Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:20, 23 October 2006

Jewish history Unassessed

This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

New antisemitism was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 16, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

1974 book

May I suggest that the current section be rewritten? Epstein and Forster's main argument is that the "new anti-Semitism" was highlighted by opposition to Israel: this should be emphasized in a summary of their text. (The peripheral arguments can also be mentioned, but in their proper place.) CJCurrie 03:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The edits by CJCurrie improved the paragraph. I made one minor change for style. The next paragraph, on the 1980s, could now use some work. It talks about the New Left, which was essentially dead in the US by the Reagan years. Were the writers cited for the 1980s writing about current events, or retrospectively, when they mentioned the "New Left"? --John Nagle 05:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus Christ Superstar thing was unclear. Were they offering it as an example of the new anti-Semitism, and if so, what was their argument? SlimVirgin 08:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you read the book? There are four pages on "Jesus Christ Superstar", including long quotes from the show. --John Nagle 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What Epstein and Forster were complaining about back then is that it was reviving the old "Jews killed Jesus" thing, in a medium that reached a young, hip new audience. That was the "new" part; the old anti-Semitism got a makeover and they didnt't like it. Pages 90 to 102 are mostly about that musical. Some people were really wound up about that issue back then. --John Nagle 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, that may be so, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Jayjg 02:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein

The new header lists his name and not his argument, whereas the other section headers try to sum up the content. What would people say the basic argument or position in the Finkelstein section now is? SlimVirgin 08:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That "new anti-Semitism" is a political argument, and is not really about fighting anti-Semitism. CJCurrie 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Could something like that be the header? E.g. "The 'new anti-Semitism' is just a political ploy." SlimVirgin 22:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The role of the ADL in creating "new anti-Semitism"

Over at Anti-Defamation League#Claims of a "new" anti-Semitism, there's some key information we don't have in this article:

• In 1974, ADL national leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein published a book called The New Anti-Semitism
• In 1982, ADL national leader Nathan Perlmutter and his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter, released a book entitled The Real Anti-Semitism in America (New York, 1982).
• In 2003, ADL's national director Abraham Foxman published Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (San Francisco, 2003)

In this article, it isn't made clear that those books all came from ADL officials. That's clear in the ADL article, and it needs to be made equally clear here. --John Nagle 18:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Creating" new anti-Semitism? The ADL's most significant function is tracking and exposing anti-Semitism, it's no surprise that various ADL leaders publish books about it. John, I must again strongly remind you that Misplaced Pages is not a muckraking investigative newspaper, trying to uncover secret plots and conspiracies. Jayjg 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is from Finkelstein. Perhaps it can go in his section. SlimVirgin 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Superstar

I've removed the sentence on Jesus Christ Superstar:

Forster and Epstein's book also contains extensive criticism of pop-culture works that the authors believed were anti-Semitic, notably the 1973 Broadway musical Jesus Christ Superstar, because it blamed Jews for the death of Jesus (p. 93).

It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the topic of this article, which is quite lengthy as is. Perhaps it might go in an article about the book, or about Jesus Christ Superstar, if you really think it's very notable. Jayjg 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's properly cited, and it shows what was considered "New anti-semitism" back then, so it should stay in. As the history section, which is mostly factual, becomes more comprehensive and better organized, we may be able to cut down some of the more argumentative sections further down and get some space back. It's worthwhile to work on "who said what when". Looking at the historical sequence of events makes this issue clearer. The 70s-80s period is better now. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be properly cited, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this article. All sorts of things have been called "New anti-Semitism" at one time or another, including the racial anti-Semitism of the early to mid 20th century; however, this is an article about the modern concept of "New anti-Semitism", not anything that has ever been called "New anti-Semitism". As stated before, this article is already quite lengthy; please only include items which are on the topic of this article. Also, please avoid insulting edit summaries which refer to my edits as "vandalism"; that's a serious violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is attempting to redefine "new anti-Semitism". We've clearly established that claims of "new anti-Semitism", covering a wide range of perceived offenses, have been verifiably reported by reliable sources each decade since the 1960s. Just because some of those claims may now look silly in retrospect is not cause to remove them from Misplaced Pages. The historical cultural references help to put the issue in perspective. The article already had references from the 1940s, so the claim that this is an article only about the "modern concept" is demonstrably false. --John Nagle 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're attempting to re-define New anti-Semitism. The academics who described this subject talk about a key set of indicators and actors, and refer to events in the 90s and 2000s; we've clearly established this. The fact that someone used the phrase 30 or 50 years ago to refer to something else is irrelevant for the purpose of this article. Please stop trying to insert prochronisms into this article. Jayjg 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

John, this article is about the wave of anti-Semitism that almost all writers say began to sweep across Europe in the late 1990s/early 2000s. The mistake you repeatedly make on this page is to tell us what your personal opinions are, when all we're supposed to discuss and write about is what relevant, reliable sources say about this concept, not about some other. Also, I asked you before what you meant by the Jesus Christ Superstar thing "putting the issue in perspective," but you didn't reply and now you've said it again. What issue, and in perspective in what sense? SlimVirgin 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

History issues

One problem with the history section is that it jumps back and forth between European and US political issues, which tend to differ, without noting the differences clearly. The Trotskyists never had any real traction in the US. Abba Eban is cited as talking about the "new left" in the mid-1980s, quoted from "Anti-Semitism and Zionism: Selected Marxist Writings". But the quote doesn't make it clear whose "new left" he's talking about. US issues were quite different. Also, the role of the USSR in all this needs to be mentioned more. Several of the references mention the USSR, which was providing substantial aid to some Arab countries (especially Egypt) during that period, as being behind various anti-Israel actions. ("Nowhere in the world today is anti-Semitism masquerading under the guise of anti-Zionism more pervasively than in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" - Forster and Epstein, (1974) p. 221.) So there's a substantial Cold War aspect to this. --John Nagle 05:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the Forster and Epstein's work was perhaps a pre-cursor to the modern concept, but it's clearly not about the modern concept. Indeed, how could it be - New anti-Semitism describes events and trends that have mostly occurred in the 1990s and 2000s! This article needs to focus on the modern concept as it is currently deliniated, and studied by academics and other experts; older works which caught very early signs of the trend might be mildly interesting for historical reasons, but the article really can't spend huge amounts of time discussing them as well. Perhaps some of that material could be added to the Anti-Semitism article. Jayjg 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"New anti-Semitism describes events and trends that have mostly occurred in the 1990s and 2000s!" - that's a position statement and arguably original research. Actually, it looks from the cites like somebody (usually an official of the ADL) has relaunched "new anti-Semitism" each decade since at least the 1960s. It's branding, like "New Tide". A classic line in the advertising business is "The two most valuable words you can ever use in the headline are "free" and "new." You cannot always use "free," but you can nearly always use "new" if you try hard enough." --John Nagle 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's what all the academics say, so it's hardly original research. What is original research is the conspiracy theory you are promoting that the Elders of Zion/ADL are promoting a "New anti-Semitism" brand. Jayjg 16:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, when Wistrich etc. talk about New anti-Semitism, is that part of the ADL conspiracy? When longtime left-wing activist Chesler starts noting anti-Semitism among her leftist friends, is it because she is in the pay of the ADL? Jayjg 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

John, all the academics who write about this agree that the concept this article discusses started in the 1990s/2000s, so that's not OR. The theory you're applying is Norman Finkelstein's. It's fine to add that to his section, but you can't diffuse it throughout the entire article as though it's a fact. SlimVirgin 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Relative positions of Graffiti and Anti-War images

I recently swapped the placements of the Manchester graffiti and San Francisco anti-war rally images. My reasoning, which I gave in the edit summary, was that it is very clear that the placard is meant as an example of anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism on the Left, whereas it is not clear at all what the political motivations of the person who made the graffiti were (he might have been left-wing, far-right-wing, or a Muslim who doesn't identify with either the political left or right). So, as I wrote in the summary, I thought both images would be more appropriate to their sections if reversed. But SlimVirgin reverted the change without any explanation, which I found a very surprising action from an administrator whom I have had a lot of respect for. I invite her to discuss why she felt the earlier positioning of the images was better, and where we should end up placing these two images. Andrew Levine 16:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, this has all been discussed before, so if you look through the archives and click on the links in the caption, you'll see why the main image is used. As for the other one, I was about to delete it. SlimVirgin 06:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue was discussed before, but I don't believe there was ever a consensus agreement on the point. If the phrase "Counterfeit Jews" truly refers to the belief system of some obscure fringe-conspiracy group, then John Nagle's point is correct: it's "off in some weird land of its own", and doesn't deserve to be referenced in this article.

It might be worth noting that this particular matter (the meaning of the "Counterfeit Jews" reference) has been raised before, but never really addressed.

There were references to the phrase in the main body of the article, at one time, but they were quickly reverted. (In fairness, the reverts may have been for unrelated reasons.) , , , , , ,

, , ,

In any event, I'm certain we can find a more suitable image. (Perhaps something that references the debate over "new anti-Semitism" would be appropriate.) CJCurrie 07:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC) amended 08:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

CJ, as a gesture of good faith, I'd like to see you start making edits to this article, or comments on the talk page, from the other POV, just for a change. You say you write for the enemy elsewhere, so please do it here, at least for a while. SlimVirgin 08:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"The other POV" is already well-represented. Now, could you please address the concerns raised here? CJCurrie 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For some strange reason it appears that everyone who is opposed to the concept of the New anti-Semitism also thinks that fascinating and highly thought-provoking image is "inappropriate", and should be deleted, or failing that at least hidden in some way, though the reasons put forward for its "inappropriateness" vary from day to day. If I weren't overflowing with good faith, I'd think the two were related. Jayjg 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the fact that the current image represents the POV of a lunatic-fringe group, and doesn't address the actual debate over NAS. I'll grant that the image is fascinating (in the same sense as a train wreck), but I'd be hard pressed to find its "highly thought-provoking" aspects.

Before you ask, my preferred choice for an introductory image would be the caricature of Ariel Sharon as "Saturn devouring his children" published by The Independent a few years ago. Unlike the present image, that cartoon reflects the more substantive debates over accusations of "NAS" ... and it has the added advantage of being published by a non-fringe source. It's possible that copyright issues would prevent reproduction of the original, but it's been redrawn by amateurs a number of times since then -- surely one of those would be appropriate. CJCurrie 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you take a close look at the graffiti poster (Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg), you notice that it says in several places "Counterfeit Jews". That's apparently a phrase from the "End Times" Christians on the far right. In fact, if you go to the page from which the poster was taken, the photographer notes "Notice the obscure reference to "Counterfeit Jews." This is apparently part of a little-known anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Africans are the real Hebrews of the Bible, and that those people who now call themselves Jews are all phonies, having stolen the title of the "chosen people" from the Africans, who are the true chosen people." Look up "counterfeit Jews" in Google, and you get a collection of wierd conspiracy theories. Here's an example.. He has a theory that the Jews who emigrated from Russia to Israel after the demise of the USSR are gearing up for Communist Empire 2.0, or something like that. Anyway, that poster isn't "new anti-Semitism", or even mainstream "old anti-Semitism"; it's off in some wierd land of its own. (This is not unusual for San Francisco protest marches).

Finding some better image might be helpful. That one ends up looking silly when examined closely. --John Nagle 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that is weird. Maybe it doesn't belong in the article at all. In any event, the graffiti picture is clearly misplaced in its present state. Andrew Levine 18:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was thinking of deleting it anyway, so I'll go ahead and do that. SlimVirgin 06:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do delete it. You'll remember that a couple of months ago I was basically accused of anti-semitism for questioning its copyright status. Jayjg said, as if it was a crime, that I "didn't like" the image. Too right I don't like it. It must be in line for the most appalling image to appear in Misplaced Pages. Even so, if it was typical of the images to be seen on demonstrations in western countries then it should definitely be included. But it isn't typical of anything. In the end what does the existence of this image prove about anything? Just that there is an individual twisted enough to produce such a revolting thing. Which unfortunately we knew anyway. Itsmejudith 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the Community Security Trust one. SlimVirgin 08:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Forster and Epstein

Could we say more about what's meant by "Part of their criticism is directed towards left-wing American organizations of the period, such as the Young Socialist Alliance, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Spartacus League"? It's currently not clear what it refers to. SlimVirgin 08:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

They wrote "It is important to distinguish between the two left-wing movements in the world today: the democratic, liberal left and the totalitarian left". (p. 8) The "democratic liberal left" was seen as pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. The "totalitarian left" (or "Radical Left") "fails to eschew anti-Semitism and actively uses hostility against Jews as a weapon in its political struggle". They have a long list of organizations from the Radical Left; the ones listed were the ones notable enough to have Misplaced Pages entries.

What had them worried was that the Radical Left (usually called the New Left by its proponents) was closely tied to the Black Power and anti-war movements, which still had considerable political strength in 1974. Opposition to Israel from the Radical Left they trace to the Six-Day War of 1967. (p. 11) "New anti-Semitism", in their view, was born shortly after that war, when the Radical Left was at its peak, and grew as the Vietnam War wound down and attention moved to other conflicts.

So that's where and how they say "new anti-Semitism" started. --John Nagle 19:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. Perhaps some of it could be added to clarify the section? SlimVirgin 08:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Epstein had been running the ADL since 1947, and his previous books ("Danger on the Right", 1964, and "The Radical Right: Report on the John Birch Society and its Allies", 1967) were about trouble from the American political right.(p. 6). Trouble from the left was new and unexpected. So they titled their book "The New Anti-Semitism". --John Nagle 17:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

True Torah Jews Against Zionism and Neturei Karta

Where do True Torah Jews Against Zionism fit into all this? They're a group of Orthodox Jews in New York who oppose Zionism. They apparently can turn out a crowd of 10,000 in New York City for a protest against the Israeli Embassy, so they're a reasonably large group. Their position statement begins "We implore and beseech our Jewish brethren to realize that the Zionists are not the saviors of the Jewish People and guarantors of their safety, but rather the instigators and original cause of Jewish suffering in the Holy Land and worldwide. The idea that Zionism and the State of “Israel” is the protector of Jews is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Jewish People. Indeed, where else since 1945 have Jews been in such physical danger as in the Zionist state?!"

There's also Neturei Karta, International Jews United Against Zionism, which has similar positions but seems to be more active in Britain and Israel. They report violence against Orthodox Jews in Israel by Zionists. Is that "new anti-Semitism"?

Not sure what to make of this. --John Nagle 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is. Do you have a reliable source giving it as an example of new anti-Semitism? Somehow I doubt that you do, and if you don't, there's no point discussing it on this page. SlimVirgin 19:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in a "Jews Against Israel" article defines Jewish opposition to Israel as "new anti-Semitism". "It is no longer relevant who the author is and whether he is Muslim, Christian, atheist, communist, Maoist, Trotskyite, Socialist, Liberal, neo-Nazi, Israeli or Diaspora Jew." They list Neturei Karta as one organization opposing Israel. So there's a reasonably authoritative, although not neutral, source for that definition, with an explicit reference to one of the groups mentioned. --John Nagle 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the purpose of Misplaced Pages. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to present faithful descriptions of what reliable sources have said on a topic, then no, there doesn't appear to be much relevance. However, if the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to write original research in order to expose various Jewish and Zionist conspiracies, and to "out" the TRUTH about organizations like the ADL, then I can see where it would be quite relevant. Jayjg 19:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A comment on this from a neutral party would be appreciated. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel Jay is any less neutral than yourself on this matter? Just curious. -- Avi 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who lives near NK members in the US, I can tell you that they are extremely fringe (lunatic fringe comes to mind). Even the anti-Zionist Satmar Chasidim did not consort with murderers of innnocent Jews, as does NK. Torah True whatever is even smaller and newer than NK. So we are talking about a few thousand people, at most, out of tens of millions of Jews, and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Jews worldwide. Both of these are classic cases of what WP:NPOV#Undue weight considers the tiny minority whose opinion does not belong in any article, other than the article about the fringe groups themselves. -- Avi 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering how frequently David Duke references appear in Israel-related articles, including this one, that seems to be a marginal argument. True Torah Jews claims to have mobilized 10,000 people for a demonstration in New York, and pictures do show a street full of people in black hats carrying their banners, so it's not just a few people. We still have that "counterfeit Jew" graffiti poster in the article, even though that's from an even smaller group. The notion of "undue weight" seems to vary depending on which side the organization is on. --John Nagle 20:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The million man march claimed a million people too, John. Pictures of 300 people look like a lot. They are so marginal as to be a violation of undue weight to add them. -- Avi 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Judaism has only a 0.22% market share worldwide.. That's arguably marginal. More to the point, I'm the only editor so far in this section to cite any real sources, although Jayjg (talk · contribs) did add links of questionable relevancy to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Satan. I'm not seeing any counterarguments cited to reliable sources. I'll wait a day or two to see what comes in, but so far, I'm not seeing anything that justifies excluding this material from the article. --John Nagle 22:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than WP:NPOV#Undue weight, of course . Yes Judaism is marginal, but Anti-Semitism relates to Judaism, so that argument is specious and facetious. Secondly, according to your own statistics, NK would have approximately a 0.00000066% market share, do you realize how rediculous that sounds? I think I now need to ask for a “neutral” editor to weigh in, for you have not answered my points -- Avi 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Satmar sect (the "True Torah Jews"?) apparently number about 120,000, with the biggest concentration (25,000 to 50,000; numbers vary ) in Brooklyn, New York City. The Neturei Karta are apparently much smaller; the only number I can find is 1200, and that's not from a good source. The Satmar are numerous enough to be a force in New York City politics. --John Nagle 03:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

John, do you have a source? SlimVirgin 08:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Satmar and Neturei Karta are quite different; the former dissassociate themselves from the latter, and, indeed, signed a joint media statement condeming NK a couple of years ago. As well, the paper you are citing states Many gentile assaults use statements from Israeli or Diaspora Jewish defamers as a way of legitimizing their attacks on Israel or Jews. Furthermore, a small number of anti-Israel Jews enable the media to present a Jewish community divided on key Israeli policy. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz mentions that the Boston Globe published two pictures of Israel's 55th anniversary parade: one of pro-Israel groups carrying flags and the other of the Neturei Karta, a small ultra-Orthodox group at a counter-demonstration, carrying banners that included the slogan "real Jews are anti-Zionists." This created the impression that an equal number of Neturei Karta and Zionists attended the parade. It doesn't bring Neturei Karta as an example of New anti-Semitism, but rather highlights the deceptive treatment of groups like NK which allows people to pretend that there is significant division in the Jewish community, rather than significant consensus with (as always) a few cranks disagreeing. In fact, your own section here is a perfect example of what Dershowitz and the paper are pointing out. Jayjg 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Neturei Karta is small enough to ignore, but Satmar is large enough to be notable. That's a start. --John Nagle 16:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

Surprising. Indeed surprising. How come there is no mention of what Lewis's definition of Anti-Semitism is? And that what Anti-semtism is NOT. Who wrote this section? Please let me know. --Aminz 11:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You've already had this discussion, over a month ago: please see #Lewis and Taguieff above. Perhaps you forgot. In any event, can you please explicitly state exactly which sentences or paragraphs you think violate NPOV, and why? Jayjg 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, may I ask who wrote that summary. I have a few questions for that person. Thanks very much. --Aminz 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, why do you want to know? I suspect it was SlimVirgin, since (as I noted) you discussed it (above) with her at the time. Anyway, please explicitly state exactly which sentences or paragraphs you think violate NPOV, and why; otherwise the tag will have to go. Jayjg 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is surprising to me that there is no mention of Lewis's two criterion of checking whether something is anti-semitism or not (despite my discussions with SlimVirgin above). These were the main points of Lewis. This section is written in a way to make it sound as if Lewis is agreeing with what was already said in this article. Nothing about the following saying of Lewis for example:

There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic.

I added something to the intro but it was removed immediately; now I see this section. --Aminz 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, we discussed this before. This article is about the concept of the new anti-Semitism, so we are only interested in what Lewis has to say about that specifically. We can't go into his views in general; there isn't enough space for one thing but they also aren't relevant or, insofar as they are, he explains them himself in the article cited. SlimVirgin 07:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you this question: The title of Lewis's article is about "new anti-semitism". Why does he talk about anti-semitism there? When he is talking about anti-semtism in modern world and its examples, is he talking about new-anti semtism or the old one? --Aminz 07:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

When he talks about anti-Semitism in the modern world, he's almost certainly talking about what he calls the third wave or new anti-Semitism. But it would depend on the context. Do you have an example? SlimVirgin 07:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The *opening* paragraph of his article on "new anti-semtism" reads

There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic.

Do you think this refers to current anti-semtism or the old one? --Aminz 07:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say it refers to any kind of anti-Semitism: religious, racial, or ideological. SlimVirgin 07:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly in the context of criticizing the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism. Do you think it is *not* in the context of new anti-semtism? (Also please note that this is the opening paragraph on the article). --Aminz 07:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I would say it refers to any kind of anti-Semitism. But I don't see the point of the question. SlimVirgin 07:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question just to make sure I've understood it correctly: you think that the above quote is about anti-Semitism in general and therefore could not be used in this article since it is irrelevant to new anti-semitism. --Aminz 07:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Perhaps you could just make your point rather than asking me questions. The reason I left that quote out of the section is that other people have said the same thing, so it's not part of Lewis's unique argument about new anti-Semitism (as opposed to anti-Semitism in general), which is that he regards it as a third wave. We can't repeat everything that every source we use has ever said. SlimVirgin 08:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why I asked just to make sure I haven't misunderstood your sentence "This article is about the concept of the new anti-Semitism, so we are only interested in what Lewis has to say about that specifically."

Here are my concrete suggestions:

Clearly Lewis is a proponent of the concept. But his POV is not included in the sentence :"Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland, are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism."

So, I suggest this:

"Some proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland, are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism. Other proponents hold that new anti-semtism does exist but it is "perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism" and even further "to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic".

Also,

We start the opening of the subsection on Lewis like the opening of his own article. --Aminz 08:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding Lewis to the intro, because we don't cite anyone else's particular views, but I've added something to his section to reflect your concerns. Does that help? SlimVirgin 09:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I modified it a bit. But Lewis is very notable. He is a proponent of the concept and doesn't "argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland, are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism." This sentence is quite unfactual. --Aminz 09:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the meaning of NAS? --Aminz 08:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lewis is very notable as a historian of Islam. What makes him notable on the topic of New anti-Semitism? Jayjg 14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lewis for the third time

Aminz, the material you added to the intro has nothing to do with NAS. First, we can't single out Lewis's opinion for the lead, because why choose that source and not some other? More importantly, when he wrote: "to hate and persecute Jews is not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism," he wasn't talking only about new anti-Semitism. He was making a general point and using a rhetorical flourish to make it (because in reality, as you know and as Lewis knows, anyone who "hates and persecutes Jews" is going to turn out to be an anti-Semite). The material is completely inappropriate for the lead section because it's far too idiosyncratic and not on-topic. SlimVirgin 08:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you keep trying to insert in various places that Lewis said that "criticism of the state of Israel or Zionism" is not necessarily anti-Semitism. But all the sources would agree with that, so it's inappropriate to attribute it only to him. SlimVirgin 08:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making a section for me. :P Can you please solve this contradition for me. 1. "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism. " 2. Bernard Lewis is a renowned, distinguished, notable,... scholar. 3. Bernard Lewis is a proponent of the concept

(1 & 3) --> "Bernard Lewis argues that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism."

But this sentence is not correct --> The factuality of the intro is disputed. --Aminz 08:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think it is not correct? Lewis holds the view that NAS is ideological anti-Semitism, based on opposition to the State of Israel and involving the demonization of Israel/Jews and the holding of them to standards not applied to others. Those are his two key criteria. The lead describes proponents' views in general; we can't get into the specifics of what each person thinks in the lead section. SlimVirgin 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Will read the article more closely again and will get back. :) --Aminz 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have only read Lewis's work(and part of Mark Cohen's work) about anti-semitism. It is a new concept for me hadn't heard before. So, that's all I knew about it and I try to be factual. --Aminz 08:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for telling us that. I think that may be the source of the problem. You appear to feel that Lewis's work is particularly important in the field of NAS, but it isn't. It's certainly worth mentioning, and even worth a section, but definitely not so important that it needs to be specifically highlighted in the lead or emphasized outside his section. SlimVirgin 08:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lewis's area of expertise is not anti-semitism of course, but the template on "Anti-Semitism" mentions Lewis as one of the writers on Anti-Semtism and in any case, I am a fan of his. Anyways, the article should be written in a way (if necessary using weasel words) to avoid POV problems. --Aminz 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words are best avoided, and there's no POV problem with saying "proponents of the concept argue ..." SlimVirgin 09:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If a very recent reliable source says that "all proponents argue that way", then I'll have no objection to it. Please give me time to review Lewis's article again. Cheers, --Aminz 09:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine any source saying that every single proponent makes every single one of these points, but then if we had to source things that way, 99 per cent of the encyclopedia would have to be deleted. SlimVirgin 09:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, Lewis if very notable when it comes to the history of Islam. What makes him particularly notable when it comes to New anti-Semitism? Jayjg 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Term/concept contd (restored after deletion by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs))

Taking a closer look at who's being cited as supporting the definition of "new anti-semitism" is useful. Looking at notes 1-7, the ones being used to justify the definition of "new anti-semitism", which cited articles actually mention it? Note 1, Sacks, uses the term. Notes 2 and 3, Chelser and Kinsella, use it in the title. Note 4, the Guardian article, doesn't use the term, and is mostly about Islamic violence. Note 5, I don't have that book. Note 6, Bauer, doesn't use the term; it speaks of the "fourth wave of anti-semitism". Note 7, Strauss, does use the term. So, following the "Jayjg rule", that cites which don't mention the exact term can't be used, we should delete notes 4 and 6. This leaves us with Sacks, Chesler, Kinsella, Strauss, and possibly Endelman as authority for the phrase.

Now who are these people? Sacks is head rabbi in the UK. Chesler is a feminist activist. Kinsella is a "Toronto-based Canadian lawyer, author, musician, political consultant, lobbyist and commentator." Strauss is an American journalist and political writer (Foreign Policy, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). Endelman is "William Haber Professor of Modern Jewish History at the University of Michigan" and the only one with academic credentials on the subject. There's some discussion of his position in these notes on a 2003 conference, where Endelman and Dr. Steven Zipperstein from Stanford disagreed on the extent to which criticism of Israel should be considered anti-Semitism. Endelman himeself wasn't quoted as using the term, and no reference Google can find shows him using it. Does someone have his book? Does he actually use the term, or does he just see this as part of the long historical trend of anti-Semitism? An Endelman quote actually mentioning "new anti-Semitism" is needed. --John Nagle 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone has a valid objection, I'm going to delete Note 4 (Guardian article) and Note 6 (Bauer) from the lead paragraph, since they don't actually mention "new anti-Semitism" and shouldn't be used as authority for the term. Try to find a quote by Endelman actually mentioning "new anti-Semitism", or that goes, too, but I won't do that quickly; he's written a whole book and is a historian of anti-Semitism. If we lose Endelman, all the rest are basically pundits. Please try to find some serious academic support for the term, or at least support in the press from a non-partisan source. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to your removing footnotes. They all convey information that is relevant. SlimVirgin 17:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The irrelevant references may need to go in a different place. Probably the "further reading" section. Even you argue against using Chesler as an authority. But try to find a good quote from Endelman that actually uses the term "new anti-Semitism". He's the best reference in the list. --John Nagle 18:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the term, but about the concept. There's no need for sources to use the term "new anti-Semitism"; it only has to be clear that they are, indeed, talking about that. (At least one calls it "new anti-Jewishness," for example.) And what do you mean by "even you" argue against Chesler as an authority? When have I ever given the impression that I support using sources who are not academics working in a relevant discipline? SlimVirgin 18:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You did that on this talk page, where you wrote: I'm also not happy using Chesler as a source, because she has no relevant academic qualifications. However, her book is popular and often cited, so we can't ignore her entirely. Nothing in this article actually relies on her as a source; she is cited in this footnote only as a "see also." SlimVirgin (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I wrote. What I asked was what you meant by "even you." SlimVirgin 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Endelman does talk explicitly about new anti-Semitism. What made you think he didn't? SlimVirgin 18:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

John, I've just read back your posts to this page, and they're all based on misunderstandings because you haven't read the sources. Yet you post question after question, expecting other people to fill in the gaps for you. That is neither fair nor reasonable. We are all volunteers here. With respect, there's no reason I should have to spend time explaining issues to you that are already clearly explained and properly sourced. If you want to know more, you have to read the books. There's no getting round that; there's no shortcut. It's what I had to do too. Your comments aren't only false; they are also insulting e.g. "Please try to find some serious academic support ..." The article is full of "serious academic support," which was put together after a considerable amount of reading and work — research that you're now poo-pooing without having read it yourself. Please reconsider the reasonableness of that position. SlimVirgin 18:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've ordered three of the books cited in this article; I'm reading Chesler now. The claimed "serious academic support" may not hold up under scrutiny; certainly, the seven references in the lead paragraph didn't. If you don't have the time to do the job properly, you're under no obligation to edit Misplaced Pages. Why not go and do something else for a while? Thanks. --John Nagle 19:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There's not much point in reading Chesler if it's this article you're interested in, because there's no information in the article that relies on her. The best people to read are Fischel, Taguieff, Cotler, Klug, Wistrich, Zipperstein, Lewis, Raab, Bauer, Finkelstein. If you want to cut the reading down to the bare bones, then read Klug and Wistrich. The article that best sums up Klug's position, if you want to read only one, is "In search of clarity" in Catalyst, link in the references section.

As for your final comment, you're being gratuitously rude so I won't respond. SlimVirgin 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Chesler's book just came in first; I'm waiting for the others. As to Klug, Klug is the author of "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism", after all, and in "In search of clarity" he questions the desirability of using the term "new anti-Semitism" in connection with political criticism of Israel. So he's not a good source for the term. The current lead paragraph doesn't cite him, anyway, so that's irrelevant to the validity of that list of seven citations. --John Nagle 20:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you're focusing so much on the first sentence. Once again (as several people have told you), this is not an article about the term, but about the concept. As such, Klug is an excellent source for it, because he explains what he think is wrong with it, and he has formulated arguments, rather than simply making claims. It's in reading the arguments for and against that the concept (its extent, whether it's valid) will become clearer to you. SlimVirgin 20:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We're making progress. There haven't been any substantive objections to the note by note analysis I made above; just attempts to change the subject. More later. --John Nagle 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also had problems with the opening sentence and refs given for it, good luck changing it, or even deleting the unrelated refs to be replaced by more relevant ones. --Coroebus 19:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

John, as stated a number of times, this article is about the current concept of New anti-Semitism, not the term, which, as discussed in New anti-Semitism (term), has actually covered a number of different phenomena, including, for example, what is now known as Racial anti-Semitism. Also, can you explain what makes, for example, Klug an authority on this subject, but people like Sacks, Chesler, and Foxman not authorities? And finally, please don't invent things like "the Jayjg rule", that's really verging on yet another personal attack. Jayjg 17:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who said that Chesler was problematic as an authority. That was first Jayjg, who, above, wrote "Pipes hasn't written a book about this, and we're not really using Chesler as a source, but are trying to stick to more academic views. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)". SlimVirgin, wrote "I'm also not happy using Chesler as a source, because she has no relevant academic qualifications. However, her book is popular and often cited, so we can't ignore her entirely. Nothing in this article actually relies on her as a source; she is cited in this footnote only as a "see also." SlimVirgin (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)". So it's an agreed position of Jayjg and SlimVirgin that Chesler isn't a good source, and it's too late for objections from them to the contrary. Thus, Chesler should come out of the footnote list in the lead paragraph as a justification for the definition. --John Nagle 18:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because she's not a preferred source of ours is no reason to remove her. But you didn't answer the question: what is it that makes you (you, John Nagle, not you, Jayjg or SlimVirgin) believe that Klug is an authority on it, but Sacks, Chesler, and Foxman aren't? SlimVirgin 19:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Klug isn't cited there. Foxman isn't cited either. We're looking at the seven existing citations on the lead line. Klug is cited in the lead paragraph, but not in support of the definition; Klug is cited as a critic of it.

Now if the phrase "new anti-Semitism" is viewed as a political loaded term, this becomes easier. We just have to track who's for it and who's against it, and what groups they speak for. In that case, more references are valid, but are viewed as partisan. --John Nagle 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

John, can you explain what makes you think, for example, that Klug is an authority on this subject, but people like Sacks, Chesler, and Foxman not authorities? You seem to be avoiding the question, but, given that you're trying to remove relevant citations, it's rather a critical one if we're trying to decide exactly who we should be quoting or citing in this article. Jayjg 20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We still have some problems with the validity of those first citations, as mentioned above, so we need to keep this section of discussion until they are resolved. --John Nagle 17:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Two historical threads

I think I'm starting to see why we're having so much trouble here figuring out the history. There seem to be two main threads in "new anti-Semitism". The first is the left/liberal opposition from the New Left/Radical Left of the 1960s and starting at the Six-day war of 1967. That's what Forster and Epstein talk about, writing in 1974. That thread lives on, today tied to the anti-globalization movement. But it's mostly talk, not violence. Endelman, writing in 2005, describes it as "worrisome, but not yet threatening" (Endelman, "Antisemitism in Western Europe Today", p. 77)

The other thread stems from the movement of sizable Islamic populations into Western Europe. That's the part that dates from the 1990s. That's where the violence is coming from. "Muslim youth, drunk on the heady rhetoric of radical Islam, do threaten Jews". (Endelman, p. 77)

Most of the disagreement stems from different interpretations of how these two threads, both real and both called "new anti-Semitism", relate to each other. Sources disagree on this, and US and Western European views seem also to differ. --John Nagle 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've been arguing for quite some time that the term has multiple meanings, and I am in general agreement with this assessment. CJCurrie 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both these comments. It is bound to be difficult to write with consensus about such a strongly contested concept/notion. There has been similar controversy, for example, in how the article totalitarianism should be approached. But at least in that case the description of that concept is kept separate from the recounting of the history of the period to which it mainly relates. Telling the history of anti-semitism from the 1990s to the present would be a much easier task and one that is arguably more useful to the encyclopedia. If it were completed first then perhaps it would be possible to return to this article with new understandings. Itsmejudith 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's tough. The context back to the six-day war gives some sense of how the liberal left and radical Islam, rather unexpected allies, ended up on the same side in parts of Europe. But we could probably drop the material from the 1940s, Stalin, and the "Doctor's Plot", which really belongs to the history of Stalinism, and start at the six-day war in 1967. --John Nagle 22:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed Jewish history-related articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Former good article nominees