Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:08, 2 March 2006

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

NPOV again

This paragraph was deleted (corrected here):

=== Israel Shahak ===

Israel Shahak parsed the Israeli governmental-administrative structure and process as essentially comprising a constitutional theocracy based significantly on race and noted that when the label "anti-semitic" or "self-hating Jew" was applied to him for this analysis it was akin to a Nazi expression because the Nazis called Germans who defended Jewish rights "Anti-German" or self-hating Germans.

In my view it is important to point out where the rejection of criticism of the concept of "New Anti-Semitism" comes from. -- Vít Zvánovec 18:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you know he was talking about the concept of the "New anti-Semitism"? Did he describe it that way? Jayjg 18:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

His name should be spelled "Shahak", and he is certainly a significant figure. Of course he wouldn't be using the term "new anti-Semitism" in this context: he was not carrying on an abstract intellectual discussion of this thesis, he was objecting to being accused of anti-Semitism for his opposition to the current politics of the Israeli government. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

He was accused of anti-Semitism because of books like "Jewish history, Jewish religion", which were about his views of Judaism, and this article lists the views of people discussing the New anti-Semitism - that way it avoids original research. Jayjg 18:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't insist that this paragraph has to placed here. Please, advice me another good place, because that text is very important. Thank you. -- Vít Zvánovec 08:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's already in Wikiquote; why is it important to have it here? Jayjg 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha, I didn't know that. Maybe it would be satisfactory to put this into Self-hating Jew. In my view Wikiquote is not enough, WP is needed. -- Vít Zvánovec 18:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Self-hating Jew. -- Vít Zvánovec 19:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You wanna document that reversion?

For reference's sake, can I get the name of "all monitoring agencies" according to whom "there has been a resurgence in anti-Semitism."

Ah, what's the point... There is very little hope for this article anyway. --Diderot 22:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no hope for this article? Pintele Yid 06:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well, I am not sure why there is no hope for the article, but I don't think you read it all the way through before you started changing the intro. First of all, the article already lists a whole bunch of organizations and their reports on anti-Semitism. It also goes through both the arguments of proponents and critics, and the issues about Israel. Your only factual dispute with the article seems to be that you think that anti-Semitism has not increased, but this is a pretty much undeniable fact. Thus, here is the answer to your request, and just a sampling:

• The EU Monitoring Commission, part of the European Union: "Anti-semitism on the rise" BBC Report
• The United Nations, as stated by Kofi Annan: " It is hard to believe that, 60 years after the tragedy of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is once again rearing its head. But it is clear that we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of this phenomenon in new forms and manifestations. This time, the world must not, cannot be silent."
• US State Department Report on Global Anti-Semitism: "The increasing frequency and severity of anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the 21st century, particularly in Europe, has compelled the international community to focus on anti-Semitism with renewed vigor. Attacks on individual Jews and on Jewish properties occurred in the immediate post World War II period, but decreased over time and were primarily linked to vandalism and criminal activity. In recent years, incidents have been more targeted in nature with perpetrators appearing to have the specific intent to attack Jews and Judaism. These attacks have disrupted the sense of safety and well being of Jewish communities."
• Human Rights First, formerly International Lawyers for Human Rights: "The rise of antisemitism in Europe has come to a head in the last three years, as a wave of of hate crimes against Jewish people and institutions surged across the region" PDF
• ...and this doesn't even count the ADL, or any of the other organizations reporting this trend, but I can give you plenty more if you'd like.

Hopefully, this will satisfy you, but it certainly should result in the removal of the totally disputed tag. What else are you disputing? What facts are inaccurate? Goodoldpolonius2 23:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Which of those reports asserts that there is a "resurgence of acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse", as I have seen precious little of it in the mainstream press. But the point rather, is that I dispute that there are enough years of data to state that there is a trend. EUMC's report covers all of two years of data, three years in the past.

I also claim that the new anti-Semitism is significant only within a context of international disputes over Israeli policy and its effects, and I challenge you to find a single published piece - an editorial or magazine article - on the new anti-Semitism that does not discuss the notion that some criticism of Israel is covert anti-Semitism. This point deserves to be in the first para, because otherwise I should think the response to anti-Semitic incidents is "ut of any proportion to the size of the conflict, whether measured in number of individuals affected, the size of the territory in dispute, or by the magnitude of alleged transgressions".

I also dispute the title of the second section ("The nature of the new anti-Semitism ") and its tone, as it assume that which it ought to set out to prove. You must marshall arguments that there is a "new" anti-semitism by first setting out what is new about it, rather than describing it as you imagine it to be.

As for further disputes. I dispute every sentence that contains a passive verb, a weasel word or a non-specific allegation, as well as several sections of dubious logical coherency. The proliferation of such usages makes this article as it stands garbage.

• Proponents of this model argue that ... - Who? There are two examples right afterwards.
• That attacks on Israel sometimes serve as a cover for anti-Semitism has also been accepted by official governmental bodies in Europe and the United States. - The passive verb covers up that you mean exactly two organisations: the US State department and the EUMC.
• Although it is usually conceded that... By whom?
• Some have questioned whether any large portion of opposition to Israel is actually rooted in anti-Semitism.... Who?
• Often the "New anti-Semitism" is seen as distinct from classical anti-Semitism... Who? Again, a name follows right away.
• Opponents of the concept of New anti-Semitism assert that... What follows are specific arguments here that are attributed to no one. Nonetheless, they are remarkably specific for ambivalent group sentiments.
• Proponents of the concept of the new anti-Semitism respond to these objections as follows... And this is going to make matters less POV? Should we have section Reply to the Proponents to make this into a real debate?
• The following have been identified by proponents of the term as specific examples that reflect New anti-Semitism:... Again, passive verbs. Who identifies these things as such? The author of the article?
• Straw-man attacks, wherein Jews are alleged to claim that any and all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. This allegation is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable. - I'm lost here. Not only must one not say bad things about Israel unless one has said worse things about a long laundry list of other countries first, but if one is then accused of being an anti-Semite, any suggestion that such a claim might be inaccurate is also evidence of anti-Semitism?

But this is the totally disputed section, where it's not just bad writing that's the problem:

• Manifestations of the new anti-Semitism - Once against assuming what one sets out to prove.
• Perhaps the most notable case was the so called "Jenin massacre" allegation, in which it was claimed that in Jenin, Israeli Defense Forces committed atrocities "horrific beyond belief," according to United Nations special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen , and "massacred" 500–3000 innocent Palestinians during Operation Defensive Shield. Two weeks after the press promoted the Jenin massacre allegation, international reporters uncovered that no massacre had taken place in Jenin. Fatah lowered its estimate of the death toll to 56 people, the majority of whom were combatants, as were the 23 IDF soldiers killed during the battle. The "Jenin massacre" story sparked waves of anti-Israeli protests and violent attacks against Jews in Europe, and was regarded by many Jews as a modern blood libel.

The article on the Jenin massacre describes matters differently, with even the IDF reporting hundreds of dead in the early stages. But that passive again "regarded by many Jews as a modern blood libel" really kills. So, the IDF only massacred 22 innocent civilians - that's what the page on Jenin says - and because the media reported what they could, people protested. and this has what to do with blood libel?

• The role of the media in reporting these events was highly controversial. Many Western media outlets were criticized as having deliberately misled their readers, and some reporters were accused of fabricating information to demonize Israel. However, reports by the Western media of a "massacre" in Jenin were generally presented as eyewitness accounts, and not as undisputed facts. The BBC, for instance, conveyed reports of a "massacre" from some international observers, but did not take a position as to whether or not such events had occurred.

So, what Western media reported this as a fact? Obviously not the BBC, according to the next sentence. Who did? I dispute the factual accuracy of this claim pending documentation.

• What does the Arab press and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have to do with "new" anti-Semitism? Some of those countries are still legally at war with Israel and have been publishing anti-Semitic materials since '48. What relevance does this have if it is nothing new?
• One claim made by some opponents of Israel and/or the notion of a new anti-Semitism is that defenders of Israel describe any criticism of the State of Israel as anti-Semitism. Who makes this claim? The response is quite specific, but who has said that any major Jewish leader has removed some political subject from the table as anti-Semitic? Other people yes. I do not contribute to articles on Israeli-Palestinian affairs here, in part because of the chilling effect created by a fear of being branded as an anti-semite for criticising Israel. I have been accused of just that elsewhere.
• Cartoons described as Anti-Semitic - For crying out loud!! If someone had called Joe Sacco's Palestine a sign of the new anti-Semitism, it would at least be logical. But Indymedia? And that was the best example of an anti-Semitic cartoon? Anti-religious, yes, but hell, I've seen harsher things in the Jerusalem Post on Islam.

I am too tired right now to go through the rest of the page. My hopelessness, and the totallydisputed tag, stem from the poor sourcing, the inconsistent argumentation, and also the circular logic of assuming what you wish to prove, in an article that is about an idea and what impact its having. This is an intrinsically controversial topic, which means it has to be far better sourced. So many weasel words and passive sentences... quite honestly, it's shameful. --Diderot 03:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Images

Rama, I removed the images, in part because they don't seem to show anything, and also because I couldn't understand the text, or the relevance. SlimVirgin 10:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, there was a pro-Israeli stand which denouced the pro-Palestinian one using "New Antisemitism" rethorics, so I found the images relevant to

1. illustrate people who cast accusations of "New Antisemitism"
2. illustrate people who get accused of "New Antisemitism"

Also, these photographs were taken in Switzerland, which is completely third party in the discussion. Rama 10:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone accused these groups of being purveyors of "New anti-Semitism"? Has this information been published anywhere reputable that can be cited? Also, what exactly did the pictures add, besides simply being a picture of a booth and a person? Jayjg 10:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

For the "accusation", I point you to another images of the same, . You can clearly see the crossed "Urgence Palestine", name of the pro-Palestinian booth, and several slides readin, for instance "Le Nouvel Antisémitisme / un monde débarassé de l'Etat juif" ("New Antisemitism, a world gotten rid of the Jewish State").

As for being "a picture of a booth and a person", most images deling with politics invlove people... Rama 10:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work for me. As for pictures, what do these ones tell us about the subject? Jayjg 11:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

To Jayjg: to follow your reasoning, many pictures on Misplaced Pages don't add much. Pictures of politicians don't tell us about their politics, for instance. David.Monniaux 11:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

But politicians are famous people, that's why we have their pictures; these people aren't. Jayjg 11:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Most people who do things on the field are not famous. The link is , of course, sorry for the mistake. Rama 11:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

They were just non-notable people standing next to tables, and it was hard to know what the text was saying. SlimVirgin 11:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, ok, I can kind of almost make out some of the stuff in there, though not really. So, again, exactly what information does this picture add to the article? What important information does it convey about the subject, other than the fact that pro-Palestinian people sometimes set up booths in various places condemning Israel, and pro-Israel people set up counter-booths defending Israel? Jayjg 11:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Jajyg: Recently, in London, I've witnessed the following phenomenon: some pro-Palestinian group sets up a booth denouncing Israel in some street, and a few dozen meters away a pro-Israeli group sets up a booth denouncing the Palestinians and "New Antisemitism". Rama apparently witnessed the same kind of action in Lausanne. I suspect that this is relatively common that one party protests somewhere and the other party decides to do a counter-protest nearby.

So I think this is interesting to give concrete examples of people protesting "New Antisemitism" in the streets, so that it doesn't stay some kind of abstract notion. I'll give you another example: I'm striving to find free photographs for the street protests French presidential election, 2002 because all we currently have are just dry counts of hundreds of thousands of people, which, I think, somehow fail to fully convey the event. Similarly, to go back to anti-semitism, we have pictures from the Nazi death camps, whereas most of the people depicted are non-notable and the horrific fate they faced is described in the text (so the picture does not really convey a lot of information). What do you think? David.Monniaux 11:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't compare photographs of Nazi death camps or photographs showing the size of a demonstration with ones of two or three people standing behind a table, where you have to blow their posters up several times even to be able to read them. SlimVirgin 11:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The point is not to compare anything with Nazi death camps, but that you illustrate a general, wide-spread and complex concept with instance of punctual events. I can't really figure out what is debatable with this. For instance, Antisemitism has a photo which shows a scene not very different than the ones displayed on my photos -- a handful of militants demonstrating in the street. Rama 11:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's very different. That's a great photo: interesting, unusual, dramatic. SlimVirgin 12:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well it is unusual to see Israeli flags in the streets in Switzerland; the rethorics of both booths were VERY interesting; and their staff certainly had much dramatic effect in their discourse. Rama 12:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

So what are you proposing, a picture of a guy standing at a table in Switzeraland, handing out information on what he believes is "the New anti-Semitism"? Jayjg 02:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Why not ? These images are topical, illustrate the rhetoric, and in absence of more worthy candidates, I fail to understand why we should not use them. Rama 02:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Them? I can only see one picture which might be relevant, though it doesn't add much (if anything). Why would any others be included? Jayjg 03:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am glad that you see the relevance of at least one of these images now.

We have three images here (more in fact, but three that I suggested):

1. One Image:Stand-pro-palestinien-p1010318.jpg of a pro-Palestinian stand which incarnates "New Antisemitism", since it was denounced as such by pro-Israeli demonstrators.
2. One Image:Stand-pro-israelien-p1010316.jpg of the pro-Israeli stand which denounces the previous one, which is needed to explain why the first one incarnates "New Antisemitism" (which is far from obvious at a first glance).
3. The third one Image:Stand-pro-israelien-p1010315.jpg was mainly cosmetics, because the first photo of the pro-Israeli stand is badly framed.

As for images not adding much, this is a matter of personal taste, but I am under the impression that people tend to like images. Rama 03:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I said one of the pictures might be relevant. Jayjg 16:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, they are fine pictures and all, but I don't see them illustrating any of the concepts in the article about new anti-Semitism -- I wouldn't expect to see these pictures in an encyclopedia article on the topic, either. Correct me if I am wrong, but the people aren't notable, the protest is not notable, and I can't really see the connection here. Rama, they are nice photos, but I don't see them adding anything to the article that is informational in nature. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

These people are demonstrating against the "New Antisemitism" of the other other half. If this is not connected with the subject of "New Antisemitism", I am left with the impression that the subject does not exist. Rama 07:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see what you're saying now. Are you saying the juxtaposition of the stands illustrates the dispute about the concept "anti-Semitism," because the setting up of a pro-Palestinian stand triggered the setting up nearby of a pro-Israeli stand alleging "new anti-Semitism" of the first one? So these images are, as it were, an action shot of the thesis/antithesis. It's a good idea, but I don't think it's obvious enough from these particular photographs. SlimVirgin 07:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, precisely.

I am absolutely agreed that these images are by no means images of excessively spectacular events, and do not meat press agency standard; however, in the absence of other illustrations, I see no reason not to use them, with appropriate captions. Rama 08:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the second group saw the first as purveyors of New anti-Semitism? Or were they merely providing a counter demonstration? Jayjg 16:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely; apart for the very obvious sign on the desk of Image:Stand-pro-israelien-p1010315.jpg and the lengthly discussion which I had with these chaps, you can see the image joined right there. I will anticipate your next question, as to whether I have proofs that the first group is indeed called "Collectif Urgence Palestine", by pointing you to this image. Rama 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Some images illustrating the topic can be found at . ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

These are images of antisemitism as it is fully well seen in the title of the page, and I see absolutely nothing which makes it a "new" antisemitism. Also, their licences is not stated, and a priori, I doubt that they are free. Rama 08:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a little note. I'm taking no position whether to keep or remove the photos. However, I cannot help noticing that some people here, such as User:Jayjg, keep on demanding proofs or justifications of certain things about the subject of the photos. Apparently, User:Rama was there and had a discussion with them, so he probably knows their slogans and their political position. I think we should assume good faith in that respect — I don't think that Rama is a dodgy character, and have never heard of him posting images and adding captions that do not correspond to what the images depict. David.Monniaux 17:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If the context, meaning and contents of the source images are not clear then they should be clarified, and preferably cited in the same way we cite everything else. This has nothing to do with whether or not Rama is reliable. Jayjg 17:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought that you suggested that Rama had taken photos of some stuff and had put incorrect captions underneath. But I don't follow you: how do you mean to "cite" photos? David.Monniaux 17:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

We should be careful with describing the context of controversial photographs that are not self-explanatory and that are provided by Misplaced Pages editors.

If there are no more question, I think that we might consider restoring the images by now. Rama 06:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I see only marginal value in them, and only in one actually showing people handing out information about "New anti-Semitism". Jayjg 16:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

One of them shows "New Antisemits", and the other one show people handing out information about "New anti-Semitism". Rama 16:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think both should be posted, it is too much exposure for photos that have no immediate or powerful explanatory value. I would actually say no to posting any of them, but if other editors disagree, that is fine. Again, Rama, no offense to you or your photography, of course. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not offended, merely surprised that these images were removed, and that so much talk is made around displaying them. I am used to the converse -- only images which pose real problems are removed and the removal is subject of discussion. But that illustrating an article rather than leaving it without illustration is so debated is a first sight for me.

And I still cannot see why these images should not be featured on the article; they are not excellent, but certainly better than nothing. Rama 16:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

For me, the issue is that, precisely because there are not enough pictures the photos will have disproportionate influence on shaping the views of people who come to the page. I don't think any of the existing pictures are that great for this, frankly, since at least some should capture that the "New Anti-Semitism" is not solely a debate over the nature criticism of Israel, but also the well-documented rising number of anti-Semitic incidents throughout Europe and the world, and the world response to it. Thus, another picture with such a direct Israeli-Palestinian link, and without notable people or incidents involved, is not something I think needs to be added. Again, my opinion. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not really certain that I understand. We have made a point that these photos, however technically badly exposed, are perfectly topical. They are the most proeminent occurence of this "new antisemitism" that we have yet seen pictured on Misplaced Pages -- for instance, I fail to see what clearly makes the images of graves with nazi crosses "new antisemitism" rather than "regular" antisemitism; I also fail to distinguish any sort of antisemitism in the (apparently copyvio) political cartoon.

Don't you think that refusing to include this perfectly to-the-point images could be mistaken for, let's say, a very selective use of information ? Rama 08:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Rama, please don't accuse me of selective us of information, I don't think that it is at all fair, and it is quite annoying. As I have said again and again, I don't agree that these pictures are topical, and I have explained that your pictures do not seem to illustrate the definition of the article: "The new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse." Do they show anything anti-Jewish? Examples of much more topical pictures are here: , , , etc. Your picture apparently illustrates a stand that two or three people apparently thought was anti-Semitic, without giving any visual indication as to why they would think so. I don't find that particularly powerful, and, by implication, it seems to trivialize the problem of actual, rising anti-Semitism as reported by the UN, State Department, etc. The defacing of the graves shows an actual recent anti-Jewish incident that is part of this new wave of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols, by the way, and I personally think the cartoon should not be included. If you could explain to me what the counter-protesters found anti-Semitic, maybe that would help, but please do not attack me when I am actually trying to engage you in a discussion over what I object to. As anyone looking back over the discussion would note, I have never refused to allow the images, my exact quote above was "I would actually say no to posting any of them, but if other editors disagree, that is fine." --Goodoldpolonius2 14:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not accuse you of anything, I am just very surprised that these images, which have been proved to be illustration of actual complains about "New Antisemitism", should not be used, apparently on the grounds that they do no illustrate a pre-conception of what "New Antisemitism" should be. It sort of strikes me as ajusting facts around a definition rather than the converse. Note that I cannot see what is "New Antisemit" in the images you show; this is political criticism toward Israel, this is regular antisemitism and this is normal antisemitism as well. Rama 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

But new anti-Semitism also refers to the uptick in once relatively dormant "regular" anti-Semitism, as shown in the two pictures of a burned synagogue and defaced graves. And equating Israel with Nazi Germany fits within the ECRI definition of anti-Semitism, and is closer to the "new type of discourse" argument that is a part of the fears over new anti-Semitism. As for your pictures, could you explain what, exactly, the protesters found anti-Semitic in the other booth? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"new anti-Semitism also refers to the uptick in once relatively dormant "regular" anti-Semitism"; so you agree that this images are merely regular antisemitism.

"equating Israel with Nazi Germany fits within the ECRI definition of anti-Semitism"; does it ? There are a number of images of people equalling the USA with Nazi Germany, and I have never heard that mentioned as "anti-Protestantism", for instance. Where is your source that criticism against the state of Israel is assimilated to antisemitism by the ECRI ?

"As for your pictures, could you explain what, exactly, the protesters found anti-Semitic in the other booth"; no, frankly, I cannot. They were very vocal about this accusation, as can be seen on the image, but their ground for this did not strike me as particularly clear (I do not endorse the discourse of any of these stands, I merely decided to use this unwanted and unseeked irruption of a foreign conflict in my personal life for the best possible common good). If you are interested in the details of the rhetoric of the pro-Israeli stand, you can refer to the photographs I took of their posters. Rama 17:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

1) The upsurge in, and acceptance of, "Regular antisemitism" is part of the "New anti-Semitism"

2) The ECRI definition makes this really clear: "Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor; applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis; drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; and holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel." You don't have to agree, of course, but their definition is clear.

3) That is why I object. I can't for the life of me see what is anti-Jewish about the Palestinian booth. The implication of the picture (and my personal reaction) is that the counterprotesters are over-reacting, or are extremists who equate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Certainly, the concept is misused against legitimate criticism of Israel, but there are also real incidents of anti-Semitism in the mix as well. There may be something anti-Jewish, but your picture doesn't show it, so the counter-protesters look ridiculous.--Goodoldpolonius2 17:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

These images very clearly show a criticism in the form of "New Antisemitism". I never suggested that they were covering the whole subject of "new antisemitism".; however, refusing to use these images on the ground that they do not illustrate some other particular aspect (and a very blurry and unclear one, at that) in the way you see it fit strikes me as a very peculiar selection of information. Rama 17:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, stop accusing me of some sort of "peculiar selection" bias. I have answered all of your objections and challenges, and I am still unconvinced of the value of the picture because I have no idea what the pictures show that is supposed to be anti-Semitic, or why the people who are apparently saying it is anti-Semitic are basing their assumptions on, and apparently you have no idea either Therefore, it is absolutely unclear to me if these pictures are related to the concepts in the article or not, and I would thus not be in favor of using them, I am not sure why this is so "very blurry and unclear". I think that is a reasonable stand, and I understand that I have not convinced you of my point -- fine. I have never said I would "refuse" the pictures, just that I think they should not be used because of the reasons above. As I wrote several exchanges back, if other editors feel differently, fine. I await their opinions. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I merely take note that you have no objection to use material depicting classical antisemit actions in the "New Antisemitism" article, but that you have the most severe standards for images where "New antisemitism" can be seen written in large letters.

Since you do not object to these images to the point of putting a veto and that we have heard no further objections of the other editors, I suggest that we use these images, at least in a section dealing with "New Antisemitism" applied to political opposition to the government of Israel. Rama 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think my standards are severe, I think that it is entirely normal to ask you to explain to me why the Palestinian booth is in any way anti-Semitic, or, at least, why people might claim it is anti-Semitic. If you can't do that, why should we use the pictures? If I couldn't explain to you why the burned synagogue was anti-Semitic, I wouldn't expect it to be used in the article, either. Let me quote you: of a pro-Palestinian stand which incarnates "New Antisemitism", since it was denounced as such by pro-Israeli demonstrators. of the pro-Israeli stand which denounces the previous one, which is needed to explain why the first one incarnates "New Antisemitism" (which is far from obvious at a first glance). If it isn't obvious that the first stand shows New Anti-Semitism, why are we posting it as an example? It just makes it look like the other stand is crying wolf, and makes them seem ridiculous. And, where are the "large letters" in the picture.

Before posting, I would prefer to wait for some other opinions, either pro or con. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to say why the pro-Palestinian stand is antisemit. For what I know, it might not be. It so happens that the first stand specifically depicts it as "New antisemit". Please refer to previous discussion and my answers to Jayjg for proofs.

That the people in the second stand look ridiculous is matter of personal opinion, and their problem. I did not stage this, I did not select this, I stumbled into the scene and took photographs of what was going on. If you have better images of similar events, you are welcome to post them and suggest alternatives. Rama 18:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Rama, I realize we are not going to agree here, but I want to be clear of the reason for my objection. I do not know what is being labelled as "New anti-Semitism" by the second stand, and therefore the pictures are obscure. Are these people who equate any criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism? That, in my mind, is a pretty dubious use of the anti-Semitism label. Or is the Palestinian booth handing out copies of the Protoccols of the Elders of Zion? If so, that is a clear case of anti-Semitism. Or are they denying Israel's right to exist? That falls into the area of the article, with some people (like the EU through the ECRI) saying it is New anti-Semitism, and others arguing that it isn't. If I knew which of these it was, I would feel comfortable with seeing the picture posted, but, as it is, the pictures (and your comments) make it seem like it is illustrating the first case, which is generally not considered to be an example of new anti-Semitism, even by many of the scholars who support that the phenomenon exists. That is why I have the issue. Is it any clearer? --Goodoldpolonius2 21:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Listen, the second stand calls the first one "new antisemitic"; this has been proved on this talk page, there is a photograph which you can see, you just have to give it a glance.

As for why the second stand calls the first one like this, it is irrelevant. They are using the term "new antisemitism". Your line of reasoning is tantamount to saying that we should dismiss any accusation of new antisemitism unless approved by you. We have an example, and we exhibit it, that's all. Rama 22:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant, and it is no way tatamount to saying I have to approve it. The second stand is calling something about the first stand anti-Semitic. We have no idea what that something is. The literature? The people? The peace flag? What? If you just want to post the second booth (the one with the sign saying New anti-Semitism) fine, I give up, please do so. I disagree with posting both, because we do not know what is being attacked about the first booth, and that is vitally important. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

To me, your line of reasoning looks close to something like "Illegitimate accusations of 'new antisemitism' are casted over people who are not really antisemits, so they are not accusations of 'new antisemitism'". That's a bit a circular. We don't know why many people attacks others (or we know why and it is illegitimate), that doesn't prevent us from reporting the fact. Rama 22:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The second stand is merely protesting "New anti-Semitism"; there's no evidence they consider the first stand to be "New anti-Semites". Jayjg 05:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In addition to my word, which I have yet to be seen questioned, I have provided visual proofs above that it is the case. Rama 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rama, the point of the images isn't clear, they're not informative or visually stimulating, and they don't show anyone notable, or anyone who's the subject of the article. For some and all of these reasons, they don't seem to enhance the page. I'd say the confusion here about what they're intended to show is evidence of that. Sorry. SlimVirgin 06:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Confusion ? I have not noticed much confusion on this respect, rather dispute that they display the face of "new antisemitism" that some would like to focus on. Rama 07:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rama, you've only provided evidence that there was a stand with a guy manning it, who was protesting "New Anti-Semitism". That's it. There is no evidence that the stand was accusing the other people of being "New anti-Semites"; indeed, the stand itself does not refer to the other stand at all. The pictures themselves are visually uninteresting, and not particularly informative. I don't see what they might add to the article from either and aesthetic or informational point of view. Jayjg 07:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"the stand itself does not refer to the other stand at all" ??? What about the photograph I provided right above ? What about Image:Stand-pro-israelien-p1010315.jpg ? I am startled that you should say such a thing after material proofs have been provided.

As the the informational nature of the stand, I would like to point to the fact that these are the only photographs on Misplaced Pages that I know of where the words "New Antisemitism" appear, so I really can't see how tehy can be less informative than others. Rama 07:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Is that circle with a line through it referring to the other stand? Hard to tell, it's all in French. I still don't understand what you think a picture with the words "New anti-Semitism" adds to the article that we don't already know. Jayjg 07:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I still do not understand your position. If an image of an instance of a demonstration for a precise cause cannot be used to illustrate that cause, I really can't see what will be good enough for you. Rama 08:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Latuff Cartoon

Since no-one has mentioned it that I can spot, the cartoon attributed to Latuff is a bit odd. Run a search for "Latuff" on google-images and the one on this page is the only example I have found where the style of mixing photo with drawing is used, leading me to suspect. The text style in the speach bubble is not typical either. Less clear cut is my view that the words do not follow Latuff's style. Overall, I believe that this cartoon has been mis-attributed. 80.6.104.41 21:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)Mr Smin.

I don't actually understand why the cartoon is there at all. Is it supposed to be anti-semitic? Or at least do some people see it that way? I can't see how it's any different in character from say http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1517810,00.html. The only difference appears to be that George Bush is American and Sharon is Israeli. Is any criticism of Israeli military action automatically defined as new anti-semitism by followers of this doctrine? If so, it should be explained in the article that that is the case. Unless someone can explain why the cartoon is anti-semitic, or else change the article to define 'new anti-semitism' as any opposition to Israeli policy. In any case it seems awfully convenient to be able to write off all criticism as anti-semitic = racist = EVIL. 87.74.15.60 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The cartoon is Anti-Semetic not because it criticizes Sharon, but because it depicts the jews as being bloodthirsty jerks that enjoy watching Palestinian children die. The Bush cartoon doesnt have anything about enjoying killing kids.

Debate over?

I feel that the debate on this item is largely over. The codification of antisemitism by Europe to include activity aimed at Israel when it meets certain criteria proves sufficiently (in law) that some forms of anti-Israel / anti-Zionist activity are antisemitic. What it does not prove is that ALL critisisms of Israel are anti-semitic - but then this article doesn't claim that. While interesting the comments from detractors do not add (or remove) anything from the content of the article, they simply say that sometimes critisism is legitimate. That's fine, and sometimes sheep are black. This whole section in my opinion is now only of historical usefulness. To dispute the existance of what this article describes as "New Antisemitism" is now to disagree with the law, and with facts on the ground. - I've removed the disputed tag as a result. This article was not disputed, it was dated. Oboler 20:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits (made anonymously) violate NPOV policies, and I have reverted them. I also feel that given your partisan positions on this issue, and your involvement with things like www.zionismontheweb.org/, Board of Deputies of British Jews, Union of Jewish Students, and others make it unlikely that you are in an unbiased position to determine that the debate is over.

Edits changing things like 'critics contend' to 'critics once contended' (have they stopped?), the equation of the European Monitoring Centre with the European Council (this is like saying the Commission for Racial Equality is the same as the British government). The content is valid, in the appropriate place (under the 'European Union' section), but to start off with loaded statements and inaccurate summaries such as 'This view has been solidly dismissed by law makers who have acknowledged that not all critisism is legitimate, and that which is not is indeed a new form of antisemitism'. This is not a conclusion supported by the article at all. 'Law makers' implies a veracity that is not appropriate at this point in the article, since the law makers in question 'Solidly dismissed' is a pretty strong statement, which isn't justified by the text - which is already a biased source which contains statements such as 'Likewise, it is anti-Semitism when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross. '.

To the editor who reverted my deletion of these many biased statements, the references are all very well, but none are appropriate where they have been added, e.g., http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Nations-vow-to-fight-rising-antiSemitism/2005/06/10/1118347599346.html merely says that anti-Semitism is rising (which is discussed elsewhere in the article). THis link is fine, but not where it is. THe other link is probably redundant, as it basically says the same thing. I will revert and then restore the link from the Anti-Defamation League. 147.114.226.175 11:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

" The codification of antisemitism by Europe to include activity aimed at Israel when it meets certain criteria proves sufficiently (in law) that some forms of anti-Israel / anti-Zionist activity are antisemitic" -- So why "New antisemitism" ? I have never see the term "new antisemitism" elsewhere than among pro-israeli militants, and certainly not in European laws. Rama 12:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A good point, I must confess I don't know too much about this issue, and why proponents are so keen to introduce the doctrine and distinguish it from normal anti-semitims and really don't care all that much. But I do think if the intent is to distinguish anti-semitism which counts as 'new anti-semitism', then it should be done carefully and explicitly. Simply marking all incidents of contemporary anti-semitism as 'new anti-semitism' is presumably disingenuous. 147.114.226.175 14:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up article

I made several edits on 25 December 2005. These were purely for better reading and I tried hard to be both clear and precise, and maintain NPOV. In particular, I think that the wordiness of one of the opening paragraphs ('locus' and 'pretexts' are words that are meaningless to the average reader) was unnecessarily confusing.

Also, please remember that links should only be used where relevant to the content. I don't think it helps to link words like criticism. Brw12 06:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone put 'pretexts' and 'locus' back. These are simply beyond the scope of the average English reader's vocabulary. I replaced them with simpler synonyms ("professed purpose" and "place"). Please, people, if a legit edit is made, and you want to reverse it, explain yourself in the talk pages! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brw12 (talk • contribs) 10 Feb 2006.

FWIW, I don't think "pretext" is obscure at all. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Denying Israel's right to exist=antisemitism

I would like those who argue that it is not antisemitic to deny Israel's right to exist to please certify for the record that one can argue that Egypt, Norway, Spain, Mexico, and any number of nation-states should be dismantled without causing offense to Egyptians, Norwegians, Spaniards, or Norwegians. Otherwise, it is patently apparent that denying Israel's right to exist is antisemitic. --Leifern 20:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Individual editors' opinions are not relevant to the matter. Talk pages are for working on articles, not for political debate. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's actually a useful question, although not in this context. Leifern could perhaps ask himself whether it would be "antinorgist" to complain if Norway sent tanks into Sami villages or excluded the Sami people from its polity? James James 05:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To respond to that by insisting that Norway should not exist as a Norwegian state might be antinorgist, yes. SlimVirgin 08:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Norway is an ethnically based state though, in the same way as, say, Libya is. There's no such thing as "norgism" that I know of. I made it up. And I was rather hoping to draw the line between disapproving of actions and disapproving of the actors. Dismally, it seems. I completely agree with you that a disproportionate response to the question would be suspicious but I think I gave an example of a criticism that wasn't disproportionate. Do you have a view on that, rather than the straw man you proposed? James James 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The particular criticism (hypothetically: "don't send tanks into other people's villages") isn't the point. It's the response (that the tank-senders are not worthy of self-determination) that's the problem. And the nature of the response is such that one suspects it would have been made anyway, tanks or no tanks, which, indeed, may have been the reason for the tanks in the first place. It's a complicated dynamic, in other words. SlimVirgin 10:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree that it's complicated but I think all I'm saying is that it's complicated both ways. There are many roads to the belief that tanks should not invade villages, and it's a broad brush that paints all people who arrive at the belief as "antisemitic".

Whether self-determination means the same thing as "entitlement to a particular piece of land" is a different question, one that clearly can be asked of both Israel and the Palestinian state. One needn't be antisemitic to ask it. James James 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's off topic, but while Norway is not exactly an ethnically based state, Bokmål and Nynorsk aren't much older than Modern Hebrew and Norwegian nationalism is only marginally older than Zionism. And, offhand, the Sami analogy to the Palestinians seems reasonable. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It is off topic and consequently, I'm done with it. However, yes, I think that I'd have a problem with the suggestion that the people who identify as Norwegians should not have a state if they attacked Sami villages. After all, the Germans destroyed half of Europe, and no one suggested they should be denied a country. James James 23:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I object to drawing up these analogies about other countries on the basis that it implicitly equalizes Israel with Judaism. The only way that these analogies would be applicable would be if we are asking whether denying Israel's right to exist is anti-Israeli rather than anti-semitic. An important difference. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Israel is a Jewish state, to single it out for desctruction is antisemitic. The analogies go further because the Jews had their country/ies in the Land of Israel and never gave up the hope to return. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Israel is a Jewish state, to single it out for desctruction is antisemitic." <- You really think you can get Misplaced Pages to just assert this here? No, of course not. So why are you spouting your personal political rhetoric at a place where it absolutely serves no purpose? Misplaced Pages is not Usenet! -- Dissident (Talk) 01:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's true that this page is to discuss the article, Dissident, but you expressed a personal view too, as did I. Perhaps we should all stop. SlimVirgin 01:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with expressing a personal view as long as there is a reasonable chance of advancing the discussion on how to improve an article. If articles pertaining to anti-Semitism implicitly assume Judaism and Israel are synonymous, something not even Humus sapiens is asserting here, then that's a NPOV violation and must be addressed. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Judaism is a religion. The State of Israel is a state. Who, other than Dissident, implies that they are synonyms? For "spouting", see WP:CIV and WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you agree with that premise, then it follows that Leifern is comparing apples with oranges. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a sensitive issue, but one has to be cautious before drawing conclusions. Anti-Zionism is by no means the same as anti-Semitism. Even within the Nazi Party, for example, there were some in favor of the expulsion of Jews to remote places (such as Israel). Also, within the state of Israel and outside, there are lots of Jews who do not support the Israeli government or its establishment, but they're still Jewish and tend to associate with other Jews. Are you saying they're antisemitic? Aucaman 22:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

To Leifern and others: Simply put, I am a Jew and I don't think any country that gives one group legal status over others is a very good idea, even if I am one of the beneficiaries. I would like to see the legal entity of Israel cease to exist and a non-ethnic-nationalist state with true pluralism take its place. Can I feel this only if I am secretly prejudiced against my own people?

Do you really think that the only reason someone could, say, oppose the idea of forming a Gypsy state, would be prejudice against the Gypsies? Do you really think that the only reason a Native American could criticize the right of the US to exist would be prejudice against white Americans?

The point is, there is more than one reasonable position on the matter. Brw12 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the comparison between israeli-flag-burning is against jews generally. There are also Arabs and Christians who feel israelian, and a critique against the (-harsh!-) policy of Israel against Palestinians in the last years shouldn't be judged as antisemitic, nor of course be an excuse for "real" antisemitists. But telling that antisemitism is a sad caracteristic of France is a dumb cliché, and everyone who's ever lived in France will agree with me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.76.9.36 (talk • contribs) 20 Feb 2006.

Blood libel

Re: the poster at New anti-Semitism#Incidents in the United States. I actually hadn't noticed this before; I noticed it now because no one had bothered putting a license tag on the image; I've labeled it as {{politicalposter}}. Sure strikes me as a variant on blood libel against Jews, especially the reference to "slaughtered according to Jewish Rites", suggesting that child-murder is a religious matter. Would it be legitimate to say as much in the article, or would that cross the line of original research? -- Jmabel | Talk 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as original research to point out something this blatent. --NHSavage 11:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not, but I think it would be better to find a source that has noted it rather than point out the obvious. If no one ever has pointed it out, then it's OR to do so. I say this only as a matter of correctness so far as policy's concerned. It's as clear a case of the blood libel as you could wish to see (or not wish to see, if you know what I mean). James James 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

True. The source for this poster is titled Blood Libel.--NHSavage 11:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's on what appears at a quick look to be an anonymous "Messianic Judaism" website. Unless I'm missing something, that's not a citable source, even if in this case I think they are correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the president of the student union discussing action taken against what he describes as the section of the flier "suggesting the ancient 'blood libel'". Is The Forward acceptable? I'm not familiar enough with American newspapers to know whether this is a serious paper, but it seems to be one. In my view, sourcing to either would be okay. Other views? James James 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, both are good sources. Thanks for finding them. SlimVirgin 00:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely good citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidents in UK

I have done quite a lot of work on this section and I hope it is now improved both from NPOV and references point of view. However, I do have a POV on these matters (especially relating to AUT) and so I hope other will take a look at what I've done and check that my POV has not unduly influenced what I've done.--NHSavage 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Primarily the left

Although I agree with SlimVirgin that accusations of anti-Semitism directed at the left are new, the article's examples of anti-Semitism are not primarily leftist denunciations of anti-Zionism, but rather a mixed bag of contemporary anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Consequently, I think that the introductory passages should match the article's content. The alternatives would be to clarify the introduction, so that the reader is clearer that we are talking about all kinds of accusations of contemporary anti-Semitism, or to remove from the article the "old" anti-Semitism, which is not perpetrated by the left. James James 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Woah! Have I made a mistake! I see an article that in several places describes anti-Semitic incidents, mostly of the old school, but in its introduction says that the charge of "new anti-Semitism" is primarily aimed at leftists. I didn't realise leftists were doing all the "verbal abuse, vandalism, desecration of property, abusive literature, threats and physical violence" reported by the Community Security Trust. I thought that was the same old people who've been doing it for a couple of thousand years. I didn't realise that the radical Islamists in France were leftists either. Nor that leftists had started accusing Jews of eating Christian babies. The sources that I found didn't say anything like that, but presumably, Viriditas's "research" has found something different. Naturally I won't revert this article again, and I'm taking it from my watchlist. James James 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Chesler in particular states that the new anti-Semitism is new because it is espoused by progressives: "...performed by politically correct people in the name of anticolonialism, anti-imperialism, antiracism, and pacifism." This is in contrast to the old anti-Semitism, which is embraced by right-wing racist groups. --Viriditas 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the content needs to match the intro, but the solution is to flesh out the content, not to make the intro inaccurate. All the books on the new anti-Semitism that I have read make it clear that it's a phenomenon emanating primarily (although not exclusively) from the left. SlimVirgin 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely you meant to say "restrict the content only to those things that actually match the intro"? Anyway, you're welcome to write whatyou like. I only came here on RC patrol and I don't have any great interest in slugging it out. James James 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Are we now going to make Misplaced Pages endorse the validity of this type of accusations? This a very controversial subject and the intro (and everything for that matter) should completely stay away from anything close to suggesting that the dust has in any way settled on this (instead of just leaving a token paragraph at the end for the "other side"). -- Dissident (Talk) 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced strawman arguments

We need sources for all of these:

• Critics of the concept contend that it only serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

• Opponents of the concept of New anti-Semitism assert that:
  • Antipathy toward Israel's policies, its character as a Jewish state, or even its existence, does not necessarily amount to anti-Semitism.
    • People may have legitimate reasons to criticize or condemn the actions of any state, and Israel is as subject to this as any other.
    • There are Jewish groups and Jewish individuals who hold views critical of Israeli policy; some of these (though far fewer) even question the legitimacy of Israel's character as a Jewish state. Some Haredi groups regard the state of Israel and Zionism as secularist heresies, and a few fringe organizations, most notably Neturei Karta, have called for the creation of a unitary state of Palestine in the region. A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the state of Israel and Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism. Former Knesset member Tamar Gozansky is one such figure, while prominent Jewish intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber articulated similar views in the mid-twentieth century.
    • Many left-wing groups within mainstream Israeli politics hold views regarding some Israeli government policies similar to those criticized as anti-Semitic when expressed by left-wing groups outside Israel.
  • A frequent target for accusations of new anti-Semitism — the socialist Left — maintains a principled stand against any form of bigotry.
  • Accusations of anti-Semitism may be used to discredit those who criticize the actions of the Israeli government.
  • Comparing Israel with regimes known for repressive policies is commonplace within Israeli politics as well, with right-wing Zionists comparing Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler.
  • Palestinians and their sympathizers have reasons to oppose Israel independently of its connection to the Jewish people. Some of these sympathizers bear ill will toward the Jewish people, while others do not.
  • Frivolous accusations of anti-Semitism could undermine the struggle against more serious examples of it.

• In turn, critics of this view believe that associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticisms, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies. They point out that, during debate over the establishment of the State of Israel, most notably, many Hassidic Jews considered this manifestation of Zionism heretical.

Here the anonymous "critics" are not speaking for themselves, but serving up strawman arguments for the wikipedia editors to shoot down. For each statement attributed to "critics" there should be some indication of which specific critic is speaking and that these are the terms the "critic" prefers to use. If, as I expect, these statements supposedly from "critics of the idea of a new anti-Semitism" cannot each be specifically sourced, they should be removed. If they will not be removed, they should be replaced with stronger arguments. TopRank 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The article itself links to, and summarizes, statements from critics of the term "New anti-Semitism". Please feel free to read them. If you are aware of other critics, and can provide some encyclopedic links, they would be most welcome. However, you cannot make up your own arguments; this is original research, which is prohibited by Misplaced Pages policy. Jayjg 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed?

The article currently bears the {{totallydisputed}} tag - who is disputing what? The tag has been there since October and if there is no dispute, then it should be removed. Izehar 10:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Izehar. Diderot added it but hasn't edited the page since, so I think it's okay to remove it and have done so. SlimVirgin 11:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up citations

I've done my best to clean up the citations on this page into a reasonably uniform style. This added a lot of information, because title and author information was missing before for nearly all online citations. There were a few dead links. For some of these I could easily find appropriate substitutes. I'm afraid the Internet Archive was no use, possibly because some of these were too recent to be up there yet, or possibly because they aren't going to be archived. Without anything but a blind link, it was pretty hard to identify appropriate substitute citations.

Currently,

1. The citations I couldn't verify—and some statements that were simply lacking any citation—are marked with {{fact}}.
2. There are two places where I could really use some help on citation of Hebrew-language articles, because I can't read Hebrew. And, needless to say, if those citations don't bear out the claims made, I'd have no idea.
3. I made some (very minimal) use of the name attribute of the ref element to make multiple references to the same note. I'm not sure I like that, though. We could have duplicate notes instead, with different, sequential indexes. What do other people think?

BTW, this new footnoting system is definitely a simplifier. I recommend it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky

I've restored the characterization of Chomsky as an anarchist. His politics are more relevant here than his being a linguist (though I did not remove the fact that he is a linguist). If there was question whether Chomsky considers himself an anarchist (the terse edit summary suggests someone may have doubted this), I assume that the following will be more than adequate citation: . That's all from the website of Z magazine, to which he is an important contributor. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamic bookstores

I've restored Unbehagen's deletion that Islamic stores in the UK are increasingly stocking anti-Semitic material, including Mein Kampf. Unbehagen argues that, as this book is available in many large bookstores in the UK, its availability in Islamic stores is not surprising. However, there are no large Islamic stores in the UK selling books; those that do are very small and focus on material relevant to Islam. It's therefore notable that increasing numbers of them appear to believe that Mein Kampf has such relevance. SlimVirgin 01:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good arguement - I hadn't seen it that way. BUT - if the nature of the Islamic bookstores is as fragmentary as you suggest how can anyone have done a meaningfull survey? This does look like work taken from a Blog - so do you still think we should include. Unbehagen 15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar mistakes

Notice the grammar mistake in the anti-Semitic cartoon:"Sharon will allows you..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bombshell (talk • contribs) 21 Feb 2006.

Citation needed

I added a few tags for where citation is neede. This article lacks sources in a major way and in the same time it make sweeping arguments. Clean up is badly needed. // Liftarn 09:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis on the New Anti-Semitism

I have added an external link to a very recent and equally insightful article on the New Anti-Semitism by the renowned British historian Bernard Lewis. Enjoy. Pecher 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples

For more examples of New Anti-Semitism, follow the repeated attemps of some Wikipedians to re-introduce the racist use of the word "Aryan" into Misplaced Pages. Follow the discussions here and see examples on the following articles: Persian people, Tajik people, Iranian peoples, Aryan, and Indo-Iranians. Your help would be appreciated. Aucaman 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)