Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:52, 1 March 2007

Template:Trollwarning

New antisemitism is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at an unspecified date. To complete the template use: {{GA nominee|~~~~~|nominator=~~~|page=1|status=|subtopic=}} Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically. This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Jewish history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

New antisemitism was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 16, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

Flannery section

See Talk:New antisemitism/Flannery Section

Mediation

It has become obvious to me that the various disputes relating to this page cannot be resolved by further dialogue among the participants. I believe that a comprehensive mediation is the only way forward. Do others agree? CJCurrie 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be the only way forward. Catchpole 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to mediation only if we can find a mediator, formal or otherwise, who is very knowledgeable about the content policies and who is himself/herself a good editor. I'd be happy with Mel Etitis, though he's indicated he may be too busy. SlimVirgin 08:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and would be happy with Mel as well.--G-Dett 13:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Mackan79 14:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems accepting Mel. CJCurrie 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been run off my feet. I'll be having a closer look at the article and the debate this weekend. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that things have stalled; Mackan79 has done a sterling job characterising one side of the debate, but it's been nearly a week and there's nothing for the other side. Could someone provide a similar account of the CJCurrie, G-Dett, GraceNote, Pertn, Catchpole, Itsmejudith, and Mackan79 side please? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Help requested

I must admit that, having waded through the Talk page and the History of the article, I've got an idea as to the groupings of editors, and some notion as to some of the roots of disagreements, but (as so often happens) once battle lines are drawn they tend to become obscured by a host of unrelated or tangentially related disagreements. It would really help if one editor from each side of the divide could state here as fully and sympathetically as possible what the other side is arguing for. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I could start this for CJCurrie, G-Dett, GraceNote, Pertn, Catchpole, Itsmejudith and myself, if maybe others could fix or elaborate, meaning I would represent the Slim, Jayjg, Leifern position as well as possible. I could address 1) What to do with Flannery, 2), Whether and to what extent the "Responses" section should be changed, 3.) Scope issues relating to lead and to IJV or other material. I'll start unless someone else volunteers. Mackan79 17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just jump in here, it it is ok. (move it if you want to structure this in another way). I am fine with the points below, but I also think that the responses-section is a symptom of a more underlying problem: Should the article be about a concept, or about the history of contemporary antisemitism? I think many of the problems can be traced back to this. Now, facts about contemporary antisemitism are presented in a way that may implicitly imply that these facts support a hypothesis about AS today. I believe that there should be an article strictly about the debated concept and that the documentation of antisemitism and antizionism today should be presented in a different article without being related to a specific debated and politically laden concept. This would make this article less controversial as well. pertn 10:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for this. Could someone from the other group of editors do the same sort of thing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mel, can your mediation cover the question of the scope of the article and how it fits in a series of articles as Pertn suggests? I have suggested that there should be an article on Antisemitism in the twenty-first century and that this would take the weight off this article. Thanks. Itsmejudith 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Naturally I object to this kind of false distinction ("New antisemitism as a concept" vs. "Real antisemitism in the 21st century"). Opponents of the concept of "New antisemitism" inevitably try to divorce it from what they view as "Real antisemitism", reserving any blatant acts of antisemitism for an article about "the real stuff", and not about the "fake political concept intended only to deflect criticism from Israel". However, not only does this division of material assume the conclusion, but it also ignores the fact that those who insist that there is a "New antisemitism" provide example after example of activities which they think constitute it. How would it be possible to properly present their view without actually listing the specific actions that are alleged to make up its parts? Jayjg 14:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I had planned to take into account pertn's comment (which, pace Jayjg, does concern a genuine distinction: "new x normally refers to a variety of x that is novel in itself, in its proponents, in its justification, in its provenance, or something of the sort, whereas "x in modern times" doesn't, it simply refers to the same old x still going on). How the article deals with that distinction is another matter, and I'll reserve judgement. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Next stage

Do those involved accept that the characterisations of their positions and arguments are accurate and fair? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been wanting to respond briefly, but simply haven't quite put it together yet. I'm assuming we're still waiting for a comment from Slim or Jay, though? In any case, I'll try to respond today.Mackan79 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim, Jayjg, and Leifern (SJL)

I see three major issues:

1. Flannery,
2. The Responses section, and
3. Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)

I'll refer to CJCurrie et al as CGM if that's ok, based on volume of commens, while noting that we may all differ on specific points.

Flannery

Regarding the Flannery discussion, the SJL position is flexible. SJL rejects the idea that Flannery should be removed altogether, because they see it as reliably sourced and relevant. It is 1.) Relevant, because it addresses the history of antisemitism on the Left, as a background for the current phenomenon, and to explain to what extent NAS is new. It is 2.) Reliably sourced because it comes from an eminent historian of antisemitism. Moreover, it represents his most recent commentary on the subject, even if previous statements diverge. Additionally, CJCurrie's specific criticisms are primarily original research, as they have not previously been published, and therefore should not be considered relevant.

Nevertheless, SJL remains open to amending the specific treatment of the Flannery material to accommodate new sources.

Responses section

Regarding the Responses section, the arguments have not been as clearly fleshed out, but fall into two broad categories: 1.) Whether specific sources are accurately characterized, and 2.) Whether the section's scope or title should be changed away from "Responses." Regarding 1.), SJL generally argues that the characterizations are accurate, noting the most relevant material to the concept of NAS. Regarding 2.), SJL argues that the section describes responses by governments and universities to the emergence of NAS, and thus is appropriately titled. Moreover, SJL argues that there clearly have been such responses to – whatever we want to call it – the concept or phenomenon of NAS. Thus, a section on these responses is entirely appropriate to the article on NAS.

Still, SJL have stated their openness to changing the title to something like “Actions by Governments and Groups.”

Scope and IJV

Regarding the scope issue and the IJV material, the arguments again have not entirely been fleshed out. Essentially, SJL argues that CGM are trying to insert critical material which is not relevant to the concept of NAS except through their own original synthesis. Regarding IJV, it is argued that the group has not addressed NAS, but merely commented on a perceived lack of openness to criticism of Israel, primarily within the Jewish community. Specifically, the group has not addressed the confluence of antisemitism among the Left, far-Right and Islamism, the central thesis of NAS. It is not for us to decide that their statements are a criticism of NAS. Moreover, the only basis on which their comments could be made relevant in this way would be to assume the straw-man that NAS accuses all Israel-critics of being antisemitic. We should not make this assumption.

Regarding the lead and general scope, SJL argue that NAS is the concept of a new confluence of anti-Semitism among the Left, far-right and Islamism. As such, they argue that the lead is accurate, and reflects the proper scope for the article. While certain writers do focus on the issue of anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, this is only one aspect, and is secondary. The primary theory, as discussed by academic writers, regards the new alliance between previously unaligned or even hostile groups. As such, this should be the standard of relevance for the article, and is accurately and appropriately reflected in the lead.Mackan79 19:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The other side

To look at the same three issues outlined above:

1. Flannery,
2. The Responses section, and
3. Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)

Flannery

It is argued:

That Flannery should not be quoted in this article, because

• His writings pertain to an era when NAS was not under debate, so the arguments pertain to a different phenomenon than what is covered in NAS
• The most recent book is published by the Catholic Church, which amounts to self-publishing, hence not noteworthy
• In any case, Flannery interprets his own sources in a way that discredits his views, so they should not be included

Responses

It is argued:

That the section is mislabeled, because the various organizations do not explicitly accept the premise for NAS but instead focus on antisemitic incidents per se. A more neutral heading, one that doesn't accept the premise behind NAS, is needed.

Scope and International Jewish Voices (“IJV”)

It is argued:

That the IJV initiative is relevant to NAS, in that the IJV objects to the (alleged) practice of labeling criticism of Israel, even radical criticism, as antisemitic or the result of self-loathing.

--Leifern 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Leifern's comments

I can only speak for myself - Slim, Jayjg, and I have never sat down and compared notes, and I don't even know who these fellow editors are in real life.

The definition of New antisemitism is provided in the article itself, but if I were to paraphrase it: the central thesis behind those who advocate its existence is that it is antisemitism in effect and often in intent within the pretext of hostility to Israel. None of the proponents of NAS claim that mere criticism of Israel constitutes NAS; nor that it has a home on the political spectrum. Quite the contrary: they observe that whatever differences may exist on other issues, those who speak and practice NAS find common cause in demonizing Israel for no other apparent reason than that it is a Jewish state. In other words, while they observe that the confluence is there, it doesn't define the phenomenon.

I've always had problems with the term "concept." Really, we're talking about a phenomenon here that some say exists, and others don't.

I think the article at the moment suffers from the kind of bloating that is typical in contentious, unstable articles - where all sides want to include as many citations as possible. I much this prefer to revert warring, and I would warn against efforts to stop the tendency at the moment.

As with all other contentious issues, it's important to draw careful distinctions. I've corresponded privately with IJV (so I'll concede that my correspondence isn't an admissible source), but they've made it clear that they are against antisemitism on principle and agnostic on the phenomenon of NAS. What they object to is the notion that only viewpoints that fall within a certain range are acceptable in the Jewish community. Their contention is debatable in itself, but it doesn't support the argument that assertions of NAS are only intended to squash a constructive debate.

I think the issues need to be parsed: 1) Does NAS exist? Those who believe it does have evidence in favor of it, and there is lots of it. 2) Is the charge of NAS used as a means to stifle constructive debate about Israel's policies? Again, those who argue this should present evidence.

It seems absurd to me to claim that since some people possibly throw around the charge of antisemitism too readily, it can't possibly exist. But that's an editorial comment. --Leifern 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That anti-semitism exists is not something that I imagine anyone would dispute. Whether there is a distinct phenomenon which ought to be described as "New Anti-semitism" is a lot more problematic, and it only confuses the issue to conflate the two questions. john k 07:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie's response

(i) Do those involved accept that the characterisations of their positions and arguments are accurate and fair? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept that Leifern's summary of my position concerning the Flannery paragraph is both fair and accurate, although it may be incomplete. Flannery does more than "interpret his own sources in a way that discredits his views". Some of his assertions, including at least one cited in this article, are demonstrably false.

Leifern's other statements under the heading of "The Other Side" also appear to be fair and accurate.

(ii) I do not, however, agree with Leifern's comments on the larger issue of defining "new antisemitism".

The most fundamental difficulty in defining "NAS" has always been the elasticity of the term itself. "New antisemitism" has been defined in different ways by different authors, and appears to have slightly a different connotation in Europe and America. As such, the term may be regarded as designating either a phenomenon or a theory depending on which definition is in use.

Some authors have used the term "New antisemitism" to describe contemporary antisemitism, with particular reference to a perceived increase in global antisemitism since 2000. Others have used the term to designate situations where aspects of "classical antisemitism" have been incorporated into criticisms of Israel. In both of these situations, the term "new antisemitism" may be accurately described as referring to a phenomonen.

This is not the only manner in which the term has been used. Since 2000, several authors have used the term "new antisemitism" to advance the view that certain positions toward (and criticisms of) the State of Israel are inherently antisemitic. This perspective often regards anti-Zionism, binationalism, "excessive and disproportionate" criticism, and "drawing a moral equivalence" between Israel and its enemies, to be prima facie evidence of antisemitic behaviour. (The last two categories are, of course, ambiguous in nature.)

The authors who promote this definition of "new antisemitism" represent one side in a much larger series of debates relating to Israel and Zionism. Many opponents, including Judith Butler, Tony Judt and Brian Klug, have argued that this interpretation of "new antisemitism" has been promoted with the intent of stifling criticism of Israel from both Jewish and non-Jewish sources. Although no proponent of the term "NAS" has ever suggested that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, many opponents believe that their preferred range of "acceptable" criticism is so narrow as to make meaningful criticism all but impossible.

When used in this sense, "NAS" is most accurately described as referring to a theory.

Some authors have also used the term "New antisemitism" to advance the view that antisemitism is now more common (or more dangerous) on the left-wing of the political spectrum than the right. There is no agreement as to the accuracy of this position, and this usage of the term is also most accurately described as a theory.

If this article is to be improved, it must accurately reflect these different usages of the term.

I happen to agree that the term only makes sense to the extent that it describes a phenomenon. The inherent difficulty of accusing anyone of bigotry of any kind, is that it is an accusation about what is in the accused person's mind. Most people are either unaware of their own prejudice and/or make great efforts to deny it. Add to that the complexity that accusations of NAS have less to do with intent than consequence, and it's easy to get muddled up. The charge that some types of anti-Israeli rhetoric amounts to antisemitism has to do with the effect of what is said and done - those who are accused may not harbor any antisemitism when they denounce Israel, but whether they like it or not, or mean to or not, they are fueling hatred of Jews. While it is understandable that some of these critics feel unfairly put upon, the accusation leveled against them is no more "radical" than the accusation they level against those who support Israel's existence, policy, or decisions. --Leifern 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are probably aware that the concept of "antisemitism in effect, if not intent" is both controversial and multifaceted. There is a legitimate argument to be made that some critics of Israel have unwittingly given voice to statements and positions that are genuinely antisemitic, whether through naivete, historical ignorance, or a combination of the two. (My recollection is that the McShane Report addressed this particular issue in its assessments of contemporary antisemitism in Britain.) The problem is that some proponents of the term "new antisemitism" have used the argument of "antisemitism in effect, if not intent" to cover a wide array of positions toward Israel, some of which have no connection to "classical antisemitism" whatsoever. Opponents of the term have, understandably in my view, responded that this is (i) an unfair accusation, and (ii) a trivialization of the term "antisemitism".

Once this article is improved, it will have to deal with this issue in a fair and sophisticated manner. CJCurrie 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(iii) Leifern writes: I think the issues need to be parsed: 1) Does NAS exist? Those who believe it does have evidence in favor of it, and there is lots of it. 2) Is the charge of NAS used as a means to stifle constructive debate about Israel's policies? Again, those who argue this should present evidence.

With respect, I do not believe this is the correct approach to fixing this article. It is not within our mandate to determine whether or not "NAS" exists or whether it has been used to stifle constructive debate. What's important is that some published sources have articulated the former view, while others have articulated the latter. Our task is to summarize both positions in a fair and accurate manner. CJCurrie 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that this article should resolve these issues; but what I did mean to say is that the article shouldn't confuse them. --Leifern 13:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that the article should distinguish the various usages of the term, I agree. CJCurrie 00:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Leifern gives a good summary of the concerns about the "Responses" section. As regards the IJV, the point is not that we think it's related to NAS but that the sources do.--G-Dett 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79's response

Leifern and CJCurrie get the main points above, so just a few thoughts:

1. Re Flannery, I think there is a problem with using Flannery's quotations of other authors. When looking for material, I think we should avoid second-hand quotations where contested.
2. Re Flannery, I also see a problem with using controversial opinions in what is supposed to be a neutral history section. While much of the article documents controversial opinions, and appropriately, I think that becomes less appropriate in a neutral history section. (Thinking particularly about the "the further left one goes the more the antisemitism" statements here.)
3. Re scope, I think CJCurrie lays it out quite well. I'd note this is precisely what Klug argues, that there are 3 different things being described as NAS. I agree this needs to be clarified, while also allowing that some consider it all the same phenomenon.
4. If we clarified that, I also think it would help the problem with the Responses section, that it currently seems to be offered in support of the controversial NAS "theory" through our arguable equivocation. If we acknowledged the potential distinction, that issue might also be resolved without having to do much more.
5. Re scope and IJV, this is my main issue. Essentially, I think SJL ignores the second main route of relevancy to this article, of the opposition, which argues that the NAS theory stifles fair debate. Interestingly, our article clearly acknowledges this position in the discussion section, where it's well represented. Yet, with responses and evidence, it seems to be disregarded. I think the opposition argument should be considered relevant for both.
6. Finally, as G-Dett points out, that analysis may not be necessary, if we just focus on the connections drawn by the sources. At the same time, I'd simply note that our use of Flannery seems to be based on exactly this kind of editorial determination. Thus, I guess I'd argue for a broader standard of relevancy, in which both Flannery and IJV could be considered relevant, on their own merits, and whether or not the term "NAS" is explicitly invoked. Indeed, I think this is consistent with the aim of this article to discuss the NAS concept (including theory and phenomenon) rather than simply the term, an aim which then requires some editorial consideration. Mackan79 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?

May I request an update on the status of our mediation process? I think it may be time to move to the next stage, notwithstanding that certain editors have chosen not to participate in the preliminary discussions. CJCurrie 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A bout of flu kept me in bed for four or five days, and I'm still recovering, though on my feet again. I'm now going through all the materials. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Defamatory Caricatures

i'm interested in adding to the size of the defamatory caricatures (perhaps create a subsection for it) and introduce this one when the article is open for editing:

Jaakobou 10:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These cartoons appear to be vicious and nasty attacks on Ariel Sharon. Their connection to antisemitism is not clear. I have seen many cartoons which depict political figures as monsters, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Andrew Levine 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Do you have a reliable source that says that those cartoons are an example of "new asntisemitism"? // Liftarn

Donald Rumsfeld compared Hugo Chávez to Hitler and nobody talked about "anti-Venezuelanism". The US imposes a selective boycott on Cuba, but not on Saudi Arabia, whose human rights violations are far worse, and no one talks about "anti-Cubanism." Count me among those who are unclear that the Sharon cartoons are intrinsically antisemitic.--Abenyosef 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Progressive" Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

Why is there no mention of Alvin H. Rosenfeld's essay on here? The publication of the essay by the AJC and the response to it is by far the most notable event in the debate on New anti-Semitism yet you wouldn't know anything about it reading this article. -- Lyberry

The Term "Islamism"

It's clear that term term "Islamism" should be changed to "radical Islamism" or "militant Islamism" or some close variant thereof; as it stands now "Islamism" just simply isn't the correct term. Again, it's mostly radical/fringe Islamists that espouse beliefs thought to be part of the so-called "New antisemitism." One cannot lump the entire Islamic world (approx. 1.5 billion followers) in to one term -- it's the radical element of Islamists that are the "new antisemites," not ALL Muslims. Using such a broad term like "Islamism" implies ALL of Islam (the entirety of the Islamic world), and that is why I have a problem with this term. I cannot believe that glaring errors like this have sat in such closely watched article for so long -- this only shows that Misplaced Pages has a very long way to go before it can reach anything even remotely resembling 'NPOV.' I suggest that this be remedied ASAP. --WassermannNYC 05:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Radical Islam" would be better than "radical Islamism", wouldn't it? "Islamism" is a term which is reasonable synonymous with "Radical Islam," and "Islamist" is a synonym for "follower of radical Islam," not for "Muslim". I'd suggest that "Islamism" ought to be avoided so much as possible, given that clearer, less inflammatory, terms are available. john k 06:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Klug pullquote

Which is stronger:

or

I say the quote on the left for the following reasons: a) it covers more ground taking on both the anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism question as well as making the point that misusing the term anti-Semitism threatens to make it easier for real anti-Semitism. b) Klug ends his essay in the Nation with the quote on the left - writers often conclude on their stronger point so this suggests that Klug himself thinks this is a strong quote. c) on the other hand, the journal that published the essay from which the quote on the right comes used two other quotes as pullquotes over this one suggesting they didn't see it as particularly strong. d) the quote on the right doesn't really make an argument, it just expresses a complaint wheras the quote on the left summarizes Klug's main point quite powerfully.

Looking at their contributions the two editors who have expressed a preference for the quote on the right both seem to disagree with Klug's arguments so I'd like to hear what people who agree with Klug or are neutral think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tira_Massu (talk • contribs)

Don't come here assuming you know what anyone thinks, or that because someone has a POV you disagree with, they can't write and can't recognize good writing.

I assume Tira Massu (talk · contribs) is the same person as Tira Masu (talk · contribs), but you lost your password, as they often do. SlimVirgin 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume Tira Massu (talk · contribs) is also the same person as Baron de Montesquieu (talk · contribs). Another password no doubt sadly lost. :'-( Jayjg 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a conflict of interest to have someone who disagrees with a writer decide which part of their argument should be highlighted, even if they have the best intentions as I'm sure you do. I'd like to hear the thoughts of people who either agree with Klug or are neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tira_Massu (talk • contribs)

It's not a conflict of interest; it's called being a Wikipedian. If you don't know what that means, please find another website to assume bad faith on. SlimVirgin 00:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Jayjg didn't beat me to this: please remember Misplaced Pages:Civility and Assume good faith. --WassermannNYC 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of good or bad faith; it's a matter of good or bad edition. The quote "When anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance" is much more powerful and representative of the author's thougt than the timid Klug pullquote currently used in the article. I favor substituting the former for the latter, so that readers will grasp at first glance the extent and depth of Klug's convictions, which is what a pullquote is useful for in the first place. --Abenyosef 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish symbols"?

Well, given that my last request for term clarification regarding "Islamism" was ignored, I'll try again...could someone please enlighten as what what the phrase "Jewish symbols" found in the opening sentence means? I tried to temporary patch this idiotic, vague, and useless phraseology but was immediately reverted by the article's babysitter/guard at the time. What gives? --WassermannNYC 03:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It refers, for example, to synagogues being burned, to the Star of David being portrayed intertwined with the swastika, to Jewish cemeteries being sprayed with graffiti, and so on. Why is that hard to understand? SlimVirgin 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at Image:United Koalition of War criminals.jpg for a typical example. AnonMoos 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The "New antisemitism" is not all PHYSICAL though is what I'm trying to say, much of it is more 'intellectual' theorizing -- this nebulous phrase implies actual physical desecration/destruction of physical and visible "Jewish symbols" like synagogues, cemeteries, etc., yet the "New antisemitism" is, according to this article, more 'intellectual' conspiracies rather than blowing up synagogues, as I've said. And what of the increased verbal and physical harassment of Jews in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere (is this symbolic fighting)? Conspiracy theorizing of powerful Jews behind the scenes (are these symbolic conspiracy theories)? Virulent criticism of Israel (anti-Zionism) and America (anti-Americanism), with Jews as the supreme "puppeteers" supposedly behind the scenes (symbolic global hegemony)? Anti-globalization and antisemitism (is this symbolic dislike of globalization, attributed to Jews)? Antisemitism due to supposed Jewish manipulation of financial markets (is this symbolic anti capitalism combined with Jew baiting)? Per the article header, these are all considered to be part of the new antisemitism, yet they aren't actual physical "attacks" on Jewish symbols as the vague phrase "Jewish symbols" seems to imply. Or are these non-physical but nevertheless supposedly antisemitic "attacks" also "symbols" or "symbolic" too? --WassermannNYC 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the sentence: "New antisemitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism." That covers the attacks on symbols, physical and otherwise, and the conspiracy theories and other things you mentioned. The only point not covered are the physical assaults. SlimVirgin 04:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brian Klug, one of the people who denies that there is such a thing as a "new antisemitism," has acknowledged several physical assaults in recent years but denies that they are either "new antisemitism" or "old antisemitism":

He accepts that there is reason for the Jewish community to be concerned, citing the truck-bombing of two synagogues in Istanbul, an arson attack on an Orthodox Jewish school in Paris, the reappearance of anti-Semitic slogans during demonstrations opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the increase in conspiracy theories involving Jews.

There have been many other physical manifestations of anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli sentiment in recent years, such as vandalism of Jewish cemeteries. This is not mere rhetoric. Dino 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The "New antisemitism" in South Korea? -- New York Times Article

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Korean-American community leaders said they plan to launch a protest against the publisher of a popular South Korean comic book that contains anti-Semitic images.

One comic strip in the book shows a man climbing a hill and then facing a brick wall with a Star of David and "STOP" sign in front. "The final obstacle to success is always a fortress called Jews," a translation says.

Another strip shows a newspaper, magazine, TV and radio with the description: "In a word, American public debate belongs to the Jews, and it's no exaggeration to say that U.S. media are the voice of the Jews."

...article continued...

• LA Koreans Angry at Anti-Jewish Cartoon

--172.128.25.32 03:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

More ---> Koreans protest anti-Semitic comics -- Anti-Semitic comic book in Korea stirs anger in the U.S. -- Anti-Semitic cartoons spur outrage --172.145.1.171 01:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like old antisemitism to me. // Liftarn

The Yale survey

The description of the Yale survey about anti-Israel attitudes and antisemitism needs to be improved. On the one hand, relatively unimportant details are given, such as the breakdown by gender, age, etc.

On the other hand, one important conclusion is omitted: that the connection holds true only for 56% of EXTREME detractors of Israel, while MODERATE critics of the country are not antisemitic by a 3-to-1 ratio. In my view, this is a figure that deserves to be cited.

Also, the description is misleading in that it links selected questions from both questionnaires in the survey; and the selection is disingenuous (only the most extreme questions are quoted).

The survey is, thus, slightly misrepresented here. I'm fixing it accordingly. --Abenyosef 13:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the extreme views that are relevant, and the claim that criticism of Israel is antisemitic is a straw man that both sides deny. It obviously doesn't belong. Jayjg 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I wish you would stop characterizing the one side of the debate as nothing more than fighting straw men. A huge question in this issue is "Where does criticism of Israel become antisemitic." Please see the entire section on the Klug-Wistrich correspondence, for instance, particularly the first sentence:

In correspondence with Klug, Robert Wistrich, Neuburger Professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and director of its International Center for the Study of Antisemitism — who also testified in February 2006 to the British parliamentary inquiry — responds that his own litmus test of when criticism of Israel becomes antisemitism is when the critic wishes to dismantle the Jewish state without calling for the dismantling of other states; demonizes Israel; brands it "Nazi" or "racist"; or relies on classic antisemitic stereotypes: for example, the "Jewish Lobby."

So demonization of Israel, what exactly does that mean? Does speaking of Israeli apartheid count? Or calling for the dismantling of the Jewish state, even, what does that mean? Does it include advocates of a binational state, for instance? Please check out the rest of the section for much more of the same. "What we have seen in recent years is indeed a new form of anti-Semitism operating under a humanist façade which (falsely) pillories Israel and Jews as being inherently 'racist'." Etc. This is not a straw man, to say "Ok, but fair criticism of Israel is still fair." More important, though, is the simple fact that these bodies do not see the clarification as addressing straw men, since they keep on making it. If there is a straw man argument here, I'd suggest it is indeed your suggestion, that opponents of NAS accuse Wistrich et al of calling any criticism of Israel antisemitic. To the same extent Wistrich et al don't make that argument, the fact is that nobody accuses them of making that argument either. What NAS opponents argue is that Wistrich et al conflate the issues in a manner which stifles fair debate. Not all debate, but some amount of reasonable and fair debate. It's still an important argument. But again, when the sources keep acknowledging it, it's simply not for us to cherry-pick their statements and leave that out. Mackan79 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the concept that "NAS proponents don't claim that criticism of Israel is itself antisemitic" is being used disingenuously. Of course, NAS proponents believe that saying that Israel is too soft on terrorists is legitimate criticism, but that's not what Kaplan and Small are talking about.

Kaplan and Small prove, by way of statistical survey, that many people who believe either that (a) Israel intentionally targets civilians or that (b) Palestinian terrorism is justified or that (c) Israel is responsible for the conflict or that (d) Israel is committing apartheid are not antisemitic. In fact, a large majority (65% to 35%) of people who believe THREE of these propositions to be true are not antisemitic, and only those who believe ALL FOUR propositions to be true (who constitute less than 1% of those surveyed) are antisemitic by a 56% to 44% majority.

Now NAS proponents do not claim that ANY of the four propositions is legitimate criticism of Israel. It's not true that both sides agree that a person can claim that Israel is an apartheid state and still not be antisemitic. NAS proponents claim that these people are antisemitic, and Kaplan and Small prove they're not necessarily so.

So we must quote Kaplan and Small's conclusions because they're talking of a type of criticism of Israel that is not considered legitimate by "the other side." --Abenyosef 19:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We need to be cautious about accepting surveys at face value. People are well aware that undisguised expressions of antisemitism are not acceptable in today's society. Even in a confidential survey, they may not admit that they harbor such feelings. But opposing Israeli government policy is socially acceptable. In some circles, it's very vogue. And it may be used as a socially acceptable camouflage for genuine antisemitic beliefs. Dino 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Political term

This is clearly a political term. It doesn't just mean "any recent anti-semitism". As the article says:

"The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. The concept is used to distinguish this wave from classical antisemitism, which was largely associated with the political right."

—Ashley Y 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some reliable source which states that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political term", per policy? Thanks. Jayjg 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessary, it's clearly a term with a defined political meaning. —Ashley Y 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't extend that to calling it a "pejorative political term" -that's OR. <<-armon->> 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So you would say that it's a political term, but not pejorative? —Ashley Y 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a concept, and a description of a phenomenon. Jayjg 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet the term specifically describes a particular alleged "wave of antisemitism", according to the article, and not just any recent anti-Semitism. That makes it a political term, surely? Armon seemed to imply that he didn't disagree with that. —Ashley Y 22:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, if you describe a wave of antisemitism, that's suddenly a political term? Anyway, contrary to your claim, you need reliable sources which state "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political term". Jayjg 23:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you give it a particular name to identify it, then rather obviously yes. That's why it's called a "term" in the article. Here's a little test that should make it clear: would it be appropriate to rename the article "Antisemitism in the 21st century" or "Post-Second Intifada antisemitism" or "Post-Oslo antisemitism" or anything else you felt was a description? Clearly no, because those are not the terms being used. It's specifically the political term "new antisemitism". —Ashley Y 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:ATT; it's one of Misplaced Pages's two fundamental content policies. Jayjg 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One doesn't need attribution for the obvious. —Ashley Y 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

All controversial claims need attribution, particularly bogus ones like this one. Jayjg 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Needed or not, attribution abounds. This should be enough, and there's more where that came from. Ashley's accurate edit goes in.--G-Dett 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, out it goes again. Please review WP:ATT. Jayjg 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is antisemitism a pejorative? Tom Harrison 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Do any of the provided sources (or anyone) that refer to something as "new antisemitism" not mean it pejoratively? —Ashley Y 00:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything which someone feels is inaccurately applied can be viewed a "pejorative". This doesn't automatically make the term a pejorative. Controversy about whether it truly exists, that it's actually "old" antisemitism, or "just" anti-Zionism, is irrelavant. <<-armon->> 00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. "Pejorative" does not imply "inaccurate", only disapproval. I think you'll agree that those referring to some phenomenon as "new antisemitism" are disapproving of that phenomenon? —Ashley Y 00:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the problem is that you must abide by WP:ATT. Jayjg 00:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please review WP:ATT. Jayjg 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One doesn't need attribution for the obvious. —Ashley Y 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. It's right at the top of the policy. I keep asking you to read it. Jayjg 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

But you seem to have stopped actually challenging it? Instead you are arguing "It needs attribution because I challenge it, and I challenge it because it needs attribution". —Ashley Y 00:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about? I've challenged it from the start, as have others. The category is not applicable to "New antisemitism". Jayjg 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"New antisemitism" is clearly both a political term (since it is an established identifying name for one particular phenomenon), and pejorative, as I pointed out. So the category is indeed applicable. —Ashley Y 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between an assertion and an attribution. I know the words are superficially similar, but they mean very different things. Obviously people disagree with your claim, so attribute it, per policy. Jayjg 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley's edit has been sourced. What is all this nonsense about WP:ATT? And Slim, on what grounds have you again deleted the category?--G-Dett 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Which source described New antisemitism as a "pejorative political term"? Jayjg 01:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Which source used that exact phrase? None that I know of. Is that where you're setting the bar? Are all/any of the items in that list cited to sources using that exact phrase? --G-Dett 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only did none of the sources use that exact phrase, but none of the sources provided said anything close to it. As for the other items in the category, I have no doubt they're poorly sourced and inherently POV as well. That's exactly why the List of political epithets article was deleted as well, though you did your best to try to keep it, and somehow insist antisemitism was a political epithet. Then your buddy Liftarn tried to get it in via the backdoor, only to have his POV foiled again. Now you're taking a disruptive third kick at this can via a silly category. At this point you appear to be editing solely for this purpose, and I don't plan to put up with much more of this. Jayjg 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Two editors who agree on one point and never at any other time so much as cross paths aren't "buddies," Jay. Please review my input to political epithets at a more sober and less paranoid moment. Maybe you need to take a little break.--G-Dett 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:ATT. Perhaps you should go back on the break you were taking, you seem to be here only for one purpose. Jayjg 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are unhelpful, as are your repeated mentioning of policies we are already familiar and in compliance with. —Ashley Y 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It really does poison the groundwater here, Jay. Try to exercise some restraint.--G-Dett 02:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you were actually familiar with WP:ATT, then you wouldn't insist that you can insert controversial claims without attribution. If you were familiar with WP:CIVIL, then you wouldn't assert that other editors needed to be "more sober and less paranoid", or needed to "try to exercise some restraint". In order to comply with WP:AGF, I must assume that you are not familiar with WP:CIVIL and WP:ATT, rather than other, less savory, conclusions. Jayjg 03:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it surprising that new antisemitism would be pejorative, but not antisemitism. That seems unreasonable to me. Is it because it applies to the left and Muslims instead of to the right and Christians? Tom Harrison 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's because "antisemitism" has been a part of the language for a hundred and fifty years or so, whereas "new antisemitism" is a recent coinage. "Antisemite" can indeed be used as an epithet, but there's a pretty stable consensus about the meaning of the word "antisemitism" and the phenomenon it names. "New antisemitism" has been used almost entirely within the context of contentious political debate about Israel's human-rights record, so the term is polarizing and doesn't enjoy widespread legitimacy; whereas "antisemitism"'s legitimacy has been codified and stabilized by extensive use that transcends this or that historical moment or political debate.--G-Dett 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen new antisemitism used as a pejorative, yet people want to list it. I don't see neocon listed as a pejorative political term, yet I have often seen neocon used as a pejorative. The whole category looks arbitrary to me. What is the criteria for inclusion? Tom Harrison 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Slim, discuss. Why are you removing a sourced category link?--G-Dett 01:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no reliable source that describes it as a "pejorative political term". Please review WP:ATT. Jayjg 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop telling experienced editors to review basic protocol, Jay. It's insulting, and it wastes everyone's time.--G-Dett 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And here you are again arguing "it needs attribution because I challenge it, and I challenge it because it needs attribution". In fact, it's completely obvious that it's both a political term and pejorative, and you don't seem to be actually offering any arguments against that. —Ashley Y 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's not a pejorative political term, it's a description of modern phenomena. The "pejorative political term" claim has been challenged by many editors, the "sources" brought do not even claim that it is a "pejorative political term", and you need to observe WP:ATT, rather than repeating yourself. Instead of endless repetitive assertions, source your false claim and original research, per policy. I don't think I can be any clearer. Jayjg 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay, are you insisting upon a source who uses that exact phrase, "pejorative political epithet"? And when someone returns successfully from that pointless scavenger-hunt, will you move then move the goalpost, raise the bar?--G-Dett 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm insisting you stop disrupting Misplaced Pages, and start following policy. This is the third time, in a third way, that you and your POV-buddies have attempted to insist that "antisemite" is a political epithet, and we're getting tired of it. Jayjg 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, please don't make personal attacks. They add nothing to the discussion but merely lose you credibility. —Ashley Y 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read both WP:NPA and WP:ATT. Jayjg 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You really are getting very nasty here, Jay. Do stop sending experienced editors back to basic protocol. Do stop pretending editors who've never so much as crossed paths before are "buddies," especially when you have been team-edit-warring for years now, as every single person on this page knows very well. And do stop stubbornly pretending that scrupulously cited sources don't say what they obviously do say, in the plainest of English.--G-Dett 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You brought one source that didn't even use the term "pejorative". You and Liftarn worked together to insert "Antisemite" into the "List of political epithets". Ashley Y keeps insisting that he can insert controversial claims and ignore WP:ATT, because "it's obvious", and you, because it's "common sense". All of you still need to review WP:ATT. Jayjg 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The "controversy" here is apparently manufactured, since you're not actually making any arguments against it besides the circular one, as I have repeatedly pointed out. —Ashley Y 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not merely a description, as both G-Dett and I have pointed out, since it refers specifically to the alleged "wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000". (And yes, there are plenty of sources that use it as a term rather than a description.) But you refuse to discuss that. Instead, you endlessly repeat your argument that it needs attribution because it is challenged, circularly since it is only challenged on the basis that it needs attribution.

If you have a challenge to the categorisation that doesn't depend on a need for attribution on the basis that is challenged, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise WP:ATT simply doesn't apply. —Ashley Y 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT always applies. It's fundamental policy. You can't do away with it by claiming "it's obvious". Stop repeating yourself, abide by policy instead. Jayjg 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT refers to material that is challenged, as you quoted. I don't think that includes material that is challenged solely for not being attributed. I keep raising this point precisely because you keep mentioning the policy. If you'd like to move forward from here, it's up to you. —Ashley Y 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Y, New antisemitism is clearly a sociological phenomenon, not a 'pejorative political term'. If you want to claim it is the latter, you need to provide proper attribution from reliable sources that back up your view. That's policy, you can't get around it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It may very well be a sociological phenomenon, but its status as a political term doesn't negate that. There are plenty of sources that use it as a political term. —Ashley Y 02:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not challenged because it needs attribution, rather attribution is the only method of proving that the assertion that it is indeed a pejorative political term isn't merely your original research. On what basis should we accept it? Tewfik 02:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, are you doubting that it is a political term, or doubting that it is pejorative? —Ashley Y 02:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't reverse the onus of proof. WP:ATT is quite clear. Jayjg 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, are you doubting that it is a political term, or doubting that it is pejorative? —Ashley Y 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of common sense, Tewfik. And failing that, the reliable sources provided. As well as others, if you wish.--G-Dett 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

However, none has yet been provided for the claim that it is a "pejorative political term", neither common sense, nor reliable sources. Jayjg 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's common sense, as we've pointed out. —Ashley Y 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained that assertion and attribution are similar words, but they mean very different things. WP:ATT does not say "please ignore this policy if editors continually insist their controversial claims are 'common sense'. Jayjg 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise it does not say "common sense needs to be attributed, even if editors continually insist that it is controversial without providing any argument". —Ashley Y 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. Jayjg 03:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but there's no challenge here apart from the circular one that it is challenged because it needs attribution, and it needs attribution because it is challenged (as I have repeatedly pointed out). —Ashley Y 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. The policy is written that way for a reason; otherwise people who insist on inserting their own original research come along and say "yeah, but in this case it's common sense, and you haven't come up with any good arguments (i.e. arguments that I accept) to keep it out". Jayjg 03:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ashley, Jayjg's right, you are clearly shifting the burden of proof. <<-armon->> 03:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PinchasC, NAS is "clearly a sociological phenomenon" to some reliable sources, and clearly a political ploy to others. It's not for Misplaced Pages editors to declare one side of this debate a winner.--G-Dett 02:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, which sources say that it is a pejorative political term? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This has gone beyond ridiculous. Just provide a RS cite which states that it is a pejorative political term! If one can't be produced, then the proponents of the cat need to drop it. <<-armon->> 03:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above. Unless a source is provided, this is OR and against Misplaced Pages guidelines. Elizmr 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick scan and I count thirteen links to WP:ATT. This has to be some sort of record. Haber 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It must be; and yet I fear even more will be required. Jayjg 03:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep replying to this joker? It's obvious that you win. Haber 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To say that it's a pejorative political term is to imply that it's merely an insult and lacks other content. Even many of its opponents wouldn't agree with this. They argue that the term may be misused and may be applied too broadly; or they argue that, though it correctly describes a new form of prejudice, it's not antisemitism. But I haven't seen any authoritative source argue that it's only and always an insult. SlimVirgin 03:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources which clearly state that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political epithet"

Please place any reliable sources which clearly state that "New antisemitism" is a "pejorative political epithet" here, quoting the words of the source that make that specific claim. Thanks. Jayjg 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

1. Aaronovitch, David. "The New Anti-Semitism", The Observer, June 22, 2003.
2. Arenson, David & Grynberg, Simon. Anti-Globalization and the New Anti-Semitism.
3. Cook, Jonathan. "The 'New Anti-Semitism' and Nuclear War", antiwar.com, September 25, 2006.
4. Curthoys, Ned. "A new anti-Semitism: American discourse since September 11 has seen a reinvention of the eternal anti-semitism thesis applied to critics of Israel," Arena Magazine, April 1, 2004.
5. Iganski, Paul & Kosmin, Barry. (eds) A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st Century Britain, Profile Books Limited, 2003. ISBN 1-86197-651-8

(more available on request) —Ashley Y 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This is the wrong bar. There are plenty of sources that actually use "new antisemitism" as a pejorative political epithet. —Ashley Y 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Klug, Brian. The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism. The Nation, posted January 15, 2004 (February 2, 2004 issue), accessed January 9, 2006.
2. Cite error: The named reference KlugCatalyst was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• GAN error
• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees awaiting review
• Good article nominees without a subtopic
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Unassessed Jewish history-related articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Former good article nominees