"

We can have material split across three articles, if that is the best way to do it.  Or we can have two articles, with a redirect from new antisemtitism to contemporary antisemitism, or vice versa.  The advantage of multiple articles is that it gives a sharper focus on a specific issue.  The disadvantage is duplication.  

The problem I have with the current article is that it isn't clear to me what the distinction between new antisemitism and 'old' antisemitism is, or even if there is one.  Some duplication is OK but when I have no way to decide what should go into new antisemitism and what should go into antisemitism, I think there's a problem.  The advantage of contemporary antisemitism over new antisemitism is that it has quite a clear definition.  The advantage of new antisemitism over contemporary antisemitism could be that new antisemitism is not just antisemitism in the here and now but somehow something different.  That we have a history of new antisemitism suggests that a difference exists, but I don't see what that difference is.

The current introduction says that new antisemitism is ""the wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks."" But it then says what is different about new antisemitism is that old antisemitism ""was largely associated with the political right.""  So I'm confused.  Is it the distinguishing factor the timing, or is it more to do with the source, in which case perhaps we should be talking not about new antisemitism but about new antisemites; a new chorus singing an old song?  In the introduction we mention anti-zionism in passing, but we don't make clear what the relationship between it and new antisemitism is, we just say that there is one.

The history section talks about a Soviet new anti-Semitism, and says this antisemtism was ""close to its modern form"".  But it doesn't explain what close means.  Presumably there are important ways in which it is similar and ways in which it is different, but the article doesn't explain what they are.

Further down, we seem to be equating new antisemitism with anti-zionism.  Maybe this is the crux of my issues with this article.  We have anti-zionism; hatred of/opposition to an jewish state.  We have anti-semitism; hatred of/opposition to the jewish race (common usage. technically arabs are also semites, but lets not go there now).   We can also identify anti-Israel sentiment; opposition to some or all aspects of Israel.  These things all overlap, but it's hard to say that any of them are the same, or a subset of each other.  For example there were jews opposed to the creation of Israel because it was man-made, not created by god.  And some dislike of Israel is anti-semitic, but not all of it.  The boundaries are fuzzy, but for each of these concepts there is a clear and unmistakable core.  I can't say that for new-antisemtism.  I can't identify what new-antisemitism is that old-antisemtism is not.

To me, new antisemitism seems to be a grab bag of an expression that mixes some different issues:  1. the apparent resurgence in antisemitism, which I suggest properly belongs at contemporary antisemitism; 2. the difficulty in distinguishing between legitimate/illegitimate criticism of israel, which I suggest belongs here, or possibly at anti-zionism; and 3. the changing nature of the anti-semite (left/right/arab/european/russian/...) which I suggest belongs at contemporary antisemitism and/or at antisemitism.  Regards, Ben Aveling "