Misplaced Pages

Talk:New antisemitism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:35, 8 January 2007 editGzuckier (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users17,837 edits →Birth of Israel← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:52, 23 December 2024 edit undoYr Enw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,259 edits →Changing wording: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Article history
{{FailedGA|16 September 2006}}
|action1= FAC
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5"
|action1date= 16:55 24 December 2006
| align=center|]
|action1link= Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/New antisemitism/archive1
|-
|action1result= failed
| ]
|
|}
==Aminz's edit==
Aminz, we already have a summary of the main criticism in the lead. We don't need more and particularly not anything idiosyncratic. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


|action2= GAN
: The article should be NPOV meaning it should include all POVs. The source I've provided contradicts what is written. The author believes: "Today, more and more, anti-Semitism has been redefined as anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel... One of the first manifestations of this redefinition may be found in the book The New Anti-Semitism by Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein, leaders of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith...." and goes on explaining the changing meaning of antisemitism as compared to the old one. --] 08:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
|action2date= 2007-03-25
|action2link= Talk:New antisemitism
|action2result= failed
|action2oldid= 117667255


|currentstatus= FGAN
::The lead already says: "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." Your edit simply repeated this with different words. There's no need for it, at least not in the lead. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Israel |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Globalization |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Mid}}
}}
{{copied|from=Antisemitism|to=New antisemitism|from_oldid=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Antisemitism&oldid=216176663|to_diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=&diff=prev&oldid=216792423}}
{{shortcut|WT:NAS}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 20
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:New antisemitism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}


== Evaluating authors ==
But the article doesn't say that the critics think this concept '''emerged''' as a '''result of continuing re-definitions''' of anti-semitism to make it cover anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel. The article at the moment states how the concept emerged from the perspective of proponents and that's POV. --] 08:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


I don't know quite where this belongs, but there are factions in the American political landscape who are pro-Isreal but antisemitic. That has become increasingly clear since 2016.
:You could add that material to the history section. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
:I added it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


In general writing intelligently about claims of new Antisemitism requires look at several factors, e.g.,
How is it to add it here?
#Does the author investigate adverse claims or just take them as true
#Does the author apply the same standards as used for other countries
#Does the author distinguish among, e.g., Israel, Israeli citizens, Jews?
#Does the author put events in context?
Discussing any of these potentially runs afoul of ]. -- ] (]) 14:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


:"pro-Isreal but antisemitic" I do not see much of a contradiction here. Supporting Israel for political reasons does not equate to supporting Jews or supporting the rights of Jewish minorities in various countries. In the last few years, I have encountered Greek ] voters who support an alliance with Israel (against Turkey), but have no problem blaming Jews for every social or economic problem faced by the entire world. ] (]) 23:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Proponents of the concept argue that ], ], ], ], and opposition to the existence of the ] as a Jewish homeland are coupled with antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. <ref name=Taguieff/><ref name=Rosenbaum/> '''Critics of the concept argue that the term has emerged as a result of recent gradual re-definitions of anti-semitism to cover anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel, it serves to equate legitimate criticism of ] with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate.''' <ref> Allan Brownfeld, ''Anti-Semitism: Its Changing Meaning'', Journal of Palestine Studies , Vol. 16, No. 3 ] link: </ref> <ref name=Klug>Klug, Brian. . '']'', posted January 15, 2004 (February 2, 2004 issue), accessed January 9, 2006.</ref>
::You two need to read these articles:
::https://www.jpost.com/opinion/terra-incongnita-everyone-i-hate-is-hitler-dangerous-politicization-of-antisemitism-473188
::https://www.commentary.org/articles/robert-wistrich/the-new-war-against-the-jews/
::https://www.jpost.com/blogs/the-warped-mirror/from-al-jazeera-to-columbia-university-joseph-massads-obsession-with-israel-364634
::https://brandeiscenter.com/ali-abunimahs-orwellian-definition-of-anti-semitism/
::The idea that "there are factions in the American political landscape who are pro-Isreal but antisemitic" doesn't hold ground, let alone "has become increasingly clear since 2016". Your anecdote doesn't prove otherwise. Wake up! ] (]) 01:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


== Time Magazine cover story ==
SlimVirgin, the intro already talks about 3 lines in details about the emergence of new-antisemitism from the perspective of proponents. One sentence regarding its emergence from the perspective of critics can make it NPOV. I personally found this article confusing when I was looking at it from the perspective of the literature I've read on anti-semitism itself. That some authors have recently redefined antisemitism was quite illuminative to me so I think it is better to be added to the intro (for people like me who don't read things in details).


The words "The New Antisemitism" appear in large letters on the cover of the March 11, 2024 issue of Time Magazine... ] (]) 15:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
--] 08:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. the above suggestion also fits the following quote from the source:


== Lede ==
:"Today, more and more, anti-Semitism has been redefined as anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel. One cannot be critical of the Israeli prime minister, concerned about the question of the Palestinians, or dubious about the virtue of massive infusions of U.S. aid to Israel without subjecting oneself to the possibility of being called “anti-Semitic.”
--] 08:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


One of the two key citations for "critics" is the David Hirsh piece that repeatedly refers to the use of antisemitism accusations as a weapon. As such I would suggest it's not controversial to mention "weaponization" in the lede. That's what the RS says. ] (]) 18:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::It's too idiosyncratic a view for the lead, Aminz, and he's not an academic (even if he were, it's still too idiosyncratic). The lead should contain a summary of criticism and support that's common to many of the commentators. It fits in well in the history section where we talk about Forster and Epstein. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


:I think perhaps a better balance can be struck by making it more explicit this is a ''belief'' rather than a “concept” (as the lede currently states, and unduly reifies it) ] (]) 05:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, he is not an academic but his paper is peer-reviewed and published in a press that specifically publishes academic sources. The lead is now saying: "The term has entered common usage '''to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism'''" It doesn't say that these writers '''re-defined''' antisemitism. ''There is a big difference between discovering anti-semitism somewhere, and defining it in order to cover a case.'' And the article has a POV in that regard. Although I think this point should be made in that very sentence but it can be mentioned at the end of intro. And lastly, he is not talking about Forster and Epstein alone. --] 09:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


== Changing wording ==
:You're pushing for a fringe opinion to be inserted in the lead. The function of the intro is to summarize the most important points within the article rather than to dwell in details on every argument of the critics. ] ] 09:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
::I disagree that this is a fringe viewpoint. I suppose (a guess only) a majority of academics in Europe would agree with this to some extent. From an academic viewpoint I find it more interesting to look at the formation of the concept in light of the Israel-Palestine discourse, than to speculate about some alledged "wave" it is indended to cover. ] 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Exactly, you don't know, but you're trying to guess. ] ] 15:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
::::My dearest friend! I am guessing that there is a majority, but you are right, I did not and still do not "know" that. I told you i "guessed". If you read my comment a few times, you will see that what I stated was that it was not a fringe viewpoint. From what I know about academics and politics in Europe, it would be wrong to claim that. To claim that it is a majority viewpoint would only by speculations and guessing, hence I write that I am only guessing. I am trying to discuss it fairly. I am no specialist on the subject but I also stated a reason why I personaly belive that the role of the concept of NAS in political discourse would be an attractive and interesting subject for research whereas NAS itself lacks so much presicion that it would be almost impossible to gain good results from research based on NAS as an analytical concept. ] 19:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC) .... Let me add: I do not intend to add any of this into the article. This IS original research, and it is my opinions only. But when you claim that Aminz is introducing a "fringe" opinion, I propose you substansiate that claim. I do not have to "know" unless I want to include this in the main article. ] 20:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


As the opening of the article implicitly describes the existence of new antisemitism is factual while in reality its existence is highly debated, maybe the wording should be changed to clarify that it's a proposed idea that may or may not be factual? ] (]) 02:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Pertn, with respect, there's little point in not having read any of the sources, but nevertheless contributing an opinion about whether a viewpoint is "fringe" or not, especially given that you admit you're guessing. This is, as a matter of fact, a very unusual viewpoint in the literature, and it's therefore not appropriate for the lead. However, it's interesting and the source is a good one, so it's appropriate for the article, and is now included in it. We can't have every single viewpoint about NAS in the article, just as we can't have everything that's in the article in the lead. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Please read the discussion carefully before making your comments. Again, it seems that you base your critizism of my viewpoints without reading them carefully. (I will try to write more clearly in the future) In this "case" i have no major disagreement with you, I think. I just wanted to comment to Beit Or that I did not and do not (and I have read some of your sources) believe it is correct so say that the opinion Aminz is pushing is "fringe". Still I agree that it doesn't neccesarily mean that it needs to be a prominent part of the article. ] 14:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


:I think there's more dispute over the interpretations of the facts than about the actual facts. No informed person of goodwill would deny that some people on the political left hate Jews, but then there are endless ] debates about whether hatred of Jews is "baked in" to certain representative and characteristic forms of leftist doctrine, or whether those forms of leftism must be excluded from the definition of "true" valid leftism, or whether it's a mere personalistic aberration of certain individuals etc. etc. ad nauseam... ] (]) 19:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
NPOV = All POVs. The intro like all other parts of the article must be NPOV.--] 09:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
::@] The rest of the article still contains plenty of criticism of the concept, it's only the opening sentence that's changed to something that, in my view, has no consensus from reliable sources. The previous opening sentence to me seemed perfectly neutral and factual and the new one just seems like an effort at pushing ]. ] (]) 17:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::I think that this issue still deserves more discussion, and I would encourage @], @] and any other interested editor to participate. ] (]) 17:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I have made a suggestion above that the word "belief" might be more appropriate in the lede, to reflect this. ] (]) 19:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2024 ==
:Wrong. NPOV also encompasses not assigning undue weight to marginal views. Here, just like it was the case with Lewis, you've just discovered an opinion, found that you like it, and are pushing for it to be insterted into the lead, no matter how prevalent this view is among experts. ] ] 09:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|New antisemitism|answered=yes}}
:: Wrong. The intro should be written in a way that it includes all POV. That of Lewis, and all others. The intro according to the ] should be able to stand alone. --] 10:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following line need to be removed or reworded as it is highly subjective.


, typically manifesting itself as ].<ref name="Fastenbauer 2020">{{cite book |author-last=Fastenbauer |author-first=Raimund |year=2020 |editor1-last=Lange |editor1-first=Armin |editor2-last=Mayerhofer |editor2-first=Kerstin |editor3-last=Porat |editor3-first=Dina |editor4-last=Schiffman |editor4-first=Lawrence H. |title=An End to Antisemitism! – Volume 2: Confronting Antisemitism from the Perspectives of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism |chapter=Islamic Antisemitism: Jews in the Qur’an, Reflections of European Antisemitism, Political Anti-Zionism: Common Codes and Differences |location=] and ] |publisher=] |pages=279–300 |doi=10.1515/9783110671773-018 |doi-access=free |isbn=9783110671773}}</ref>{{rp|296–297}} ] (]) 00:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::] does not say that the intro should include ''all'' POVs. The guideline says that the lead "should be capable of standing alone as a '''concise''' overview of the article". Furthermore, "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." On this basis, fringe views and other details are usually excluded from the lead. ] ] 10:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


:it seems ok to me. why do you object to it? ] (]) 06:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Saying New Anti-Semitism was already there and was then only observed is the POV of the proponents. And the lead should not take position. --] 10:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
:This is a tough one. The source doesn't actually talk about "new antisemitism" or describe it as anti-Zionist. Instead, it's referring to its own concept of "new anti-Zionist antisemitism", and it's unclear whether this is the same thing. ] (]) 02:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)


{{notdone}} Marking edit request as completed due to no consensus. -] (]) 10:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The lead can't possibly include all POVs "hat of Lewis, and all the others," because there's a ton of material out there about new antisemitism, so we must necessarily leave most of it out. Adding idiosyncratic material to the intro would lead to sentences like:


{{reflist-talk}}
::::"Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism ... and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel ... are coupled with antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism, and that latent Western antisemitism has fastened onto the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to brand the Jews as mass murderers as a way of solving the West's own psychological problems caused by the Holocaust."

:::The last point is one made by ], an expert on antisemitism and one of the most respected sources in this area you could hope to find. However, his point is an idiosyncratic one, and while interesting enough for the article, is too unusual for the lead. Your Allan Brownfeld point is similar in that respect. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

: But there is only one sentence from the perspective of critics in the intro: That "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." Except that, the rest is written from the prespective of proponents. I personally feel that if the article explains in 2.5 lines why New Anti-Semitism emerged from the perspective of proponents, only one sentence should be added from the perspective of critics. --] 10:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
::The weight assigned to the criticism in the lead is commensurate with its weight in the article as a whole and in the scholarly debate, too. ] ] 10:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
: And how do you know the ratio? --] 10:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
::Probably because he's read the article and some or all of the literature.
::The lead has two paragraphs that are descriptive: what the concept is, when it entered common usage, what its relationship to classical AS is. Then the third paragraph contains two sentences: one saying what proponents argue and one saying what critics argue. It's balanced, clear, simple, and it's a compromise version that was worked out over many weeks. Also, everything in the proponents' sentence is commonly argued by proponents; everything in the critics' sentence is commonly argued by critics. There are no unusual or surprising views. It should be left that way. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Should he prove the ratio to me, we would be able to use it. But I think it is only speculations. --] 11:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The sentences on how the term has come to usage definitely has a POV. It says some writers observed waves of antisemitism. That's POV of proponents; might be true but it is not neutral. It doesn't say the term came into usage because anti-semitism was re-definded to cover certain things. The definition is also providing context for the POV of proponents. I am not saying which POV is correct or wrong. There is certainly anti-semitism but except the last sentence of the lead, the rest is written from the perspective of proponents. --] 11:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
:Aminz, Allen Brownfeld is not an academic, but rather, an anti-Zionist activist who happens to write freelance articles and columns, sometimes for the ], but mostly as the editor of the inhouse publication of the American Council for Judaism. The American Council for Judaism is itself a tiny group that split from Reform Judaism when it became Zionist. Brownfeld's views are pretty much a tiny minority view, and SlimVirgin was being quite charitable when she included them so prominently in the article. You seem to have a habit of finding some small minority or idiosyncratic view on a Jewish related topic that happens to coincide with your own, and then try to promote it as if it were authoritative, insisting it come front and center, usually in the Lead. It's a violation of ], yet when this is quite naturally resisted, you then ironically attempt to stick a POV tag on the article, even though your edits themselves are a violation of WP:NPOV. It's happened on half a dozen articles now, and it's ]. Please desist. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please desist accusations of WP:Point? I am asking this for the n^th time. Your approach only makes me to find even more and more sources in order to bring neutrality back to this article. No compromise on neutrality.

The work by Allen Brownfeld, unlike that of conservative journalist Johnson, is peer reviewed and published in a famous journal. I have read a few pages from the article and it is written scholarly. As far as I am concerned, all the intro except one sentence is written from the perspective of proponents and this should not remain. And I think SlimVirgin is nicer than you. I can see you and Beit Or aim to deny even existence of any dispute in the two other anti-semitism articles. And yes, I am more determined now to bring neutrality back to this article. --] 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
:In a "famous journal"? Which one do you mean? And what do you mean by "peer-reviewed"? The existence of the dispute is well documented, and non-fringe sources have been brought to actually elucidate it. Please explain what Brownfeld's qualifications are.
:P.S. You can't "bring neutrality" to an article by doing the exact opposite, and I'll stop pointing out your ] when you stop disrupting. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You can search the article in ] and you might want to read ]. --] 23:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
:You haven't answered my questions, though. Which "famous journal" was he published, and what do you mean by "peer-reviewed"? Also, what exactly are Brownfeld's qualifications? Does he teach this stuff at a University, for example? Does he have a doctorate in some relevant subject? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Brownfeld is not an academic so any publication of his is not reliable unless they are peer-reviewed and published through an academic press, in which case the reliability of material is not attained through him but through the acceptance of the editorial committee of the journal.

And I don't understand what you mean by "what do I mean by "peer-reviewed"". Whoever submits an article to a journal, the editorial committee reviews it and if it passes the thresholds it is reviewed and published. There is thus some guarantee of reliability. The journal is ''Journal of Palestine Studies''. --] 07:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:You claimed Brownfeld had been published in a "famous journal" and had been "peer reviewed". Is the ''Journal of Palestine Studies'' a "famous journal"? Is it "peer-reviewed"? And what, again, are Brownfeld's qualifications to opine on this subject? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::JPS is a normal academic journal published and distributed by University of California Press, Berkley. Therefore articles in it count as reliable sources and whether the author of the article is notable or not isn't a relevant question. ] 08:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I was just about to add that. Jay could have discovered that it was published by the UC press and archived by JSTOR with a single google search, if he was so inclined. (If.) On the whole, I can't disagree that some statement indicating that a significant number of academics believe that the discourse is being ''actively'' constructed to minimize criticism belongs in the lead; along with a simple summary of their views, the courtesy extended to those 'proponents' of the view. Also note that in order to analyse discourse on a subject, expertise in discourse can substitute expertise in the subject. Consider Sartre. ] 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::::This journal is only printed by the UC Press for the Palestine Institute. It has its own editorial board, which includes the former PLO propagandist Rashid Khalidi, and its articles are not subjected to the UC Press editorial oversight. Even if they were, how would that be relevant? The arguments regarding expertise in discourse vs. expertise in subject are sophistry. ] ] 13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::The Journal of Palestine Studies is ''published'' by UC Press, not merely ''printed'' by them - the distinction is crucial. Since it is within the stable of one of the world's most highly regarded academic publishing houses it is an academic journal in every sense of the term. Of course it has its own editorial board - it would not be an academic journal if it did not - and it chooses independently which experts to invite onto that editorial board. This is one of the most clear-cut cases of a reliable source for WP purposes. End of story, I sincerely hope. ] 18:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::I asked some very simple questions, which no-one has yet been able or willing to answer. According to whom is ''The Journal of Palestine Studies'' a "famous journal"? What evidence do we have that it is "peer reviewed"? What are Brownfeld's qualifications? And now, SlimVirgin adds another relevant question; who are the "significant number of academics"? Note, Brownfeld's views have actually been added to the article, so they aren't being "censored" or excluded in any way; thus I'm not sure how anything you have said is relevant to my questions. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Who are the "significant number of academics"? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

=== Some other relevant sources ===
Virginia Q. Tilley in "The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock", ''University of Michigan Press'' states:

<blockquote>"Zionist discourse has long defined any criticism of Israel as "cover" or "code words" for anti-Semitism, and in the past decade, a wave of publications has emphasized afresh that talk of a multiethnic state reflects this "new anti-semitism" or "anti-Semitism without Jews." Under this banner, Zionist networks are commonly mobilized to target even Jewish advocates of the one-state solution as witting or unwitting architects of genecide. Professor Tony Judt, a senior scholar at New York University, met such an onslaught after publishing his landmark "Israel: An Alternative" </blockquote>

--] 06:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
:Quote-mining books.google.com for statements in agreement with your POV isn't the best way to write an article. Tilley's conspiratorial view of the world as being secretly undermined by "Zionist networks" is, um, "interesting", and she is indeed an associate professor of political science at a small private college, ], though it could be noted that the student body is no larger than that of a large high school, and the college itself does not even offer doctoral degrees. In any event, I'm not sure what this could possibly add to the introduction, which already says "Critics of the concept argue that it serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that it is used to silence debate." That's essentially the claim that Tilley makes, though stated in a ] way. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== Comparison between new-antisemitism and old one ==

This seems to be a good source --] 06:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:That's what's now called "modern antisemitism," or "racial antisemitism," not the same thing at all, as Bernard Lewis points out. Aminz, please stop changing the lead. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

== Lead ==

I found the same arguments I was looking for not from the previous sources but from "Klug, Brian. The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism." Would you please explain why it was removed? I specified exactly what the critics object to. Of course they don't object to the existence of absurd conspiracy theories etc etc. --] 07:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
:The material you added to the lead was almost incomprehensible, and the 1860s claim was, at best, an inaccurate reading of the source. The "New anti-semitism" that ''The Cambridge History of Twentieth Century Political Thought'' is referring to is, of course modern racial antisemitism. It is the term "antisemitism" itself that was coined in the 1860s, not the concept of "New antisemitism", which is a late 20th century/early 21st century phenomenon. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== Definition of New AntiSemitism ==
The lead says:" New antisemitism is the concept of an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of antisemitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse, coming from three political directions: the political left, far-right, and Islamism." however the Brian Klug says:

: So the question is this: What puts the "new" into "new anti-Semitism"? The answer, in a word, is anti-Zionism. The "vilification of Israel," Iganski and Kosmin argue, is "the core characteristic" of Judeophobia (their term for "new anti-Semitism")... Sometimes the point is made by equating the State of Israel in the "new" anti-Semitism with the individual Jew in the "old" variety.

The article's definition of "new" antisemitism is not the same as that of Brian Klug. So, the definition should change or alternative ones should be given. --] 07:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:We do say what Klug says (relevant points in bold): "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and '''opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland''' are coupled with antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Critics of the concept argue that it '''serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism''', and that it is used to silence debate." ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can not see any mention that critics say what distinguishes antisemitism from "new antisemitism" is "anti-Zionism" but that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are separate things. --] 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:That's what it says above. Proponents of the concept say opposition to Israel constitutes or is coupled with antisemitism. Critics say that legitimate criticism of Israel (what you might want to call anti-Zionism) should not be equated with antisemitism. ''We'' can't say antisemitism and anti-Zionism are separate things, because not everyone believes they are separate things. We say: X says this, Y says that. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the article says: Critics oppose the concept because it is used to .. or serves ... I think the critics oppose it because ''its definition'' equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. --] 08:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:Its definition doesn't equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It doesn't have a firm definition for one thing; there's a core description of the concept that most academics would agree with, but there are differences between them too. Secondly, no one says that criticism of Israel is antisemitism. Indeed, the repetition of that strawman is identified as one of the features of the new antisemitism. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed. Quoting Klug:

: Foxman insists that he is not opposed to criticism of Israel. "In every public forum," he says, "I'm always careful to say that criticism of the state of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic." But "is not necessarily" implies "is possibly," and what this really means is '''"it's usually so."''' In his view, "most of the current attacks on Israel and Zionism are not, at bottom, about the policies and conduct of a particular nation-state. They are about Jews."... Now, if crossing the line is anti-Semitic, and if "most of the current attacks on Israel and Zionism" cross the line, it follows that most current attacks on Israel and Zionism are anti-Semitic. By extension, any attack aimed at a Jewish target is anti-Semitic if it is inspired by a position that crosses that line."

--] 08:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::Klug is not saying that criticism of Israel is antisemitism. He is saying that Foxman might be saying it. I don't know whether that's true of Foxman, but we don't use him as a source, so it doesn't really matter. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for "new anti-semitism" as stated in this article leave very little room for legitimate critisim of Israel without the possibility of being judged anti-semitic. Ironically, according to this article, I'm anti-semitic just for saying that!

Anti-semitism is very real, but it is also used by its very victims as a potent political tool.

Overall, while I find this article to be relatively biased, it also contains some very interesting thoughts.

] 05:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Tim

Man, do I have problems with this article! More to the point, I have a big problem with the term "new antisemitism (NAS)."
I can accept the term "classic antisemitism" because it is pretty clear cut--and it actually exists.

The problem is rooted in the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. This means any attack on Israeli policy is considered an attack on the Jewish people, and therefore antisemitic.

Here is a quote from your article:

'''"He argues that antisemitism has expanded from hatred of Jews (classical antisemitism) to hatred of Jewish national aspirations (new antisemitism). "'''

What are "Jewish national aspirations?" Are these no different from "Israeli national aspirations?" Nope.

Until you can separate the hatred of a people from the resentment of a government's policies and actions, I suggest you redefine NAS.

Here's where I agree with you! I agree that attacking Israeli policy is a tool used to mask antisemitism (ie, David Duke).
But that is still good ol' classic antisemitism--NOT NAS!

] 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Tim

'''Better Definition'''. This seems pretty straight forward:

"New antisemitism is the legimitization of traditionally anti-semitic beliefs under the guise of criticism of Israel's continued occupation of Palestine and mistreatment of Palestinians."

Clearly, new antisemitism is not pure criticism of Israel. It must relate to some type of activity like:

*Holocaust Denial
*Racial Slurs
*Hate crimes
*Attacks on Judaism (not attacks on Israel)

I understand what new antisemitism is trying to say. However, this page must not be hijacked by Pro-Israeli zealots to demonize justified criticism of Israel's continued abuses. ] 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

:And/or:
*Specific obsession with and/or isolated focus on the misdeeds of Israel, individual Israeli political parties, the Israeli military, individual Israeli citizens, etc., to the exclusion of any similar or worse misdeeds by other countries, individuals, political entities, etc.; particularly those currently engaged in armed or political conflict with Israel.
*Criticism of political action by supporters of Israel abroad, to the exclusion of any similar political action by supporters of other countries.
:Thus, we can manage that this page not be hijacked by Anti-Israeli zealots to whitewash continued abuses by nations not including Israel. ] 17:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

*The problem with this above type of definition is that it would mean that every you criticize one thing you have to criticize everything that is like it. For instance, say I were to criticize the actions of Canadians in mistreatment of Chinese guestworkers during the construction of the railways. Is this racist against Canadians if we don't mention the mistreatment of guestworkers in other countries? No, in fact it would just be silly to have to go through that process every time.

Racism (of which anti-semitism, new anti-semitism, and modern day Israeli policies towards Palestinians are all subsets) is inherently a non-political act. It must be an act, that attempts to bring negative consequences on a group simply due to their ethnic origin. This does not have to be violent, however the comments of ] would suggest that any anti-Israeli comment must start with a proviso such as "Though there have been other apartheid regimes". While I don't disagree that Israel is not the only country worthy of criticism, let's not make this page a home for its apologists.

The definition of new anti-semitism as a term must relate solely to acts committed against Jews as an ethnic group and not Israelis as a national group. ] 07:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

== RE: proposed new post ==

I would use a broader term, such as "economic antisemitism."

: I don't believe any socialist tyrant (such as Stalin) earnestly believed in the true ideals of communism--they just wanted a dictatorship. What better way to maintain control over the people than to repress them economically? Bigotry is more about power than hatred.

I do see your point where the anti-capitalist antisemite would spit hatred about the "greedy Jew." However I don't think this is a significant population and most of these people can be filed under "classical antisemite."

Another huge aspect of "economic antisemitism" (and other forms of bigotry) is a simple one--jealousy. Nothing makes a loser feel better about himself than lashing out at the more successful.

I think "economic antisemitism" should be the main article, with anti-captialist antisemitism as a chapter in that article. You know a lot more on the subject than me though!

Written in good faith

] 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Tim

:I don't think it's spam and I personally think that the contributions should remain on the talk page. Having said that, there is much that I disagree with. Please bear in mind that talk pages must not be used for carrying on arguments, only for practical discussion around changes to articles. If you want to start a new article you should first consider what reliable sources you would have to base the article on. By "reliable sources" Misplaced Pages means books by academics or other respected commentators, articles in refereed academic journals and reports in serious newspapers or broadcast media. Some other kinds of sources are suitable depending on the type of article - for example an article about ] can refer to his novels - but for writing an unbiased article on controversial political matters your choice is very restricted. I would be very surprised if there proved to be sufficient basis for an article on anti-capitalism and antisemitism. Bear in mind also that you would immediately be embroiled in an argument about whether the anti-capitalist movement is separate from the anti-globalization movement or whether these are just two words for the same phenomenon.] 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

See perhaps ]. But it is an entirely different topic than this one. - ] | ] 01:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

==Archived FAC nom==
Premature FAC nom archived at ]. ] (]) 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

== How is this original research? ==

How is original research? It is accurately cited to the Jewish Virtual Library. No, it didn't come from articles that used the phrase "New Anti-Semitism"—it was simply data about numbers of UN votes on Israel—but as far as I know there is no requirement that the source used for data be writing explicitly on the topic of the article. That leave us saying that an article on a person could only cite biographies of that person, or that an article on an artistic movement could not cull a date from an article about an individual who was part of the movement. -- ] | ] 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

:It doesn't look like original research to me. There is, however, a question of ''relevance''. I for one cannot figure out how the United States vetoing resolutions against Israel is in any way directly related to the subject of this article. ==<font face="Verdana">''']'''</font> 09:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

==Finkelstein quote (again)==

Concerning my most recent edit, I would refer readers to statements that I made on this forum last October:

:''(iii) The current version begins, "Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist at DePaul University, argues that proponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism are compelled to deny the causal relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, because to acknowledge the relationship would be admit that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism."''

:''There are two problems with this statement.''

:''First, both the sentence structure and meaning are extremely convoluted. The point could surely be expressed in a more lucid manner.''

:''Second, it does not accurately reflect what NF actually writes. Finkelstein's argument (taken from his own words on pp. 77-78) can be summarized as follows:''

:''a) "There is a broad consensus among those treating the topic that the emergence of the new anti-Semitism coincided with the latest flare-up in the Israel-Palestine conflict, reaching a peak during Operation Defensive Shield and the siege of Jenin in the spring of 2002 ."''

:''b) "The causal relationship would seem to be that Israel's brutal repression of Palestinians evoked hostility toward the "Jewish state" and its vocal Jewish supporters abroad."''

:''c) "Yet is precisely this causal relationship that Israel's apologists emphatically deny: if Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters themselves might be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing do because Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong."''

:''It is not clear how this argument can be summarized to "proponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism are compelled to deny the causal relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel". First, NF is distinguishing between "contemporary anti-Semitism" and "hostility toward Israel and its vocal Jewish supporters abroad" in this section. Second, NF is referring to the relationship between such hostility and the policies of Israel, not criticism of Israel.''

:''(iv) The current version reads, "Finkelstein rejects what he call this "doctrine of essential Jewish innocence." On the contrary, he argues, it is Jews themselves who may be the cause of contemporary anti-Semitism, because "Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong.""''

:''As noted above, this is not an accurate summarization. NF does not argue in this instance that "Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong" -- he rather presents this conclusion as the logical outcome of the aforementioned causal relationship. Also, it is not entirely accurate to summarize the phenomena described by NF as "contemporary anti-Semitism".''

:''I'm going to make some significant adjustments to this section, including giving it a new title and placing it elsewhere in the text. I don't claim that my proposed version is perfect, and I welcome constructive edits and discussion to improve both readability and (if necessary) textual accuracy.''

:''I hope this won't lead to yet another edit war, and I would encourage anyone who disagrees with my assessments (and my remedial actions) to discuss the matter here rather than using a blanket revert as a tool of first resort. CJCurrie 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)''

The context is a bit different this time, but not by much, and the quote is still inappropriate as a summary of NF's argument. It shouldn't be too difficult to find a more suitable quote, in any event. ] 06:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:That's too much to read. Please make the point more succinctly, if possible, and please STOP the personal attack edit summaries; the material in this article is not "hopelessly slanted." ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

::Given that you've written most of the NAS article, I have difficulty understanding how you could consider my last comments to be "too much to read". Also, could you please explain how describing one particular sentence as "hopelessly slanted" constitutes a personal attack?

::I'll review the Finkelstein material again tomorrow, once I have the book in front of me. ] 07:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

===Summary===

Here's a quick overview of events relating to this controversy:

1. On 11 October 2006, I indicated that I would change the wording in which this article that addresses Norman Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah" (, with minor adjustments , and ). I had several concerns with the way Finkelstein's book was presented, and believed the overall effect was misleading to readers. (See below for details.)

2. SlimVirgin's followed nine minutes later.

3. I responded . The conversation then degenerated into a dispute as to whether or not I had ever "written for the enemy" on Misplaced Pages ().

4. My adjustments to the article page appeared , with a few very minor adjustments .

5. SlimVirgin never responded to my arguments, and did not initially take issue with anything I had written on the article page. Instead, she on 31 October 2006, in a slightly different form, in block-quotes, and without comment. I probably should have taken issue with this at the time, though perhaps I didn't notice; I can't recall offhand.

Here's an overview of the controversy itself:

I initially objected to an earlier introduction of the Finkelstein section, which read as follows: "Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist at DePaul University, argues that proponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism are compelled to deny the causal relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, because to acknowledge the relationship would be admit that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism."

My objection now is to the block-quote section, which reads as follows: "f Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters might themselves be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing so because Israel and its Jewish supporters are in the wrong."

I still believe this quote is misleading, and still believe that it should be removed. I've already explained why in my 11 October post. For those who can't be bothered to read it, here's a quick summary:

:(i) My most fundamental objection is that Finkelstein ''did not actually make the specific assertion attributed to him'' in the quote provided.
:(ii) Even if he had, this is not his primary argument concerning "NAS".
:(iii) Even if it were, the quote provided ignores a great deal of textual nuance and is misleading if presented in isolation.

More detail:

:(i) The quoted text does not accurately reflect Finkelstein's argument, which can be summarized from his own words in the following manner (pp. 77-78):

::a) ''There is a broad consensus among those treating the topic that the emergence of the new anti-Semitism coincided with the latest flare-up in the Israel-Palestine conflict, reaching a peak during Operation Defensive Shield and the siege of Jenin in the spring of 2002 .''

::b) ''The causal relationship would seem to be that Israel's brutal repression of Palestinians evoked hostility toward the "Jewish state" and its vocal Jewish supporters abroad.''

::c) ''Yet is precisely this causal relationship that Israel's apologists emphatically deny: if Israeli policies, and widespread Jewish support for them, evoke hostility toward Jews, it means that Israel and its Jewish supporters themselves might be causing anti-Semitism; and it might be doing do because Israel and its Jewish supporters are ''in the wrong''.'' (emphasis in original)

:Finkelstein does not present this conclusion as *his own argument* on this occasion, but rather presents it as the *logical outcome* of the arguments favoured by proponents of the term "new antisemitism". As Finkelstein is emphatically *not* a proponent of the term, it is difficult to see how this conclusion could apply to him. (Finkelstein's position is that much of what is called "new anti-Semitism" is not antisemitism at all, and it may be worth noting that all of the quotes cited above are taken from a section entitled "Mislabeling Legitimate Criticism of Israeli Policy".)

:Readers may object that this is nit-picking, and that Finkelstein ''does'' accuse Israel of fomenting anti-Semitism elsewhere in the book (eg., p. 85). There is some validity to such an objection, and, by way of a pre-emptive response, I should note that I would not object to including in this article a quote or summary that accurately conveys his position on the matter. The current quote, however, does not accomplish this.

:(ii) The block-quote is unduly focused on a peripheral aspect of NF's argument. Finkelstein makes several arguments against the concept of a "new anti-Semitism" in the first section of "Beyond Chutzpah". The text that SlimVirgin has chosen to highlight is taken from a four-page passage toward the section's end.

:During our previous exchange, SlimVirgin indicated that she chose to highlight this point because she "read the book carefully", and concluded "this is his strongest argument. My response was: "In that case, why did NF only devote four pages to it? And what criteria are you using to describe it as his "strongest argument", apart from your own discretion? For that matter, why should ''we'' be making judgements as to the relative strengths and weaknesses of his arguments?" SlimVirgin did not respond.

:Most of "Beyond Chutzpah"'s first section addresses what Finkelstein believes is the cynical use of the term "new antisemitism" for short-term political gain. If we are to represent his position fairly, we should focus on ''this'' aspect of his book.

:(iii) In addition to all of the above, the block-quote ignores a good deal of textual nuance. A neutral reader might wonder if the quotation was designed to portray Finkelstein in a questionable light.

For all of these reasons, I believe the current block-quote is inappropriate. I plan to replace it with a different block-quote in a few moments.

If any readers object to my decision, I hope they will (i) read my arguments before reverting, and (ii) respond to my arguments rather than resorting to ''ad hominem'' attacks and contrived outrage. ] 02:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

==Birth of Israel==

OK I expect to recive many answer and attacks that I am antisemit but I want little discussion. First I must say that I do not have problem with Jews but with state of Israel. Looking history in last 60 years for me state of Israel is born on Ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians. If you look number of Jews in Israel in 1907 (for example) and today .....Can somebody explain me what is great difference of Ethnic cleansing in Balkans between 1991-95 and similar thing in Israel 1947-1957 ? Because of that I support Palestinians and fight for freedom. Because of political reality in future must exist Israel and Palestina but until that day Palestinians are having full right to attack Israel.
Let say this story in other way. If your house has been given to another person because of nationality are you having right to attack and kill that person which is now living in your house ? Answer of that question is answer if Palestinians are having right to attack Israel.] 07:09, 6 January 2007 (CET)
:It's sad that you would think the answer was yes.] 15:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:52, 23 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New antisemitism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Former good article nomineeNew antisemitism was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 24, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconJewish history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconJudaism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGlobalization Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Misplaced Pages.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Antisemitism was copied or moved into New antisemitism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Shortcut
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.


Evaluating authors

I don't know quite where this belongs, but there are factions in the American political landscape who are pro-Isreal but antisemitic. That has become increasingly clear since 2016.

In general writing intelligently about claims of new Antisemitism requires look at several factors, e.g.,

  1. Does the author investigate adverse claims or just take them as true
  2. Does the author apply the same standards as used for other countries
  3. Does the author distinguish among, e.g., Israel, Israeli citizens, Jews?
  4. Does the author put events in context?

Discussing any of these potentially runs afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"pro-Isreal but antisemitic" I do not see much of a contradiction here. Supporting Israel for political reasons does not equate to supporting Jews or supporting the rights of Jewish minorities in various countries. In the last few years, I have encountered Greek far right voters who support an alliance with Israel (against Turkey), but have no problem blaming Jews for every social or economic problem faced by the entire world. Dimadick (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
You two need to read these articles:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/terra-incongnita-everyone-i-hate-is-hitler-dangerous-politicization-of-antisemitism-473188
https://www.commentary.org/articles/robert-wistrich/the-new-war-against-the-jews/
https://www.jpost.com/blogs/the-warped-mirror/from-al-jazeera-to-columbia-university-joseph-massads-obsession-with-israel-364634
https://brandeiscenter.com/ali-abunimahs-orwellian-definition-of-anti-semitism/
The idea that "there are factions in the American political landscape who are pro-Isreal but antisemitic" doesn't hold ground, let alone "has become increasingly clear since 2016". Your anecdote doesn't prove otherwise. Wake up! 69.113.233.201 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Time Magazine cover story

The words "The New Antisemitism" appear in large letters on the cover of the March 11, 2024 issue of Time Magazine... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Lede

One of the two key citations for "critics" is the David Hirsh piece that repeatedly refers to the use of antisemitism accusations as a weapon. As such I would suggest it's not controversial to mention "weaponization" in the lede. That's what the RS says. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps a better balance can be struck by making it more explicit this is a belief rather than a “concept” (as the lede currently states, and unduly reifies it) Yr Enw (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Changing wording

As the opening of the article implicitly describes the existence of new antisemitism is factual while in reality its existence is highly debated, maybe the wording should be changed to clarify that it's a proposed idea that may or may not be factual? Blepii (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there's more dispute over the interpretations of the facts than about the actual facts. No informed person of goodwill would deny that some people on the political left hate Jews, but then there are endless No true Scotsman debates about whether hatred of Jews is "baked in" to certain representative and characteristic forms of leftist doctrine, or whether those forms of leftism must be excluded from the definition of "true" valid leftism, or whether it's a mere personalistic aberration of certain individuals etc. etc. ad nauseam... AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@AnonMoos The rest of the article still contains plenty of criticism of the concept, it's only the opening sentence that's changed to something that, in my view, has no consensus from reliable sources. The previous opening sentence to me seemed perfectly neutral and factual and the new one just seems like an effort at pushing WP:POV. 22090912l (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that this issue still deserves more discussion, and I would encourage @Blepii, @AnonMoos and any other interested editor to participate. 22090912l (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I have made a suggestion above that the word "belief" might be more appropriate in the lede, to reflect this. Yr Enw (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following line need to be removed or reworded as it is highly subjective.

, typically manifesting itself as anti-Zionism. 47.14.91.4 (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

it seems ok to me. why do you object to it? Rainsage (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a tough one. The source doesn't actually talk about "new antisemitism" or describe it as anti-Zionist. Instead, it's referring to its own concept of "new anti-Zionist antisemitism", and it's unclear whether this is the same thing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Marking edit request as completed due to no consensus. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Fastenbauer, Raimund (2020). "Islamic Antisemitism: Jews in the Qur'an, Reflections of European Antisemitism, Political Anti-Zionism: Common Codes and Differences". In Lange, Armin; Mayerhofer, Kerstin; Porat, Dina; Schiffman, Lawrence H. (eds.). An End to Antisemitism! – Volume 2: Confronting Antisemitism from the Perspectives of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. pp. 279–300. doi:10.1515/9783110671773-018. ISBN 9783110671773.
Categories: