Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 14 April 2006

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.

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

Introduction

Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel expresses anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs.

This appears to be a false (or perhaps a misleading) dichotomy, as many would argue that some forms of opposition to the state of Israel do not express anti-Semitism in any manner. I believe I understand what is intended by "symptom or by-product", but the wording could surely be improved (assuming that this section of the text is necessary to the article at all, of which I'm skeptical). CJCurrie 03:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• On another matter, I apologize for the "who wrote this garbage?" comment. The phrase "closely associated with the left" can be read more than one way, and I (perhaps erroneously) assumed the less charitable interpretation . Sorry for the outburst. CJCurrie 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (update: 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC))

Hi CJ, I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the left, in the sense of emanating from the left, originating with the left, being identified with the left etc etc. This is according to all the literature on it. Do you have a source showing that it's closely associated with another point on the political spectrum? SlimVirgin 03:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've clarified the intent of my previous statement in point (i) below. I was primarily concerned with presentation, not content. CJCurrie 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Explaining my recent edits

(i) My removal of The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism

I have two problems with this statement.

While it is unquestionably true that manifestations of the "new anti-Semitism" have been disproportionately (although not exclusively) associated with the left, this wording seems questionable. Writing "A is closely associated with B" could suggest or imply that "B is closely associated with A", which would be a POV violation in this instance (albeit perhaps an unintentional one). I'm not disputing the basic point, but the presentation could be improved.

"The Left and its opposition to Zionism" also appears dubious, for the simple reason that "the Left" does not hold a unified opinion in relation to Zionism: there are some countries in Europe where the established Left is more supportive of Israel than is the established Right. Rephrasing this as "the Left and opposition to Zionism" would convey the essential point without leading the reader to a potentially false or oversimplified conclusion. CJCurrie 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(ii) My tense changes in reference to the "old" anti-Semitism

As I noted in my edit, the "old" anti-Semitism has unfortunately not disappeared from history: there are still several pro-Nazi parties and organizations in Europe. One could argue that much of the contemporary anti-Semitism in the Arab world is also rooted in "old" motivations.

Applying the past tense to the "old" anti-Semitism suggests that it has been replaced by the "new anti-Semitism": a position which is at best contentious, and at worst inaccurate. (I recognize that this suggestion may not have been intentional, but the phrasing could still lead to this interpretation.)

I do not consider this change to be especially contentious. CJCurrie 19:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(iii) My removal of Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel expresses anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs.

I have already noted that I consider this to be a misleading dichotomy, and that I'm skeptical as to whether the sentence truly adds value to the article. If it is to be retained, I would recommend changing "expresses" to "is associated with". The former suggests causal responsibility; the latter would not. CJCurrie 19:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Add: I'm also skeptical as to whether "opposition to the state of Israel" can be identified in toto as "either A or B". It is indisputable that some opposition to Israel is closely linked with and supported by more general anti-Semitic beliefs; the controversy rests on whether or not all opposition to Israel is inherently linked (intentionally or otherwise) with anti-Semitism.

I do not believe the current wording accurately identifies the nature of the controversy. CJCurrie 19:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(iv) My addition of In contemporary discourse, it is often used to identify a form of anti-Semitism which is perceived to differ from earlier forms of anti-Semitism.

My rationale is as follows: the term "new anti-Semitism" can be used in both a general and a specific sense. The introductory sentence appears to make use of the general meaning: it refers to increases in anti-Semitic activity, but does not distinguish whether these are "old" or "new" in motivation. The article should clarify that the term can be used in different ways, and that its "specific" manifestation is the source of contention. CJCurrie 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(v) My adjustments to " A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the state of Israel and Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism."

This change was an afterthought. The sentence which follows names Tamar Gozansky from Maki as an example; my understanding is that Maki's position toward the State of Israel is complicated, and cannot be summarized simply as "opposition". I chose to remove the words "the state of Israel and" to ensure accuracy. I now believe that I can accomplish the same by changing "and" to "and/or".

As per (ii), I do not consider this point to be contentious. CJCurrie 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I should also clarify why I made these changes.

I was involved in a radical overhaul of this article page over a year ago, and helped design an introductory wording which (for a time) seemed to have the general support of all parties. I've not followed subsequent developments as closely, though I've reviewed the page from time to time.

I recognize that my editorial tone yesterday was unduly harsh, and I apologize for this. I do not, however, believe that the aforementioned changes should be dismissed out of hand.

I plan to return the changes from points (ii) and (v) to the article, as I've already noted that I don't regard these as contentious. I welcome debate on the other points. CJCurrie 19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

TreveX's edits

TreveX, I reverted your changes because I couldn't see how they were improvements. You seemed to be trying to cast doubt on the existence of the new anti-Semitism before we had even explained what it is. The intro does include criticism, but it shouldn't precede a description. SlimVirgin 03:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am simply trying to reflect the fact that the use of the term "new anti-semitism" is relatively controversial and has been regularly contested. Firstly, I would be grateful if you could explain what you find problematic about the inclusion of the following at the end of the introduction.

The term is somewhat controversial. Some commentators and academics have argued that allegations of anti-semitism are used to silence debate. It has been suggested that those who make legitimate criticism of Israel's actions or argue that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US middle-east policy are very likely to be labelled as anti-semites.

I deleted the sentence beginning "Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on..." as it is predicated in the belief that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic:

The sentence states that opposition to the state of Israel:

(a) Expresses anti-Semitism as a symptom or by product

(b) Is closely linked and supported by more general anti-Semitic beliefs.

Criticism of Israel isn't necessarlily anti-semitic, but this is stated as such in the intro! TreveX 13:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

TrevelX, Please site a single source that says that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic - there are none! It is a common ploy of anti semites to claim that they are being labeled as antisemites because they oppose Israel - in fact it's the virulent focus on Israel and it's perceived shortcomings, to the exclusion of its other positive aspects and the flaws of other nations, that identifies one as an anti semite, e.g. the un is antisemitic not because it has objected to certain of Israel's actions, but because in world in which China has raped Tibet, Muslims in the Sudan are murdering black animists and Christians in the south of Sudan, women are mutiliated in much of the Muslim middle east, free speach is prohibited in most of the Muslim middle east, Afghanistan attempts to prosecute Muslim who want to become Christians, etc. etc. the overwhelming bulk of UN motions of censure for human rights violations are directed towards Israel. Therefor your attempted edit derives from an anti semitic impulse. Incorrect 15:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have lightly edited the intro to make the point that I made above.Incorrect 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

CHOO CHOOO! Here comes the logic train - last stop is you! I am not an anti-Semite. Your argument seems to be that I am focusing on Israel rather than other nations, which makes me an anti-Semite. You don't know anything about me, my opinions, interests and beliefs and almost certainly haven't checked what other articles I edit on Misplaced Pages. If I was going to write about the Sudan or Tibet, I wouldn't be doing it in an article about anti-semitism, would I? Your attempts to infer that I am an anti-semite have no foundation in reality whatsoever. TreveX 18:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Often

(copied from SV's talk page) A suggestion for compromise:

The term, which first came into general use in the early 1970s, is used to distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism.

Would you agree to the insertion of the word "often" after the second comma? CJCurrie 03:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it seems like a very minor point to disagree with, so I'm sorry if I seem picky, but if it's only "often" used to distinguish etc etc, how else is it sometimes used? SlimVirgin 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article's introductory paragraph uses the term "new anti-Semitism" in a general sense: it describes an increase in anti-Semitic activities, but does not attribute this to a motivational change on the part of the culprits. I would suggest that this "general" usage should be distinguished from the "specific" usage (which is really what the article is about, and which does describe a change in motivation).

Recent manifestations of anti-Semitism may be "new" in a chronological sense, but also "old" in terms of motivation. I believe the introductory section should clarify this point. CJCurrie 03:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? SlimVirgin 03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I was presenting it more as a point of deductive reasoning than a point of debate. But if a source is required ...

Here are some excerpts of a European Union report on modern anti-Semitism unofficially published by European Jewish groups, and reprinted in the Jerusalem Post on 3 December 2003.

"For many anti-Semitic incidents, especially for violent and other punishable offences, it is typical that the perpetrators attempt to remain anonymous. Thus, in many cases the perpetrators could not be identified, so an assignment to a political or ideological camp must remain open.

"Nevertheless, from the perpetrators identified or at least identifiable with some certainty, it can be concluded that the anti- Semitic incidents in the monitoring period were committed above all either by right-wing extremists or radical Islamists or young Muslims mostly of Arab descent, who are often themselves potential victims of exclusion and racism; but also that anti-Semitic statements came from pro-Palestinian groups as well as from politicians and citizens from the political mainstream.

In the extreme left-wing scene anti-Semitic remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and anti- globalization rallies and in newspaper articles using anti-Semitic stereotypes in their criticism of Israel. Often this generated a combination of anti-Zionist and anti-American views that formed an important element in the emergence of an anti-Semitic mood in Europe. Israel, seen as a capitalistic, imperialistic power, the 'Zionist lobby,' and the United States are depicted as the evildoers in the Middle East conflict as well as exerting negative influence on global affairs. The convergence of these motives served both critics of colonialism and globalization from the extreme left and the traditional anti-Semitic right-wing extremism as well as parts of the radical Islamists in some European countries.

More difficult to record and to evaluate in its scale than the 'street-level violence' against Jews is 'salon anti-Semitism' as it is manifested 'in the media, university common rooms, and at dinner parties of the chattering classes.'

This report, at least, suggests that contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism cannot be identified as exclusively "old" or new".

I would also direct your attention to this Ha'aretz article by Barry Kosmin and Paul Iganski from June 2003, and especially to the following passage:

Judeophobia in contemporary Britain is also not an organized conspiracy. It does constitute, however, an opportunistic coalition of interest for the new left, the far right and radical Islamists.

Similarly this entry, entitled "Old poison in a new cup", by Emma Kate-Symons from the 7 May 2005 edition of The Australian. Note that this article specifically uses the phrase "new anti-Semitism" to describe a diverse array of ideological positions.

The leader of Germany's Jewish community, Paul Spiegel, has called on mainstream German politicians to fight the new anti-Semitism exemplified by the popularity of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party. "The threshold for spreading anti-Semitic prejudice has changed significantly since 2000," he told Der Spiegel.

The most insidious manifestation of the new anti-Semitism is not coming from the extreme Right or the alienated Muslim immigrant community, says a growing band of Jewish leaders and academics. It is being nurtured by the influential mainstream western European media and intellectual elite: from the BBC to The Guardian, Le Monde and The Independent newspapers, and by academics from Britain to Germany.

The most celebrated example caused a storm of criticism last week after Britain's Association of University Teachers voted to boycott Israeli academic institutions over Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.

A growing body of academic literature and even fiction supports Jacobson's claims. In The Return to Anti-Semitism, Gabriel Schoenfeld is scathing of the European establishment for giving fuel to the new anti-Semitic fires.

For Zuroff the new anti-Semitism is being driven by the minority Muslim population in Europe and by the politics of the Middle East, the extreme Right and by the extreme Left's success at penetrating mainstream media and political opinion with its anti-Israel biases.

CJCurrie 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following your point. You objected to: "The term, which first came into general use in the early 1970s, is used to distinguish a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purpose, and its place on the political spectrum from the old anti-Semitism, which is associated with the Right and is motivated by racial theory, religion, or nationalism."

You want to write instead that it is "often used to distinguish." My question to you is: do you have a source that sometimes or ever uses the term "new anti-Semitism" to refer to something other than "a form of anti-Semitism regarded as differing in its rhetoric, its professed purposed, and its place on the political spectrum, from the old anti-Semitism ..."? SlimVirgin 04:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The third reference listed above specifically identifies "new anti-Semitism" in Europe as being grounded in several ideological sources, one of which is the "old" anti-Semitism. Specifically, The leader of Germany's Jewish community, Paul Spiegel, has called on mainstream German politicians to fight the new anti-Semitism exemplified by the popularity of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party. The other sources do not use the term "new anti-Semitism" specifically, but are for all intents and purposes arguing the same point. CJCurrie 05:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (update: 05:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

But is it Paul Spiegel who is saying that, or is it the reporter for the magazine? Do you have a link? I have maybe eight books on my shelves here about the new anti-Semmitism. Every single one defines it as our article defines it. SlimVirgin 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article does not indicate if the definition is from Spiegel or the reporter, though I'd argue that it qualifies as an "acceptable" source one way or the other.

In any event, I'm not disputing that the term "new anti-Semitism" is normally used to define a perceived attitudinal change within contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism; I'm simply noting that the term can be applied more broadly, and sometimes is.

Perhaps I can suggest another means of resolving this situation:

(i) The introductory paragraph of this article identifies "new anti-Semitism" as referring to an increase in anti-Semitic activities and beliefs.

(ii) The second paragraph identifies the term as referring to an attitudinal change.

(iii) As noted in the sources cited above, not all contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism are grounded in an attitudinal change.

(iv) If the article is to deal only with attitudinal changes, would it not make sense to remove the introductory paragraph? CJCurrie 05:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't follow. Rather than going back and forth like this, I'd prefer it if we did sourced-based research, and that we use people who have written or commented on the new anti-Semitism extensively, rather than a reporter for The Australian. I can back up everything in the article with a knowledgeable source (and if I can't and no one else can, the material should be removed). Therefore, can you please say exactly what you want to add and provide a source who says that exact thing? And then we can judge specifics, rather than exchanging our own views on the talk page (because our own views don't matter). So if you want to add that it's "often" used to describe X, please supply a good source showing that it is sometimes (not just once by a reporter) used to describe Y or not-X. SlimVirgin 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what Currie is trying to point out here is that the term "new anti-semitism" is not always and exclusively used to refer to left-wingish anti-semitism grounded in anti-zionism.

Take this article from ADL. It is entitled 'the new anti-semitism' but refers extensively to a resurgence of anti-semitism after 9/11. This includes the old-style Islamist anti-semitism, which has simply become more prominent. Succinctly, the term "new anti-semitism" can refer to:

(a) Anti-semitism motivated by anti-zionism and coming predominantly from the left wing.

(b) A resurgence in old-style anti-semitism.

TreveX 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think I've found a suitable source to back up what Currie and I have been saying. It's from an article on Jonathan Sacks' website:

We are now living through the fourth mutation. Today’s anti-Semitism has three components: The first is anti-Zionism, the notion that Jews alone have no right to a nation of their own, a place in which to govern themselves. No. 2—all Jews are Zionists and therefore legitimate targets like Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl. No. 3, Israel and the Jewish people are responsible for all the troubles in the world, from AIDS to globalization. Put those three propositions together and you have the new anti-Semitism. I am concerned that, unlike in Britain, tolerance has not been the default option in Europe for the past few centuries.

Found another one: You should be aware of this, but this is a serious issue. We now face a resurgence of antisemitism on a global scale, communicated by the internet, e-mail, tapes, and videos, lowtech and high-tech. Work that one out. This new antisemitism, I call it the fourth mutation.

So we can see that the new anti-semitism can also be characterised as a resurgence of the old-style anti-semitism. Sacks is saying that anti-semitism has adapted, but it is still grounded in the old anti-semitism, even if it does draw on anti-zionism. TreveX 13:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what Currie is trying to point out here is that the term "new anti-semitism" is not always and exclusively used to refer to left-wingish anti-semitism grounded in anti-zionism.

This is the general point I was attempting to convey. I might note that the introductory paragraph of this very article uses the term in a different (chronological) sense. CJCurrie 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Image

The image shown at the top of the article is a poor example of anti-semitism. The image itself claims the "Jews" it portrays as "counterfeit" suggesting they are, in fact not Jews. The poster takes issue with Israel and Zionism, and claims the war was largely done in the interests of Israel and greed on the part of both America and Israel. As much as others would wish it so, objection to the state of Israel's actions and to Zionism in general are not anti-semitism. Since the image goes so far as to even exclude Jews from its critism, it is not an example of anti-semitism and should almost certainly be removed. The use of said image is rather inflamatory but ultimately makes claims of new anti-semitism appear far weaker than I believe they actually are. - Kuzain 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking over this article more closely, I can see that it has a number of problems. Half the section on cartoons is devoted to describing a case in which a cartoon against Sharon is claimed as anti-semitic. - Kuzain 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the original-research cutline that someone had added. The image is a very good example of the themes of the new anti-Semitism. The figure in red wears an American flag, Nazi symbol, and Magen David. Two figures in blue, apparently Jews wearing hats with the Magen David, peer out from behind him, the reason for the evil, smirking, with the words "No war for Israel" above their heads. Much of this symbolism is discussed in the article, so it's highly appropriate. SlimVirgin 20:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the image is an instance of anti-Semitism, but I'm puzzled as to why the caption was removed. CJCurrie 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the image is one of the best illustrations of the main themes of the New anti-Semitism, i.e. the demonization of the State of Israel and the idea that Israeli machinations are behind everything that happens in the world and is detested by the New anti-Semites. Pecher 20:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that some of the editors on this page are getting their own views mixed up with what we're supposed to write about. We have to published what reliable published sources have said about the new anti-Semitism, no matter how strongly any particular editor disagrees with the sources (so long as they really are reputable). It's no use saying "But that's nonsense." Anyone who feels that way must write to the source objecting, but not to Misplaced Pages, because all we're doing is reporting; or else find an equally reputable source who says it's nonsense, and then we can quote him or her. But we can't weasel word what sources say just because some editors don't like it. SlimVirgin 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics