Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 20

Earlier discussions have been archived:(note capitalisation):

Here is a mainstream Jewish view, and it exists despite the claims of Danny's left-wing academics. RK 03:46, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Why Campus Anti-Israel Activity Flunks Bigotry 101: American Jewish Congress

How many times have you heard "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm just anti-Zionist?" But to be anti-Zionist is, by definition, to be anti-Semitic. Zionism is nothing more than a belief that Israel has the right to exist as a homeland for Jews. It says nothing about the policies or programs of the state, merely that it has a right to exist. There are left-wing Zionists and right-wing Zionists-and many in between. Some Zionists are harsh critics of Israeli policies; others are supportive. But the term "Zionist" connotes nothing more than the right of Israel to exist; anti-Zionist means that Israel, regardless of its leaders, policies, or other aspects of how its society is run, has no right to exist.

To say that Jews alone don't have a right to self-determination in a part of their historic homeland is clearly anti-Semitic, despite the effort to hide the bigotry behind a supposed political term....It is a sign of bigotry when people try to use code words to "explain" away their defamation of a group. Whites opposed to the civil rights movement knew it was "politically incorrect" to say they were anti-black, so they used code words such as "anti-busing." Right-wing anti-Semites who want to maintain the fiction that they are not bigoted use code words such as "international bankers" to defame Jews. The word "anti-Zionist" is of the same mold in the lexicon of the left, and it should fool no one. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

Further evidence of this anti-Semitism is the penchant among self-proclaimed anti-Zionists to take language associated with the Holocaust and twist it around to label Israelis as Nazis and Israeli leaders as Hitler. No unbiased person could use terminology associated with the mass murder of nearly six million Jews and countless others (including Communists, gays, anti-Nazis, Roma, and Jehovah's Witnesses), many in purposely-built execution chambers, and suggest that the Israelis were engaged in a similar enterprise. And even if some anti-Zionists refuse to recognize either the history or the complexities of the conflict, why do they use the "Nazi" nomenclature to complain only about Israel? Why not use it to describe Rwanda, for example? The answer is simple: Jews are in the equation, so a different standard applies. Likewise no one on the left would have the temerity to claim that the worst excesses of corporate America are comparable to the horrors of the Middle Passage. Such a comparison would be understood to be both gross overstatement and an immoral diminishing of the terror of genocide-especially so if a targeted corporation were run by an African American. So why the almost gleeful comparison of Israelis to Nazis? Don't know? See Bigotry 101.

These are probably valid points. So why not have a section which says "The views of most Jewish denominations is such and such; the view of non-denominational Jewish groups is such and such." This formulation would preserve neutral point of view, while avoiding stating these views as objective facts. JeMa 20:01, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

The reason Israelis are treated to a double-standard in this regard is because Rwandan mass murderers don't go around exploiting a claim to victimhood to finance their genocidal campaigns and to silence all criticism thereof.

Discussion on whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, while fascinating, is better located at anti-Zionism, because anti-Zionism (with a ~100 year history) is a smaller, more focused topic than anti-Semitism. The subject is already covered in the article on anti-Zionism:

Briefly in the introduction
anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_and_anti-Semitism (8 paras)
briefly in anti-Zionism#Accusations_of_racism (1 para)
anti-Zionism#History_of_anti-Zionism (~4 paras)
briefly in anti-Zionism#Criticism_of_Anti-Zionism

JeMa - please note that the content you wish to re-add to this article has been preserved in full at anti-Zionism. I ask that you consider where it is best located. Martin 20:41, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this. JeMa 20:01, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following, because it is a strawman attack on Jews: "many anti-globalization people consider themselves anti-Isreali state, which doesn't necessarily make them anti-Semite." RK 01:32, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

It is a common trend among anti-Semites to claim that "The Jews brand all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic." The problem is that the claim is a total fiction. No mainstream Jewish group hold such a position. In fact, on numerous occasions many Jewish groups themselves have publicly criticised the policies of different Israeli governments. Public statements by leaders of many Jewish groups have been made which clearly state that disagreement with Israel is not, of itself anti-Semitic. The only people making such claims are those who have a hatred of Israel and or Jews. Even the Anti-Defamation League, a vigorously pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist organization, has publicly stated that criticism of Israel is not, if of itself, anti-Semitism. RK 01:27, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

"Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Certainly the sovereign State of Israel can be legitimately criticized just like any other country in the world. However, it is undeniable that there are those whose criticism of Israel or of "Zionism" is used to mask anti-Semitism." (Anti-Defamation League website.)

In fact, the ADL itself publicly and strongly criticised the Knesset (Parliament) of the State of Israel for one its bills vis-a-vis the crisis with the Palestinians. So let's stop the strawman claims.

ADL Rebukes Knesset Law

"A recent survey in Europe revealed that a very large proportion of Europeans believed that the Jewish state was the largest threat to world peace; Jewish groups expressed shock and regret at these results, likening them to the same statements that were made by Nazi Germany before the Holocaust."

How can you liken something to something else that is the same?
Irrespective of argument #1: isn't likening the statement that Israel is a threat to peace with the Nazi statements fallacious? IIRC Nazis weren't persecuting Jews because they thought that Jews were a threat to peace. But rather because they thought that Jews were a threat to their aspirations for Power and their braindead ideas of Aryanism, etc. --snoyes 01:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Arabs as semite?

Arabs are semites too http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semite JackLynch

There is no such thing as a semitic people. It is now understood to be a 19th century misconception; see the article Semite on this subject. Most Arabs speak a semitic language, but this is a different issue. Using the term "anti-Semitism" to refer to Arabs is misleading as the word was coined as a refined word for "Scientifically justified dislike of Jews." It also seems that this issue was already discussed here; see the archive link. JeMa 17:30, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Semitism_(etymology_complete)

Yes, but the term anti-Semite, in common usage, does not actually mean opposed to Semites. It instead means opposed to Jews. Its etymology is from Semite, but that is not its current meaning. Since you were already at that site, why not look just a step further [1]? --Delirium 05:41, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

do you mean this, for example? "Anti-Semitism \An`ti-Sem"i*tism\, n. Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews" Whilst it may say "esp." Jews, it certainly doesn't leave out all other semites, which includes Arabs. I think the modern meaning of anti-semite is simply a matter of ethnocentrism. Jews are in the position of power (relative to other semites in the anglosphere) and therefore hatred or oppression of them is seemingly more important and relevant, than oppression and hatred of other semites. My point is not based on lack of information, but rather an abundance of it. And my complaint is that this entry completely ignores the vast majority of semites, while giving intense attention to one group, arguably NOT the group (of semites) which is currently receiving the brunt of modern anti-semitism. JackLynch

Remember that Wikipedia articles are about things, not words. The topic of this article is hostility to Jews. Anti-Arab sentiment is dealt with at anti-Arab. Martin 22:21, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I renew my objection, which I do not feel has been sufficiently addressed. Understanding that this is a controversial topic, I am discussing things here first, but assuming I hear nothing more persuasive to the contrary, I will edit for accuracy. Arabs are semites and I find it anti-semitic to fail to mention so. Jack 11:20, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack, please stop accusing of bigotry. Your claims are proven wrong, and accepted by the Wikipedia community as such. Since you refuse to read the relevant articles, such as Talk:Anti-Semitism_(etymology_complete), we can only conclude that you are here to push an emotion-laden agenda. We are willing to work with you, but we are not going to be intimidated by a pseudo-Arabist agenda. JeMa

I read that. It was nowhere near conclusive, and IMO was incredibly poorly discussed. My facts are not, have not, and cannot be proven wrong. Look here [2] and see what webster has to say. Look here [3] and see what the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has to say. I am here to push a fact-laden agenda, and none other. To be honest, I find your insinuation that I am "pseudo-arabist" (what the heck does that mean?) to be bizarre, and most likely emotion-laden. I find your attitude on this subject, and that of a great many people in this talk, to be profoundly POV. Of course this is perhaps the most controvercial of subjects, and that is to be expected. But that in no way means that POV cannot be overcome, and the facts (such as Arabs being semites!) can't be included. Jack 03:11, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction doesn't seem NPOV. If there were a legitimate cause, wouldn't it be called anti-Semitism? The implication here seems to be that there couldn't possibly be any such cause. --Wik 22:38, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

If there were a legitimate cause, and the hostility did not "greatly exceeds any reasonable, ethical response to genuine provocation", and it was not "a pejorative perception of Jewish physical or moral traits which is either utterly groundless or a result of irrational generalization and exaggeration", then, by the definition given in the introduction, it would not be anti-Semitism.

However, I should apologise and retract my revert, as I failed to spot other changes to related sections of the article, which render it potentially incorrect.. Martin 23:01, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the use of the term "irrational". Sometimes ethnic stereotyping is not particularly irrational (in cases where a lot of the group do in fact share similar traits), but is still considered bigoted and offensive. So I think anti-Semitism would be considered offensive whether or not the generalizations were irrational. --Delirium 00:49, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

A prior version had both an alternative definition, and an "essentially" statement, which I think made it more stable to these kinds of issues. I may consider reinstating it. Martin 01:12, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I reverted the change from linking the "Wiesental centre" intra-wikipedia to an external link. Justifications:

External linking such things dissuades people from writing articles on that entity
There shouldn't be any external links in the main body of the article text.

It could be added to the external links section, though. But that is already pretty populated, I'd prefer to just wait for someone to create an article on the centre.--snoyes 15:56, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What could we here at Wikipedia say about the "Wiesental centre" that they can not say better themselves on their website? Should everything have an internal link in Wikipedia? Anything we write about them, could be out of date at some time in the future without Wikipedia receiving any warning of the change. (Think Berkshire-Hathaway the men's shirt company that is now a very different beast of the same name...i dont know if they every re-incorporated, could be the same legal entity.) Why not link to the Center "about us" page or whatever they call it. that way its always as up to date as it can be.

Your thoughts please. OneVoice 22:22, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This coin has the second side: external links may be surprisigly and unexpectedly volatile, up to migration across domains, not to say about webmaster's whims. Therefore they may serve only a supplementary role. Mikkalai 06:17, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Two simple reasons: 1) We are in the process of creating an encyclopedia. The "about us" page of an organisation may or may not be encyclopedic. Example: Microsoft's "about us" page: [4] [5] 2) NPOV. An organisation is not neutral about itself. We want information that is as neutral as possible about organisations (or individuals). Is Microsoft going to publish on their "about us" page that they have been convicted of abuses of monopoly? Are the ADL going to mentions that the recipient of their "distinguished statesman" award has made anti-semitic comments? --snoyes 06:33, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. For site that do not have Wikipedia pages, it seems better to link to the site/organization than to have a dead/empty link in Wikipedia. Perhaps a solution is to create a Wikipedia page for the site/organization that has the external link to the site/organization's own website and over time the page will be fleshed out with material. Your thoughts? OneVoice 10:41, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sure, one could make a stub with an external link to the website of the organisation. Speaking from experience, though: Articles which contain nothing but an external link are usually deleted immediately. It must at least have one introductory sentence (eg: Organisation XYZ was founded in 19xx in order to fight ZYX). --snoyes 15:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

AH, thank you for that warning. so point in creating a page that will be deleted immediately. I will put in a starter sentence. OneVoice 16:00, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I removed part of the definition of Anti-Semitism that said "based on alleged racial differences....". The historic anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church was not based upon racial differences

therefore it should be called anti-Judaism rather then Anti-Semitism Cautious 15:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

...that would be an untenable position given the racial background of Jesus...it would also deny the possibility of conversation and salvation through Jesus. Indeed, one Catholic objection to National-Socialist doctrine was the racial basis of anti-Semitism which would them place at risk Catholic converts.

Anti-Semites have cited a number of bases for their position, at times religious, at times racial, at time economic. The definition should not limit it to any one of these.

Changed the sentence on anti-Semitism vs anti-Zionism in light of the EU report on substantial adoption of anti-Semitic slogans, symbols, language, etc. by the anti-Zionist efforts in Europe. No report available for the same in the various Muslim countries. Sites such as IslamOnline and Khilafah provide examples.

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism both are being adopted by some groups and individuals. There are non-anti-semitic anti-Zionists, but their position and statements have been drowned out by the vociferous anti-Semitic anti-Zionists. OneVoice 14:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The topmost definition must be in most general and simple form. Explanations, opinions, detalizations have plenty of room to come later. Not to say that what I edited was it part plain false (I mean the "ideologically motivated" words). Mikkalai 17:26, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ideologically motivated is the must. If somebodys hate is motivated by different reasons, it cannot be named anti-Semitism. People don't have to love each other. Miki

Motivation is a must in every "move of will", it is a truism. But when you say "ideological" you stretch the truth. Every serious book on history of Jews lists several motivations. So both words do not belong to the definition. The last, but not the least, xenophoby doesn't require any motivation. Some people hate garlic, after all.

One more thing. "The neutrality of this article is disputed" So we better stick to a simpler "headline" definition and list opinions and detailed explanations in the body of the article. Mikkalai 09:05, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A Jew can be an anti-Semite

Moving this to talk: (about criticism of Israel): Support for this view can be found in the fact that there exist Jewish critics of Israel, who can hardly be accused of anti-Semitism.

An American is free to be anti-American, and a Jew is free to hold anti-Semitic views. Saying otherwise is to allege Jews of some kind of world conspiracy, and we don't want that, do we? Humus sapiens 06:01, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's overreacting, I don't see the supposed 'conspiracy' there. If anti-Semitism is defined as a hatred of all Jews, a Jewish anti-Semite would hate himself! I doubt that is what you want to say, certainly, those Israel-critical Jews I know don't seem to be suffering from self-hatred. No-one is denying anti-Semites probably hate Israel as well, but being critical about Israel does not make one an anti-Semite. Leaving it out implies no jews are opposed to the Israeli government's actions. If I criticize the Bush Regime's actions, does that make me an anti-Japhethite because I dare have critique about a predominantly western society? — Jor 12:52, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)

I find these args illogical, sorry. Let me repeat: a Jew (as anyone else) is free to hold anti-Semitic views. It is unfortunate, but there is no one to prohibit it. Try to research the subj. As a start, search the web for "Jew self hate".
The BIG question is, would such text appear in an article about Americans, Italians or Swedes? Quoting the article in the beginning of this talk page: "Consider "Bigotry-finder rule 101": Take a situation, change the race, religion, sexual orientation, or other aspect of the players' identities, and see if the same results apply... Listen to the criticism of any other country: It is always a political party, a program, a policy, or a person that is criticized, never the legitimacy of a society. Except for Israel."
I very much appreciate gentle concerns about "overreacting to" and "diluting" the AS. Let's keep it undiluted. "The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." (Disraeli, 1804-1881). Humus sapiens 07:12, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The page is labelled for both non-neutrality and factual accuracy. The non-neutrality issue will be the harder one one which to reach agreement.

Lets work on the factual accuracy label. What is factually inaccurate? Please provide text from the page that you believe to be factually inaccurate. OneVoice 19:24, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitism is ideologically motivated hostility" the part "ideologically motivated" is inaccurate, because it restricts to a particular class of "ideological antisemitism". See article Ideology. There is enough reasons to hate Jews: they are smarter, they have more money, they stick to each other, they hate us and call us "goyim".... Of course, you may call all this "ideology". But the ideology is the RESULT, not motivation. (NOTE: I don't say that the above is true. I knew dumb, poor, hard-working Jews that were ashamed of their Jewishness, etc.) So I vote do remove these two words from the main definition, otherwise lots of antisemites will claim they are not :-). Mikkalai 22:26, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This definition of anti-semitism confuses me deeply

"Essentially, anti-Semitism means either of the following: (1) hostility to Jews as a group which results from no legitimate cause or greatly exceeds any reasonable, ethical response to genuine provocation; or (2) a pejorative perception of Jewish physical or moral traits which is either utterly groundless or a result of irrational generalization and exaggeration"

By this definition, a great many people I had always thought to be anti-semites arn't. What about a palistinian who wants to kill Jews? Lets say his house has been bulldozed, and his father shot by Israeli soldiers. He equates all things Jewish as bad, and enthusiastically agrees with what is taught to him at his mosque, and madrassa. Wouldn't this say he isn't an anti-semite? Jack 00:37, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Didn't Hitler think he had "genuine provocation"? Jack 00:38, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is it reasonable, or groundless to kill someone because your family always taught you they were evil? Or to believe horrible things about them (Blood Lible, for example) if your family and friends have always thought so? This definition appears to me to remove the appropriate use of the word from those who most sincerely believe in "anti-semetic" or anti-Jewish thought. Jack 01:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Formally, wikipedia bears no responsibility for this definition: it is a quote. IMO a hate is a hate is a hate. Why split a hair? Anti-Semitism is exactly what the very word says: hostility, prejudice, discrimination, reason or no reason. Just like racism, hate towards a whole nation, even if justified by actions of their representatives can be explained, but is hardly a civilized emotion. Didn't we hate Germans during WWII? We didn't hate "nazists" separately, we did hate Germans. (disclaimer: "we" is to denote those whom it may concern :-)

One might explore and discuss roots and reasons for anti-S; some of them could be "ideological", some "groundless", but to to put artificial "qualifiers", like "ideologically" or "groundless" or else in the DEFINITION is non-scientific, because you are pre-limiting yourself. Mikkalai 01:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)