Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:57, 1 February 2009

Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

In violation of Misplaced Pages:Content forking. And most of the incidents are not confirmedto be linked to Gaza assault. I think they are regular antismetic incidents that should not be related to the said assault. Yamanam (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for the reason above. Yamanam (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a bad-faith nomination. Keep in mind that the nominator is attempting to change the title of the article (the title at the top of this page is his concoction) and destroy its content, so the version you see at any particular time may not be the "real" version. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to Jalapenos do exist: Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, words like destroy and bad-faith are not welcome in Misplaced Pages.Yamanam (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The phrase 'bad faith' is not banned or censored in Misplaced Pages discussions. If, for example, an editor sincerely believes that another editor has made a change or proposed an action in order to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point, it's fair comment to suggest that the action was undertaken in bad faith. The general assumption of good faith should not entirely undermine our critical faculties. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Many incidents have been linked to the conflict. And where there is no clear link, attributing the surge to the conflict is logical. A page name change can get around this obstacle if needed. Chesdovi (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - What you feel is logical, other editors may feel is original research. There may be direct or circumstantial evidence in reliable sources to link a particular incident to a particular conflict, in which case that link can be included with appropriate attribution. Your own guesswork, no matter how logical it seems, is not a reliable source.AlexTiefling (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's what I meant. Chesdovi (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I looked over the page and although there are many references, it has a resounding feel of not just original research, but the above mentioned content forking concerns me as well. Maybe if the page were yanked, reformatted and reposted with a new name, instead of this one, and less of a tone considered to be original research, it would be fine.--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to respond to a claim that the article has a "feel" and a "tone" of original research. Something is either original research or it isn't. If you find a single statement in the article not supported by the sources, please point it out so we can improve it. Though I don't see how any of this has anything to do with deleting the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete but for slightly different reasons to the nominator. My concern with this article is that it doesn't clearly distinguish the difference between antisemitism and political criticism of the state of Israel. Many of the events described in the article sound to me more like the latter than the former. JulesH (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, my concern is a mixture of WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns. For instance, in the lead section there is a sentence which reads "Nazi imagery was used in anti-Israel rallies across Europe to compare Israeli soldiers to German troops." This is sourced to an article which quite carefully does not call these rallies anti-semitic; in fact it quotes people who seem to be going to lengths to avoid saying they were anti-semitic (saying instead that they "fanned the flames of anti-Semitism") and states that most of the protesters involved denied anti-semitism. Therefore, including this event in an article whose title implies that all the things listed are antisemitic incidents is original research (a claim not supported by the source) and an NPOV violation (some people clearly believe it is not an antisemitic incident, and this viewpoint has not been quoted). JulesH (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, finally we have a single example of a problematic sentence. This is an improvement. Unsurprisingly, this is a sentence that was "worked over" by the nominator - I warned of this problem above. The emphasis of the original sentence was the rally where "protesters hollered "Hamas Hamas, Jews to the gas'", to quote the source. I doubt anyone would seriously deny that this is an antisemitic incident. The general mention of rallies using Nazi imagery was a reflection of the opinion of organizations dealing with antisemitism, mentioned in the cited source, that such imagery is used against Israel in antisemitic contexts. I agree that the opposing POV, that Nazi imagery used in criticizing Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism, should be included, assuming it is a significant POV. I still don't understand why issues with particular statements in the article, which would make great discussion page content, are being used to argue for deleting the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"I doubt anyone would seriously deny that this is an antisemitic incident." Yet still we have no source that says it is one. And there are plenty more examples in the article, too. "A Jewish student was attacked and stabbed four times by Arab youths in a Parisian suburb." Antisemitism? Or a politically motivated attack? The sources disagree, with one calling it an antisemitic attack and the other suggesting that this is a controversial classification. "A French imam who preached for peace with Jews received death threats and was put under police protection." The source does not call this antisemtism, and it's hard to see the argument for it being so; it's a political difference of opinion escalate to extreme levels by a violent situation. "But the past two weeks have also seen aggression within the Jewish community towards those sympathetic to the plight of Gaza." Hard to see how this could be interpreted as antisemitism. "In Italy, a trade union called for a boycott of Jewish-owned shops in Rome." The only mention of antisemitism in the article is the union's denial that it was the motive for the boycott call.

My reason for suggesting deletion rather than editing is that it seems to me that if all of these problems were fixed, the article would barely resemble its current state. It would be less than half as long, and would have a significantly different emphasis. Now, these problems could be fixed, but I question whether it is practical to fix them starting from this article, or if a different starting point would be a better approach. JulesH (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I see the problem. You do not consider attacks against Jews as Jews to be antisemitic if they're politically motivated. The sources and common sense do, however; in fact, it's practically a tautology, since antisemitism means hostility toward Jews as Jews. Of course the stabbing of the Jewish student, which happened when his attackers noticed he was Jewish, was politically motivated: it was a politically motivated antisemitic attack. And let me get this straight: you're actually debating whether "Hamas Hamas, Jews to the gas" is an antisemitic slogan. No, that particular article does not specifically say that the slogan is "antisemitic", nor does it say that throwing Molotov cocktails on synagogues is "an attack", nor does it say that Israel is "a country in western Asia". It does, however, explicitly make clear (for the benefit of readers like you, I can only suppose) that boycotting Jewish businesses is an antisemitic act. So there's your source for that particular self-evident issue. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it worthwhile to quote Guillaume Ayme of the campaign group SOS Racisme:

"The people who attacked synagogues, for example, they hated Jews before the start of the conflict and it just gives them a reason or an easy explanation to express this hatred." BBC

He is of the opinion that most attacks are politically motivated, but because they are directed against Jews, and not Israelis, they are considered anti-semitic. This article does have to be carefully sifted through though. Chesdovi (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merge merge to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, add a section titled something like "anti-semitic backlash" or something like that --Pstanton (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be unwise, as that article is already too long and, as a result, much material even more directly related to the conflict has already been spun off into separate articles, by consensus. This article barely scrapes the surface of the notable information, and when it becomes thorough it will be a fairly long article itself. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete do not merge, anything with the words "alleged" in it's title is a clear content fork, also I don't see it ever becoming neutral enough for a merge as well. Agree with JulesH Secret 20:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The article did not have the word "alleged" in its title until the nominator added it, while nominating the article for deletion. I warned above that this behavior would cloud the issue. The reason the article did not have the word "alleged" in its title is because it does not deal with allegations, it deals with facts. The spike in antisemitic incidents during the conflict in question is considered by the multiple reliable sources cited to be related to the conflict. This is made clear in the text of the article, and can be verified just by reading the titles of the cited sources: "Anti-Semitic Attacks Fuelled by Gaza Conflict" (The Times) and so forth. One could also, of course, read the sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a fork. Infomation was originally placed here, but that page was getting to long. Chesdovi (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• reasonably strong keep

1. See no forking here. Please indicate where.
2. The title specifically mentions alleged now. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Chesdovi (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FORK, also its WP:POV. Ijanderson (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict (CLOSING ADMIN: see my not below) - I think this material is mostly relevant an encyclopedic, and presents facts that are unquestionable - so the material should not be deleted. I think the article has serious issues with WP:V and possibly WP:SYNTH - and needs a more balanced and impartial tone (ie It was named "Attacks against Jews", which is both POV (not all incidents listed are attacks - speech is hurtful and hateful but is not an attack as generally accepted) and bad English (We have a word for "hate against Jews" in English: "Antisemitic"; not using it its like saying "Killing one self" instead of "Suicide"). I disagree the nom is bad faith, but I think it is a mistaken one, and that an effort can be made with the material to bring it to encyclopedic quality.

• However, If kept, "Alleged" is WP:WTA, if this article is not deleted/merged it should be with "Antisemitic incidents related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" title formulation.--Cerejota (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is already impossibly long, and several editors there (including myself) are currently discussing splitting it into several articles, both because of its length and because it combines issues that are not obviously related: official statements, humanitarian aid and civilian protests. Also, while I've become convinced that your name "Antisemitic incidents" is better than my "attacks against Jews", I want to point out that JulesH has argued for deletion above (if I understand him correctly) because attacks against Jews do not necessarily constitute antisemitic incidents. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think all attacks against civilian Jews in non-conflict areas, that are against Jews as Jews are antisemitic. Its the definition of the term. This might surprise you. However, the article length issue is can be managed if not so much incidents are included. Just because something is RS doesn't make it notable. I do agree that there is notability of the general phenomenon of the increase compared to Jan 2008 and figures like Sarkozy have addressed the matter. But this would make a two or three paragraph addition to "Reactions". This is why some say this is POVFORKing, because it was done a bit prematurely by eager editors who are themselves Jews - instead of summary article. That said, if clearly linked to reactions in the ways suggeste dby WP:SUMMARY, and IF other sections of "Reactions" are similary summarized, I move to KEEP.--Cerejota (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Update: user:Chesdovi is currently hard at work revamping the article. I view his changes as a great improvement, noting that since he's in the middle, there are some expected consistency issues. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Kudos to ChesD for revamping the article. Any confusion between valid political criticism and antisemitism should be resolved at the article's talk page, not at afd. 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is already bursting at its seams. We should encourage, not discourage, spinoffs. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to International reactions to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. I mean should we create an article anti-Muslim violence as well?("Sarkozy vows "zero tolerance" for Gaza hate crimes". Reuters. 2009-01-14.)

Secondly, if the article is to stay we need to rename it something like "Allegations of antisemitism perceived to be in relation to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". This is because there is a lot of claims of antisemitism made by sources all over.VR _talk 06:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Take this source for example. The reliable source clearly says "accusations of anti-semitism". It does not say that the union's call for boycott was a definite act of antisemitism. The article title should therefore be something like "Allegations of antisemitism..." or "Claims of antisemitism..."VR _talk 06:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I am having flashbacks of "allegations of apartheid"... "allegations" is WP:WTA... curren title is correct, let the facts speak for themselves is a matter to be solved by editing not deletion or renaming. I can't believe brewcrewer is being the reasonable one here...--Cerejota (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete as POV fork. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This is valid and well sourced article. I do not see any content forking. Fork with what article? Even if there was a content fork, it should be removed from another article and placed here.Biophys (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as this is a clear POV Fork and serves no other purpose than to project the victimhood of Jews(which is not WP is all about). Anti-Semitic attacks(which are sometimes just anti-Israel) related to recent war should be noted in an appropriate section in the same article. It is not useful to create a new article for every set of hate crimes against Jews or Muslims. Zencv 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the scale of the backlash, noted in the article, and its reaction, sets this "set of hate crimes" aside from other waves. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no objective way to measure "scale of backlash". The same could be said(by someone else) for creating an article titled "Islamophobic attacks occuring after 7/7 in Britain". I don't think that 2 years from now, any independent historian would be talking about these attacks as if these were a separate notable incident that required a separate article, apart from the 2009 Gaza war. Zencv 22:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As has already been noted on this page, because of the sheer length of 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, many of its aspects have been spun off according to WP:SUMMARY. There is an objective way to measure the scale of the backlash, which is used by some of the sources in the article: comparison between number of incidents in this period with a similar period; not that a lack of such a method would provide any reason for deleting the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the number of incidents is no measure of objectivity. There are countless hate crimes against many other races happening everywhere, everyday. Now let us say once things cool down, and if increase in antisemitic attacks come down, should we have an article titled "Reduction in number of antiSemitic attacks alleged to truce between Hamas and Israel"? The problem is that of notability as a separate article Zencv 20:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Any wave of hate crimes against any group would be notable enough for a separate article if it affected the lives of millions of people around the world, received significant attention in the world media, and drew responses from world leaders, human rights groups and notable religious figures. BTW, I would support your suggestion of merging this article into 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict or one of its spinoff articles (you suggest delete, but in your comment you speak of merging), except that those articles are way too long already, and this article is also long, as it has a lot of material to cover. If you agree that the content should be on Misplaced Pages, the existence of a separate article is a typical application of WP:SUMMARY and is a purely procedural matter. I don't understand whether you in fact agree that the content should be on Misplaced Pages. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, let me tell you very honestly, with all due respect to you as an editor, when this article first came into my notice, I thought this was a pretty lame article. I proposed some changes to the lead as a first step(refer talk page), but I did not actually incorporated those changes into the article, as I was thinking of nominating this article for deletion. As a first step, I wanted to notify you of my intentions and arguments and it was then that I noticed that another user had already proposed this for deletion and you yourself had sought the comment of another user in your talk page. My feelings for this article is similar to that of the user whose comments/opinion you had sought. I don't see a need for this article, it is so specific that a reader would be quite unlikely to come across it, and it smells of POV Fork. I was not actively calling for a merge, rather wanted to say that it would suffice to include notable parts of this article in the Gaza article Zencv 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As specific as Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London in 2006? Chesdovi (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Zencv, no disrespect is taken, as articles are hardly ever top-notch at their very beginning. User:Chesdovi is currently turning it into a far better article than it was when I started it. The only merit I can see in your claim that this is a POV fork is that there are often articles similar to this one that are POV forks. But this article deals with a very real and significant phenomenon, as can be seen by reading the cited sources, and as has been acknowledged by several people on this page, even those who don't support keep. POV forks tend to be an attempt to find new ground for content that was opposed in the original article. Here there was no controversy, simply none whatsoever, in 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict, Effects of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. The motivation for spinning off the article was simply that it was getting or going to get too long for the already overweighted host article. Again, this is a typical application of WP:SUMMARY. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I cant find forking or original research. HereFord 01:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not every trend/news event deserves an article in Misplaced Pages. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. maybe a move to Wikinews is fine. JVent (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - this has been widely reported upon and is a very real phenomenon. --GHcool (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. It is an important issue that needs to be covered but I think as a standalone article it becomes a bit too decontextualized or the context get's completely shifted inappropriately in my view. For example, I look at the page and the very first thing I see is a Judenstern badge. Somehow the context is transformed to the Holocaust when in fact the context is the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. That seems inappropriate. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This article, like others of its ilk, is a transparent ruse to sneak cheap propaganda into the Misplaced Pages in the guise of scholarship. It sits comfortably with Israel and the apartheid analogy, Blood Libel at Deir Yassin, and the dozens of massacre articles and massacre lists and massacre summaries written by both sides. None of these articles represents a trend or cultural artifact of any significance in itself; they should all be deleted and, where the information is meaningful, recast into articles that are not mere attempts to get hate words into Misplaced Pages titles.

Could you imagine an article in the 11th edition of Britannica with this preposterous title?

This is not a vote to delete, just a venting of my festering disgust with the way we editors deal with these topics. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This kind of article may not feature in the Britannica, but it would in an almanac of some sort. Also Wiki is not paper. Your accusation of "cheap propaganda" does not tally with the exposure this backlash has had in the media. Have you seen how many sources there are? There have also been news reports about it on TV: Gaza: rise in anti-Semitism?. Chesdovi (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a slight difference, important though, between attacking a Jewish only because s/he is Jewish (which is anti-semitic), and attacking a Jewish because Israel (his national home) is brutally assaulting another nation, the latter is not anti-semitic. Yamanam (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Difference in motivation, but still anti-semitic. Not every Jew holds Israeli citizenship! Chesdovi (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is my point exactly; the motivation will determine whether this attack is anti-semitic or not (no matter what is the nationality of the attacked person). Yes, not every Hew hods an Israeli citizenship, but the perception of the whole world that every Jew is entitled to get an Israeli citizenship, therefor, the actions of Israeli government are reflected someway or another on the Jews all over the world. let us not confuse the reader, let us make it clear: not all attacks against Jews are anti-semitic attacks. One question might clarify this issue more, do u consider the Palestinian attacks (living in Gaza or West Bank)on Jewish Israeli people an anti-semitic action? The answer is no, apply the same concept on this article and you will find that it is forking.Yamanam (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacking an Israeli who happens to be Jewish is not antisemitic, but attacking a Jew because he is a Jew is antisemitic, even if the motivation is a perceived connection between Jews and Israel's actions at any given time. That perceived connection is unjustified, because many Jews have absolutely nothing to do with Israel. But the question has nothing to do with justification, it has to do with the definition of antisemitism. For example, if (hypothetically) all Jews were members of a cabal plotting to enslave the human race, it could be justified to attack Jews, but such attacks would still be antisemitic, since antisemitism is defined as "hostility toward Jews". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism is defined by European Forum on Antisemistism as:

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

So it is a perception of Jews, not a perception of Israeli. The mentioned attacks against Jews were mainly because of a perception of them being Israeli since it was motivated by the israeli brutal assault. Yamanam (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yamanam, you must accept the fact that not every Jew is an Israeli and not every Israeli is a Jew. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 specifically stated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice... the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". Your theory that because Israel allows all Jews to apply for citizenship, Jews are therefore accountable for Israel's actions is astounding! Your suggestion that Israel's actions are reflected on all Jews is interesting. While many Jews would be proud of Israel's achivements, I am sure they would baulk at being vilified for its shortcomings! Israel is not the representitve of the Jewish people. And neither do Jews represent Israel. Livni said "whatever one's opinion of Israel's military operation, it should not be used to legitimize hate and anti-Semitic incitement." It is because many people, including yourself, mix the two, these attacks have occurred. And they are to be condemed as any other anti-semitic attack. There is no justification. According to you, it would not be Islamophobic for me to attack a Muslim or mosque in London because a Muslim country brutally attacked another nation. This is warped thinking. Embassies are the place for protests, not people or institutions whhich share the same religion. That is what the Jewish community of Antwerp meant when they issued a statement condeming the anti-semitic violence saying "we are all Flemish, we are all Antwerp inhabitants". This is what the Spainish PM explained aswell: "The Israeli government should be criticised if it used disproportionate force, but without going too far in the sense that everything Jewish or Semitic would need to be unanimously criticised." The problem with too many people is that they don't see the difference between the two. That is why Neturei Karta are so intent on making their statements that "Not all Jews are Zionists"! Chesdovi (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No Chesdovi, don't think that i am justifying or looking for a justification for those people who are attacking Jews, I think u already knew that. Another thing, I certainly know that not every Jew is israeli and not every israeli is Jew; I am only emphasizing on one point, the underlying reasons for those attacks are not because the attacked are Jew, they are rather because of the level of brutality that was exercised by the israeli government. And since most people "don't see the difference between the two" they attacked Jews thinking they are the same thing as Israel. You brought it up, do you think that the attackers would attack members of Neturei Karta? the answer is yes and no; NO if the attacker knew Neturei Karta's political views, and YES if the attacker didn't know Neturei Karta's political views. Yamanam (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope the new Motives section will have placated you? :-) Chesdovi (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just noted your reply, to be quite honest with you, this section made the article better, and by better I mean it minimized the ambiguity of the artilce. But still the title and most sections of the article imply that those attacks are in response to the conflict and are targeting Jewish only becasue they are Jewish. Yamanam (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They are targeting Jews because of the conflict and because they are Jewish. They are targeting Jews because they believe all Jews are supportive of Israel and back its actions. All Jews therefore advocate the massacre of civilians. All Jews are greedy too. And because the massacre of civilians is evil, just as greed and arrogance is evil, all Jews are understandably attacked. It is not a gratuitous hate. There is always a perceived reason behind the anti-semitic prejudice, a motive for the attacks. It is not just because they were born Jewish, but because what Jews are associated with. It would not be anti-semitic for an ill-treated worker to punch his boss, who happened to be Jewish. But for him to punch another random Jew in the street as revenge against his boss, would be. “But I wasn’t punching him because he was Jewish”, he retorts. “It was because of the ill-treatment of my Jewish boss; and as all Jews share the same ethnicity, all must support the ill-treatment of workers. My assault therefore, cannot be classed anti-semitic.” Now did this worker ask the random Jew whether he supports ill treatment of workers before he punched him? No. He just perceived these two Jews were one and the same and both equally deserving of his retribution. Did any of the current anti-semitic attackers ask their victims whether they supported the Israeli action before they carried out their attack? Did the pakistani terrorist in Mumbai ask Leibish Teitelbaum whether he was an anti-Zionist before he shot him? No. They just attacked them because they were Jewish and because what those people associate all Jews with. These recent global attacks carried out against random Jews are indeed anti-semitic precisely because the attackers are perceiving all Jews to be collectively supportive and therefore culpable for, in this case, Israeli actions. Attacks against the Israeli embassy would not be called anti-semitic. Attacks against pro-Israel supporters would not be anti-semitic. The attack at the BICOM office is not classed anti-semitic. Attacks against random synagogues and random Jews are.

Noting the surge of anti-semitic attacks in the UK during the Gaza conflict, it will be interesting to know whether any of the 150,000 British Sinhalese people have been attacked by any of the 120,000 British Sri Lankan Tamil people or their Hindus supporters anywhere in the UK in response to the Sri-Lankan’s armys “brutal attack” of Mullaitivu. 50,000 demonstrated against it today in London. Chesdovi (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For me these attacks are antisemitic simply by definition but more importantly they must be motivated by the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza or else they shouldn't be in the article obviously. I think this discussion between the two of you illustrates why this article shouldn't be a standalone article and why it's better to merge it into the article specifically related to this conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Which article should it be merged into. It has been noted that the Reaction page is too long. I don't think its an "effect" of the conflict either? Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant the reaction page which could be reduced in size quite dramatically I think. If it really can't be reduced in size sufficiently for some reason then I think it would be better if this article was renamed and included these kind of incidents/attacks against civilians/property from both sides of the conflict to avoid content forking. There's already too much content forking around I-P issues. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete WP:SYN violation. Merge any notable information into the appropriate articles. csloat (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note which souces used violate WP:Synthesis. The article is entitled "Attacks which occured during the conflict". All these did? The article goes on to link most the attacks to the war, as their sources do. There is no OR here? Chesdovi (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If one of the sources used was the issue, it wouldn't be a SYN violation. The violation is the article itself, which strings together various sources, apparently for soapboxing purposes. It is actually your burden (or, the burden of those who want to keep the article) to show a single reliable source that strings all these incidents together under a category like this and gives that category notability; that does not seem to exist here. csloat (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment How about we rename it to 'Racial backlash alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza' to include information like this?--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't open that link? I thought of renaming it to: Antisemitic backlash to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058812.html copy and paste, it is about anti-Arab attacks taking place in Israel related to the 'conflict'. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's better. These Anti-Arab attacks should be added somewhere. It mentions Gaza, but what does "nationally motivated" mean? Was it in response to Hamas rockets? Chesdovi (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have found another: Share Email Print Church defaced by pro-Israel, anti-Arab graffiti. Chesdovi (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Needs some improvement, but well sourced and not a POV fork. Rlendog (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - I don't see why this was separated from the main article on the International reaction to the Gaza conflict, as all of the attacks (whether they were anti-Israeli or just plain racist) are directly linked to this particularly conflict. Also, if merged, I suggest a rename to just "Violent incidents" or something of that nature and we could include attacks by the Israeli army against protesters in the West Bank (four or five incidents that I know of) in that particular section. This current article seems to serve no productive purpose other than being POV or attempting to foster sympathy for Jews around the world, which might not be wrong to some, but is counter to the purpose of Misplaced Pages. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rename the title doesnt seem to be Encyclopedic. --Wayiran (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is well-sourced, decently written and contains content that is useful. This AfD is probably in bad faith, based on the nom's comments regarding Jews in the discussion. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - There are far too many POV forks. LOTRrules _Talk 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - um...I think I'm allowed to have a say, right? I think it should be deleted because it is mainly attacks against Jews not Arabs. It should talk about attacks on both sides. 78.148.63.39 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Being that Antisemitism is generally accepted to mean prejudice and discrimination against Jews and not Arabs, it follows that an article discussing the subject would focus on acts of hatred against Jews and not against Arabs. Even if we assume that Antisemitism includes hatred against Arabs, the mere fact that an article is incomplete is not grounds for deletion. Be bold and write an article about hatred relating to Arabs that has occurred as a result of this event rather than trying to get this (good) article deleted. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it's reasonable to assume that the international reactions article will be split into sub-articles given it's current size. See Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Splitting_the_Article. This article could then be renamed and become one of the sub-articles dealing with all racially/stupidity motivated incidents. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sean, looking at this from a categorization perspective, I tend to support your idea. Logically, there are 4 types of backlash incidents that belong in one article: anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish, anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab/Muslim. The problem is that almost all of the incidents, at least those that were reported, belonged to one type - this type: anti-Jewish. There were a few attacks against Israeli embassies, Dead Sea Care products stands and the like (anti-Israeli). There were one or two incidents in Israel against Israeli Arabs/Palestinian citizens of Israel (anti-Palestinian). And as far as I'm aware, there was one attack during the conflict, in France, against Arabs (anti-Arab/Muslim), and it would be difficult to tie even that attack to the conflict. So the question is what do/should we do on Misplaced Pages when several issues should logically be categorized together, but one of the issues overshadows the others. I have wondered about this regarding completely noncontentious, apolitical issues, and have never seen a coherent, convincing answer. Perhaps somebody has one now. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates