people believe. And then it talks about bigfoot. I suggest we take a similar approach. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Largely, though, it is a concept. I'm pretty sure you have to say that. Often the phrase is used as a term of art, to invoke a new kind of antisemitism: antisemitism characterized by attacking things related to Jews rather than Jews themselves as per the old Right. Of course, this is what then becomes so controversial, because critics of Israel who feel they have legitimate motivations see it as insulting and stymying the debate ("People of goodwill who support the Palestinians resent being falsely accused of being anti-Semites," from Brian Klug in the article).

At the same time, others potentially do use the phrase simply as the general discussion of contemporary antisemitism, or to describe a general resurgence. I have a hard time understanding this, because I think the word for that would be "contemporary," not "new," which implies not just more or different people, but an actual change in antisemitism. In any case, you can't just get rid of "concept," because to most people it is a concept, which others don't like. (My problem remains that referring to New Antisemitism as simply the concept of a "resurgence" on the left is also inaccurate, for failing to note that most people mean something more specific, and specifically a change in form [or perhaps more accurately a change in appearance]). Mackan79 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben, the problem is that some commentators, including some serious ones, disagree with your suggestion that: "new antisemitism ... exists but has unclear boundaries." They tend to argue (a) that it doesn't exist as a new form of antisemitism, but is just the same old thing; or (b) that it doesn't exist at all and has been entirely invented as a way of protecting Israel from criticism; or (c) that it does exist and is indeed a new form bigotry, but that it has an unclear relationship to antisemitism and shouldn't be given that name.

We therefore can't introduce the article by stating as a fact that there's such a thing as new antisemitism. All we can say is that there's such a thing as the concept of it, and then we explain who says what about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it also true, though, that "New Antisemitism" means different things to different people? This is what I find misleading about the first sentence, which suggests there's just one concept with clearly established boundaries. When this isn't true, my feeling is we should note the lack of clarity, so people aren't so confused. I haven't come up with a great way to do this, but I think it exists. As is, the lead basically presents it as a broad theory for which different people provide different evidence, when really I think they're actually distinct topics under one name. Mackan79 21:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Mackan here. Slim, what you say has some truth - there is a great deal of disagreement about what "new antisemitism" is, or even if it exists at all. But I don't think the answer to that is to change the page into Discussion of current understandings of the concept of new antisemtism. I'd rather that, given that new antisemitism is unclear, we speak clearly about this lack of clarity. Much as Mackan suggests, what if we start the article with "New antisemitism can refer to any of the following: .... " ? Or even "The expression "new antisemitism" has been used to ...." Would that allow us to give the reader an understanding of what is and isn't known about "new antisemtism"? (Just to put my POV on the table, I'm personally of the mind that new-antisemitism is a syndrome, in the medical sense of the word, that is, a bunch of symptoms that tend to occur together often enough that everyone is reasonably confident that a relationship exists, even if no-one knows what that connection is. i.e. It's real, even if it does sometimse get used to stiffle legitimate criticism. What I'm not convinced of is that it differs in any important way from old antisemitism.) Regards, Ben Aveling 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, do you have a source showing that it means different things to different people? (By "people," I assume you mean reliable sources, because we don't care about anything else.) You implied elsewhere that the only thing you've read about new antisemitism is this article, so I'm wondering where you're taking your information from. All the sources I've read are referring to the same set of criteria, though different sources emphasize different aspects. But the first sentence is what they have in common: resurgence of ... coming from three political directions ...

Ben, we publish what the sources say. That's all we do. The view that it's not that different from the old antisemitism is in the article. But we can't come down on that, or any other, side. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm heading out the door, but I just want to say again that I never implied that, as I already told you.[8] I've certainly encountered the term, although I'll acknowledge I'm mostly familiar with the debate itself rather than the specific term. But as you say, this article is about the concept, not just the term, and the concept is broadly discussed, and broadly relevant. Finding the article, I've read several more articles on the term specifically, which I think make the disparity pretty clear, and I'll bring next time... Mackan79 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So which of the books or papers have you read, and which ones imply that different sources mean different things? Also, at the risk of repeating myself a thousand times, we're not talking about the use of the term, but about the idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so Brian Klug says "The claim that I am criticizing is not that there is a new outbreak of 'old' antiSemitism but that there is an outbreak of anti-Semitism of a new kind." [9] I think this supports my claim that NA, per its proponents, isn't just about an increase or different source, but also a change in form. That's actually my main point. (Mackan79, continued below)

Klug has updated his position since The Nation article. His latest position is, as we say:

"[A]lthough it is true that the new antisemitism incorporates the idea that anti-Semitism is hostility to Jews as Jews, the source of the hostility has changed; therefore, to continue using the same expression for it — antisemitism — causes confusion. Today's hostility to Jews as Jews is based on the Arab-Israeli conflict, not on ancient European fantasies. Israel proclaims itself as the state of the Jewish people, and many Jews align themselves with Israel for that very reason. It is out of this alignment that the hostility to Jews as Jews arises, rather than hostility to Israelis or to Zionists. Klug agrees that it is a prejudice, because it is a generalization about individuals; nevertheless, he argues, it is "not rooted in the ideology of 'the Jew'," and is therefore a different phenomenon from antisemitism.

The problem with calling this new prejudice "new antisemitism" is that it gives the impression of an ideological continuum from religious to racial to "new" antisemitism. Klug writes that religious antisemitism mutated into racial antisemitism, and that the latter was clearly a variation on a pre-existing theme. Not so with the new phenomenon, he argues, which has entirely different origins and content. It is not a mutation of an existing virus, but "a brand new 'bug'." [10] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But isn't that my point, that New Antisemitism is different in kind, and related specifically to Israel? Currently, the first paragraph doesn't actually say that. I feel like that point could be made, hopefully without harming previous compromises.Mackan79 21:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Klug's an opponent. The first para introduces what people say the concept is, not what they say it isn't. The key to the concept is the unholy alliance of left, far right, and Islamism. That is what all the academic sources say; that is what they perceive as the essential difference between NAS and traditional antisemitism. That some or many on the left are involved because of anti-Zionism is secondary to the fact that they are involved. It is the relationship between these political factions, in agreement over Israel but in no other area, that's seen both as historically significant and as something that is very threatening, dangerous, to Jews. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise, I was simply conceding that NA may also be used more broadly, thus explaining our first sentence as it currently is. In any case, I've found support for both points: 1). That many people think New Antisemitism is explicitly about anti-Zionism, and 2). At the same time, others describe it more generally.

• Mortimer Zuckerman: "But since this new anti-Semitism manifests itself so clearly now as political rejection of the Jewish state, it is worth examining the historical record for a moment." [11] (This one basically supports the status quo.)
• Phyllis Chessler: "What's new is that Jew-hatred (disguised as anti-Zionism) has itself become ‘politically correct’ among these so-called intellectuals. They have one standard for Israel: an impossibly high one. Meanwhile, they set a much lower standard for every other country, even for nations in which tyranny, torture, honor killings, genocide, and every other human rights abuse go unchallenged. // Today anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism." [12]
• The "New Antisemitism": A volatile mix of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hostility, from the World Jewish Congress [13]
• Elyakim Rubinstein: “This brings me to my final and very painful point. It has unfortunately become in vogue, among the "chattering classes", to speak about, excuse and even understand "anti-Zionism". This is the new antisemitism, which is basically anti-Israel, covered by a guise.”[14]
• Frank Dimant: “Irwin concisely describes the new antisemitism which manifests itself as a diabolical representation of the State of Israel and a systemic methodology that makes Israel into an outcast and pariah among the nations.”[15]
• Victor David Hanson: "A recent third type of anti-Jewish odium is something different. It is a strange mixture of violent hatred by radical Islamists and the more or less indifference to it by Westerners." (Also supports status quo.) [16]
• Craig Horowitz: “The new p.c. anti-Semitism mixes traditional blame-the-Jews boilerplate with a fevered opposition to Israel. In this worldview, the ‘Zionist entity’ has no legitimacy and as a result no right to do what other nations do, like protect itself and its citizens.” The Return of Antisemitism [17]
• Natan P.F. Kellermann: “One would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to recognize that this hate of Israel is profoundly anti-Semitic. Such hostile sentiments, sometimes disguised as a 'legitimate' critique of Israeli politics, has been called the "new" anti-Semitism.”[18]
• Jerome A. Chanes: “Analysis of the ‘new’ antisemitism deserves more than the blanket assertion: ‘It comes from radical Islam and haters of Israel.‘ Indeed, the position that anti-Israelism needs to be distinguished from antisemitism, whatever the antisemitic motivation of some Israelophobes, derives from a geo-political analysis of the contemporary phenomenon that goes beyond reiterating the ‘Muslims-hate-us’ palaver." [19]

So some of these probably aren't reliable sources, but others are. I think they show a pretty clear pattern: people using "New Antisemitism" as a term specifically for the increased criticism and alleged demonization of Israel. Still, others do use the term more broadly (See Hanson, and others I didn't quote).

Finally, we have the summary on Antisemitism: "New antisemitism or 'modern political antisemitism', coming simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, which mixes opposition to Zionism and a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel, with racial motifs associated with previous forms of antisemitism. [2][3][4][5][6]" Isn't this more accurate? Basically I feel like we could add a second sentence to the first paragraph at least, to make this second part more clear, which I think would prevent a lot of confusion. Mackan79 20:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd be better using the sources in our article, or those listed in Further reading, than the ones you've cited; we've used academics as far as possible. I don't know how we'd benefit from adding the racial motifs thing. Not everyone would agree that they're "racial" motifs, and the sentence about "the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse" more or less covers the motifs idea. As for the rest, it's already in the lead. I honestly don't see exactly what you want to add or why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I use sources from the article, you kind of accuse me of not reading anything else... Anyway, it wasn't the racial motifs part I wanted, but the part about Israel. I'm simply saying there seems to be a near-concensus that NA isn't just indicated by the surge in anti-Zionism, but actually specifically refers to that surge in Anti-Zionism. As Klug puts it, you now have three types: prejudicing Jews for religious reasons, racial reasons, or political/Israel reasons. Some would certainly suggest they're all covers for a hatred of some other origin, but in any case, I'd think the lead should still note the relationship, which is really at the very heart of the concept, isn't it?

I guess the simplest way to fix this would be something like this: "New antisemitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on the State of Israel and [other] Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism." That might do the trick, actually, or something similar. What do you think? I'm not 100% sure that would fix the problem; I'll have to give it a little more thought. Mackan79 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know, and I will keep thinking on this too. What I do want to say is that this conversation has been really interesting, and I think it might be leading somewhere good. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Flannery section

I have decided to remove this paragraph from the article:

In The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, Father Edward H. Flannery writes that, because most of the spectacular displays of antisemitism have come from the right — for example, Czarist pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, and Adolf Hitler — it has blinded onlookers to what he calls an "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left," quoting Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin who write: "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism." Flannery writes that it came as no surprise to historians of the left that, as William D. Rubinstein wrote in 1978: "Today, the main enemies of the Jews and Israel are almost exclusively on the left, most obviously the Communist states, the radical Third World anti-Zionist nations and their sympathizers in the West." Flannery argues that "all the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St Simon, were bitter antisemites," arguing that Marx and Engels took much of what Flannery calls their antisemitism from Proudhon, Bauer, Fourier, Toussenel, and Fichte. Flannery writes that in 1891, the Second International Socialist Congress refused to condemn antisemitism without also condemning philosemitism. He cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a "single word on behalf of Jews" in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920. The link between antisemitism and the ideology of the left is "not accidental," Flannery argues, because Judaism stresses nationality, peoplehood, or religious commitment; extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are "almost by definition incompatible."

There are several reasons why this paragraph does not meet the standards of encyclopedic inclusion. I've explained my reasons in detail, and have provided sub-headers for the benefit of readers.

I would request that anyone who wishes to respond please do so after the end of this post.

Sorry, it's too much to remember. I'll have to respond in between paras. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You could have just cut-and-pasted, you know. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevance to the NAS article

The parts of Flannery's book referenced in this paragraph relate to a supposed "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left". Leaving aside the accuracy or inaccuracy of this charge, Flannery's evidence is not relevant to the concept of a "new antisemitism".

The problems of defining "new antisemitism" have been raised many times in discussions concerning this article, such that it may be impossible to find a definition that satisfies everyone. The term is currently defined on the article page as referring to the concept of a recent convergence of antisemitic thought and action involving three distinct ideologies: the far right, the left, and radical Islam. Previous versions of the article suggested that it was primarily a concept applied to the left, and specifically to the New Left. Some authors have used the term primarily in reference to radical Islam, while others have used it in a different sense, synonymous with "contemporary antisemitism".

Notwithstanding their differences, however, these definitions are linked by a common theme: they all refer to perceived developments in contemporary history. The excerpted portions of Flannery's text do not.

"NAS" is not defined as "antisemitism of the left", nor is it defined in terms of a linear progression of historical events dating back to the 19th century (which would be an absurdity for a "new" concept.) The fact that Proudhon and Fourier were antisemites is relevant to studies of Proudhon and Fourier, but not to the concept of a "new antisemitism". Similarly, the 1891 resolution of the Second International may or may not be relevant to a history of 19th century antisemitism, but it is clearly irrelevant to this page.

It is defined in part as an antisemitism of the left, and some commentators focus almost exclusively on this aspect of it. [20] The Flannery material indicates that this is not new, and it provides a background to the development of the concept, as do the other sources in that section. Why single out Flannery? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the fact that Flannery posits a connection between *19th century* socialism and modern antisemitism, which is clearly beyond the range of this article. (Seriously, has anyone else tried to claim *Proudhon and Fourier* as spiritual heirs to "NAS".) I could add in passing that Flannery's "continuous line" ignores a long period when Left groups supported Zionism as a national liberation movement. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, you do realize what WP:NOR and WP:V are about? Flannery is a reliable source, and that's his view; it's not up to you to reject him because your personal analysis of history differs from his. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Source credibility

There are two editions of Edward Flannery's "The Anguish of the Jews". The first was published in 1965 by Macmillan Press. The second was issued in 1985 by Stimulus Books, a division of the Paulist Press (which mostly publishes Catholic devotional material). Copyright in the latter is owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence. There are significant differences between these books, and some sections (including the text referenced above) appear only in the second.

The original edition was released by a respected firm, and is recognized as being a work of scholarly merit. The second version was issued by a religious press, and there is some reason to believe that it may not have been adequately vetted (see below).

The circumstances of the Second Edition's publication can't help but draw into question its reliability as a source. (Are we really to be surprised that a book issed by the Catholic Church at the height of the Cold War would include sections attacking socialism?)

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Flannery was the author of both editions. He is our source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

One edition was published by a credible source, the other was effectively self-published through a religious organization. I'm sorry you can't see the difference. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Flannery is a reliable source, and of course what is relevant are his most recent views, not his earlier views. Again, your personal views about possible errors in Flannery's analysis are pure original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Flannery's comments on the relationship between antisemitism and socialism underwent a significant transformation between 1965 and 1985.

Consider the following statement from the 1965 edition:

Toussenel ranks high among the high priests of so-called Socialist anti-Semitism, which enlisted in varying degrees such names as Pierre Proudhon, Karl Marx, Bruno Bauer, and lesser lights, all of whom trained their guns on Jewish "unproductiveness," "parasitism," and the like. The association of Socialism with anti-Semitism was unsubstantial, however, and did not survive the condemnation of the anti-Semitic movement by the International Socialist Congress of 1891. After this, anti-Semitism became quite consistently a phenomenon of conservatism or the anti-democratic right. (p. 176)

Now, consider this revised statement from 1985:

Toussenel ranks high among the high priests of socialist antisemitism, which enlisted in varying degrees such names as Pierre Proudhon, Karl Marx, Bruno Bauer, and lesser lights, all of whom trained their guns on Jewish "unproductiveness", "parasitism," and the like. The association of Socialist with antisemitism came to an end officially with the condemnation of the antisemitic movement at the International Socialist Congress of 1891, but this did not spell its end in socialist reality. On the other hand, increasingly and more consistently antisemitism became an attribute of conservatism and the anti-democratic right. (p. 177)

It would be interesting to speculate on the reasons for this change, and particularly on whether or not it had anything to do with increased criticism of Israel from the Left after 1967. One way or the other, it seems inappropriate for us to reference Flannery's 1985 comments on antisemitism and socialism without drawing his 1965 comments into the picture in some way.

You're engaged in OR. This is what the author wrote, period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is that we shouldn't convey Flannery's 1985 argument without also conveying his 1965 argument. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. His views may have evolved, but you can't use original research to try to revert his most current views, based on earlier works. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've argued that we should provide *both* statements, or neither. And, anyway, the 1985 edition is demonstrably less reliable than the 1965 edition. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrably poor scholarship

Most of the cited text is taken from two paragraphs on p. 274 of Flannery's 1985 edition:

Antisemitism is generally considered by both Jews and non-Jews to be a phenomenon of the Right. And certainly in modern times its most spectacular displays, exemplified by Czarist pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, Hitler, and chauvinistic demagogues, have tended to justify that interpretation. But this view has tended to eclipse the fact that there has been an uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left.[33] It should not, further, obscure the recrudescence of leftist antisemitism that has developed since the rebirth of the State of Israel. Indeed at present leftist "anti-Zionism" predominates on the antisemitic spectrum - a spectrum running leftward from liberal to socialist to radical to Communist. Prager and Telushkin put the matter succinctly: "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism."[34] W.D. Rubenstein is no less direct: "Today, the main enemies of the Jews and Israel are almost exclusively on the left, most obviously the Communist states, the radical Third World anti-Zionist nations and their sympathizers in the West."[35]

This development comes as no surprise to historians of leftist ideology. From its inception socialist thought took on an antisemitic turn. All the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St. Simon, were bitter antisemites. Marx learned much of his own antisemitism from Proudhon, Bauer, Fourier, Toussenel, Fichte, and others, as did also Engels. The Protocols came from socialist sources. In 1891, the Second International Socialist Congress refused to condemn antisemitism without condemning philosemitism at the same time. During the Dreyfus affair socialist leaders refused to counter the rightist attack on the Jewish army officer. Historian Zosa Szajkowski, writing in 1947 after a close study of French socialist literature, concluded that he could not find a single word on behalf of the Jews in the whole of that literature from 1820 to 1920. [36]

There are a number of problems here.

Szajkowski

There is one (1) footnote for the second paragraph:

See Zosa Szajkowski, "The Jewish Saint-Simonians and Socialist Antisemitism in France" in Jewish Social Studies, January, 1947, cited in Prager and Telushkin, op. cit., p. 142.

It's a shame that Flannery didn't take the time to check the original source. If he had, he might have discovered this statement: "In quoting only the antisemitic pronouncements of the French socialists, before Edouard Drumont, the writer may be suspected of having ignored the pro-Jewish sentiments. In order to ally any such suspicion, the writer wishes therefore to say explicitly that his efforts to find sympathetic references to Jews in the French socialist literature, from Saint-Simon to the date of Drumont's first appearance, have been futile" (p. 60) Drumont's first appearance was in 1886.

Flannery might have also discovered the following statement, had he looked up the original essay: "It was not until antisemitism had joined hands with the "Boulangist" reaction (1889) that some socialist groups have become aware of the danger and started to fight against antisemitism" (p. 59; tense error in original). He certainly wouldn't have made his lunatic suggestion that Szajkowski found not "a single word on behalf of the Jews" in French socialist literature before *1920*, nor would he have suggested the "all the progenitors of socialist theory, with the exception of St. Simon, were bitter antisemites".

(I should add that Szajkowski's essay is an erudite scholarly piece, and deserves a better legacy than being used to prop up Father Flannery's efforts to malign the Left as antisemitic. An interesting fact I learned from the essay is that Fourier apparently concealed his antisemitism behind facetious support for a plan to move Europe's Jews en masse to Palestine.)

Dreyfus

During the Dreyfus affair socialist leaders refused to counter the rightist attack on the Jewish army officer.

This statement is profoundly misleading. It's true that the "integral" faction of French socialism didn't participate in the campaign to exonerate Dreyfus (see Szajkowski, p. 59), but someone of Flannery's experience must surely have known that *most* French socialist leaders were active Dreyfusards. For him to suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and for *us* to repeat this suggestion is profoundly unencyclopedic.

Protocols

On the subject of lunatic suggestions, may I assume that no one reviewing this page is willing to defend Flannery's unreferenced suggestion that "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources?

Summary

In light of these errors, I do not believe that the 1985 edition of Flannery's book should be considered a reliable source for the history of "new antisemitism".

I see that SlimVirgin didn't respond to this section. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. You continue to engage in original research in your efforts to refute Flannery's work. However, Flannery is a reliable source; you, on the other hand, are an anonymous Wikipedia editor. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it, and I suspect that you're not taking the process seriously. How on earth is it possible for you to twist "OR" and "V" to suggest that we should present Flannery's demonstrably false statements as fact? CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're engaged in OR. Please read the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have (read it), and I'm not. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise, if you can. CJCurrie 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Probable misrepresentation

Our summary describes Prager and Telushkin as having written, "The further Left one goes, the greater the antisemitism." This comment is presented in isolation, and without further clarification as to their intentions. The effect may be to have readers believe Prager and Telushkin were referring to a "left to right" spectrum. To judge from Flannery's remarks, however, it appears more likely that they were referring to a "left to *centre*" spectrum.

Unfortunately, I was not able to obtain a copy of Prager and Telushkin's book before writing my comments. I suspect, however, that the current edit may be a distortion of their true intentions. I am not suggesting that this was deliberate.

This is all your original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's my evaluation of the way Flannery presents the source. The current article statement is for all intents and purposes a selective half-quote. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, more original research attempts to refute Flannery's work. Where has your refutation been published? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it. I don't need to publish a refutation to justify *removing* an unreliable source from the article. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sliding definitions

Flannery's statement that "Extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are almost by definition incompatible" is not relevant to this article. Opposition to "traditional Judaism" is not, in and of itself, generally recognized as sufficient proof of antisemitism, let alone of "new antisemitism". (Are secular Jews who reject their religious backgrounds automatically considered antisemites? Of course not. For that matter, are Reform Jews who reject Kashrut considered antisemites? Of course not.)

He writes: "Extreme leftist ideologies and traditional Judaism are almost by definition incompatible." He doesn't say that opposition to traditional Judaism must be antisemitism; nor is not keeping kosher opposition to Judaism. This is all your own opinion, CJC, and you're slipping and sliding between topics making category errors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If he's not saying it's antisemitism, then why are we including it in this article? CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be possible to incorporate Flannery's statements on the Left and particularism into the article, but I doubt there's any compelling need to do this in light of his credibility issues on other fronts.

Summary

For all of these reasons, it is clear to me that the Flannery paragraph is not encyclopedic, and needs to be removed from the article. It may be possible to restore Rubinstein's quote at some point in the future, but only if we reference the original source.

I've put a fair bit of time into researching these matters. I trust that any editor who wishes to restore the Flannery paragraph will review my comments, and address my arguments.

Please add your comments after this line. CJCurrie 06:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

• CJC, you've done everything possible since you started editing this article to remove references to left-wing antisemitism. It's unseemly, it's wrong-headed, and it's pointless. There's a lot of it around, and increasingly so; every week more articles are published about it. You're swimming against the tide trying to pretend it doesn't exist. Flannery provides some background indicating that it's nothing new. This will give the reader an interesting context within which to study the development of the concept of NAS, and we're here to provide exactly that kind of background material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Slim, whoever doubted that there was some antisemitism on the left? I've never objected to actual left-wing antisemitism being highlighted in this article, as appropriate. What I'm opposing is an attempt to use flawed scholarship to suggest a "continuous line" of antisemitism dominating the left. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please note: Itsmejudith's next post is a response to my original statement, not to SlimVirgin. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, as you would expect. Since Flannery's book was first published in 1965 it cannot be relevant to the definition in the second paragraph of the article, that NAS is the upsurge in antisemitism after 2001. It seems to me, again, that we need good articles on the History of antisemitism in the 19th century, to which the Flannery comments cited here seem to apply, History of antisemitism in the 20th century and History of antisemitism in the 21st century.Itsmejudith 09:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an impressive and well-researched argument, CJ. I fully concur with your conclusions here. john k 21:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with continual attempts to bury antisemitism from the left. It astonishes me that the history section can contain statements from Pierre-André Taguieff regarding antisemitism from the left following the 1967 Six-Day War, a whole long section about Forster and Epstein's 1974 book (inserted only so that the "famous scholar" - i.e. anti-Zionist polemicist Allen Brownfeld can insert his own political views attempting to refute the concept), statements from Robert Wistrich Abba Eban in the 1980s regarding the phenomenon, etc., yet people here can still claim that it is all about "the upsurge in antisemitism after 2001", and attempt to exclude Flannery on those grounds. Why was there no objection when the Brownfeld material about books in the 1970s was inserted, yet Flannery's material is somehow too early? If those who object to the concept want to be taken seriously, they must start reading the article, reading ALL the relevant material, and editing with the intent of elucidating, not obfuscating. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• • There's a bit of a difference between the 1970s and the 19th century, Jay. Meanwhile, I see you haven't actually responded to any of my arguments. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you want to look at it like that then there was even more left-wing anti-semitism in the 19th century. This is due to the fact that during the period of the great European empires the dominant left-wing ideology was essentially various forms of nationalism. We all know how tolerant they can be.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • They've already been responded to; in a nutshell, your original research regarding sources doesn't really trump WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Have you read my initial comments, Jay? CJCurrie 05:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes. Have you read WP:NOR and WP:V? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, and I've presented evidence that Flannery's 1985 edition is not a reliable source. You've ignored it, and I don't believe that you're taking the process seriously. "NOR" was never meant to be used as a justification for retaining obviously unsuitable material. CJCurrie 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
            • You're engaged in your own original research in order to denigrate a source that you disagree with. If Flannery had been writing about right-wing antisemitism, you wouldn't bat an eyelid about him being used. Please read the content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I've read the policies, and they don't apply here. If I were trying to submit information *on an article page* that Flannery's source is unreliable, then I'd be in violation of NOR ... but there's nothing in the policy that prevents me from *removing* information on the grounds that the source is unreliable. And stop the personal abuse, please. CJCurrie 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Of course NOR applies. You're imposing on the source your own opinion of the issues, then trying to rule the source out on that basis. The point is that left-wing antisemitism is a major part of NAS, and so in the history section we give some information about what people have said about the existence of left-wing antisemitism prior to the emergence of the concept. Flannery is one the best known writers on the history of AS, and so we use him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Isn't there a little humor in accusing somebody of "engaging" in original research? And to mean by that, when somebody looks through a source and finds it actually says something else? I'm pretty sure this situation needs a comic more than it needs a debate... Mackan79 19:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Indeed. I can't believe this is even being raised as a serious argument. (Meanwhile, I will reiterate the "NAS" is *not* "a history of left-wing antisemitism", and the material on Fourier, Proudhon et al is completely irrelevant.) CJCurrie 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • In your opinion, it is completely irrelevant. You must write to the publishers of the book to complain. In the meantime, we have chosen a classic history of antisemitism from which to quote a few points about the author's view on the background to leftwing antisemitism, which he concludes is no surprise because the values of traditional Judaism and the values of the far left are, in his opinion, incompatible. It doesn't matter whether you agree. It doesn't matter whether you think he's a lunatic. His book is well known in antisemitism studies, and that is what he says. Period. And the history of NAS is very much related to the history of leftwing antisemitism. I know this makes you shudder, but left-wing antisemitism is the major aspect of the NAS concept. As long as I've seen you editing here, you've never understood that neither the article nor its talk page are the place for your personal opinions and original research. If you have other arguments against the inclusion of that paragraph, I'm willing to listen to them, or if you think it should be written differently, or shortened or whatever, but that you don't like what he says is not a reason to remove it. Or if Mel comes up with an argument against, I'll abide by his decision. But I can't listen to you try for the thousandth time to get rid of a source because you want to protect the left from allegations of antisemitism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
                      • Slim, Edward Flannery's *1965* book is a classic history of antisemitism. His 1985 "updated version" is a unreliable and unworthy follow-up, which wasn't even published by an accredited firm. You're playing on confusion between the two editions to keep flawed, unreliable and in at least one case *false* information included the article. Btw, I didn't say *Flannery* was a lunatic: I said that two of his assertions were sheer lunacy (and I stand by this). I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks, but I'll reiterate that the views of early 19th century socialists are irrelevant to this article. I maintain that any fair-minded, uninvolved party will agree with my conclusions. Cheers, CJCurrie 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

May I please reiterate my request that any editor who wishes to restore the Flannery paragraph please review my comments, and address my arguments. CJCurrie 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm truly baffled as to how to interpret this: [21]. CJCurrie 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you that you think you should be allowed to delete whatever you want prior to discussion, but everyone else MUST discuss before they restore it? I'm sure it's no cooincidence that you want to get rid of someone who talks about the "uninterrupted strain of antisemitism on the Left." Please stop being so predictable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I took the time to prepare a detailed explanation of why the Flannery section is inappropriate for the article. I avoided personal abuse, and focused on evidence. Could you please do the same, if you want the section returned?

And to answer your question, I deleted the section because it obviously didn't meet the standard for inclusion, in light of my investigations. Do you honestly think it should be returned? CJCurrie 09:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You posted your explanation of the deletion one minute before removing the material i.e. prior to any discussion. Could you explain why you feel you are allowed to do this, but others must discuss before restoring it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Slim, I think this we're getting a bit off-track. I'm "entitled" to remove material that's obviously unsuitable for the article, and I've explained in detail why I made that decision in this instance. If entitlement is the issue, I could just as easily ask why you initially included the paragraph with no prior discussion.

The question we should be addressing is the following: does the Flannery material belong in the article? So far, you have not addressed any of my arguments. CJCurrie 09:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not getting off track. If you're entitled to remove without discussion, others are entitled to restore and ask you to discuss it first. Do not remove it again until there has been a proper discussion about it, because there are people who disagree with you. Practise what you preach, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, have you read my original comments? CJCurrie 09:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't because they're so long, but if you stop reverting, I'll read them and try to address your points, and then perhaps we could try to have a civilized discussion instead of the usual reverting and carping. I know it sounds unlikely but I live in hope. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to leave the Flannery paragraph on the page for as long as another day, if you promise to read my comments during that time. I'm not at all impressed that you would restore the paragraph three times without so much as reviewing my arguments. CJCurrie 10:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not impressed that you think it's okay to keep on removing something over objections. If you post material as lengthy as you have, in fairness you have to allow people a few days to read and respond to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read my comments fairly, you'll understand why it would be inappropriate to leave the paragraph in place for that long. CJCurrie 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• For now I'll say this: based on what I've seen, I can't go as far as calling Flannery completely irrelevant, since it does speak to the debate about whether "New Antisemitism" is actually new. The conflict between the two editions, though, seems a much more serious issue. To that, I'll simply say the the two things which particularly raise flags for me are the "The further left the more antisemitism" statement, and the "Nobody could find a positive word" statement, simply because they're little rhetorical bombshells, presented offhand, and both two degrees from the original context. In that situation, I think you can present an individual's general argument, but you shouldn't quote little snippets of highly controversial evidence in a way that obscures the original meaning (left of center or left of right or what? As CJ nicely points out). Other than that, I wouldn't insist on removing everything, but I think CJ makes a good case that the whole thing needs an update, which may well make it unsuitable. Mackan79 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree that the paragraph should be removed. CJ has made a detailed case (talk page original research of the very best kind) for why the 1985 edition is not an RS. The only attempted rebuttal to this has been the claim that "Flannery was the author of both editions. He is our source." This is sophistry. Reliable-source status is not a permanent and inalienable endowment of biographical persons; it arises from a configuration of factors surrounding the publication of any given material (as anyone who's ever tried to cite material from a prominent person's blog, for example, will know very well). Flannery hasn't taken a swan-dive into intellectual ignominy á la David Irving, but he does appear to have untethered himself from the rigors of vetted scholarship and dropped gently into the bosom of a religious press, where he is free to enjoy the languors of self-publication and make grotesque farm-league errors of the sort CJ catalogues. Until we see a serious rebuttal to CJ on this point, the 1985 edition is out. As for the 1965 edition, for us to imply and endorse the explanatory relevance of a book published two years before the earliest postulated appearance of the phenomenon under discussion – ! – is article-page original research of the very worst kind.--G-Dett 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To Slim and Jay

I notice that neither one of you has directly addressed my arguments concerning the unsuitability of Flannery's arguments to this article. That's unfortunate, but not entirely surprising. What I find a bit more troubling is that neither of you has made any efforts to even *correct* the paragraph, based on what I've written. In its current form, the article presents Flannery's flawed scholarship as though it were accurate and credible. This is clearly unacceptable.

Seriously, does either of you honestly believe that a neutral editor (Mel Etitis, for instance, or Jmabel) would favour retention of the Flannery paragraph in light of the arguments I've presented? I doubt it.

The current Flannery paragraph is remarkably unencyclopedic, and has absolutely no business being here. I'm going to remove it again, and I'm going to request that you not restore it. If you want to return it in a revised form, please discuss it on the talk page first. CJCurrie 22:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to asking Mel Etitis to take a look, and I'd be willing to stick by his decision. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already asked Mel to review the controversy. He hasn't responded yet. CJCurrie 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(And no, I didn't promise to leave the paragraph in place for a full day. I said I'd leave it in place *up to* a full day, on condition that SlimVirgin take advantage of the opportunity to read my comments.) CJCurrie 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop being so pompous, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

HERE HERE!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your point that the material is somewhat different than most of the article's other passages, but I think it generally follows the same line of argument that the rest of the article follows. You might disagree with the conlusions of Flannery, but wikipedia policy states that relevant material from a reputable and reliable source is permitted. I also cannot agree with everything that the author says (most of the progenitors of socialism may have been anti-Jewish religion, but I wouldn't state that most of them were necessarily anti-semitic), however I think that the jist of it is not particularly controversial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that a self-published work (which for all intents and purposes the 1985 version was) which suggests "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources is not reliable. When you add in the other errors, it becomes even less so. When you add the question of relevance, it becomes profoundly unencyclopedic. (The fact that the paragraph is referenced is entirely beside the point.)

I maintain that a genuinely neutral editor would almost certainly conclude that the paragraph should be removed.

So ... how long do I have to wait before removing the paragraph again, if I'm to avoid being accused of "gaming the system"? CJCurrie 01:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an almost insignificant point but Flannery was not writing about the "new antisemitism". He wrote long before the rightists who inform this article had invented the term. Including the passage about him is a new low in what is already a terrible piece of POV pushing masquerading as an article. It's entirely OR to suggest that his analysis has anything whatsoever to do with the "concept" that is under "discussion" in this article. I just don't see how we can justify having a section on the "history" of something that exists mostly in the minds of contributors here and a few of the more frothy pro-Israeli commentators, when it isn't simply an epithet thrown around by those who think Israel should have carte blanche for whatever reason. Grace Note 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I did my best to revise it as appropriate. I have no idea who will like this or not. Possibly it only makes for a stronger argument, suggesting that Flannery saw the error of his ways. Anyway, I'm not endorsing it or anything, but simply thought it would be interesting to try it out based on CJ's new sources. Mackan79 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're trying to do, Mackan, but I think the paragraph is beyond hope one way or the other. Why on earth should we convey *anything* from a work which posits that "Protocols" was derived from socialist sources, and has other obvious errors besides? Sorry, but I still think the paragraph has to go. CJCurrie 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think there's a concern that I've now given him much more weight than is appropriate. I simply think somebody had to try it to see. When I got done I had a sudden realization that probably nobody was going to like me for that one :P Mackan79 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated remarks

I had been hoping that a greater number of uninvolved and neutral editors would have provided their views on this matter by now. I'm a bit concerned that this "controversy" could soon degenerate into the usual stale bickering between SlimVirgin's supporters and SlimVirgin's opponents; a few outside voices would be useful to ensuring that this unwelcome prospect doesn't come to fruition. I thank John Kenney for weighing in on this matter, and I hope others will follow in his footsteps.

For the time being, it will probably occasion little surprise among readers that I'm not convinced by the counter-arguments of Slim and Jay. Their comments about "Original Research" are especially puzzling: the NOR policy is designed to prevent editors from *adding* unverifiable and novel research, not to prevent editors from removing obviously flawed research. I'm also uncertain as to how a source that misinterprets Szajkowski by 34 years and claims "Protocols" as socialist-derived can honestly or accurately be described as reliable. To give credit where it's due, I appreciate that Moshe hasn't resorted to any transparent policy distortions in his remarks. (Even though I disagree with his conclusions, I appreciate that Moshe is approaching this discussion in a reasonable manner.) CJCurrie 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any of my compatriots have resorted to "transparent policy distortions" either.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they did. CJCurrie 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As no-one has provided a convincing reason why the paragraph should be retained, I will remove it again presently. I am fully aware of the significance of my actions, and I believe that any neutral editor reviewing this situation would conclude that the paragraph should not have been returned in the first place. I can only wonder how much longer Slim and Jay will insist on defending an obviously unsuitable source. CJCurrie 06:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Looking over it again, I had to laugh, just because the section became much more POV pro-1985-Flannery than it did undermine him (my intent wasn't to do either, but I figured by combining them it would become clear that the material didn't belong). In any case, the paragraphs are clearly out of place. This is a section on the history of New Antisemitism, not a section for controversial and dubious single-person opinions not even speaking to that topic. In the sections below, of course, that's exactly what we provide: various individual scholars' opinions on the New Antisemitism. Here, we're supposed to be providing a neutral section on the history of New Antisemitism. I'm pretty sure nobody can make the case that Flannery 1985 represents a fair and neutral chronicle of antisemitism on the left through history. Quite obviously it's two paragraphs of idiosyncratic opinion, considering that it completely reversed itself over a period of 20 years. Unless someone explains otherwise, I completely support CJCurrie's decision to remove it.Mackan79 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Question to Jay: Is there any basis for quoting the second less influential book rather than the first more influential book which says the opposite? Mackan79

Question for Jay

What's the logic of re-inserting Flannery's inaccurate statement about Zosa Szajkowski?

It's fairly obvious this situation is degenerating into a full-blown edit war. I'm going to refrain from removing the paragraph again for the time being, in the hope that more uninvolved editors will weigh in shortly. I maintain that the paragraph has absolutely no business being in the article, and I'm prepared to take the matter as far as formal mediation if need be.

For the moment, I'm going to put a fact-disputed notice on the section. The current edit includes the following line: "He cites historian Zosa Szajkowski, who writes that he could not find a "single word on behalf of Jews" in the entirety of French socialist literature from 1820 to 1920." Szajkowski does not write this. CJCurrie 16:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've chosen a "dubious" notice instead. Consider it as applied to the whole paragraph. CJCurrie 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've filed an RfC. CJCurrie 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

About "Original Research"

This is the essence of Wikipedia's Original Research policy: "Articles may not contain any unpublished material, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

There is nothing in the policy that prevents me from challenging the reliability of a source on the talk page, nor is there anything in the policy that prevents me from removing obviously flawed information.

I hope that uninvolved parties reading this page will understand the defensive cry of "No original research" for what it is: an excuse, and a deflection. CJCurrie 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree – the charge here is spurious to its very core. Article pages can't have original research; talk pages can. The editorial process indeed consists of 90%+ original research, but it is rarely of this depth and judiciousness.--G-Dett 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Doing "original research" and presenting it on a talk page as a reason for removing material from an article cannot possibly violate any wikipedia policy. john k 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

History of

With regard to Ben's comment above. Ben, are you saying that it would not be useful to have historical articles as I suggested? I am not saying that it would resolve all the issues but surely it wouldn't hinder anything. I am not sure why you think the result would be that the Antisemitism and New antisemitism articles would be the same. As I see it, the Antisemitism article would carry all the main definitional work including the distinctions between religious and racial forms and the New antisemitism article would be devoted to that idea/concept/whatever in particular. BTW within the historical series I am most interested in the medieval period and hope to be making most edits to that, not to the 19th century onward.Itsmejudith 10:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of new antisemitism is that it is somehow distinct from antisemitism. I'm still not clear how, but your proposal that "This article is about the general concept of antisemitism" would lose that distinction. Having lost that distinction, there would be no difference between the two articles. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're proposing.

I can see value in pages on the history of antisemitism, and maybe on the history of new antisemitism as well, assuming it is not one and the same. I can imagine a good article with the heading Antisemtisim in the medieval period, though IMHO such articles are usually best started as sections in a larger article and extracted once they grow big enough. That said, some users do like to write complete articles, by themselves, to WP:FA candidate status, before letting anyone else at them. Not my style, but perfectly valid. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The history of new antisemitism and this article would be the same thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, yes. Maybe one day we will have enough to say that each earns its own page, but at this moment, history of new antisemitism only justifies a section in this page. Cheers, Ben Aveling 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already Jews in the Middle Ages and since that deals largely with oppression and persecution then a separate article on antisemitism in the Middle Ages is not needed. As for a history of New antisemitism, then it would have to be a history of the term/concept/idea. In a few years time that article will be written. It will say that the term became current in the early 2000s as a response to a sudden upsurge of antisemitic activity and to changes in the type of antisemitic discourse but that usage of the term soon faded away when it became apparent that the resurgence was better described simply as antisemitism without the new. An article on antisemitism in the 21st century will say that there was an upsurge in the early years of the century but that it had soon died down after a peace settlement in the Middle East. (Just hoping for the best...)Itsmejudith 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by Slim Virgin and Al Silverburg

I have attempted to improve this article by two simple edits. One was to change the sentence changing the words "not not be" is "is not" with regards to legitimate anti Isreali opposition. This is to try to ensure that this article does not come off as promoting POV. Use of the words "need not be" as the article states currently implies anti-semitism on the part of people who oppose Israel. In other words, "need not be" is a loaded phrase and puts POV into the article, and should be eliminated. Slim Virgin reverted on the basis that it was taken from a quote when clearly it was not. I will revert this back, unless anything else is posted. Secondly, there has been a platitude state at the end of the United States section. It is a useless sentence that says something to the effect that the United Nations Human Rights Committee spent more than half of its time on Israel, more time than all countries combined. It may seem petty to argue style. But clearly, there is no need to point out that more than half is majority. Any idiot with basic arithmetic skills could see that. However, it has been reverted twice. Therefore, I am reverting that section back to the way it should be. There is no reason to have the back of that sentence. Nlsanand 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the passage about the time the UN spent on Israel, it is important to add emphasis to the implications of the commisions actions, therefore I am reinserting that passage. I do not even understand your other argument. All the wording is saying is that it is not inherantly antisemitic, but sometimes it can be as it depends on the motivations of the speaker. I don't see how you could argue against this as it is not particularly controversial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be emphasized, unless someone is pusting a POV? It's just redundant. Currently, it just looks like someone with poor writing style created this article. I am invoking the three revert rule on this. Please do not revert again.

For the other edit.

The distinction between "is not" and "need not be". Please look at the two following sentences:

• "They neeed not be so rude"
• "They are not rude"

The first one clearly implies that THEY ARE RUDE, but don't have to be. Similarly, you are making the accusation that people who oppose Israeli apartheid are anti-semitic. Nlsanand 01:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all you obviously have no understanding of the 3RR rule as I have only reverted 2 times in the last 24 hours. Second of all, you are not making any sense, normal writing is filled with stylistic emphasis that may technically be redundant. I do not understand why you persist on such a small issue. The other issue makes even less sense. All the passage implies is that the criticism may be anti-semitic but is not inherantly anti-semitic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was saying don't change it again, or you will be and apparently have violated the rule. Make sense, now. Also, might I ask why you persist on such a small issue? Why do you care so much? At least I care with a valid reason. Nlsanand 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nlsanand, have you actually read what the source says? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? This is not a quote, why are we inisting on writing so poorly. It's a platitude, encyclopedias don't need platitudes. Your insistece upon this in spite of facts baffles me.

Also, I've amended the section to say "need not be deemed". I think it is a good compromise. Nlsanand 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a really good idea to read a source before trying to summarize what it says; I'm baffled that you don't. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Look you guys are quite condescending for people who don't understand simple logic. It doesn't matter what the source says! By the way, I did read it before. The point I was making is my edit has not changed the meaning of anything, just eliminated redundant info. This is really dense. I am editing this again. Nlsanand 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, someone beat me to it. Nlsanand 23:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the whole sentence, about a single meeting in 2002, somewhat redundant and irrelevant? The argument is made quite thoroughly already. I'd suggest simply taking out the sentence, which is much weaker than the argument that precedes it. Mackan79 02:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

EUMC Definition

Ok, I'm a bit confused. The EUMC definition is titled "Working Definition on Antisemitism."[22] How is this a definition of "New Antisemitism"? Very clearly, it says it's a definition of antisemitism, which then gives contemporary examples. In fact, the working definition itself is italicized: "Working Definition: Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physcial manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their prperty, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." Please check it out, it doesn't call itself a definition of new or even contemporary antisemitism.

So, then, the document continues, after a set of general contemporary examples of antisemitism:

"Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination...
• Applying double standards...
• Using the symbols and images...
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

Can you also explain, then, why we're removing the final counter-example? The bulleted points are not offered as a definition, but as five examples, followed by one counterexample. The counter-example is directly applicable to the examples. How do you quote the document and simply cut that out? We discussed this above, and the only answer we got was that it's a straw man, but clearly that can't be a valid reason when the EUMC itself chose to include it. Any and all comments welcome. Mackan79 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, only the second part, if anything, has been discussed at all. In any case, can I ask what was your reason? Can you really say the EUMC was simply knocking down a straw man? Mackan79 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan, for heaven's sake, you're doing here what you do everywhere else. The EU doesn't need to give a def of AS. It's new or contemporary AS that govts need a def of so they can monitor it, and that's what the EU offered. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, if it's universally understood that new definitions are contemporary definitions, then it's universally understood. It's not something for us to throw in, especially when this article has just given a very particular definition of "New Antisemitism." Why is this even controversial? My main point was simply to clarify that it's not actually a definition, but examples that illustrate a definition, which is irrefutable. Mackan79 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. It's a definition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Slim, your reversion is unjustified, as per Mackan79's points. You've restored an edit that a) smuggles in OR by saying what the EUMC doesn't say, that their true topic is "new" antisemitism; b) falsely describes bullet-pointed examples as constituting a "definition," where in fact the EUMC actually supplies a definition and the examples aren't it; and c) violates NPOV by selectively deleting a key qualifying sentence.--G-Dett 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It says new or contemporary, G-Dett, which it undoubtedly is. That's what they're trying to describe, what some scholars and journalists are calling new antisemitism. What did you think they were trying to do? Read the previous footnote, and read the definition itself. For example, part of their definition of antisemitism is "using the symbols and images associated with classical antisemmitism ... to characterize Israel or Israelis" (which is part of the definition of new antisemitism as understood by everyone who writes about it). Why would they mention "classical antisemitism" if in fact that's all they're talking about? SlimVirgin ^(talk)

I thought they were trying to do what they said they were trying to do:

The purpose of this document is to provide a working guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism.

Antisemitism is a fact, a phenomenon. "New antisemitism" is a theory. It's a theory to which you subscribe, so you'd like to alter the wording of the EUMC document such that it looks they've explicitly endorsed the theory. But they haven't. Classic case of OR. Let it go.

They also explicitly provide a "definition," and it isn't the one you keep shoe-horning in:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The set of non-exhaustive examples you keep falsely presenting as their "definition" of "new [sic] antisemitism" actually constitutes a subsection, way down the page, explicitly about how "antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel." The subsection includes several qualifying phrases ("taking into account the overall context"; "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic") which, unsurprisingly, you keep deleting. It takes considerable nerve to insist that other editors must clear it with you on the talk page if they wish to correct incontestibly false information in the article.

In short, you've offered a wholly unsatisfactory answer to my point a) above, and no answer at all to points b) and c).--G-Dett 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism is as much a concept as "New antisemitism"; they are both ways of describing specific phenomena directed at Jews. Your distinctions are entirely artificial. You happen to subscribe to a particular political narrative in which the former is "fact", and the latter is "theory", but that's just sophistry, not reality. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Concept versus term

Some editors here are engaged in WP:POINT. This isn't an article about the term, but about the idea, and there has been a long-standing agreement on this page that sources don't have to use the exact phrase "new antisemitism" to be included. It only has to be clear that they are talking about that idea, and in the case of the EU definition, it's abundantly clear by the examples they give and the language they use; indeed it's the rise of NAS in Europe that prompted the need for the EU's research and definition in the first place. Any editor here who pretends otherwise is either editing in bad faith, or hasn't read anything about the topic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who does a brief Google search will find discussion of the EU definition in terms of new antisemitism, or new forms of antisemitism, or the new manifestation of antisemitism, and similar phrases. For example, Michael Whine of the Community Security Trust, who regularly briefs the British government and European Union on antisemitism: "Of the initiatives undertaken by European organizations in recent years to combat anti-Semitism, two appear likely to be more effective than others. They are the April 2004 Berlin Declaration of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism of the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) ... Both initiatives depart from previous ones in two important respects. First, they provide for regular implementation monitoring ... Second, they both recognize the new directions from which anti-Semitism comes - particularly the demonization of Israel and Zionism, which all too frequently serves as a cover for Jew-hatred, and which overspills from the Arab world, is promoted by Islamists, and has been adopted by some leftist and left-liberal circles." [23]

With secondary sources identifying it thus, it doesn't matter what some editors on this page are claiming. It's obvious from the primary source material that the EU definition and examples are about the concept of new antisemitism, and it is so described by secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's arguing that sources "have to use the exact phrase 'new antisemitism' to be included" here. It's fine to use the EUMC definition; it's just not fine to alter their words so that they appear to be endorsing a theory you subscribe to.--G-Dett 00:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good thing that hasn't been done. And it's certainly not o.k. to pretend the EUMC is not talking about New antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The secondary sources say they're defining new or contemporary antisemitism, and so that's what we will say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism in the UK

The following paragraph in this section needs serious work:

The inquiry adopted the view of racism expressed by the MacPherson report after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, namely that a racist act is defined by its victim, and that it is the Jewish community that is in the best position to determine what is anti-Semitic. [110] The report states that left-wing activists and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for anti-Semitism, [83] and that the "most worrying discovery" is that anti-Semitism appears to be entering the mainstream. [111] The inquiry calls for the adoption of a clearer definition of anti-Semitism that reflects its "complex and multi-faceted" nature. [111] It argues that anti-Zionism may become anti-Semitic when it adopts a view of Zionism as a "global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history," a definition that "bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept: that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation ..." Having re-defined Zionism, traditional anti-Semitic motifs of Jewish "conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion" are transferred from Jews onto Zionism. This is "at the core of the 'New Anti-Semitism'," the report concludes, adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism "the lingua franca of antisemitic movements." [112]

First of all, it's heavily cherry-picked so as to look like an unqualified endorsement of the theory/concept of new antisemitism. All of the charged phrases floating around in this paragraph are qualified in their context, and the report explicitly says that "it is not the role of this inquiry to take sides in this major debate," i.e. the debate about NAS and the relationship between anger about Israeli policies and antisemitism (point 81). The sentence that reads "This is 'at the core of the "New Anti-Semitism,"' the report concludes, adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism 'the lingua franca of antisemitic movements'" contains much that is misleading as well as one outright falsehood. This is not how the report "concludes"; rather, it is a digressive side-example 24 pages into a 66-page report (point 83, beginning "For example, criticism of Israel is not in itself antisemitic..."). The sentence saying "This is at the core of the 'New Anti-Semitism'" actually reads "This is at the core of the 'New Anti-Semitism,' on which so much has been written." The sentence, in other words, is tangentially gesturing to an external body of work about one facet of the topic at hand (a facet the report endorses only with cautious qualifications, acknowledging it to be controversial, and trying to stay aloof of the controversy by positing a difference between antisemitic intentions and antisemitic effects). This cautious side note in the middle of the report has been edited by someone here so as to appear to be the concluding moment, where the report sums up its own findings. I'll leave it to veterans of this page to fix it, but if it doesn't happen I'll do it.--G-Dett 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)