Talk:Israel Shahak

Judging from the name and his presence in a concentration camp, he appears to be ethnically Jewish. Is this true, and was he ever an active practitioner? It seems like the article deliberately avoids answering this, but should. Tokerboy

Israel Shahak was born a Jew. I don't think anyone contests this. RK

Robert, is you keep using the term anti-Semitic, it loses its meaning as a negative of something valid.

http://www.robotwisdom.com/issues/shahak.html

Radio Islam pages:

http://abbc.com/islam/english/jracism/shahak.htm http://abbc.com/shahak/

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/october01/0110071.html http://www.mepc.org/public_asp/journal_shahak/shahakmain.asp http://www.marxists.de/middleast/press/shahak.htm

the top few arent anti-Semitic

the next by Codoh is unknown to me: http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionhist.html

Bu the question stands: how anti-Semitic can a person or organization be if that person is Jewish or that org quotes prominent Jewish intellectuals. Granted theres a slippery slope there, but still... -Stevert

CODOH is a Neo-Nazi front group that promotes Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. RK

I visited our last link: Refuatations of Shahak's claims about the Talmud and Judaism, but could not find where it references Shahak. Which section is it under? DanKeshet 14:32 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

That website doesn't usually mention Israel Shahak by name, but rather refutes his interpretation of Jewish law, especially the Talmud. This website gives some links to anti-Semitic websites which prove that Jews are really evil; most of these websites are neo-Nazi sites or Islamist Muslim groups. Most of those wsites use Israel Shakah as their only "authority" on Judaism, as if the ideas of one person actually speak for the beliefs of about 12 million Jews. However, tha wesbite does on occasion refer to Israel Shahak and his claims by names. See this page, which is totally devoted to refuting his claims:

[A truth-based response to: THE TALMUD: JUDAISM'S HOLIEST BOOK DOCUMENTED AND EXPOSED

This page mentions Shahak a few times, but it does not reference any claims of his; it merely states that he is a self-hating Jew and therefore not worth evaluating. I do not think it will be of particular usefulness for people trying to learn about Shahak. DanKeshet

You misread this website. It certainly does rebut Shahak's claims. That is what much of that website was written for. In fact, I just spoke with the author of that website yesterday, and he confirmed it. I don't knwo how you missed this. Let me try to explain again: The Internet is full of anti-Semitic websites which cite Shahak as their so-called authority on Judaism, and David Maddison's website was set up to refute the claims on those websites. Just because the webmaster doesn't stick the phrase "Israel Shahak says" in front of of each of Shahak's claims doesn't change anything. You are trying to find a way to read the webpage as something other than it actually is. RK

I've read it more closely, and still cannot find any claims that Shahak makes being repeated on that page. What specific claims does Shahak make that are reproduced on that page? DanKeshet 15:55 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Example of anti-Semitic site using Shahak as their authority, linked to from the Talmud Exposed site Another similar example Another example, the Radio Islam site

In 1993 he authored Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (ISBN 0745308198), in which he argued that Judaism was a racist religion that taught its adherents to hate all non-Jews.

This version is considerably less accurate than the original version, which more correctly summarizes the book. The differences: 1) discrimination vs. hatred: Shahak's claims are more that the interpretations of Judaism he describes are Jewish chauvinist, that is, they believe that Jews are inherently better than other people. I don't believe he claims hatred. Maybe we should change it to chauvinist. 2) Judaism vs. Traditional Orthodox Judaism. Shahak says, for example, that there is a very complex relationship including lots of disputes and enmity between segments of Judaism, something that we agree with in our Relationship between segments of Judaism article. To say he characterizes all of Judaism one way, when he clearly (and openly) is only evaluating a very hand-picked portion of it is inaccurate.

The first chapter of Jewish History is infamous for an attack against Judaism, in which it is presented as a religion that effectively teaches its adherents to murder non-Jews.

This is not what Shahak claims. Shahak is very specific in saying that some religious leaders teach their adherents that in some circumstances they should not save the lives of non-Jews. Also, to say that it's an attack on Judaism is again to represent Judaism as a unified whole, as if there were no internal disagreement and no differing interpretations.

At a later date Israek Shahak admitted that the account was fictional. In that book he originally claimed:

I have deleted this and the other reference to his supposed admission until we can find a better source. If he really did admit this, I would expect him to have said so in print. Instead, we have an article written by somebody trying to debunk him which claims that he said so, but does not provide evidence. DanKeshet 15:20 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Jewish law explicitly states that a Jew must save the life of either a gentile or Jew, even if involves violating the laws of the Sabbath

I'm not going to agree or disagree about what Jewish law states, but this is not what the source says. The source, in its summary of the responsa, says that Jews must save the life of either a gentile or Jew, even if it involves violating the laws of the Sabbath if not doing so would mean enflaming Jewish-Gentile relations. Let me quote one passage:

Therefore, anyone who knows how to interpret the Sabbath law properly can avoid all misunderstanding and ill-will. The Talmud counseled Jews to explain: "For those who observe the Sabbath, its violation is sanctioned" (Avodah Zorah 26b); as elaborated above, this lies quite logically in the very nature of the Sabbath and its biblical definitions. But where such an explanation is unacceptable or cannot be appreciated, one is in duty bound to use the permissive ruling of the Chatam Sopher without any hesitation.

DanKeshet 15:38 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

and that it should be considered an anti-Semitic fabrication to claim that these views are representative of Judaism in general of of Israelis

I don't think it should be restored until we have a citation of at least one religious leader saying this. I don't assume that nobody has said this, but Shahak himself does not claim that the views of the "fanatics" he describes are the views of mainstream Judaism or of most Israelis, though he does say that both are influenced by the views he describes. DanKeshet 04:03 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder what exactly is the point of this page. It can't be just to provide a biography of this controversial person, because then it would describe the controversies in a neutral fashion and it certainly does not do that. Most of it is purely an attack on him that has little actual information content. His views are in fact barely described at all, so hardly anyone reading this without having read Shahak would even know what opinions are being attacked by the crude sweeping statements on this page. The ADL report is not referring explicitly to Shahak in the quotation given here. The only actual mention of Shahak's views that is given explicitly is the passage about the incident with the telephone. Some people claim it never happened, but if we are to question his opinions then surely the most important thing is whether it could happen, i.e. are there people, more than a tiniest minority, who actually believe in that fashion (as stated more correctly by DanKeshet above than currently in the article). The answer, like it or not, is yes there are. Should this be expounded on in this article? No, because the article is not supposed to be about Jewish laws relating to gentiles but about Israel Shahak. Can someone come up with a cogent argument why this article should not be cut back to a simple biography that merely mentions the controversy without arguing one side of it? -- zero 11:48, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I moved the following talk to talk and added a NPOV dispute disclaimer. Tuf-Kat 03:18, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

N.B. The article that follows is only a bit short of character assassination, done largely by citing Shahak's enemies at length (critics is too weak a word to describe them) and neglecting the many encomiums Shahak received from people on the Left, a few of whose names are below for the reader's further investigation. A fair reading of Shahak's important writings and a review of his estimable translations from the Hebrew press reveal an Enlightenment sensibility and a refusal to sugarcoat unpleasant truths. It bears repeating, too, that Shahak was a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto and a death camp and lost family members to the Holocaust, a fact which is disguised below by incomplete information.

This article should discuss the many encomiums Shakak has received. He is cited with enthusiasm and approval on many leftist websites, as well as on many Neo-Nazi, Christian Identity, Ku Klux Klan, Islamist movement, and anti-Israel websites. One would be free to draw their own conclusions as to why his work is so very widely distributed and honored among these particular groups, yet why no serious mainstream historians rely on his claims. RK 22:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Congratulations, you just committed the fallacy of guilt by association. -- 213.231.204.211 16:39, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

page protected

I have protected this page due to an editwar between RK and Zero. Gentlemen, please resolve your differences here. -- Viajero 16:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)