Talk:New antisemitism

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

Dispute

The following was the subject of dispute:

---

…the new antisemitism—and it is new—is a global phenomenon conveyed by Internet, e-mail, television and video, and we do not yet know how the new communications media will affect its spread. … It is coming simultaneously from three different directions: first, a radicalized Islamist youth inflamed by extremist rhetoric; second, a left-wing anti-American cognitive élite with strong representation in the European media; third, a resurgent far right, as anti-Muslim as it is anti-Jewish. [1]

Opponents of the term generally acknowledge that the "old" anti-Semites have opportunistically latched onto aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Arab anti-Zionism has led to a growth of anti-Jewish as well as anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world, but argue that claims of a "new" anti-Semitism have largely, or even primarily, been used as a tactic to stifle what these opponents of the term see as legitimate criticism of Israel. Many have questioned the linkage between anti-Semitism and opposition to Israel.

---

SV|t|add 03:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. This is a quotation from the current Chief Rabbi of the UK. Is someone disputing that Sacks said this, that it belongs in the article or what? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Article introductions should be brief and dynamic. Including a paragraph-length quote in the intro, unless it is a very pithy or very well-known statement, diminishes this. Therefore, the quote has been relocated to the Proponents section, where it belongs. LevelCheck 01:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I completely agree. (Nothing in the remark above made it clear that the issue was placement rather than inclusion.) -- Jmabel | Talk 02:44, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Democracy and quickness of wit

I know that we live not a hundred years ago but today; at the same time, I hold that we can't neglect to delve under the surface. In particular, what are the motivations of the anti-Zionists, and why do we Jews, or most of us Jews, equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism?

Yes, it isn't our job to untangle their motivations, much less to state them. But we have to remember, and note, that a great deal of the anti-Zionists in the West have nothing to do with Israel at all. A student is rejected from a British University because he was in the Israeli Army! Now, it's difficult to withhold judgment, isn't it?

To what you've written about anti-Zionism I can suggest adding only the analysis by which we Jews conclude that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. Of course, the answering analysis is, stop with the conspiracy theories! That's very difficult to argue without appearing out of your mind. But note that not all of us who conduct the former analysis make conspiracy theories. --VKokielov 05:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article has been unprotected. -SV|t|add 17:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article opening

The article opening is way too long and rambling. Paragraph-length quotes really don't belong here. They should be placed further down in the article. LevelCheck 18:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incoherent, POV paragraph

The following recently added paragraph is, at best, marginally coherent, and seems rather POV: what the heck are "modern Jewish eyes"? And why should the narrative voice of the article say, "'Statements of principle' from the side have always been considered bad manners in diplomacy…"?

These perceptions in modern Jewish eyes arise because the vast majority of Israel's critics have little to do with the conflict. "Statements of principle" from the side have always been considered bad manners in diplomacy, whilst in criticism of Israel around the world exactly these statements of principle (many of them on loan from Arab sources) dominate.

I'd be inclined to just remove, but this is obviously a contentious article, so what do others think about the paragraph? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:33, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

• It should be reworded to conform with NPOV. The paragraph clearly expresses what many of the proponents of the "new anti-Semitism" epithet feel, but Wikipedia should not lend editorial weight to its actual truth or falsity. LevelCheck 01:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Would anyone have a problem with removing it pending re-addition in a more coherent form? I've quoted it in full above, so it won't get lost. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I must be Mr. Marginally Coherent. No matter. I'm not contentious. I'll try again. --VKokielov 04:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External links

There are far too many external links in this article. We should only be using the most relevant ones, or at least references to content in the article. If footnotes have to be used, either hidden or explicit, that may solve the problem. --Viriditas | Talk 02:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phrasing in Need of Improvement

Reading the following statement is enough to make one's head spin:

Those who claim there is a new anti-Semitism claim that "new anti-Semites" argue that Jews view all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic and that his allegation is then used to criticise Jewish groups as unreasonable, overly anxious or unable to withstand criticism.

I realize that any statement of the form "A believes that B believes that C believes D" is going to be unwieldy, but can't we do better than this while still retaining NPOV? LevelCheck 02:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both paragraphs have been removed to talk, as they lack attribution. Please add them back in to the Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism section when the weasel words have been removed.

Those who claim there is a new anti-Semitism claim that "new anti-Semites" argue that Jews view all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic and that his allegation is then used to criticise Jewish groups as unreasonable, overly anxious or unable to withstand criticism.

They claim that no Jewish groups officially hold such a position, and that on numerous occasions many Jewish groups have publicly criticised the policies of different Israeli governments.

--Viriditas | Talk 02:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pierre-Andre Taguieff

I would like to add and clarify content in this article using Pierre-Andre Taguieff's book. If anyone has any information about the author, that would be great. --Viriditas | Talk 02:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Highly POV paragraph cut

I have cut the following highly POV paragraph:

Jews more and more in recent years equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism because more and more anti-Zionists in recent years have very little to do with Israel or its politics. In 2003, an Oxford professor personally denied admission to an Israeli student on political grounds, for which he was made to apologize ([2]); the number of academic divestments and boycotts by organizations that have no or little interest in the conflict has risen sharply in the last ten years; Jews have been connected to Nazis with ever-increasing ferocity and at an increasing frequency. It has become difficult for Jews to continue to see the disinterested altruist in the anti-Zionist.

1. Uncited claim that "Jews more and more in recent years equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism"
2. Uncited claim as to why Jews do this.
3. Uncited (and not very clear) statement that "more and more anti-Zionists in recent years have very little to do with Israel or its politics". What does it even mean to say that an anti-Zionist has "little to do with Israel or its politics"? Is this implying that past anti-Zionists were heavily involved in Isreali politics?
4. One statement that might belong somewhere in the article—"In 2003, an Oxford professor personally denied admission to an Israeli student on political grounds, for which he was made to apologize ([3])"—except that the "political grounds" go unexplained, suggesting implicitly that the student was banned for being Israeli, which I doubt.
   • VKokielov asked on my user talk page, "What do you doubt?" I doubt that the student was banned merely for being Israeli. As I understand it, the incident related to the student being in the Israeli army. Given the near-universal conscription in Israel, I suppose that almost amounts to the same thing, but that should not go without saying. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
5. Uncited claim that "the number of academic divestments and boycotts by organizations that have no or little interest in the conflict has risen sharply in the last ten years". What is the claimed basis for these divestments and boycotts? There seems to be a presumption of bad faith, with no evidence presented.
6. "Jews have been connected to Nazis with ever-increasing ferocity and at an increasing frequency." "Connected to" is unclear, but I assume it means (and should say) "rhetorically compared to", unless there is evidence of actual claims of Jewish-Nazi alliances, which I sincerely doubt. But even then: it's an uncited claim, indeed a claim with no evidence, of an increase in such rhetoric.
7. "It has become difficult for Jews to continue to see the disinterested altruist in the anti-Zionist." A pure POV statement. And with a strong, false, implication that one can make a broad statement like this about all Jews. Apparently, the Satmars (for just one example) either do not exist, aren't Jews, or are incapable of believing in their own altruism. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:32, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Uncited (and not very clear) statement that "more and more anti-Zionists in recent years have very little to do with Israel or its politics". What does it even mean to say that an anti-Zionist has "little to do with Israel or its politics"? Is this implying that past anti-Zionists were heavily involved in Isreali politics?"

The intention of the writer was to say that anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli action were not made because of Israeli policies (i.e. the "occupation", the "appartheid" and so on) but because of Israeli being a Jewish state (i.e. the Jew of the nations). They reason that worse policies (such as suicide bombings or despotic Islamist regiems) are not criticized\boycott\demonized by those (such as the AUT) who boycott\demonize Israel. In other words, they sat that group boycott Israel not because Israel's policies but because Israel is Jewish. MathKnight 19:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. That sure isn't clear. But clearly that is POV, no? Claiming to know people's unstated motivations? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. He described the Jewish POV about the factual sharp increase in anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli rethorics and boycotts. MathKnight 21:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While we both agree, I don't think it's possible to describe the "Jewish POV" in a NPOV manner without attributions. We need to stick to hard facts. This is why I recommend citing authors, names of proponents, and organizations. As an example, the non-Jewish French philosopher and political historian, has defined and documented the new anti-semitism, and I suggest we use sources that can be specifically cited and verified. This is not a meme; this is a real, observable phenomenon that has been documented by experts in their respective fields. --Viriditas | Talk 01:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's a meme. The term "new anti-Semitism" is simple in form and intent: according to the proponents of the accusation, opposition to Israel is anti-Semitic, and anyone who points this out is also anti-Semitic. There's nothing at all complicated about it. LevelCheck 01:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, except for the fact that they explicitly say opposition to Israel's policies is not anti-Semitic. There's nothing at all complicated about that either, but for some reason people keep throwing up that strawman argument anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's make it easy on ourselves: WP:3O --VKokielov 20:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I ask for a third opinion because we're not going to come to a consensus by talking. We are looking at each other from different sides of a gorge. It'll save us both a lot of headache if we can involve someone else, someone neutral...Am I wrong? --VKokielov 20:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Are you claiming that what you wrote is NPOV? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Insofar as it represents general Jewish opinion (and not an analysis which I say you can't deny), yes. How would you like me to prove to you that it does? --VKokielov 21:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If this is "general Jewish opinion" (FWIW, I doubt that such a thing even exists), then you need to attribute it to someone. You can't use the encyclopedic voice to make highly controversial statements like: "more and more anti-Zionists in recent years have very little to do with Israel or its politics". LevelCheck 21:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wipe my hands clean of this article - I renounce my right to say anything on the question - so that I can answer you here. This is how I answer: if there were no general Jewish opinion, there would be no Jews after all this time. Remember that. The Jews are notorious for their ability to put aside their differences at the slightest provocation, at the slightest sign of danger. They talk of civil war in Israel now? When I raised the question to (another) Jew I trust very much, he told me to wait and see how it never comes to that. And, whatever I suspect or wonder, I know why he's saying what he says. If it comes to civil war, then we Jews are standing before a big tragedy, for us bigger than any other tragedy we've faced.
That was my personal opinion, and (in accordance with every rule of good conduct) I promise not to meddle anymore. Do with that paragraph what you will.--VKokielov 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of academy, let me tell you what that has to do with Israel and anti-Zionism. A Jew who will not rise to fight for Israel, accusations of misconduct be cursed, is a very peculiar Jew indeed. Have you seen the Israeli left? There is not one Israeli leftist who did not serve his round in the army. So, pardon me, when an Oxford professor spits, like the last idiot in the world, on a student from Israel because (says Oxford) this student was Israeli, why should we be surprised that Oxford punishes him? --VKokielov 22:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing written here do represent a common conception among Jews, Zionists and Israelis, but it is badly written and hard to understand. There is actually a good point here to develop, using the examples of the Oxford professor who refuse to accept an Israeli only because of ita nationality and the AUT recent boycott, to write a paragraph about acadamic boycotts against Israel and the percieved bias and single out of Israel alone to boycotts. Check this Guardian in which you can find some attributation to the claims raised in the paragraph. We definitely have something to work out and discuss. MathKnight 21:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't say that there wasn't a point here to develop. I said that the way it was written was highly POV, lacked citations, and that certain passages made false implications, enough so that in this highly controversial article it seemed more appropriate to cut it to the talk page for work than to work on it in the article itself. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:59, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic incidents in the United Kingdom

This whole section should be cut, or completely re-written. It is highly POV, irrelevant and leading. It insinuates and makes accusations. There may well be incidents of Anti-Semitism in the UK, but there would be incidents of all other forms of racism as well. It also tries to lable Ken Livingstone as an anti-semite, but he is not, and there is no factual and un-POV evidence to indicate that he might be. --Chammy Koala 13:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? It is contained well-cited reports. You argue that the antisemitic attacks are no different than the sphoradic racist attack occuring once in a while, but the above statements differ on that: they cite 40% rise in attacks, organized demonization efforts by groups and official unions and the result of that rise.

Is this paragraph claims that Livingston is antisemitic? Well, not explicitly. It states the fact he was highly criticized by Jewish groups and his support for Qardawi. It let the reader to decide alone rather Livingston is antisemitic or just pro-Palestine and anti-Israeli with big mouth that got him into troubles. MathKnight 20:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The mention of Oona King is kind of odd. There is no way of knowing why the voters of B&BG voted the way they did but Iraq was clearly an issue. It is not clear that Ms King's Jewish mother was despite her claims that it was. After all the same voters voted for her in three, I think offhand, previous elections. At least once anyway as she was a sitting member. Either a lot of them became A-S over night, or Iraq was an issue, her Jewishness was not. Does anyone mind if I try to recast that bit to make it clear that it is a claim, not a fact? Lao Wai 16:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Lead POV

"The New anti-Semitism refers to the resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols as well as the acceptability of anti-Semitic beliefs and their public expression in the media, universities, and the intellectual world in the late twentieth to early twenty-first century."

This is not NPOV, by any stretch of the imagination. -SV|t|add 20:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing the work of Pierre-Andre Taguieff, who is not Jewish, but has collected data on the new anti-Semitism. So, this description partially defines his dataset, although it could be expanded. What changes would you recommend? I thought it was clear and to the point, whereas the original lead made no sense whatsoever and was very confusing. How can it be made more neutral? The description I offered appears to encapsulate the concept and offers some clarity to an otherwise messy article, but does not just describe Taguieff's position, but the idea as a whole. Two words in particular, "resurgence" and "acceptability" are key to the definition. --Viriditas | Talk 21:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So we now have a lead that totally fails to mention the controversy, even among Jews, surrounding the term? This seems absolutely wrong to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

It should certainly mention any controversy. Could you offer an example of a rewritten lead that incldues such controversy? The previous lead was too confusing and didn't explain the term in any helpful way. I haven't yet addressed Taguieff's main point, which is that anti-Semitism that was formerly based on racism and nationalism has changed nto a new anti-Semitism based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. That is the essence of the "controversy", so any reputable source which criticizes that view should be included in the lead with the aforementioned text attributed to Taguieff, in addition to the present lead which gives a brief, general overview. I don't believe the current lead is in question but the nature of the attacks themselves, which I have just briefly clarified. I will also be adding evidence for these attacks in the coming days. --Viriditas | Talk 02:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chesler makes the same point about the New anti-Semitism, that anti-Semitism that was formerly based on racism and nationalism has changed into a new anti-Semitism based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently very busy, not able to keep up with my Watchlist, etc. I will get back to this eventually; meanwhile, no one should mistake my lack of time to address this for agreement with the changes being made. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Let me start with a question: where does the definition of "The New anti-Semitism" that makes up the first sentence ("the contemporary (beginning in the late 20th century) resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols as well as the acceptability of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse") come from? It's unattributed and it completely contradicts the Irwin Cotler definition cited/quoted below.

I don't want to be disruptive here, but in the case of a controversial term, we need to be discussing that term the way it's used in the literature. I finally found myself with an hour or so on my hands and thought I'd try to work on the lead, as discussed, but the article now announces itself as being on a rather different topic than just a few days ago. Can someone please find a set of cited definitions and write a first paragraph or two accordingly? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

The current lead is an overview and not an actual definition. The fact that these attacks are occurring and have been labeled the "new anti-Semitism" is clear and not in dispute. The dispute lies in the difference between the old and the new, and the proponents have explicitly stated that criticism of Israel is not NAS. It may or may not be the case that some attacks fit the definition of NAS and some do not, and this is one aspect of the controversy that should be explored. The criticism section should focus on pointing out holes in NAS. In contrast to anti-Semitism based on racism and nationalism, proponents claim that NAS is motivated by anti-racism and anti-nationalism, such that Jews are being attacked as "racists who support Israel", by an alleged radical Islamist subculture in Europe, and by a contingent of disparate (and not so disparate) groups in the U. S. and elsewhere (views that range from right to left) who compare Zionism to Nazism, accuse Jews of ritual murder, and engage in holocaust denial. In some cases, there is an overlap between the groups. The critics claim the proponents are confusing the old anti-semitism with criticism of Israel, but the proponents point out that these kinds of attacks are in marked contrast to simply criticizing Israel. --Viriditas | Talk 07:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the previous version tried to make clear, the meaning of the expression varies considerably. Here are some examples. First some quotes from Seymour Martin Lipset, professor of government and sociology at Harvard University (1971). He doesn't use the exact phrase "the new anti-Semitism", but he outlines the theme pretty well:

Twenty-five years after the end of World War II and the collapse of the most anti-Semitic regime in history, anti-Semitism appears to be on the rise around the world. But unlike the situation before 1945 when anti-Jewish polirics was largely identified with rightist elements, the current wave is linked to governments, parties and groups which are conventionally described as leftist.[---]One may oppose Israeli policy, resist Zionism or criticize worldwide Jewish support of Israel without being anti-Semitic. But when one draws on age-old hostility to Jews to strenghten a political position, when one gives credence to this charge of a worldwide Jewish plot to rule, when one attacks those with whom one has political and econonomic differences as Jews, when one implies that Jews are guilty of some primal evil, then one is guilty of anti-Semitism,[---]The Arabs, of course, like other critics of the Jews on the far left and right, insist that they are only anti-Zionist. Yet there is clear evidence that anti-Semitism -- not simply anti-Zionism -- has deeply penetrated Arab groups and governments.[---]Given the clear-cut anti-Semitic character of much pro-Arab propaganda [...] the question arises as to why so many on the left, including many Jews, hace accepted such politics as their own, or more commonly, have abstained from criticizing groups such as the Black Panthers, no matter how explicit their bigotry. [---]The fact that this time the predominant weight of the anti-Semitic thrust is on the left rather then the right will surprise only those who are unaware of the considerable literature on anti-Semitism [sic] in the socialist and other leftist movements.

Lipset described all the main characteristics of the "new anti-Semitism": the "predominant weight" in left-wing rather than right-wing groups. Anti-Semitism under the guise of anti-Zionism. Far left, far right, and Arab worlds as main sources. Seen as acceptable many intellectual leftists.

Then we have the ADL report called "The New Anti-Semitism" (1974) written by Forster and Epstein. Its perspective was quite similar to Lipset's, but there was a greater emphasis on the acceptability of anti-Semitic stereotypes in public discourse.

the new anti-Semitism is not necessarily deliberate in character and is more often expressed by respected individuals and institutions here and abroad -- people who would be shocked to think of themselves, or have other think them, anti-Semites

Sometimes the concept is closer tied to anti-Zionism:

Irving Abella (professor of history at York University in Toronto) (1991):

The new antisemitism consists of Israel-bashing. It is more than a matter of attacking the policies of the Israeli government, which is legitimate, Abella says, if you disagree with those policies. But accusing Zionists of racism, negating Israel's right to exist as an independent state, and using Nazi metaphors to describe IDF actions in the administered territories is antisemitic.

This usage was of course criticized, for example by Eric Alterman in the Nation, Nov 5 1990.

But sometimes Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are seen as characteristic of the new anti-Semitism. Thus, for example Frances Henry, professor of Anthropology (1999) who testified in a Canadian court:

Her evidence was that the "new" anti-Semitism places great emphasis on Holocaust-denial and belief in Jewish conspiracies and control of governments. She noted that racism may be expressed overtly or may be covert. It has become more subtle in recent years. In her view, the more serious forms of racism are those that are hidden in popular culture, such as in the words, images and descriptions used by media writers.

Sorry if this is a bit unsystematic, but I think it should give a general idea. Sometimes it's used in a more narrow sense as with Abella or Cotler, where it becomes a new kind of anti-Semitism, but usually it simply refers to the contemporary forms of anti-Semitism (e.g. Lipset and Sacks) though most commentators agree that the current forms are different from the forms prevalent at previous times. --Denis Diderot 09:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite. And our lead needs to make that ambiguity clear, rather than select one meaning of a contentious term and act as if it were the only one. See Liberalism and Conservatism as examples of articles that have to deal with a similar issue (and, for that matter, Socialism, Right-wing politics, ad nauseum. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:50, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any ambiguity. The definitions Diderot posted are pre-2001, and the term is used differently today. I will support this definition with citations later tonight. --Viriditas | Talk 03:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying that people somehow got together in 2001 and agreed to redefine this expression? And that the way it was used for about a decade before that is now irrelevant? I don't even know how to engage an argument like that. This is an encyclopedia, not a political party with a "line of the moment". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The term NAS is used differently today, particularly in terms of the resurgence of anti-semitism after 2001. I'm not sure what "argument" you are trying to engage, nor am I clear on what you describe as a "political party with a line of the moment". All words, terms, and definitions change over time, depending on their usage. I've also said that I will provide support for a general, non-ambiguous definition, which I am in the process of composing. --Viriditas | Talk 08:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

O.K., as I see it, there is currently a phenomenon where Israel and its assumed supporters (i.e. Jews) are being increasingly attacked in various ways (in print, verbally, physically). Proponents of the concept of a "New anti-Semitism" say that this is "New anti-Semitism" because a) Jews are being attacked as a result of antipathy for Israel, and b) Israel is being attacked in the same way that anti-Semites attack Jews, often as a socially acceptable cover or proxy for anti-Semites, and c) attacks now come not only from the right, but from the left, as purported "anti-racism". Opponents of the concept say this is not "New anti-Semitism" because a) Jews being attacked is just plain old anti-Semitism, and b) Israel is simply being legitimately criticized on moral grounds, there's nothing anti-Semitic about it, and c) charges of anti-Semitism are just a ploy to stifle debate and criticism. From what I can tell, the definitions given by various people above do not disagree on these fundamental points, so there is no pre-2001/post-2001 dichotomy. Am I missing something here? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The definitions don't disagree, but some of them place more emphasis on other aspects such as Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. After 2001, the NAS began to be used to refer to the anti-racist and anti-nationalist nature of the attacks, more so than any other aspect, perhaps because of the increase in such attacks.

• Many see the rise in Western Europe of what they call the "new anti-Semitism" as even more worrisome. Since serious Israeli-Palestinian fighting began in the fall of 2000, there has been a spike in harassment and vandalism targeting Jews, especially in France. Much of that is in poor communities where immigrant Muslims and immigrant Jews from North Africa live side by side. Unemployment and frustrations are high. Arab satellite stations, as well as European news networks, broadcast a steady stream of reports on Palestinians under fire, their homes destroyed, their lands reoccupied, their children killed. There is also, in many parts of Europe, a residue of the old racist attitudes that spawned the Fascist and Nazi policies of the 1930s. One of the presidential candidates in France's upcoming elections, Jean-Marie Le Pen, skirts the limits of the law baiting both Arabs and Jews..."For the first time I'm getting reports from young Jews about anti-Semitism at work," Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, told Newsweek. It's gotten worse since September 11. "I've been getting hate mail, powerful letters," says Sacks, "one even calling me a neo-Nazi. Never been called that before. Many of the letters were responding to events in Israel." (April 1, 2002. Newsweek. 139:13)
• Burning synagogues in France. Blood libels in Saudi Arabia. The murder of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan. Nasty language now acceptable at London dinner parties. Harassment of Jewish college students in the United States. The massacre at a Passover seder in Israel... The official Saudi newspaper al-Riyadh last month asserted that Jews kill Muslim and Christian children and use their blood in holiday foods. A government-controlled newspaper in Egypt decried the "Jewish conspiracy" to dominate America. The virulently anti-Semitic and thoroughly discredited screed "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" is once again making the rounds. The New Anti-Semitism in Europe is subtler but more worrying. Since the Israeli military offensive began in the West Bank last month, Jewish schools, synagogues and cemeteries have been attacked; individual Jews have been beaten and harassed. "Salon anti-Semitism" is becoming acceptable, even when it proves to be embarrassing-such as when the French ambassador to the United Kingdom was caught at a dinner party calling Israel "that s- little country."...tensions on college campuses have grown recently, as demonstrations and divestment movements galvanize an increasingly assertive pro-Palestinian sentiment. Jewish students have been harassed, their institutions vandalized...legitimate criticism of Israeli leadership is distorted by what can only be called an unfair double-standard applied to Israelis and to Jews. That's evident in the disturbing remarks made earlier this month by members of the panel that selected Shimon Peres, Yasser Arafat and the late Yitzhak Rabin as the 1994 recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. Several members said that, if they could, they would take back the prize from Peres, now the Israeli foreign minister, whom they hold entirely responsible for the bloodshed in the Middle East. There was not a shred, not a whisper, not a hint of criticism of Arafat for supporting terrorism, inciting hatred, and destroying his people's best chance at statehood. (Apr 12, 2002. Philadelphia Inquirer)
• On September 11, 2001...both war-and a new kind of anti-Semitism-had been declared...Jews and Zionists are being blamed in Chinese as well as in Arabic...the war against the Jews is now also the war against America and the west, and against our shared cultural values...nothing has been the same for any of us, in America or the rest of the world, since 9/11...in the last three years...incidents of anti-Semitism have increased enormously...the Jews are experiencing four simultaneous Intifadas: one in the Islamic world, a second in Europe, a third on North American campuses, and a fourth directed at America and the West by Al Qaeda...this is also what is new about the new anti-Semitism...it is worldwide. (Chesler, Phyllis. 2003. The New Anti-Semitism)
• In all, 197 anti-Semitic incidents reported [in Canada] between January and June 2002 -- 63 per cent more than in the same period in 2001. (Jan 20, 2003. Maclean's. 116:3. p. 52)
• The new anti-Semitism drips into the mainstream with surprising ease. Since she went to print, a popular columnist in The Observer, one of the most popular of Britain's liberal papers, piously announced that he would no longer even read letters to the editor about anti-Semitism if they were signed with Jewish names. The Chicago Tribune, with several newspapers following its lead, only recently ran a particularly nasty political cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a stereotypical hooked nose and the Jewish star sewn on his jacket, staring down with pleasure as President Bush satisfies his greed by paving "the road map to peace" with dollar bills. (The Tribune apologized for failing to recognize the anti-Semitic slurs.) (Jul 28, 2003. Washington Times)
• In England, the Guardian wrote that "Israel has no right to exist." The Observer described Israeli settlements in the West Bank as "an affront to civilization." The New Statesman ran a story titled "A Kosher Conspiracy," illustrated by a cover showing the gold Star of David piercing the Union Jack. The story implies that a Zionist-Jewish cabal is attempting to sway the British press to the cause of Israel. In France, the weekly Le Nouvel Observateur published an extraordinary libel alleging that Israeli soldiers raped Palestinian women so that their relatives would kill them to preserve family honor. In Italy, the Vatican's L'Osservatore Romano spoke of Israel's "aggression that's turning into extermination," while the daily La Stampa ran a Page 1 cartoon of a tank emblazoned with the Jewish star pointing its big gun at the infant Jesus, who cries out, "Surely they don't want to kill me again." Across Europe, the result has been not just verbal violence but physical. A report issued last year by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, titled "Fire and Broken Glass," describes the assaults on Jews and people presumed to be Jewish across Europe. Attackers, shouting racist slogans, throw stones at schoolchildren, at worshipers attending religious services, at rabbis. Jewish homes, schools, and synagogues are firebombed. Windows are smashed, Jewish cemeteries desecrated with anti-Jewish slogans. In just a few weeks in the spring of last year, French synagogues and Jewish schools, students, and homes were attacked and firebombed. A synagogue in Marseilles was burned to the ground. In Paris, Jews were attacked by groups of hooded men. According to police, metropolitan Paris saw something like a dozen anti-Jewish incidents a day in the first several months after Easter. (Nov 3, 2003. U.S. News & World Report. 135:15)
• French President Jacques Chirac launched a commission yesterday to fight a "new anti-Semitism" after another attack on Jewish property prompted commentators to raise concern over France's failure to integrate its Muslim population. (Nov 18, 2003Toronto Star)
• JAKARTA, Indonesia...the prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, stirred global controversy when he delivered a speech to an Islamic summit conference that labeled Jews as the "enemy" of Islam. Mahathir's speech was rightfully condemned as undisguised anti-Semitism, no different in its essence than the ideas that led to Nazism in Germany. Unfortunately, the speech was widely applauded in the Islamic world, including here in Malaysia's neighbor, Indonesia, the largest Muslim-populated nation in the world...In a society with no direct knowledge of Jews, the existence of these views is testimony to the reprehensible global spread of what some have labeled the "New Anti-Semitism." "The problem is not Jews _ the problem is Zionism," insisted a leader of one of Indonesia's Islamic political parties. But in literature sold at the party headquarters, the "international Zionist movement" is described as a product of the "evil of Jews" whose religion insults God, making them not only an enemy of Islam but of all humanity. During this past week we have seen what happens when extremists act on such ideas. Last Saturday terrorists set off bombs in front of two synagogues in the Turkish city of Istanbul. On the same day, cowards of the same ilk set fire to a Jewish school outside of Paris, the latest in a wave of anti-Semitic acts in France. As the French daily Le Monde acknowledged in an editorial last week, the condemnation of Israeli policies by European leaders "has lowered the borderline, evidently, which was already uncertain for some, between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism." (Nov 21, 2003. San Jose Mercury News)
• ...in the past few years, extreme left-wing and right-wing groups in Europe have worked together to mount anti-Israel demonstrations in several major cities; in the United States, white supremacists and other ultraright-wing organizations have taken up the Palestinian issue in the hope of building a new coalition against Jews; and left-wing groups throughout the country, and especially on college campuses, have championed the anti-Israel cause, at times pushing it, in Foxman's words, "over the line into out-right anti-Semitism. (Nov 30, 2003. New York Times Book Review)
• Since the new millennium, however, renewed bloodshed in the Middle East and America's war on terror have rekindled some disturbing anti-Jewish trends throughout Europe and beyond. According to a report prepared for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, British Jews blame inflammatory reporting on the Middle East conflict. But while the motivation for today's anti-semitism may be more closely linked to people's attitudes towards Israel, the effect on Jewish minorities remains the same. (Dec 4, 2003. The Times. p. 3)
• Something new had invaded discussions of the Holocaust - a not-so-new anti-Semitism, revived and rampant, that trivializes the Holocaust and hides hatred of Jews in the conflict between Arabs and Israel. An Italian newspaper poll of nine European nations on the eve of the anniversary found that 46 percent of those interviewed across the continent say that Jews are "different," 9 percent do not "like or trust Jews" and 15 percent wish that Israel didn't exist. What the Israeli designation of the anniversary recognizes is that anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment are hatreds joined at the heart. Many of the Europeans who want Israel to go away don't even know why they do. Nearly a third of those interviewed concede they have no idea what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all about. It's enough to know that Israelis are Jews...The Alexandria Library in Egypt, funded by the Egyptian and Italian governments with support of the United Nations, includes a manuscript room where the holiest books of the three Abrahamic faiths - the Torah of the Jews, the Bible of the Christians and the Koran of the Muslims - are displayed in places of honor. Not long ago the director of the museum placed next to the Torah a copy of the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," an infamous forgery that sets out an outlandish Jewish plot to take over the world...The director of the Alexandria Library described "The Protocols" to an Egyptian newspaper as a sacred book of the Jews, who misrepresent their victimhood by exaggerating the number murdered in the Holocaust. (Feb 02, 2004 Washington Times)
• Mark Levin, the executive director of NCSJ, a group that works for Jews in former Soviet states, including Russia, said that after the Soviet Union collapsed, anti-Semitism at times seemed to be the only issue uniting the political left and right. He added that he's been dealing with "anti-Semitism classic," while watching "new anti-Semitism" rise in Western Europe. "In Russia they call it the Red-Brown Coalition, when left and right agree," he said. Gunther Jikeli works with young people in a section of Berlin that's full of anti-globalization protesters and Islamic immigrants. He said he's frustrated that the rapid increase of anti-Semitism he sees in both groups wasn't getting attention at the conference. "These are people who meet in youth centers and find a common argument in the Israel-Palestine debate," he said. "They find a common base in anti-Semitism. And we're seeing more violence on the streets, against Jews, because of it." (April 29, 2004, Knight Ridder Washington Bureau)
• Those keeping track of anti-Semitic incidents reported an astronomical rise in their number in France and England during the rest of September and throughout October. And the post-9/11 violence itself was dwarfed by what followed in April 2002 when the Israeli government reacted to the Passover massacre of 30 people and wounding of 140 in Netanya by entering Jenin in order to quash the terrorist network that dispatched suicide bombers. This brought, in Schoenfeld’s words, "an upsurge in anti-Semitic violence in Europe unprecedented since the 1930s"...Whereas physical violence against European Jews is mainly the work of Muslims, the verbal violence is the work primarily of leftists, of strugglers against "racism," of the "learned" classes. Here the British lead the charge, with one Oxford lecturer calling for Jews living in the disputed territories to be "shot dead," another Oxford luminary in medicine refusing to consider any Israeli applicant for post-graduate research, assorted London and Manchester professors organizing boycotts of Israeli scholars..."Too frequently to discount now," wrote Petronella Wyatt in the Spectator of London in late 2001, "I hear remarks that the Jews are to blame for everything." In April 2003 the EU conducted a public opinion poll that elicited (as it was intended to do) the view of a majority (59%) of Europeans that Israel is the greatest threat to world [peace]... (Nov-Dec, 2004. Society)

--Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

NAS definitions continued

• The new anti-Semitism is not exclusively hostile to this or that individual Jew. or to Judaism. It is directed primarily against the Jewish collective, the modern State of Israel......It dates from the 1967 Arab-Israeli war that transformed the image of the Jew. Shylock was replaced by a new all-powerful Jew, cartooned as an aggressive, excessive, brutal collective called Israel...The traditional attacks from the right, based on national, religious, or ethnic reasons, have been surpassed in Europe by the moral driving force of the extreme left, which invokes political and universal reasons like human rights, anti-colonialism and economic egalitarianism, overlaid with excessive anti-Americanism. (Zuckerman, Mortimer. (Dec 2004-Feb 2005) UN Chronicle 4)

• Taguieff expertly dissects the thinking of the most aggressive anti-Jewish Muslims. To them, "Israel is inherently culpable, the only nation-state guilty by its mere existence," he observes. Moreover, those who are thought to be allied with Israel are also guilty and may be attacked at will. The rationale that supports such violence goes like this: "Jews are all more or less crypto-Zionists. Zionism is a form of colonialism, imperialism and racism. Therefore Jews are colonialists, imperialists and racists, whether overt or covert." Taguieff further points out that these by now well entrenched political clichés have reconstituted "an anti-Jewish vision of the world." Like the old anti-Semitism, the new "Judeophobia," as he prefers to call it, embodies a "total hatred" of Jews "as endowed with a malign essence." All are guilty, although the most guilty are the "Zionists" and those who support the alleged evil that is the "Zionist state." Hence, in the new lexicon of Judeophobia, currently fashionable among French and other European intellectuals, "anti-Zionism" is not to be denounced as a form of anti-Semitism but embraced as a virtue by all right-thinking people. Taguieff presents an array of evidence that shows these views are now normative among people on the far Right and the extreme Left...The "Zionism" endlessly excoriated by the "anti-Zionists" is a construct, or useful ideological fiction, he correctly notes. The targets of the "anti-Zionists" are "less and less 'Zionism' or 'Zionists' and more and more Jews as such." To illustrate, Taguieff quotes Jordanian Minister of Social Affairs Emile Algohri: "It is our firm belief that there is no difference at all between Jews and Zionists. All Jews are Zionists and all Zionists are Jews, and anyone who thinks otherwise is not thinking logically. We consider world Jewry our adversary and enemy, as we do imperialism and all the pro-Jewish powers." (Rosenfeld, Alvin H. (May/Jun2004). New Leader. 87:3. p. 23.)

• Harold Evans, the former editor of the London Sunday Times, argues that it isn't anti-Semitic to criticize Israel (and he has), but it is "anti-Semitic to consistently condemn in Israel what you ignore or condone elsewhere." He describes the "new anti-Semitism" as frenzied, vicious, prolific and largely unrecognized in the West by the press, academia, churches and governments....Cynthia Ozick observes in an afterword that the "new" anti-Semitism accelerates under the rubric of "anti-Zionism" and is masked by the deceptive language of "human rights." This is the Big Lie of our time, propelled with "malice of aforethought by the intellectual classes, the governing elites, the most prestigious elements of the press in all the capitals of Europe and by the university professors and the diplomats." (Fields, Suzanne. (Jul 25, 2004). Washington Times. Books. p. B08)

• Recent writings on anti-Semitism by a number of prominent authors have suggested that Jews are confronting a new brand of anti-Jewish vitriol and violence that is distinct from classical anti-Semitism because it cloaks itself in the increasingly acceptable politics of anti-Zionism. Evidence that much anti-Zionism and rhetoric that demonizes Israel is anti-Semitism in disguise, and the sense of panic that pervades much of the writing on this subject, seem to have so irked Brian Klug ["The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism," Feb. 2] that he rejects out of hand the idea that Jews are confronting a new wave of anti-Semitism. Klug is right to take issue with one claim made by many commentators on the "new anti-Semitism": Advocacy of anti-Zionism and binationalism vis-à-vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not inherently anti-Semitic. Both can be, and have been, advanced in ways that acknowledge the intense need that many Jews, both in Israel and around the world, feel for a strong, secure Israel--for example, in proposals for a binational confederal regime that might evolve by mutual consent from two working democratic states at peace, Israel and Palestine, modeled in some respects on the European Union. But in his zealous effort to reject the logic of the "new anti-Semitism" writers, Klug refuses to admit the pervasiveness of anti-Jewish racism that today underlies much of the anti-Zionism and anti-Israel invective in the Arab world and on the European left. (Remba, Gidon D. (Apr 12, 2004) The Nation. 278:14)

• The Quranic motifs began to grow in importance after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, along with virulent anti-Americanism. In the Islamic demonology, both America and Israel are now bonded together as "Satanic forces" that threaten the core-identity values and existence of Islam. This has been especially the case since the beginning of the Palestinian Al-Aqsa intifada in the autumn of 2000 and the massacres of September 11, 2001. Not only did an astonishing number of Muslims seek to place the responsibility for this mass murder onto the Jews, but Israel, more than ever, was execrated as a dagger of the West poised to strike at the heart of the Muslim Arab world. In the anti-Semitic script, America itself is depicted as being run by Jews malevolently determined to subvert and destroy Islam. This chorus of voices has grown even shriller with the American war on Iraq, a conflict that has led to an ever closer twinning of anti-American, anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic sentiment in western Europe, as well as the Islamic world....Driven by this ideology, Islamists see the fingerprints of the all-powerful Zionist lobby everywhere, spreading its tentacles and deadly lies, draining the life-blood of Arabs and Muslims, gratuitously inciting war against Iraq, and carrying out its sinister plans for global control...In the case of the jihadist, the return of anti-Semitism also needs to be seen as a powerful backlash against Western and Israeli visions of a "new Middle East", as well as the rejection of a new world order, a global economy, "normalization" with the Jewish state and the idea of a negotiated peace. Indeed, "world Zionism" is today perceived as the driving-force behind globalization ("Americanization") much as a century ago "international Jewry" was depicted by European anti-Semites as the satanic engine of finance capitalism and supranational cosmopolitanism. The new anti-Semitism eagerly scavenges this arsenal of older images which, since the onset of modernity, have stereotyped the Jews as a dangerously mobile, roodess, abstract and transnational mafia uniquely tuned to exploit capitalist economy and culture. The protean caricature of the Jew has been given a new lease on life by the contemporary Islamist apostles of jihad. Israel and Jewry have become their great surrogate in the holy war against America and the corrupt modem world of jahiliyya. Uncle Sam, so to speak, has coalesced with Shylock into a terrifying specter of globalization that threatens to swamp the world of Islam. (Wistrick, Robert S. (Summer, 2003). The National Interest)

• What's new about the new anti-Semitism is that for the first time it is being perpetrated in the name of antiracism, antiimperialism, and anticolonialism. Because the charges of apartheid Zionism and American capitalist imperialism are being leveled by those who champion the uprising of the oppressed, what they say cannot, by definition, be racist. The new anti-Semites allege they are not anti-Semites because they say they're not...Old fashioned anti-Semitism was expressed in the name of ethnicity, Aryanism, white purity, superiority, and nationalism...What's new...is the way in which visual and print propaganda are being purposefully created and used to indoctrinate and manipulate people on a scale that was neither imaginable nor possible fifty years ago...in order to brainwash the viewers against the Jews and the Israelis...Criticizing the Jewish state is no proof of anti-Semitism...but...today's new anti-Semite hides behind the smoke screen of anti-Zionism. (Chesler, Phyllis. (2003). The New Anti-Semitism)

Response by Jmabel

I feel like I'm being buried under the weight of these, but there is no statement as to what you think these each demonstrate. Is this intended as a response to my issues above? If so, sorry, but I can't see the upshot. May I at least presume that you consider this a representative sample of statements by people who believe in the "new anti-semitism" model? Or is your point something else entirely? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think the header is self-explanatory. Regarding your comments, can you clarify your issue? --Viriditas | Talk 09:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's not self-explanatory. This is a pile of other people's prose, not a coherent argument.

1. Nothing I see in it bolsters your claim of a pre-2001 vs. post-2001 distinction, though maybe I'm missing something in a pile of quotations with no linking remarks.
2. Nothing in it argues why, if such a distinction exists, a pre-2001 usage would not merit mention in an encyclopedia.

The current lead makes no mention that "old" anti-Semitism continues. The current lead gives no indication of controversy over whether the phenomenon being described is simply (old) anti-Semitism coded as anti-Zionism or is a distinct phenomenon in which a (possibly legitimately based) anti-Zionism is being (unjustly) extrapolated into anti-Semitic actions and beliefs (and probably there are other variants that merit mention).

Beyond that, I agree with what Jayjg (above) and Stevertigo (below) have said, and I see no need to repeat it. It is my strong belief that the lead section of the article was considerably closer to the mark about two weeks ago than it is now. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

In response to what you written above, the self-explanatory header clearly states, "NAS definitions continued", in referernce to some older definitions provided by Denis Diderot. The other section, in response to Jayjg, is separate and briefly addresses the nature of the new anti-Semitism in relation to the attacks after 2001. This is certainly not an argument, nor was one intended. In response to your other points:

1. The pre-2001 vs. post-2001 distinction is evident, with the attacks in question occuring after 2001, and the use of the term being used in reference to those attacks. Much of the ambiguity you describe is found in the pre-2001 definitions that Diderot provided. Further, this is not my claim as you contend, but one made by many proponents, including Chesler, Taguieff, Schoenfeld, and many other writers. Please do not confuse me with the claims being made.
2. I'm not exactly clear what you are getting at with your second point, so I will skip this until you explain it further.
3. The current lead has not yet been modified to discuss the difference between the old and the new anti-Semitism.
4. I don't see how the old lead was "closer" to getting to the root of this issue, as it avoided the issue altogether. The new lead at least partially describes the phenomenon in question, from the point of view of those who use the term, but does not yet make mention of the anti-racist and anti-nationalist distinctions. The post-2001 description is an ancillary definition, so one should not get too hung up on it, although quite a number of proponents find it important. --Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo-Viriditas

Wll, I think what this comes down to is that "New anti-Semitism" is a neologist term, (as the article was months ago) which it's propents insist isn't merely a term, but rather a real thing/phenomenon itself – similar enough to anti-Semitism to be called "anti-Semitism" but distinct and different enough to be called brand "new". This should raise some incongruities about the logic of such a term:

Does "New anti-Semitism" mean that "old" anti-Semitism is dead and no longer a continuing issue? The term seems to assert that all recent anti-Semitism is "new anti-Semitism" and conversely, it seems to imply a meaningful distinction between past and recent anti-Semitism, based simply on the aspect of time. But if "new anti-Semitism" actually is anti-Semitism, then by who's definition is recent time a valid sub-distinction from a category that spans millenia —back to before even the "troubler of Israel," Elijah. The article (as it is written) leads one to understand that the definition of "New anti-Semitism" is not based merely on time, but rather a whole bunch of other criteria mixed in with it. Is any of that criteria POV, and if so, how can this article be said to be anything other than a term, not really distinguishable from anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism?

Whats left is that one can reasonably make the assertion that most of the "new Anti-Semitism" can simply redirect-merge to anti-Zionism or anti-Judaism. The assertion that the term is anything more than a term to label certain political views as anti-Semitism is a POV one, and is only attributable to contemporary conservative polemicists, seeking to impose an agenda. The 64KUSD question – is this POV title worthy of an article? Answer: Only if its basis keeps to what it is, and not shifted to what it claims or asserts. -SV|t 18:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Can you show me where an author argues that the old anti-Semitism is dead? I think the previous comments, definitions, and quotes above make the distinctions clear.
2. Can you show me where the term asserts that all recent anti-Semitism is "new anti-Semitism"? Again, the distinctions have been spelled out.
3. The term does not imply a meaningful distinction between past and recent anti-Semitism, based simply on the aspect of time. That was an ancillary point that I raised in relation to the time frame of the attacks and the publication of articles and books referring to the term.
4. The new anti-Semitism is based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism, while the old anti-Semitism is based on racism and nationalism.
5. The article as it is written needs a lot of work, and I am in the process of providing data and sources from proponents and critics to answer your criticism about distinctions between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
6. I don't see how one can "reasonably make the assertion" that most of the "new Anti-Semitism" can redirect or merge to anti-Zionism or anti-Judaism. You offer your own POV when you state that the assertion that the term is anything more than a term to label certain political views as anti-Semitism is a POV one, and is only attributable to contemporary conservative polemicists, seeking to impose an agenda. That is your opinion, and does not reflect the fact that many of the proponents are from all parts of the political spectrum: Chesler is a radical left-wing feminist; Michael Lerner is a liberal; Christopher Hitchens is described as a "hawkish liberal", etc. Your argument appears to be ad hominem: "You can't trust so and so, she's a conservative..." --Viriditas | Talk 09:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I am beginning a rewrite of the article lead, based on your clarifications. -SV|t 21:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I had begun to rewrite the lead article, incorporating (verbatim) Viriditas' concise and pertinent comment: "The new anti-Semitism is based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism, while the old anti-Semitism is based on racism and nationalism." It was reverted by Mr Fixter, without comment on the talk page. I will restore my changes when time permits. -SV|t 23:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what a "POV sockpuppet" is. Use edit summaries, btw. --Mrfixter 00:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed that. What do you mean "use edit summaries"? On what basis did you revert my edit? Your note appears to claim either "original research" or a mislabeling as "not minor". The latter is not justification for revert. The first is typically used by sockpuppets and POV pushers as an ad hominem. Can you explain how it is "original research?" -SV|t 00:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Use edit summaries, the box underneath the main text fieldy box. What is a "POV sockpuppet"? Is that a good or bad thing? --Mrfixter 00:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly that depends on your point of view. How was my edit "original research"? -SV|t 00:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly that depends on your point of view. --Mrfixter 00:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

SV, in answer to your questions, proponents of the view that there is a "New antisemitism" say that it differs from the "Old antisemitism" in a number of ways I have outlined above. However, date is not a primary differentatior, but rather an effect; that is to say, "New antisemitism" is not defined as "antisemitism that occurred after the year 1990", but rather a different kind of antisemitism which has only manifested in recent times. As for it being based on "based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism", proponents of the idea that there is a new antisemitism are quite careful to note that, in their view, it is based on purported anti-racism and anti-nationalism. For example, the Ozick quote above:Cynthia Ozick observes in an afterword that the "new" anti-Semitism accelerates under the rubric of "anti-Zionism" and is masked by the deceptive language of "human rights." This is the Big Lie of our time, propelled with "malice of aforethought by the intellectual classes, the governing elites, the most prestigious elements of the press in all the capitals of Europe and by the university professors and the diplomats." Or, as Chesler says, "it is being perpetrated in the name of antiracism etc." As for trying to decipher whether these claims are true or not, that's not the purpose of Talk: pages or Wikipedia articles, remember, as WP:NPOV states, Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted.. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Weird, the 00:53 version by Levelcheck I just reverted doesn't show up in the history, but it does show up in the diff. Perhaps the database isn't caught up. Anyway, Levelcheck, the intro was inadequate, too much of a straw man definition. That's why I reverted in agreement with SlimVirgin's revert. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:00, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Are these people new Anti-semites?

Over 10,000 demonstrate against 'israel' new york city http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstrations/April2805nyc.cfm

Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews Protest the State of Israel, Says Neturei Karta International http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=46640

No. They're simply religious fanatics. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess that makes Zionists statehood fanatics. —Christiaan 15:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Odd conclusion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

They represent a traditional religious understanding of Zionism —which they assert is unrelated and contradictory to notions of statehood and state nationalism. -SV|t 00:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not correct; they represent a recent religious response to a recent political phenomenon. Religious Zionism has always been an integral part of Judaism - it should not escape your attention that these people are themselves living in Israel, descendents of immigrants to Israel; surely they do not believe that their presence in Israel is a sin. Rather, they object to Political Zionism, which is at most a 150 year old phenomenon. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

That's not correct. Neturey Karta is an extreme minority faction of anti-Zionists, which does not represent Orthodox Judaism. MathKnight 22:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Political Zionism in its modern form has little basis in the Jewish tradition up to the 19th century...I'm pretty sure there's no mention of a UN Mandate in Scripture --Tothebarricades.tk 02:56, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguity and history

A new linguistic law

Whenever a cultural phenomenon X reappears after a period of decline or absence, some people will call it "the new X" or "neo-X". Thus, for example "the new romantics", "the new realists", "neo-Nazism", "Neoliberalism" etc. These expressions don't imply that X is something new. To the contrary, they assert that X is something old that has re-emerged. But as soon as people realize that X has reappeared, they begin to compare the new X with the old X. And then they may discover some differences, and they may say things like "the new X is B, whereas the old X was A". Subsequently some people may discover that some of the new X is A as well. Rather then saying "the new X that is A", some people will use expressions like "the old X", "traditional X", "classical X", "paleo-X". Thus at this point some people will include "the new X that is A" in the concept of "the new X", and they will continue to call it "the new X". Other people will also include it in "new X", but often refer to it as "old X". Finally, some people will exclude "X that is A" altogether from "the new X".

On the history of the expression "the new anti-Semitism" and the history of the new anti-Semitism

The expression "the new anti-Semitism" first became popular in the early 1970s and was used to describe certain phenomena noted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The main phenomenon was the reappearance and apparent acceptability of anti-Semitic stereotypes in public discourse. The expression was controversial from the beginning, since people were called anti-Semitic who didn't see themselves as anti-Semitic or didn't want to be seen as anti-Semitic. Especially controversial was the claim that words like "Zionist" and "Zionism" could be euphemisms for "Jew" and "the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world". To be more precise, the claim was not controversial when applied to some neo-Nazi groups who had clearly adopted this usage in their "exoteric" pronouncements. (Though it was of course denied by the neo-Nazis.) But the claim was widely controversial even when applied to other openly racist groups. The expression became even more controversial when some commentators claimed that almost all forms of anti-Zionism were anti-Semitism. The basis for such claims was (1) that "Zionism" was "Jewish nationalism". To be against Zionism was therefore to be against Jewish nationalism. Because anti-Zionist supported other forms of nationalism (e.g. Arab or Palestinian) they were clearly biased against Jews. (2) Even if Zionism was understood in a more narrow sense as support for the Jewish state, anti-Zionists applied standards to Israel that they did not apply to other states. For example, they did not demand that Arab states should cease being Moslem. The anti-Zionists obviously didn't accept this argument. They generally rejected the first wide definition of Zionism and argued that Zionism should be seen as a form of colonialism, imperialism or racism, whereas Arab and Moslem nationalism (Islamism) should be seen as a struggle for independence.

On the year 2001

In 2001 Pierre-André Taguieff, a French historian of political ideas, presented an updated version of his old analysis of "the new Judeophobia". He argued that after the 1967 Six-Day War, a "new anti-Semitism" was spread across the world around a "conspiracy myth" labeled (by Taguieff) "absolute anti-Zionism". The main sources for the myth were the Arab Moslem world and the Soviet empire. Around demonized images of Zionism and Israel, all the ancient anti-Semitic themes were conjured. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, was massively diffused in 1967. He further maintained that a second wave of Judeophobia had swept across the world in the late 1990s. This time around the Soviet empire was out of business, but judeophobic themes were often amplified by passing from some Arab source through the far right to some leftist groups. Taguieff listed 4 characteristics of the "new Judeophobia": (1) The massive use of anti-Racism to promote anti-Jewish goals, (2) "Banalization" of the themes and language of Holocaust deniers, (3) Legitimization of anti-Semitic agitation by reference to radical anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism and criticism of free-trade globalization, and (4) Interaction with Islamist notions of Israel as the "little Satan" mixed with a demonized image of the Zionist control of the Western world. He thus disctinguished between "the old Judeophobia", which was based on explicit racism, and "the new Judeophobia", which was based on "demonological or absolute anti-Zionism". Taguieff's terminology has been adopted by other researchers and commentators and thus "the new Judeophobia" is a rather well-defined expression which means (in general) the modern (post 1967) use of anti-Semitic themes legitimized by anti-Zionism. Sometimes the expression "new anti-Semitism" has been used as a synonym of "new Judeophobia".

On the ambiguity of the term "new anti-Semitism"

From a November 2001 editorial by Amotz Asa-El in Jerusalem Post:

In the post-war era, again, anti-Semitism fueled a Zionist psychosis across the former Eastern Bloc, ultimately unleashing another mass immigration to Israel.

YET, TODAY'S challenge is different, since all these precedents were part of the Jews' European experience. Today's crisis is about anti-Semitism entering an entirely new phase in its already elaborate history.

Previous turning points in the development of anti- Semitism - since early Christianity condemned our forefathers, ourselves, and our descendants as Christ's killers - included the barring of Jews from public office in the waning days of the Roman Empire, a measure that socially marginalized the Jews; prohibitions on land ownership and cultivation, which enhanced the Jews' image as transient guests wherever they resided; the 1096 Crusaders' mass murder of entire communities in Germany; the 1215 Lateran Council's yellow-badge decree, which made the Jew carry his own discrimination wherever he went; the late Medieval expulsions, which made the threat of displacement a hallmark of the Jewish psyche; the 1648 massacres in East Europe, which happened despite an unwritten alliance between the Jews and the Polish nobility; and, of course, modern anti-Semitism, which depicted the Jews as nearly anyone's demon, from the fascists' anti-patriots to the Marxists' plutocrats and the Stalinists' "rootless cosmopolitans."

Now, just when the Christianity that invented it goes through pains to turn its back on anti-Semitism, it is being adopted by an Islamism intent to scapegoat the Jews for its own failures and eager to mobilize deep-seated prejudices among Christians against the Jews.

Newsweek cover story April 2002:

Many see the rise in Western Europe of what they call the "new anti-Semitism" as even more worrisome. Since serious Israeli-Palestinian fighting began in the fall of 2000, there has been a spike in harassment and vandalism targeting Jews, especially in France. Much of that is in poor communities where immigrant Muslims and immigrant Jews from North Africa live side by side. Unemployment and frustrations are high. Arab satellite stations, as well as European news networks, broadcast a steady stream of reports on Palestinians under fire, their homes destroyed, their lands reoccupied, their children killed. There is also, in many parts of Europe, a residue of the old racist attitudes that spawned the Fascist and Nazi policies of the 1930s. One of the presidential candidates in France's upcoming elections, Jean-Marie Le Pen, skirts the limits of the law baiting both Arabs and Jews. He's expected to garner 10 percent of the vote

Murray Gordon for AJC August 2002:

What is referred to as the "new anti-Semitism," which resonates so powerfully in Western Europe today, is not exactly new. Arab attacks against Jews occurred during and after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 to root out the PLO, which had been using the country as a platform to shell Israeli towns and settlements. What is different about today's Arab violence is its scope and intensity.

2003 headline from Jerusalem Post: "Jews fear 'new' anti-Semitism in quiet German city"

Surveys say anti-Jewish assaults and incidents in much of Europe are at their most frequent since Hitler's defeat.

Germany is especially sensitive because, within living memory, Hitler put to death 6 million Jews. But violence is more prevalent in France, where slums are crowded with disaffected young Arabs.

"Of course, we're afraid - we are terrified," said Ima Buchinger, an 18-year-old student, at the Regensburg synagogue on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the nationwide Nazi pogrom of 1938.

Tall and blonde, she might pass for a Wagnerian opera diva. Still, she said, young Arabs, Turks, and Germans taunt her and her Jewish friends, sometimes threatening physical violence.

As she spoke, German police in a Volkswagen van were at their usual spot outside, just as security forces watch over synagogues in Vienna, Paris, or London.

Rabbi Dannyel Morag advises calm but caution to his Regensburg community - 700 in a city of 160,000, many of them recent Russian immigrants with a thin grasp of either Hebrew or Torah.

"So far, we're OK," he said, "but in big cities it can be terrible. Some Jews can't find non-Jewish business partners because so many Germans think there may be trouble again, and they're afraid."

--Denis Diderot 06:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel intro rewrite

From my cursory reading, I say, great improvement, nice work. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:35, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think much of it is an improvement and well written, but unfortunately the following is clearly POV:

The word "new" in this construction refers only secondarily to the fact that this is "recent" anti-Semitism. The term New anti-Semitism is strongly identified with a controversial view that this new anti-Semitism is distinct—in its rhetoric, in its pretexts, and its locus on the political spectrum—from the old anti-Semitism that continues to exist alongside of it.

This is unattributed and may be false. One difficulty here is that even if people discuss the difference between "old" and "new" anti-Semitism, it doesn't necessarily mean that they always see them as distinct entities existing side by side. I don't think I've ever, for example, seen a breakdown of anti-Semitic incidents on the basis of "old" vs "new anti-Semitism. Many times it is close to impossible to deduce from a particular text what definition the author is using. Because my previous examples clearly haven't been enough to convey the fundamental ambiguity of the term I will provide two additional example from a recent (2004) book, "Those who forget the past: the question of anti-Semitism". These two authors clearly don't see any sharp distinction between "old anti-Semitism" , as exemplified by neo-Nazism, and "the new anti-Semitism".

We see that Nazism, communism, radical pan-Arab nationalism, and Islamism share a remarkably similar demonology of the Jew. [---]The new anti-Semitism eagerly scavenges this arsenal of older images which, since the onset of modernity, have stereotyped the Jews as a dangerously mobile, rootless, abstract, and transnational mafia uniquely tuned to exploit capitalist economy and culture. (Robert S. Wistrich pp. 88-89)

This new anti-Semitism is a kaledioscope of old hatreds shattered and rearranged into random patterns at once familiar and strange. It is the medieval image of the “Christ-killing” Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers. It is the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement refusing to put the Star of David on their ambulances. It is Zimbabwe and Malaysia – nations nearly bereft of Jews – warning of an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world's finances. It is neo-Nazis donning checkered Palestinian kaffiyehs and Palestinians lining up to buy copies of 'Mein Kampf'. (Mark Strauss p272)

I don't think an encyclopedia should concern itself too much with the meaning of words and expressions. That is a task for dictionaries. Wikipedia should simply note that the expression is ambiguous, describe the various meanings, and avoid making unattributed claims about the relative frequency or "properness" of any interpretation (unless the interpretation is clearly marginal or incorrect acording to dictionaries). --Denis Diderot 08:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The expression is only ambiguous in the sense that one may confuse the concept of the New anti-Semitism with "new" anti-Semitism. They are two different things. --Viriditas | Talk 08:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of this "solution", as well as early attempts to use consistent capitalization in the article, but it isn't a good solution, for two reasons. First, the "new anti-Semitism" is a generally acknowledged phenomenon, whether or not it exists :-). There are many books, scholarly articles and newspaper stories written about it. The "New anti-Semitism" in your sense is clearly less notable. Should Wikipedia have two articles, one on the "new anti-Semitism" and another on the "New anti-Semitism"? Also, it may be very difficult to attribute views correctly. Is X discussing the "New anti-Semitism" or the "new anti-Semitism". Secondly, as I've already suggested, instead of having an article on the "New anti-Semitism", it would be much better to have one on the New Judeophobia.--Denis Diderot 08:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it will be that difficult to attribute views. Regardless, the "new" anti-Semitism refers to anti-Semitism whereas the "New anti-Semitism" is the topic under discussion. It might initially be confusing to people unfamiliar with the topic. I agree with your proposal to move the page, but the problem is that only a few authors use the term, "New Judeophobia", with the published majority preferring "New anti-Semitism". --Viriditas | Talk 09:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

As for attribution, does the Sacks quote refer to "the New anti-Semitism" or "the new anti-Semitism"?

The New anti-Semitism refers to a contemporary (beginning in the late 20th century) international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols as well as the acceptability of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.

This is exactly what "the new anti-Semitism" refers to. The anti-Semitism article is too long for adding information about "the new anti-Semitism" to it. It wouldn't present any problem to direct readers from a general article on "the new anti-Semitism" to information about "the New anti-Semitism" under the "new Judeophobia" heading. I really don't think that we disagree substantially on any of this, and I certainly don't think that I am "unfamiliar with the topic" as you seem to suggest. --Denis Diderot 10:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Please read what I wrote again, as it 1) Did not refer to you or suggest anything about you in any way, and 2) was suggesting that people unfamiliar with the topic might confuse "new" anti-Semitism with "New anti-Semitism". --Viriditas | Talk 10:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Dennis' comments seem to be thorough and thoughful and they are much appreciated. Everyone on this page seem to be making a genuine effort to explain the various meanings of the term, and only slightly less seem to be concerned with how these can be conveyed to the reader without appearing to bias the article in a pro or con way. This is really excellent discussion, and I'd like to make a few points in response to Dennis and Viriditas as well as Jayjg above. Jmabel's rewrite was substantial, though this alteration by Jayjg, "In particular, the rhetoric and pretexts for the new anti-Semitism are seen at the root of some anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli, or anti-Israeli-government sentiment" would seem to condemn any hope that the article might ever actually make sense. Dennis properly notes the importance in "convey[ing] the fundamental ambiguity of the term." This is the crux of the argument, and its likewise my view that attempts to assert a proper definition (without defining the context) can be dismissed as POV. Viriditas claims "[the] expression is only ambiguous in the sense that one may confuse the concept of the New anti-Semitism with "new" anti-Semitism. They are two different things." That disambiguation is somehow irrelevant for an encyclopedia article is not a valid claim, and Viriditas seems to assert that the reader should already have such prerequisite knowledge that any mere mention of ambiguity should be considered redundant or POV. Take this with his earlier statement (which I thought makes a fine introduction ;-) ) "The new anti-Semitism is based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism, while the old anti-Semitism is based on racism and nationalism," and one could write a short paper on the inherent logical contradictions of this and similar polemic terms. Suffice it to say that the term is a nexus for a controversial and debated new political theory that asserts a philosophical or political relationship or similarity between liberal anti-Occupation movements and anti-Semitic hostiles. "New anti-Semitism" is a label disguised as a term for a kind of philosophy which is itself never espoused or claimed, but who's very definitions are the exonymic assertions of proponents of the label's use.

Naturally, even the assertion that a debate may exist among proponents as to its very definition must be suppressed in order for the term to have any real political meaning. Hence the dismissal of ambiguity is a dismissal of the debate, which itself is a dismissal of any drastically dissenting opinion. In particular, dissenting Jewish opinion; whom may oppose conscription in Israel, be somewhat "pro-Palestinian," or otherwise hold non-nationalistic or non ethnocentrist views. This redefinition of "anti-Semitism" seeks to drive a relativistic wedge between an apparent new union of Jews and non-Jews who assert common moral and ethical principles over ethnocentrism. The claim that some "liberals" and non-Jews share this "new" view of anti-Semitism is rather simplistic, if not entirely disingenous and misleading. Are there any strongly anti-Occupation voices who are likewise for a continuous morphing redefinition of "anti-Semitism"? How does a relativist and shifting definition claim to based in principle? I take "ambiguity" to be connotative of "contradicted," "relativistic", and perhaps "illogical." That "anti-New-anti-Semitism" by some definitions is in opposition to the very moral basis by which anti-Semitism itself is opposed, is the most important and glaring "ambiguity." Anti-Semitism, racism and religious bigotry are all widely denounced on universal (common) moral grounds. There is no universal moral basis for exclusively denouncing anti-Semitism, while accepting other forms of bigotry. The attributed claim that "new anti-Semitism" can be based in "anti-racism" raises the flag that proponents omit or ignore the very moral basis by which anti-Semitism itself is now denounced. Hence the "New anti-Semitism" thesis, as based on very new and particularized definitions of "anti-Semitism," appears to contradict the common definition and understanding of anti-Semitism itself, as ethnist bigotry.

The new assertion overlooks any positive effect toward minimising "old anti-Semitism" that wider (more common) associations and education brings. Likewise it neglects natural self-determination, that those who may have hostile anti-Semitic views may change these to more educated and moderate views. Instead it claims that the latter are based on the former, and that that any appeal to universal principle is simply a disguise for hatred, or otherwise irrelevant or immaterial. Perhaps such view is ultimately based on the fallacy that "once an anti-Semite always an anti-Semite," and that any opposing views should at least carry the strong suspicion if not the direct implication of anti-Semitism —even if the "new" definition is itself an absolute contradiction of "anti-Semitism." It would seem that the terms "anti-Judaism," "anti-Zionism" and "anti-Occupation" exist only as politically correct substitutes, where in more particular venues a simple "anti-Semitism" would suffice. Scholars and writers of any political industry may be paid by the word and not by originality or merit, but this project has the merit of at least attempting a rational categorization of this and similar relativist polemic terms. But the proper and encyclopedic represenation of the term as "ambiguous" is contradictory to its polemic uses, and the abiguous definition naturally irks those who would like to see it make the dictionary. -SV|t 00:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

SV, my alteration removed words that were linguistically unnecessary, and grammatically incorrect; "some" inherently means "not all", so adding "not all" detracts rather than enhances. Your proposed introduction was not only a vast oversimplification, but actually a misrepresentation of the views of people who think there is a New antisemitism, since they say that it is not "based on anti-racism and anti-nationalism", but rather uses the guise of anti-racism and anti-nationalism to oppose Israel and/or express antisemitism. As for your attempts to pull various Jews who may oppose conscription or be "somewhat pro-Palestinian" etc., that's a strawman argument at best; neither of those are examples of "New antisemitism" to begin with, and, even it they were, relies on the dubious proposition that a Jew can't be antisemitic. Finally, the term isn't particularly ambiguous, or no more so than any other commonly accepted term; one could equally claim that any term contains ambiguity (e.g. Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism), but that doesn't stop encyclopedias from defining and describing them anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Jayjg, I can't tell who is the "you" in the preceding paragraph. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that "New Judeophobia" is pretty much a neologism, and we shouldn't use it.

I agree that not everyone means the same thing by "new anti-Semitism" (or "New anti-Semitism" or "New Anti-Semitism"); I doubt that the views run in neat parallel with the choice of capitalization.

This article clearly should be about the thesis that there is something distinctly new about the present mode of anti-Semitism, and about the debate over that thesis. Insofar as the term simply means "recent anti-Semitism", that's not an article topic: if everyone agreed that was all that was going on, this would all just go in the anti-Semitism article. Recent incidents of anti-Semitic violence merit mention in the article insofar as they bolster the thesis (e.g. anti-Semitic violence coming from sectors that were not part of the "old" anti-Semitism), but they should not be the subject of the article.

Hope I was clear here; I'm writing "on the run". Let me know if anything I said is confusing. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:11, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

If a treatment of the topic that proceeds from a single unambiguous definition is required, then the "new Judeophobia solution" would be better than the "capital N solution". Though, as Viriditas and Jmabel have pointed out, it is a fairly marginal neologism outside France. An article on the new anti-Semitism should emphasize whatever is new about it. But it should not subscribe to a particular POV on the meaning of "new anti-Semitism" and use that as the basis for the whole article. It is as if an article on political freedom adopted a libertarian definition and presented the whole topic from that POV.--Denis Diderot 05:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

In reference to Wikipedia:Lead section, the current lead is too long, too complex (not clear), and incomprehensible to the average reader. Denis Diderot's recent addition to the lead should be added to a "History" section, as it is not necessary in the lead. The current description added by Jmabel needs to be condensed down to two small sentences. Please try reading this article as if you were a totally disinterested reader who knew nothing about the topic. If I were such a person and I was reading the article in its current state, I would not read past the first paragraph. --Viriditas | Talk 04:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Sloppy wording

The following sentence has found its way back into the lead: "This view is very controversial, especially through the association between the "new anti-Semitism" and the politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict." I'm not even sure what this means but "…through the association between…" is extremely unclear, unclear to such a degree that if I were not already familiar with this topic, I could not even make an educated guess at what it might mean. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Que?

Isn't it the nature of the beast that any attempt to define "new" and "leading edge" cases of anti-semitism is automatically POV?

We aren't attempting to define the concept, but to describe it in terms of the NPOV policy. --Viriditas | Talk 06:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

State of the controversy

Before I attempt to tackle this controversial section, I would like to know why the "Opponents" subsection is listed before proponents. --Viriditas | Talk 06:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Because the section began with an explanation as to why the New anti-Semitism was controversial.[4].

I think it is important to be very specific in this section, because not all claims associated with the "new anti-Semitism" are particularly controversial. For example, the increase of anti-Semitic incidents has been quantified and documented for many countries. Also it's not disputed that some leftist and pro-Palestinian groups have made use of anti-Semitic stereotypes and even condoned violence against Jews. Even some cases of "acceptability" of anti-Semitic themes in mainstream media have been generally acknowledged. The infamous cover of the New Statesman, for example, was almost universally denounced. [5] So it seems that the controversy concerns the extent and significance of such examples as well as the borderline between legitimate political statements and bigotry disguised as politics.--Denis Diderot 07:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with that. I would also say that critics of the New anti-Semitism thesis typically argue that it is used primarily to reclassify as anti-Semitism legitimate criticisms of Zionism, Israel, its government, and its supporters. As far as I can tell, most of the vocal critics, certainly most of the vocal critics who are themselves Jews, have been as quick as anyone to condemn anti-Jewish violence (and a lot quicker than some to condemn anti-Arab violence) and agree that some anti-Semites exploit the rhetoric of anti-Zionism. What they object to is what they perceive as a thesis that leads to a presumption that criticism of Zionism, Israel, its government, and its supporters are anti-Semitic, and that claims to the contrary are made in bad faith. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:06, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to Israel is not directly anti-semitic

A note of this needs to be made in the article. Many groups on the left sympathize with the palestinians as being an oppressed people, which comprises their main opposition to the state of Israel, this article makes no distinction between anti-semitism and opposition to jewish colonialism of palestine.--68.74.30.182 23:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, and the article discusses that extensively in the "opposition" and "criticisms" sections. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

anouncing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Is the Clean Up label is still neccesary?

I think it should be removed by now. MathKnight 12:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It is my opinion that it is still necessary, although if one was to remove it, I wouldn't object. --Viriditas | Talk 12:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The article gone major changes during recently. What more do you think we should clean up? MathKnight 12:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The "nature of the new anti-Semitism" and "state of the controversy" sections need to be tightened up. Some of the blockquotes, like the one in the "Anti-Semitic cartoons" section could be paraphrased and linked to the full quote to save space. Same goes for the quotes in the incidents section. I could keep going, but you get the point. The article needs work. --Viriditas | Talk 13:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It's still a messy article. For example, I just excised this mangled comment which had snuck into the text: "Are we going to have ping-pong claims and counter-claims? Are we now going to have a "what the propoponents answer" section as well, followed by a "what the opponents answer in response etc."? Please integrate these arguments into the opponents section, rather than extending a debate down the page." --LeFlyman 06:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust needs help

Responding to an idiotic comment on the discussion page of Black supremacy, I found myself at The Holocaust. Mindful that this article is an overview of the subject with numerous other, related articles elsewhere on this web site, I still think this piece could use some major additions, major work. The subject is not a primary interest of mine, so I don't foresee myself contributing much more beyond that which I already have. But this is a general solicitation (I haven't done so on the wiki page set aside specifically for that purpose; I figured this was more direct) for contributors to converge upon the page and improve the piece. I've made some suggestions in talk. Take 'em or leave 'em, but please contribute however you feel so moved. The article seems to have been nominated for featured article status, and that effort (understandably) failed. The next time it's nominated, such a thing shouldn't happen again. Peace. deeceevoice 13:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cartoon by Latuff and IDF Spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey

If anyone think that the Latuff cartoon is Anti-Semitic, it's just a PoV, not a fact. So this cartoon has nothing to do in the part "Anti-Semitic cartoons".

The fact about allegation of IDF Spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey needs to be covered. Please stop erase it.

--Marcoo 23:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is all about POVs, and NPOV policy says they must be represented, not suppressed. As for the IDF spokesman's statement being misunderstood, why do you think it needs to be covered? He made the statement on Apr 14, but claims of a massacre with hundreds killed were coming from Palestinian sources as early as April 4 [6]. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When an image is included to illustrate a part of an article, the choice must respect the NPoV. Here, it doesn't. The article can't carry the POVs it presents.

Just few allegation of massacre came before the April 12. For example, the figures given by Terje Roed-Larsen came after.

--Marcoo 23:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"As for the IDF spokesman's statement being misunderstood, why do you think it needs to be covered?" : Because all Israeli newspapers wrote the allegations by the IDF spokesman, so the report by Terje Roed-Larsen has to be read in this context. --Marcoo 00:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The picture is an example of the POV it represents; as such, it is perfectly appropriate. Please stop deleting it. As for the allegations of Roed-Larsen, why do imagine that they were based on the IDF spokesman's claim, as opposed to the many claims of massacre from Palestinians weeks earlier. On April 4, Secretary-General of the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, complained in an interview on Palestinian television about “…world silence over the massacres being perpetrated against the Palestinian people.” (BBC Worldwide Monitoring). [7]On April 6, Nabil Sha'ath delivered a speech at a meeting of the Arab League, in which he charged that “a 'massacre' was underway in the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin.” (Deutsche Presse-Agentur) He also “compared Israeli actions in the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus to the 1982 massacres of hundreds of Palestinans…” (The Associated Press).[8] On April 7, Abdel Rahman told NBC’s Tim Russert, “The victims so far has been over 250 Palestinians killed, many of them are children and women.”[9] Saeb Erekat is quoted by Washington Post as having said “This is not fighting between armies, but a massacre in Jenin camp."[10] Why do you think that the IDF spokesman's statements from over a week later were so influential, as opposed to these many public statements by Palestinian spokesmen which were widely disseminated in major news outlets? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The picture is an example of the POV it represents" : So the name of this part must become : "Cartoons described as Anti-Semitic"

If you read an article named "Anti-Semitic cartoons", it means the cartoons you see are Anti-Semitic. It's not a NPoV. --Marcoo 00:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's an example of what proponents of the view that there is a "New anti-Semitism" describe; the caption doesn't say that it is New anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"why do imagine that they were based on the IDF spokesman's claim" : I don't imagine anything, I gave the exact chronology. If you want to add more facts, feel free, but dont delete exact facts.

--Marcoo 00:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are trying to make an argument here that it was the IDF spokesman who was responsible; that is what is known as Wikipedia:Original research. In any event, it is not relevant to the claims; if someone has said that this was not an example of New anti-Semitism because the IDF said it first, then you can quote them, but you can't go building your own arguments. Please respect Wikipedia policy, including the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Please respect Wikipedia policy, including the Wikipedia:Three revert rule." : The rule "doesn't apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism".

"You are trying to make an argument here that it was the IDF spokesman who was responsible" No, I gave the context for everybody to make it's own opinion. You talking about Wikipedia policy but you could be blocked for vandalism, when you delete facts with sources.

If you think the way I talk about "A week before, IDF Spokesman Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey suggested to Israel Radio on April 14, 2002, that "hundreds of Palestinians" were killed in Jenin [11]." is not neutral (?!), feel free to express it in an other way, but don't delete it.

You also deleted 3 lines I added on the Opponents arguments part, without explanation. Why ?

You put Latuff's cartoon in a part called "Anti-Semitic cartoons", so it means for every reader that this cartoon is Anti-Semitic. It doesn't respect the NPoV.

--Marcoo 00:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Latuff's cartoon clearly belongs, since it had many of the motives described in the cartoon paragraph. The readers can judge for themselves if describing religious Jewish soldier as "eager to kill kids for God" is antisemitics or not, but what it is clear that many Jews and proponents of the new antisemitism see this cartoon as such. MathKnight 11:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could agree your point of view only if the title of the paragraph doesn't choose between two interpretations. It's why I proposed "Cartoons described as Anti-Semitic" which is neutral.

--Marcoo 20:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you try to assert that people who revert your edits are "vandals", you will no doubt get little sympathy from the admins, who have no qualms about blocking in spite of such allegations. Vandalism has a very specific and narrow definition on Wikipedia. As for your 3 lines in the "opponents" section, I explained quite clearly what the problem is; they appear to be original research; that is, novel arguments you have made up on your own. Could you please find a source which shows opponents of the concept of "New anti-Semitism" using these arguments? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ron Kitrey and Jenin

As for the Jenin part - lengthy discussion should be made in the Battle of Jenin 2002. But I will say it loud and clearly:

• It is seems that Marcoo only point in enters Kitrey estimation with the assertion that it was prior to any Palestinian allegation massacre, is to promote the false claim that the IDF is responsible to the massacre claims. Not only that this consipercy theory is ridiculous, it is also based on a wrong fact, as as proved in Talk:Battle of Jenin 2002 and here.
• Therefore, it will be deleted as many times an neccesary since it is uncorrect and biased.

MathKnight 11:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I ask for a paragraph which doesn't talk only of Palestinian allegations, but also the Israeli ones. You can propose another way to talk about them, but the version cannot stay like this.

The paragraph now is a kind of resume of the paragraph "Inflated body counts" in the article Battle of Jenin 2002. However, in § "Inflated body counts", there are Palestinian declarations but also Israeli declarations. So it's not neutral to talk only about Palestinian ones.

--Marcoo 21:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Israeli allegations? Israel did not accused itself in a "massacre" and not in mass grave digging. Early estimation of casualties were a bit high but they were quickly reduced. They are certainly not the reason to the Palestinian allegations, as you try to imply. More discussion on the issue should be made in Talk:Battle of Jenin 2002. MathKnight 10:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"They are certainly not the reason to the Palestinian allegations, as you try to imply." -> I don't try to imply anything. If you desagree the way I talk about something on an article, you can write it in another way, without deleting it. I ask for a paragraph which doesn't talk only about Palestinian declarations, on the example of what Tomhab did for Battle of Jenin 2002, or something like "For the battle of Jenin, see Battle of Jenin 2002". --Marcoo 11:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why would such a paragraph be relevant to this article? Have opponents of the concept of a "New anti-Semitism" disputed the "Jenin massacre" claim using this argument? Proponents have certainly used the "Jenin massacre" claims as an argument in favour of there being a "New anti-Semitism". Again, I recommend you read the Wikipedia:No original research article, and remember that this article is about claims regarding New anti-Semitism. It's not for us to develop arguments for and against the concept of a New anti-Semitism; rather, we just report the arguments of those who insist there is or is not such a thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you give a fact in the article, ("false allegations" : allegation of massacre and false figures), we have to give a clear context of this fact. Here the context is forgiven because the paragraph only talk about Palestinian declarations and Terje Roed-Larsen's, not Isreali's false allegation. It's a very partial presentation. So I propose to write : "For the inflated body counts, see Battle of Jenin 2002". --Marcoo 17:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research rules. In accord with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, this article (and Wikipedia in general) presents Points of View, not "facts". Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:No original research we have to present the arguments that other people make, not our own, even if in our view they are one-sided (which they often are). That is exactly what this article has done; it's not up to you to try to re-argue the positions presented here simply because you don't agree with them, and that's what you have consistently been attempting to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Straw-man anti-Semitism

It is written : "One claim made by opponents of Israel and/or the notion of a new anti-Semitism is that defenders of Israel insist that any criticism of the State of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism."

I never heard about such a claim. I've heard about the claim (from opponents of the notion of a new anti-Semitism) that defenders of Israel would often use the word Anti-Semitic to disqualify any criticism of Israel, but never saw the claim that defenders of Israel would insist that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Do you have any sources ? --Marcoo 12:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there no sources about this, I proposed to remove the paragraph. --Marcoo 14:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 10)#Straw men galore. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the link you gave me, but the given links :

• http://www.swans.com/library/art8/herman05.html
• http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h092903.html
• http://www.studentorg.vcu.edu/fpn/antisemitism.html
• http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Racecard/antisemitism4.htm
• http://www.eclipsereview.org/issue9/antisemitism.htm
• http://racetraitor.org/massarttalk.html

aren't an answer to my question.

"Jews relate to anti-semitic conspiracy every criticism of Israel." : I never said that nobody told this !

What I said is I've never heard anybody told that defenders of Israel insist that any criticism of the State of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism. It's a big difference I think. So in my opinion we have to re-write the paragraph. --Marcoo 15:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see any difference whatsoever; can you explain what you see the difference as being? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry for my english. I'm going to try to explain :

First, I agree with the fact that some people say that defenders of Israel, when they are confronted to an argument which is a criticism of Israel, want to link it to Anti-Semitism. That's what all yours sources above are talking about.

But who said that defenders of Israel explicitly accept and explain the idea that any criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitic ? I've never heard that.

In the article, a quote of Alan Dershowitz "Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic".

But nobody never told that defenders of Israel explain that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic ! Defenders of Israel are sometimes accused to systematically link critics of Israel to Anti-Semitic, but without saying of course that any criticism of Israel is Antisemitic.

So the assertion : "One claim made by opponents of Israel and/or the notion of a new anti-Semitism is that defenders of Israel insist that any criticism of the State of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism." is strange because I never saw this and that's why I ask for sources. --Marcoo 21:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the links provided give sources of the claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, they give sources of the claim that in front of a criticism of Israel, some defenders of Israel always try to link it to Anti-Semitism. It doesn't give sources of the claim that defenders of Israel say that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. It's not the same thing ! --Marcoo 22:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make; indeed, the French links you brought make the same strawman argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must say, as a more general point - the whole Straw-man para really does seem to be intended to express a particular POV to me.

It's quite true by the way that defenders of Israeli actions and policy will play the anti-Semite card from time to time, and I think the article should at least reflect this. Some won't, and fair enough - I can't say I've ever heard a major Israeli politician do that. But some do. jamesgibbon 02:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Opponents

Because Jayjg is asking me, I will give sources for what I included in "Opponents, Opponents of the claim of New anti-Semitism assert that:" part.

1. "The double standard is in favor of Israel in regard of disrespect of the international laws."

See (in french) : "notre dénonciation lors des manifestations anti-guerre du "deux poids, deux mesures" concernant l'Irak que l'on bombarde d'un côté et Israël qui jouit d'une totale impunité malgré ses crimes, ses violations des résolutions de l'ONU et sa possession d'armes de destruction massive"

[12], see [13] for automatic translation.

2. "The Israeli-Arab conflict is important not because of the amount of casualties but for geo-strategic, symbolic, religious, historical reasons."

(editing)

3. "Many Anti-Semitic allegations come from Zionist non-Jewish people who spread the idea that Israel is the only legitimate State for Jews."

(editing)

--Marcoo 14:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The question is not whether or not people have made this claim, but rather whether they have have used these arguments to claim there is no such thing as "New anti-Semitism". Please remember, this article isn't a replay of pro and anti-Israel arguments, but rather pro and anti "New anti-Semitism" arguments". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK. But the first sources I will give will be links to arguments I read on archived pages of french discussion forums on the internet. Will it be enough ? --Marcoo 15:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous editor on a discussion forum? I think you'll have to find more reputable sources than that. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editors on forums on the net could never be considered as opponents of the claim of New anti-Semitism ? Can you explain me why ? --Marcoo 20:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're not credible citable sources. Wikipedia represents mainstream or at least notable views. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, think about it from another perspective; if you could cite any anonymous poster on a Discussion forum, then the Wikipedia:No original research policy would be meaningless, since I could simply post something on a forum, then come here and cite it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marcoo, does your latest source talk about "The New Anti-Semitism"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marcoo, again, I ask do your sources discuss "New anti-Semitism" or not? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have to ask me twice the same thing in half an hour ? Let me the time to see that you asked me something...

OK for your explanation about quotes from forums. All the sources I included in my last changes on the article talk about the supposed rize of a "new anti-Semitism". Even if you don't speak French, you can check it using an automatic translation. --Marcoo 22:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, which automatic translation would you recommmend, and what makes these commentators notable? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can use the automatic translation you want, as Google's one. The views are notable, coming from well-known activist Michel Warschawski, well known french association MRAP, and from a conference about Christian Zionism. --Marcoo 22:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I used it, and went carefully through them, and it is as I feared; the articles do no actually address the concept of a "New anti-Semitism", but rather they generally simply assert that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. In fact, http://www.radioairlibre.be/infos/michel-warchavski.htm and http://www.mrap.asso.fr/differences/2004/differences251/anniversaire05 are actually examples of the strawman argument that supporters of Israel or Sharon claim all criticism is anti-Semitism. You need to find sources that describe the concept of the "New anti-Semitism", and not simply ones that insist that "anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand the articles. They are alking about the same concept. In France, it's called a come back of Anti-Semitism but it is the thing you call in the States New Anti-Semitism. --Marcoo 21:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I add that on New anti-Semitism page, I read :

"This view [of New AntiSemitism] is very controversial, especially because it presumes a connection between the New anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism". --Marcoo 21:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that you don't understand what relevant links are. Yes, proponents of a "New anti-Semitism" argue there is a connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but not that they are the same thing. As well, the return, or comeback, or resurgence of anti-Semitism is not the same thing as the concept of a "New anti-Semitism", which argues that, in fact, this kind of anti-Semitism is New. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read one more time the french articles. They're talking about an Anti-Semitism which is a new kind for people who see it. It's exactly the same concept that you call in the US "New Anti-Semitism". They're not talking about a resurgence of usual Anit-Semitism. --Marcoo 22:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please quote, on this page, the sections you think point to a "New anti-Semitism". Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Un groupe d'intellectuels sionistes européens vient de trouver la solution, en faisant intervenir l'inconscient et un concept passe-partout qu'ils nomment "le glissement sémantique". Quand on dénonce le sionisme, voire quant on critique Israël, on a, parfois inconsciemment, comme objectif non pas la politique d'un gouvernement (le gouvernement Sharon) ou la nature coloniale d'un mouvement politique (le sionisme) ou encore le racisme institutionnel d'un état (Israël), mais les Juifs."

Google translates that as A group of intellectuals European Zionists has just found the solution, while utilizing the unconscious one and a concept pass key which they name "the semantic slip". When the Zionism is denounced, even as one criticizes Israel, one has, sometimes unconsciously, like objective not the policy of a government (the Sharon government) or the colonial nature of a political movement (Zionism) or the institutional racism of a state (Israel), but the Jews. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ceux qui dénoncent les actes antisémites, réels ou fruits de "glissements sémantiques", mais ne disent rien des exactions anti-arabes portent une part de responsabilité dans la communautarisation des esprits et dans le renforcement de l'antisémitisme, car ce n'est pas le racisme, quel qu'il soit et d'où qu'il vienne, qu'ils combattent, mais uniquement le racisme de l'autre. Ce ne sont certainement pas eux, les Tarnero, Lanzman et autres Taguieff, qui ont le droit de faire la leçon aux militants de la gauche radicale et du mouvement contre la mondialisation marchande, qui depuis toujours, ont été à la pointe de tous les combats anti-racistes, et n'en ont jamais déserté aucun."

Google translates that as Those which denounce the acts anti-semites, realities or fruits of "semantic slips", but do not say anything the exactions anti-Arabic carry a share of responsibility in communautarization for the spirits and the reinforcement for the anti-semitism, because it is not racism, whatever it is and from where that it comes, that they fight, but only the racism of the other. They are certainly not them, Tarnero, Lanzman and other Taguieff, which has the right to make the lesson with the militants of the radical left and the movement against commercial universalization, which since always, were with the point of all the combat antiracists, and never deserted some none. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The famous book by Taguieff Michel Warschawski is referring is called "La nouvelle judéophobie" (literally "the new judeophobia").

"Le MRAP n'acceptera jamais que la condamnation de la politique criminelle d'Ariel Sharon soit assimilée à de l'antisémitisme. La volonté de certains de déplacer le conflit israélo-palestinien sur un terrain communautaire ou religieux , alors qu'il relève exlusivement répétons le, d'une question de justice et de droit international, dans le respect des résolutions des Nation Unies, est d'une gravité extrême. Cette attitude ne peut que banaliser l'antisémitisme (la profanation du cimetière juif de Herrlisheim prouve que contrairement aux propos tenus par le président du CRIF, l'antisémitisme de l'extrême droite n'a pas disparu!), et favoriser le développement de tous les racismes, de la haine et de la violence ainsi que du communautarisme."

Google translates that as The MRAP will never accept that the judgment of the criminal policy of Ariel Sharon is comparable with anti-semitism. The will of some to move the israélo-Palestinian conflict on a Community or religious ground, whereas it raises exlusivement repeat it, of a question of justice and international law, in the respect of the resolutions of the United Nations, is of an extreme gravity. This attitude can only standardize the anti-semitism (the profanation of the Jewish cemetery of Herrlisheim proves that contrary to the remarks made by the president of CRIF, the anti-semitism of the extreme right-hand side did not disappear!), and to support the development of all racisms, hatred and violence as well as communautarism. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism". Keep in mind, the source is alleging any criticism of Sharon's "criminal" policies is being equated with anti-Semitism, exactly what is described in the "Strawman antisemitism" section. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here he's talking about a new supposed kind of Anti-Semitism, opposed to the old kind ("l'antisémitisme de l'extrême droite n'a pas disparu!").

--Marcoo 22:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"and watch the 3 Revert Rule" -> You reverted 3 times my changes : [14], [15] and [16] in 1,5 hour. Good job for an admin. :-) Why do you delete everytimes my changes before asking me explanations ? I wonder how did you become Admin... --Marcoo 22:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Because he's right most of the time, accepts when it's pointed out he's not, and does a lot of good janitorial work as well. At any rate, both of you are on the right path, discussing it here rather than revert warring. (By the way, 3RR means 3 is the max, not 3 is over the limit.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Feel free to add your comments on the issue as well, Jpgordon. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I don't speak any French, and I utterly distrust Google translations because of their intense technological bias, so I don't really have any way to give an opinion of the issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I felt a little bit agressed when I was asked twice the same new question in 30 min, waiting for my answer. Nevertheless, I'm surprised to see that my changes were immediatly deleted everytimes, whereas I never refused to stop the dialog and always gave explanation. --Marcoo 08:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you re-insert the problematic statements again and again, when there are clearly problems with them, and when I am clearly involved in dialogue here with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I am clearly involved in dialogue here with you" -> In this dialog, you always suppose first that what I say is false, so it's quite agressive as a dialog.

Don't you assume you are correct? You certainly inserted your information as if you felt that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "when there are clearly problems with them" -> I inserted them because they were relevant and I gave my sources, and I answered all your question. Is it now ok to insert the statements that you deleted ? You can check on the net what I explained for the text about "new antisemitism" vs. "old one" (extrême droite) and about a huge debate in France with the Taguieff's book called "La nouvelle judéophobie" (literally "the new judeophobia") which develop the concept you call in US "new antisemitism" --Marcoo 21:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you not see my comments above? I went through the text, and they did not appear to say at all what you claim. It doesn't say New anti-Semitism, and your translation of "extreme right" as "old one" is extremely liberal, to say the least. Could you work with the question raised above, please? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see first your comment. I explain : In France, some people express the idea that the New Anti-Semitism is in fact a Strawman Anti-Semitism. That's why they are opponents to the idea of New Anti-Semitism (as developped for example by Taguieff and Tarnero). It's not because you don't see exactly the words "New Antisemitism" in google's translation that it means they don't speak about it. --Marcoo 22:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First source

"Un groupe d'intellectuels sionistes européens vient de trouver la solution, en faisant intervenir l'inconscient et un concept passe-partout qu'ils nomment "le glissement sémantique". Quand on dénonce le sionisme, voire quant on critique Israël, on a, parfois inconsciemment, comme objectif non pas la politique d'un gouvernement (le gouvernement Sharon) ou la nature coloniale d'un mouvement politique (le sionisme) ou encore le racisme institutionnel d'un état (Israël), mais les Juifs."

Google translates that as A group of intellectuals European Zionists has just found the solution, while utilizing the unconscious one and a concept pass key which they name "the semantic slip". When the Zionism is denounced, even as one criticizes Israel, one has, sometimes unconsciously, like objective not the policy of a government (the Sharon government) or the colonial nature of a political movement (Zionism) or the institutional racism of a state (Israel), but the Jews. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, please explain which specific argument this supports. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You take the axiom that "New anti-Semitism" is different than "Strawman anti-Semitism". But in France the opponents of the notion of "New anti-Semitism" say that this one is in reality a "Strawman anti-Semitism". --Marcoo 22:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Second source

"Ceux qui dénoncent les actes antisémites, réels ou fruits de "glissements sémantiques", mais ne disent rien des exactions anti-arabes portent une part de responsabilité dans la communautarisation des esprits et dans le renforcement de l'antisémitisme, car ce n'est pas le racisme, quel qu'il soit et d'où qu'il vienne, qu'ils combattent, mais uniquement le racisme de l'autre. Ce ne sont certainement pas eux, les Tarnero, Lanzman et autres Taguieff, qui ont le droit de faire la leçon aux militants de la gauche radicale et du mouvement contre la mondialisation marchande, qui depuis toujours, ont été à la pointe de tous les combats anti-racistes, et n'en ont jamais déserté aucun."]

The famous book by Taguieff Michel Warschawski is referring is called "La nouvelle judéophobie" (literally "the new judeophobia").

Google translates that as Those which denounce the acts anti-semites, realities or fruits of "semantic slips", but do not say anything the exactions anti-Arabic carry a share of responsibility in communautarization for the spirits and the reinforcement for the anti-semitism, because it is not racism, whatever it is and from where that it comes, that they fight, but only the racism of the other. They are certainly not them, Tarnero, Lanzman and other Taguieff, which has the right to make the lesson with the militants of the radical left and the movement against commercial universalization, which since always, were with the point of all the combat antiracists, and never deserted some none. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, please explain which specific argument this supports. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because he speaks about the position of Tarnero, Lanzman, and Taguieff, who are known to develop the idea of a "New Anti-Semitism", as Taguieff's book called "la nouvelle judeophobie". --Marcoo 22:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

O.K., but while he refers to that book, I can't understand the argument he is making, can you clarify? Perhaps improve the translation? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In few words, for Michel Warschawski, the fight against a so-called "new antisemitism" is a false fight, because for him the idea of a "new antisemitism" is developped outside a context, outside the global fight against racism. And the newt paragraph explain why Warschawski consider the so-called new one as a strawman anti-Semitism. --Marcoo 23:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Third source

"Le MRAP n'acceptera jamais que la condamnation de la politique criminelle d'Ariel Sharon soit assimilée à de l'antisémitisme. La volonté de certains de déplacer le conflit israélo-palestinien sur un terrain communautaire ou religieux , alors qu'il relève exlusivement répétons le, d'une question de justice et de droit international, dans le respect des résolutions des Nation Unies, est d'une gravité extrême. Cette attitude ne peut que banaliser l'antisémitisme (la profanation du cimetière juif de Herrlisheim prouve que contrairement aux propos tenus par le président du CRIF, l'antisémitisme de l'extrême droite n'a pas disparu!), et favoriser le développement de tous les racismes, de la haine et de la violence ainsi que du communautarisme."

Google translates that as The MRAP will never accept that the judgment of the criminal policy of Ariel Sharon is comparable with anti-semitism. The will of some to move the israélo-Palestinian conflict on a Community or religious ground, whereas it raises exlusivement repeat it, of a question of justice and international law, in the respect of the resolutions of the United Nations, is of an extreme gravity. This attitude can only standardize the anti-semitism (the profanation of the Jewish cemetery of Herrlisheim proves that contrary to the remarks made by the president of CRIF, the anti-semitism of the extreme right-hand side did not disappear!), and to support the development of all racisms, hatred and violence as well as communautarism. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism". Keep in mind, the source is alleging any criticism of Sharon's "criminal" policies is being equated with anti-Semitism, exactly what is described in the "Strawman antisemitism" section. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, please explain which specific argument this supports. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same anwser than for first source. --Marcoo 22:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marcoo's opponents

Marcoo had added the following to the opponents section:

• Opponents of the argument respond to these objections by asserting that:
• The israeli-arab conflict is important not because of the amount of casualties but for geo-strategic, symbolic, religious, historical reasons.
• The double standard is in favor of Israel in regard of irrespect of the international laws.
• Many Anti-Semitic allegations come from Zionist non-jewish people who spread the idea that Israel is the only legitimate State for Jews

Apart from the problem with phrases like "in regard of irrespect" or "opponents of the argument respond to these objections", these claims were unsourced and of doubtful relevance to the topic (whether the "new anti-Semitism" is a reality).

Marcoo has since provided some sources that are supposed to support the claims. They have been discussed above.

One problem is that Marcoo provides French sources and make claims about the French discourse which are difficult to verify for people who don't read French. Jayjg therefore asked me for help. Here are my comments:

1) Michael Warschawski.[17] Warschawski does not argue against the existance of a new anti-Semitism. He argues against the identification of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism which he calls a "semantic shift" ("glissement sémantique"). He also also complains about the one-sided concern with anti-Semitism without taking note of anti-Arabism. In fact, he seems to support the claim of a new anti-Semitism. Here is an ugly (too literal) translation: "Anti-Semitism exists, and, in Europe, appears to raise its head again after being unvoiced for half a century following the horrors of the Nazi judeocide and crimes of collaboration. In a growing segment of Arab-Muslim communities in Europe, racist generalizations accuse, without distinction, Jews of crimes commited by the Jewish State and its army."

2) Renée le Mignot, MRAP.[18] She doesn't discuss the issues at all. It contains a general discussion of MRAP's position on the Arab-Israeli conflict (support of a two-state solution). There is a brief statement towards the end that "condamnation of the criminal politics of Ariel Sharon" must never be "assimilated to anti-Semitism".

Denis Diderot 03:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I got out of the links, but Marcoo was so insistent that I thought I might have missed something. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About MRAP's article, Denis Diderot write : "There is a brief statement towards the end that "condamnation of the criminal politics of Ariel Sharon" must never be "assimilated to anti-Semitism"" -> But it's the point ! In France, MRAP and others critisized the Taguieff's and Tarnero's position, and said that it's not a new concept to study but it's merely a strawman Anti-Semitism.

"(whether the "new anti-Semitism" is a reality)" : Not exactly. We're talking about New Anti-Semitism with a capital "N". Opponents of New Anti-Semitism are opponents to this concept of a new denomination. For them, there's no new one as a specific thing you can study separatly.

In the head of article New Anti-Semitism, I read :

"In the latter sense, the "New anti-Semitism" (with a capital N) is often seen as distinct—in its rhetoric, in its pretexts, and its locus on the political spectrum—from the "old" anti-Semitism that continues to exist alongside of it. This view is very controversial, especially because it presumes a connection between the New anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism; indeed, many opponents of this concept have contended that the concept of "new anti-Semitism" is an attempt to conflate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism."

We're talking of opponents of the concept of "New Anti-Semitism". We're not talking about oppononents of the fact that this violence here or there is Anti-Semitic or not and if it razise or not. Here it's the concept which is critized. And Michel Warschawski is clearly an opponent of the concept of New Anti-Semitism. It dosen't mean he does't recognize that there is a raise of Anti-Semitic violences. Do you see what I mean ? --Marcoo 07:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to talk aboout "the concept" of New anti-Semitism, because there are a number of concepts of "New anti-Semitism", but let's not get into that again. The issue here is whether the sources (i.e. the texts) you referred to make the claim that there isn't any "New anti-Semitism". New anti-Semitism is defined as "a new anti-Semitism" that is somehow distinct "in its rhetoric, in its pretexts, and its locus on the political spectrum" from the old. Thus Taguieff's "new Judeophobia" would be one example of such a concept, but there are also many others. In order to argue against the general thesis that there is a new form of anti-Semitism different from the old "right-wing" version, one would have to argue either that (a) there isn't any new anti-Semitism or (b) that the new anti-Semitism is of the same order as the old. None of the texts you refer to contain such arguments. --Denis Diderot 13:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"In order to argue against the general thesis that there is a new form of anti-Semitism different from the old "right-wing" version, one would have to argue either that (a) there isn't any new anti-Semitism or (b) that the new anti-Semitism is of the same order as the old. None of the texts you refer to contain such arguments." -> The question is not to say if the arguments of opponents are relevant or not. I notice that in Warschawski's mind, he's against a new denomination "New Anti-Semitism" and he explained his reasons, so it makes him an opponent to the notion of New Anti-Semitism. Maybe for you his reasons are not relevant because he didn't prove that "there isn't any new anti-Semitism" or that "the new one is of the same order as the old", but it's another question.

The subject is to quote arguments, not to judge them, not to say what a good argument should be, or how it should be (for you : to affirm that there isn't any new anti-Semitism or that the new anti-Semitism is of the same order as the old).

In others articles where arguments are quoted, the arguments are not deleted if someone thinks they are not relevant. --Marcoo 14:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't judge the value or relevance of arguments. I merely observed that the texts don't discuss the question of a "New anti-Semitism". Perhaps the authors believe that the "New anti-Semitism" is a bogus notion. Perhaps they intend their remarks about anti-Zionism or Sharon to be directed against such notions. But that's pure speculation."The subject is to quote arguments". That requires arguments to quote. Perhaps you can notice things in Warshawski's mind, but for others they are invisible. --Denis Diderot 18:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I didn't judge the value or relevance of arguments." You did. You said that opponents have to argue either that there isn't any new anti-Semitism or that the New anti-Semitism is of the same order as the old. You decided how the opponents' arguments should be to be acceptable for you.

""Ceux qui dénoncent les actes antisémites, réels ou fruits de "glissements sémantiques", mais ne disent rien des exactions anti-arabes portent une part de responsabilité dans la communautarisation des esprits et dans le renforcement de l'antisémitisme, car ce n'est pas le racisme, quel qu'il soit et d'où qu'il vienne, qu'ils combattent, mais uniquement le racisme de l'autre. Ce ne sont certainement pas eux, les Tarnero, Lanzman et autres Taguieff, qui ont le droit de faire la leçon aux militants de la gauche radicale et du mouvement contre la mondialisation marchande, qui depuis toujours, ont été à la pointe de tous les combats anti-racistes, et n'en ont jamais déserté aucun."

is an explicit criticism of french authors who develop the concept of New Anti-Semitism, I don't see what you want more. In the first sentence, Warschawski gives the idea that this way to develop this concept which is outside of the context ("mais ne disent rien des exactions anti-arabes") is dangerous ("portent une part de responsabilité dans la communautarisation des esprits et dans le renforcement de l'antisémitisme"), and for M. W. proponents of so-called New Anti-Semitism don't even fight the racism, but give more power to the Anti-Semitism itself ("le renforcement de l'antisémitisme"). If you've read the Taguieff's book, the criticism of the concept of New Anti-Semitism by M.W. and what he's referring is quite explicit. --Marcoo 01:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think your ability to notice things in my mind is somewhat limited. In this Wikipedia article, the New anti-Semitism is defined in a certain way. Therefore, in order to determine that X opposes such a notion of New anti-Semitism, X would either "have to" refer to the Wikipedia article or make statements that clearly oppose New anti-Semitism according to the Wikipedia definition. The phrase "have to" is used here in a purely logical sense, it does not stipulate what X may or may not do. Nor does it constitute a judgement of the general relevance of X's arguments.

Both authors probably oppose the notion that anti-Semitic prejudice could be more than marginal among leftists. The wording suggests that. But in order to refer to their arguments in the article, they have to be made explicitly. It is, after all, possible to disagree with Taguieff on many issues while still agreeing that there is such a thing as a "New anti-Semitism".

Denis Diderot 04:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The wording suggests that." -> It's not only a suggestion, and it's not only about the marginality or not among leftists. I repeat myself, but M.W. clearly gives the idea that this way to develop in France this concept which is outside of the context ("mais ne disent rien des exactions anti-arabes") is dangerous ("portent une part de responsabilité dans la communautarisation des esprits"), and for him proponents of so-called New Anti-Semitism in France don't even fight the racism, but give more power to the Anti-Semitism itself ("le renforcement de l'antisémitisme"). So maybe we should refer to the french concept of "New Anti-Semitism", which is maybe different from the american one. It's about all this new theory developped in France by Tarnero or Taguieff he is an opponent. Of couse it's about "Strawman Anti-Semitism" as Jayjg was referring above, but in France these people express the idea that the New Anti-Semitism is in fact a Strawman Anti-Semitism. --Marcoo 16:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clear you believe that, Marcoo, but you haven't been able to actually provide a citation showing that. Unless they address the issue directly, we can't go about assuming what they mean and entering it as fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following hypothetical argument is entirely compatible with both texts: "The new anti-Semitism is a real and significant phenomenon, but we must not discuss the new anti-Semitism without also discussing anti-Arabism. And legitimate criticism of Zionism or Israeli politics must never be confused with anti-Semitism." --Denis Diderot 02:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read more in your translation the paragraphs before and after in Warschawski's text.

"The new anti-Semitism is a real and significant phenomenon" -> M.W. never told this. In the concept of New Anti-Semitism, the word "new" is important. You forgot the lines above :

"Un groupe d'intellectuels sionistes européens vient de trouver la solution [he's talking about Tarnero and Taguieff and their concept of New judeophobia], en faisant intervenir l'inconscient et un concept passe-partout qu'ils nomment "le glissement sémantique". Quand on dénonce le sionisme, voire quant on critique Israël, on a, parfois inconsciemment, comme objectif non pas la politique d'un gouvernement (le gouvernement Sharon) ou la nature coloniale d'un mouvement politique (le sionisme) ou encore le racisme institutionnel d'un état (Israël), mais les Juifs."

He clearly present that these intellectuals make a "new phenomena" with Anti-Zionist criticisms. So he explicitly says that the new concept as expressed by "un groupe d'intellectuels sionistes" is a Strawman Anti-Semitism.--Marcoo 14:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidents in the United States section

All of the sources in this section alleging anti-semitism on US campuses come from either an article on the Anti-Defamation League website (itself using words such as 'allegedly') or a text file with no sources mentioned. If better sources cannot be found (especially considering the section claims the offences were caught on videotape) then this section should, at the least, be considerably reworded, if not deleted.

Additionally, the section on the San Francisco bay report 'ignoring the racist, violent nature of the atttacks' is clearly POV. illWill 19:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Examples of "new Anti-Semitism" creeping into Wikipedia

In line with the "political" and "unequal treatment" forms of anti-Semitism in the guise of Anti-Zionism, we have examples creating a furor here on Wikipedia.
See: Zionist Terrorism and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Zionist_terrorism
Israeli Terrorism and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Israeli_terrorism
--LeFlyman 05:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but please do not remove invisible comments in the text. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'invisible'? Those comments don't appear to belong in the article - I think Leflyman was right to move them to the talk. However, the comment makes sense - this article is ridiculously long and IMHO the very premise of it is somewhat shaky. It may as well be called interminable and pointless debate as to whether there is in fact a new anti-semitism, or alternately (according to some views) whether the term attempts to stifle criticism of Israel .illWill 17:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg seems to be referring to my moving discussion "comments" from the article text which were actually 1) Visible (if Jayjg had checked the history, he would have noticed this); 2) not appropriate to the article itself, but should have been in Talk. See: Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Is_the_Clean_Up_label_is_still_neccesary?.

In any event, this doesn't have to do with my point about an example of the "new Anti-Semitism" being the creation of an article titled Zionist Terrorism --LeFlyman 19:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the comments were visible. However, your removing them made some other commented out text visible; I've removed it all now. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't, that was a bit off-topic, although it will always be an interminable debate. If much of the debate surrounding this topic is whether the new anti-semitism is a term designed to obscure criticism of Israel/Zionism, then stating that an article called Zionist terrorism is aan example of siad phenomena just feeds back into the original debate. If your position is that anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, then you will enver be satisfied with many of these articles. Conversely, if your position is that anti-Semitism shouldn't be used to attack critics of Israel, then you will never be satisfied with the other side of the debate. I'm of the opinion that it's best to assume good faith and that there are only a minority of anti-semitic wikipedians.illWill 13:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problem with sources in this article

Many of the links on this page take the reader to Hebrew-language sites - no good if you are interested in checking the sources of some of the claims here. I don't know Wkipedia policy on this, but it doesn't seem right that the en Wikipedia uses non-english sources. If nobody can supply English versions, they should go.

Also, there are many sources (see section I added about incidents in the United States above) which come from press releases released by the ADL with no links to their origins either - this is tantamount to presenting the POV of teh ADL as if it were fact, and isn't really much different from the 'No original research' caveat which pops up all the time. illWill 13:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the policy is on foreign language links; just a couple of days ago there was a huge debate here, and one side was using French language links to attempt to prove their point, which made it very difficult for anyone who didn't speak French to participate. I suppose that rule would have solved the problem quickly. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a difficult question, I would certainly argue that the systemic bias present on Wikipedia proceeds from some sources being more heavily-represented in English, but it's probably frustrating to click on a link to a page you can't understand. Then again, if there's only one translation of something then the translation can also be considered unreliable. I think this issue is much bigger than politics, although in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I'm of the impression that neither Hebrew nor Arabic sources should be linked to in the body of the article - I suspect anything of considerable importance would be translated into English eventually. When I'm not working so hard I'd like to start a discussion on bias in media translation, but at the moment I wouldn't know where to start.illWill 17:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no rule of any sort against citing foreign-langauge material. If there were, I'd be in a lot of trouble: probably 30% of the sources I cite in my articles are in a language other than English. I don't happen to read Hebrew, but I think it would be insane to say "no Hebrew-language citations" on a Jewish-related subject. Imagine if the Hebrew Wikipedia had to write about Canada using only Hebrew-language citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should be a rule, as such, but I'm interested in checking the context of the sources of articles on this page, made impossible by not being able to read Hebrew. Also, I could imagine that on any of the articles that loosely orbit around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict you could find a Hebrew-language source that would say one thing and an Arabic-language source that would say the exact opposite. The amount of people who could speak both well enough to comment on them would, I assume, be quite small, and probably be limited to inhabitants of the region. Obviously, these contributions would be extremely valuable, but I suspect there aren't too many.

I was particularly interested in this link [19], because it cites a report on Anti-semitism in France, and I speak a little french, but I can't figure out anything from the Hebrew. I'm of the opinion that, if an article references a report, and link on Wikipedia should also include a link to the report.

Maybe it would be a good idea to provide some kind of rough translation with Hebrew-language links? I don't know though, sourcing stuff from Israel is often problematic because people often use Haaretz because it's in English, and then half the links don't work, for some reason I can't figure out (maybe to do with archiving?).illWill 00:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will, even without Arabic sources, on any of the articles that loosely orbit around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict you could find a Hebrew-language source that would say one thing and another Hebrew-language source that would say the exact opposite. And I would say that on any source where you are suspicious as to whether it bears out what it's cited for, it's reasonable to ask for translation of the relevant passages, but there is a limit to how much one can ask anyone to translate: everyone has their limit on how much of that sort of thing they can spend their time doing. Another approach is simply to ask a third party who can read Hebrew whether the cited work adequately supports the claim made. FWIW, there are four people listed at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Hebrew-to-English, all native English speakers with various levels of Hebrew, two of them professional translators. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, I wasn't trying to suggest that a source is bad just because it's in Hebrew (or Arabic, or any other foreign langauge). I just think that this article is particularly contentious, and the way it is written involves lots of allegations that I personally find unconvincing. With some of the sources I'd like at least to know whether they are newspapers, fact sheets, 'media watch' organisations, government departments, weblogs, published reports etc. and I can't figure any of this out from some of the current links. It's better if it says 'Israeli newspaper x' or 'French government report y', because at least it gives an English-speaker the ability to search for pre-existing translations or comments, or at least to assess the source and consider whether it is worth asking for a translation.

Anyway, I've been through some of the sources and have added english-language links which say the same things. I'll post a request for translation if I find anything I find particularly confusing.illWill 09:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Usually when I cite a foreign-language source, I try to make the citation explicit (not a blind link) and also, unless the title is very close to the English equivalent I translate the title. See Nicolae_Ceausescu#Bibliography for examples of how I approach this. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, citations in scholarly writings perforce range across languages heedless of any potential reader's possible personal limitations. Wikipedia should not be crippled by pandering to obligatory anglophones. Yet, as a popular encyclopedia, it is also important that Wikipedia satisfy the countervailing need for transparency wherever feasible without compromising the inherent quality of an article (NPOV, accuracy, comprehensiveness, etc. as well as accessibility, to be sure). The evolution of articles involves a series of good and bad edits by contributors drawn from an enormous pool. As more translators pile onto an article, NPOV translations can be recognized and challenged as much as is any other content. Requests for translation would enhance such activity, posting alternative English language links mitigate the problem and specially marking each link to a non-English source alerts the reader to be suspicious of the source. Banning foreign language sources would cripple Wikipedia; cooperating with foreign versions of Wikipedia would enhance each version. Perhaps a policy that promotes cross-wiki collaboration would make more translators available. Myron 08:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Irwin Cotler table

I propose that this enormous table be removed, and the contents summarised in a shorter paragraph. As quite a lot of the material is the point of view of Cotler, I don't think it warrants the amount of space it takes up, expecially when much of it is duplicated elsewhere in the article. The idea of 'six categories' and 'thirteen indices' is an attempt to present the problem in a manner which may be scientifically measurable, but Cotler's assertions are quite vague and could be subject to interpretation.

For example:

• What exactly is "European hierarchical anti-semitism"? Has Cotler any evidence that such a distinct phenomenon exists?
• What is the difference between the "Theological anti-Semitism" of the Islamist world and "State-sanctioned anti-semitism"?
• What does he mean by "culture of hate"?

It seems that Cotler's main point is that unfair treatment to Israel (inspired by religion, racism or other causes) constitutes anti-semitism. I can't see anything in that enormous table that strays very far from material which could be summarised in two sentences. Any thoughts?illWill 22:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, though it might take three sentences. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Good summary. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag?

While I think that the article still needs some work (though it actually flows fairly well), I am not sure why it needs the NPOV tag. I was impressed with the general level of balance here, in explaining both claims and counterclaims without the omnipresent "Some people say...other people believe...some critics assert..." of so many controversal articles. Is there a reason to keep the tag? --Goodoldpolonius2 03:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Position of the United Nations

Far from being NPOV this particular section ought to be totally disputed. It starts off with a quote from Kofi Annan insisting that the world must not be silent. A reasonable statement related to the topic from an authoritave source. Afterwards it has two long quotes which, to paraphrase, state "The UN is biased against Israel and the only reason can be anti-Semitism". The quoute from Bayefsky, for example, points out a number of human rights abuses and states that Israel is unique in being criticized for it. One could indicate that there are other factors which make Israel unique. For example, to my knowledge China does not have a powerful lobby in the US who attracts the President of the United States as a speaker. Zimbabwe isn't a first world nation recieving billions of dollars a year in aid from the United States. Saudi Arabia wasn't created by a UN resolution. One could point all of this out, and then cut the whole thing and paste it into Israel and the United Nations where it belongs.

To balance the POV of the UN, find some evidence of the UN being anti-Semitic, or turning a blind eye to it. The current content belongs in the aforementioned article regarding Israel. I won't remove it because of the inevitable long running revert war that follows. --Uncle Bungle 13:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Bungle, I hate to say it, but it seems to me that you still aren't comprehending the Wikipedia:No original research policy. It specificially states that something is forbidden original research if "it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article". Yet here you are counselling article editors to do exactly that, or to try to support the veracity of the claims themselves. Alleged U.N. bias is frequently raised as a proof by those who support the idea that there is a "New anti-Semitism", and they are quoted here. If you want to refute the argument, you need to bring citeable sources try to refute that argument - i.e., people who say "this argument (regarding New anti-Semitism at the U.N.) is incorrect because...". What you cannot do is develop your own unique arguments to try to prove the quoted sources as either correct or incorrect. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, thats U.N. bias against Israel, for which there is allready an article. The content is simply not relevant to this section. --Uncle Bungle 14:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Bungle, the point is that if there actually is a bias in the UN against Israel, that would potentially qualify as anti-Semitism, so it should remain here. This isn't just opinion, quoting from part of the European Union's ECRI definition for anti-Semitism:

Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards b requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• 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 anti-Semitic.

Since one of the primary claims of proponents of the "new anti-Semitism" is that Israel is being singled out by the world community as a proxy for attacks on Jews as a whole, then the question of UN bias is obviously relevant to this article, whether you agree or disagree over whether such a bias existed. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The ECRI, easily qualifies as a legitimate authority on the issue. While I strongly disagree with the quotes in the section, their opinions are in line with the EU position on anti-Semitism with regards to Israel as cited above. I must concede that the content is relevant, and I thank Goodoldpolonius2 for the information provided. Too often we are forced to rely on the "expert" opinion of individuals such as Anne Bayefsky, or Irwin Cotler, as well as ambiguous qualifiers such as "the overall context". It seems logical to me to take a neutral and clear definition of new anti-Semitism and use it as a framework for the article. I would wager, however, that such a definition does not exist. Again, thank you Goodoldpolonius2. --Uncle Bungle 16:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidents in Israel

Israeli settlers in Gaza, angered over the gaza pullout, have staged numerous rallies and demonstrations to try to gain support in greater Israel. According to The Guardian, the actions of these activists have included having children leaving their houses with their hands up or wearing Star of David badges. These were Nazi practicies, and the settlers are trying to associate the actions of Israel with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. [20]

To the best of my knowledge no one has outright called this new anti-Semitism as of yet, but the guardian clearly indicates that the intent of the protesters is to draw a comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany. This article states that such comparisons are anti-Semitic in the rules of new anti-Semitism. I realize that the rules on original research may apply. User:Jpgordon reverted my addition and I won't start a revert war, but would instead appriciate some comments. In the meantime I am going to add it to the gaza pullout article instead. --Uncle Bungle 17:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Finkelstein

Right now, the article contains a stubby mention of Norman Finkelstein. In its entirety, it reads "Norman Finkelstein dedicates the first half of his book Beyond Chutzpah to debunking claims of new anti-Semitism, arguing that it simply provides political cover to supporters of Israel. He notes that Jewish leaders consistently claim there is a new wave of anti-Semitism on the basis of what he considers scanty evidence every couple decades."

Given that Finkelstein is a very controversial figure—in the proper sense of controversial, I'm not using that as a euphemism—a passing mention of him like this probably does not serve our readers very well. This should either be fleshed out or removed. (It also could be worded better, I guess I'll go do that, but I haven't read the book in question, so I'm in no position to flesh it out.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)