Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:27, 27 June 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
• Talk:New anti-Semitism/archive 3
• Talk:New anti-Semitism/archive 4
• User talk:Mel Etitis/New anti-Semitism mediation
• User talk:Mel Etitis/New anti-Semitism mediation debate page

Sourcing claims for "Country-specific incidents

I'm going to concentrate on the UK but I'm sure my concerns apply to other countries too:

National Union of Students There are concerns that the support for Palestine...it should develop procedures for dealing with allegations of discrimination.

I'm not sure about this bit. It is a bit parochial, a few leaflets and comments are bad, but are they really a national issue?

Academic Boycott of Israel

At the same time that the above allegations about NUS were made, some Israeli academics were facing a boycott by the AUT The academic boycott was at the behest of nearly sixty Palestinian groups and, in line with that call, contained an exemption for "any conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonial and racist policies". The motions passed at AUT conference called for a boycott of the universities of Haifa (due to alleged mistreatment of Ilan Pappé) and Bar-Ilan (for awarding degrees to students from the College of Judea and Samaria, based in the Ariel settlement). This was seen by many on both sides as the first step to a wider boycott being pushed by the proponents

The boycott was overturned at an emergency conference held on 26 May 2005. Reasons cited for the decision were: the damage to academic freedom, the hampering of dialogue and peace effort between Israelis and Palestinian, and that boycotting Israel alone would be bigotry. The boycott was described as antisemitic by some groups and individuals , most prominently the Engage group while there was also much opposition to the boycott on other grounds such as damaging academic freedom or being counterproductive . Others defended the boycott and rejected accusations of anti-Semitism.

This is a bit more substantial, but the references are a bit pants, is an accusation of anti-semitism (from Julie Burchill!) and doesn't really qualify as "some groups and individuals", there is a better source ( Engage), but these are the only two claims that the situation was anti-semitic. With , , and saying that it isn't. So the section as a whole is misleading. It needs rephrasing so that the accusations of anti-semitism come first, and it also needs some better sources for the it-is-anti-semitic side, I'm sure there were more credible people that Burchill saying it.

Ken Livingstone Journalists and Jewish groups also protested against London's controversial mayor Ken Livingstone for meeting with controversial Muslim scholar and preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has supported Palestinian suicide bombings against Israeli military targets.

al-Qaradawi's visit was indeed controversial, and he has been condemned as being anti-semitic from many quarters, but there is nothing here that says anyone called Livingstone anti-semitic, or that this represents an anti-semitic 'incident'. At the very least this could do with rephrasing and retitling (i.e. 'Visit by Yusuf al-Qaradawi'). Surprised there's no mention of the concentration camp thing, although that'd be even harder to phrase I suppose.

George Galloway Also, during the 2005 UK General election, the election for the constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow in London's most heavily Muslim district was tainted by incidents of tyre-slashing and vicious verbal assaults on the incumbent Labour candidate Oona King, who is half African-American (from a U.S. emigrant) and half-Jewish. King's support for the war in Iraq, which was unpopular with many British voters and with Muslims in particular, may also have been instrumental in her unseating by George Galloway, candidate for the new, anti-war RESPECT Party. According to BBC News online "Ms King ratcheted up the tension when she accused Mr Galloway's supporters of anti-Semitism following an egg-throwing at a memorial to Jewish war dead". Former Labour MP Tony Banks accused Galloway of exploiting racial politics to win the seat, which Galloway denied (although he stood by a statement he had made during the campaign that King "had been responsible for the deaths of many people in Iraq with blacker faces than hers".

Again with this one the references aren't very good and it is phrased badly, basically being about the King vs. Galloway election campaign, not the allegations of anti-Semitism. The allegation of anti-Semitism is by King against Galloway's supporters (not Galloway himself, she's not that stupid), so the article should reflect that, the only reference is which simply says ""Ms King ratcheted up the tension when she accused Mr Galloway's supporters of anti-Semitism following an egg-throwing at a memorial to Jewish war dead" but a more indepth analysis would be something like . --Coroebus 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Classic anti-Semitism

Please link to Classic anti-Semitism in the article once it is unprotected. Article20 12:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove protection?

This article has been fully protected for about seven weeks, extremely long for wikipedia standards. No progress has been made in the discussion for the last week. Are the parties moving toward mediation or some other form of dispute resolution? If not, then I will formally request unprotection. Calwatch 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be advisable to wait for Mel's next comments on the article (though I believe most of us are willing to accept his wording for the introduction). CJCurrie 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, this article has been protected for a ludicrously long period. What could Mel say before unprotection that he couldn't say equally clearly afterwards? --Tony Sidaway 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll adopt my usual process. I'm going to unprotect this article but will engage in an aggressive poicy against anyone who, after over two months of protection, edit wars. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on: make the controversy clear

If future edit wars are to be avoided, the inherent controversy of the idea has to be made clear at the outset.

The article should be clear in the first paragraph that the concept of "new anti-semitism" is the idea that attacks on Israel/Zionism (and maybe also the US?) encourage/are manifestations of/are informed by anti-semitism. This is the real meaning of the phrase, as made clear in the fourth paragraph "Proponents of the term "new anti-Semitism" argue that it is associated with the Left, anti-Americanism etc ". That is why the idea is controversial - lots of people support and lots dispute this linkage. In contrast, no-one disputes that anti-semitism still exists.

However, in the most gormlessly-POV fashion, the article (at points) tries to present new anti-semitism as a neutral catch-all term for ALL modern anti-semitism, as if it was a term that in itself implied no "association" with other political ideas, eg anti-Zionism. The 1st line reads: "New anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents" If this is all the phrase meant, it wouldnt be so politically charged. It would also be largely redundant.

Basically, the first paragraph needs to be completely re-written to make clear what the concept of "new antisemitism" generally implies, beyond a banal statement that antisemtitism still exists, and (in outline) why these extra implications are so controversial.

--Danward 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I'm going to edit based on my comments in Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Sourcing_claims_for_.22Country-specific_incidents so could we discuss them now? --Coroebus 09:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All the incidents mentioned are regarded as examples of the new anti-Semitism i.e. coming from the left, related to radical anti-Zionism etc. SlimVirgin 10:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They may well be, but they are not sourced that way. --Coroebus 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can expect the words "new anti-Semitism" to appear in every single report we reference. We've defined it, and we've linked to many sources who are defining it. The definition is:

It is a form of Judenhass that emanates from the left. It is characterized by the demonization of the world's only Jewish state and of Jews as an ethnicity and a religion. Israel's right to exist as an equal member of the world community is denied. The Jewish people's right of self-determination is denied. Double standards are applied, whereby the actions of the Jewish state are judged according to a different standard from the actions of all the neighboring states around her. Jews as a people are held collectively responsible for the actions of the Jewish state. Symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism are used: for example, blood libels are resurrected, the Jewish state and Jewish people are associated with wild conspiracy theories involving Jews or Zionists or Israelis plotting to take over the world, or being in control of other governments, or being responsible behind the scenes for various acts of terror mistakenly attributed to others. Arab and Islamic anti-Semitism are excused and ignored. Straw-man attacks are made, whereby Jews are alleged to claim that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, and that is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable, and to deny that there is any such thing as the "new anti-Semitism." All of the above is accompanied by an international resurgence of violence against Jews and their synagogues and schools, particularly in Europe. It is found in conjunction with anti-Americanism (because Jews are believed either to control or be too influential with the American government), anti-Zionism, and the anti-globalization movement.

All the authoritative sources who have written about the phenomenon agree that these are the key components, so when we find them, we can offer them as examples, so long as someone has discussed them in terms of anti-Semitism or attacks on Jews. SlimVirgin 11:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My worry is that Livingstone has not been (at least in the sources provided) accused of anti-semitism, and that most of the discussion of Galloway has nothing to do with the allegation of anti-semitism against his supporters. Add to that that we appear to be accusing them of anti-semitism (not reporting others allegations), which is OR (and unwise in the case of Galloway). The NUS thing is a bit ephemeral but has been discussed in terms of new anti-semitism so I'd just want to tidy that up. --Coroebus 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Livingstone has very definitely been accused of anti-Semitism (got into quite a bit of trouble recently over it), as has Galloway, and without question his supporters. The section talks about it in relation to that election. By all means go ahead and clean it up as you see fit, and we can talk later if there are any disagreements. SlimVirgin 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim, whose definition is this? CJCurrie 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All the sources put together. The above are the issues they agree on. It was posted weeks ago. SlimVirgin 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cotler

This doesn't seem to belong in the section it was in, and I'm not sure where else to put it, so I'm moving it here in the meantime. SlimVirgin 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In his article "Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness", Irwin Cotler, at the time Canada's Minister of Justice, wrote that "classical or traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, or denial of, the right of Jews to live as equal members of a free society; the new anti-Semitism — incompletely, or incorrectly, as "anti-Zionism"... — involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is intrinsic to each form of anti-Semitism — and common to both — is discrimination. All that has happened is that it has moved from discrimination against Jews as individuals — a classical anti-Semitism for which there are indices of measurement (e.g., discrimination against Jews in education, housing, or employment) — to discrimination against Jews as people — a new anti-Semitism — for which one has yet to develop indices of measurement.

Cotler identifies distinct categories to illustrate the scope, character and specific instances of the new anti-Semitism. He describes them as Genocidal, Political, Theological, Cultural, Anti-Israel, Economic and State-sanctioned. Broadly, he asserts that anti-Semitism has expanded from the hatred of Jews to include hatred of Jewish national aspirations, the hatred of Israel's status as a sovereign nation, and the denial of its right to an equal role in the global community of nations. Cotler identifies distinct indices by which this prejudice may be manifested, ranging from the state-sanctioned theological anti-Semitism of some Islamic governments to the Cultural anti-Semitism which he perceives in the European elite. He also stressed that such prejudice may be overtly manifested (in the case of anti-Semitic rhetoric) or subtly manifested through diplomatic pressure, or by the economic boycott of Israeli businesses and their trade partners.

1. Cotler, Irwin. Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 16, 2004. Accessed 3 January 2006.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics