Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 2

message: This needs clarification. There is no introduction to this subsection which explains who or what is to be falsely alleged and how that relates to anti-Semitism. Please include some criteria for inclusion so that readers can understand why the material which follows is relevant.
Thanks
--Uncle Bungle 13:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of writers, politicians, public figures etc. have made the claim that one of the manifestations of the "New anti-Semitism" involves false allegations made about Israel and Jews, with the intent of stirring up hatred against them.  The section lists examples they commonly use to support that claim. Jayjg (talk) 15:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Proof?  Why would that be relevant? Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: You have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia.  It's purpose is not to "prove" or "disprove" things, or to do any other kind of original research, but rather to report on them in a WP:NPOV way.  That is what this article does. Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Nonsense.  The phenomenon has been written about at length by quite a number of respected authors and others, and has even been given full length book treatements.  And it's hardly a "neologism" any more; it's been around for half a decade, and gets over 30,000 Google hits.  Wikipedia is reporting on the claims of those who support it, and the claims of those who decry it, the essence of NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to focus on the irrelevant part of the statement. Let me try again: If the story about Jenin was infact to incite anti-Semitism, then that should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Seriously, its just as likely that the whole thing was a media error, not racism, and thats why unless it can be proven to be racism, it has to go. --Uncle Bungle 20:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be trying to make a case again, Uncle Bungle.  Advocates of the idea of "New anti-Semitism" bring the histrionics about Jenin as a major example of the phenomenon they claim exists.  The fact that you think it was just "media error, not racism" isn't particularly relevant. Jayjg (talk) 20:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  False allegations 

message: That is how the term is, as a matter of fact, used, Christiaan; it is not simply an intention. I have supplied three more articles showing that. You're not allowed to remove edits that are properly referenced to credible publications. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Actually in can be argued that this isn't even the intended use of the term let alone its actual use. Please ask yourself which is the more NPOV term to use. —Christiaan 00:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Christiaan, you're giving me the strong impression that you've taken ownership of this article and will not allow me to make a reasonable edit. As I said above, it is referenced that this is how the word is used by mainstream journalists. You have no reason to dilute that. If you want to argue that their use of the term is somehow not a real use, but merely an intended one (whatever that means), please supply a source; otherwise, leave my edit alone. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that Christiaan's version less POV. Anti-semitism is hurled about as a "power word", with the intent to defame and silence anyone critical of Israeli policy or things jewish. "new" anti-semitism is a neologism for cases where it is especially hard to make the case for anti-semitism, and so even the slanderers feel a need for a new term so as to preserve credibility. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Christiaan's version is unreferenced. Mine is referenced. And the word IS used to mean that. I am simply stating a fact. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
*Doesn't anyone else notice that this sentence (regardless of "used" v. "intended") is screwy? Although the term is intended to describe acts of bigotry closely related to historical anti-Semitism, it asserts that contemporary anti-Semitism often takes a different form and is based on different pretexts.. How can a word assert something? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: True. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
See Sapir Worf, words are powerful. If I hear the word "rapist" or "racist" or whatever, I tend to dislike those it is used against psychologically, before I have a chance to know all the details. Many people no longer want to hear all the details once someone is labeled anti-semitic, they already have there mind made up as soon as the power word is dropped. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: The charge of new anti-Semitism is meant to apply to all groups that express unreasonable hostility toward Israel; to the extent that the left-wing tends to level condemnation and perceived unfair criticism against Israel, they are accused of promoting new anti-Semitism.
This passage needs a serious look at I think. It reads as if to conflate the "expression of unreasonable hostility toward Israel" with the "left-wing". —Christiaan 01:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro and the left-wing 

message: From the article "Today, the number of anti-Zionist Jewish groups worldwide is small." True enough, if Zionism is taken to mean merely believing in the right of the State of Isreal to exist, but the number of Jewish groups opposed to the policies of the Israeli government is far larger. The term Zionism is much more problematic than when there was no state of Israel. At this point, it tends to be associated with a certain maximalist Israeli agenda, not with those who feel that the proper goals of Zionism have already been achieved, and that present Israeli policies excede what is appropriate.
For example, Yesh G'vul and Brit Tzedek v'Shalom are both, in some sense, Zionist, but they are constantly subject to attacks from the Israeli right and its supporters as "self-hating Jews" for what is perceived to be an insufficiently zealous Zionism. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Does anyone characterize them as "anti-Zionist"? Jayjg (talk) 15:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Zionist Jewish groups 

message: We currently have a sentence in the lead section, "The Left in particular is accused of promoting new anti-Semitism in the form of unfair criticism and condemnation of Israel." I guess my main problem is with "The Left in particular..." What could be less particular? Surely the claim is not that all socialists, left-liberals, etc., even those who are Jews, even those who are Israelis, are promoting anti-Semitism. But that's what this says. I'm not sure exactly what it means to say, but could whoever wrote this take a shot at rewriting it to say what they actually mean? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
: I now see that this sentence resulted from discussion above. Sorry, folks, but you still definitely don't have this right. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
:: I didn't wrote this sentence, but I think it tends more toward radical left groups (and when I say radical, I mean radical on the political-national spectrum, regardless of economical positions). MathKnight 08:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Left 

message: Just curious, is the image in this article (FrenchCemetery103004-01.jpg) an example of "New" anti-semitism or the old anti-semitism since neonazis are on the Right of the political spectrum, and the defacement doesn't have much to do with unfair criticism of Israel?  I'm thinking it would be more appropriate in the Anti-semitism article. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 19:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Good point.  I believe it is already in that article. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Unfortunenately, I don't think Wikipedia has better images on the subject. Do you have any sources for more related images we can use? I think I can screen-capture some images from Indymedia websites, including some cartoon of Latuff (I don't know what it is the copyright status of Latuff's cartoons). MathKnight 19:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of Neonazi defacement of cemetery

message: * For many  people who use the phrase "new antisemitism", it's basically the same as old antisemitism. It's new in the sense of "new water". And it doesn't only exist on the left.
Here is Jonathan Sachs:
 the new antisemitism—and it is new—is a global phenomenon conveyed by Internet, e-mail, television and video, and we do not yet know how the new communications media will affect its spread. --- It is coming simultaneously from three different directions: first, a radicalized Islamist youth inflamed by extremist rhetoric; second, a left-wing anti-American cognitive élite with strong representation in the European media; third, a resurgent far right, as anti-Muslim as it is anti-Jewish. 
Benyamin Netanyahu:
The past two years have witnessed a recrudescence of antisemitism in Western Europe the likes of which have not been seen since the end of World War II. Synagogues, schools and other Jewish buildings have been torched and Jews have been subjected to physical and verbal abuse. While most of these acts have been the work of Muslims, it is the European elites who have created an ambience in which antisemitism is no longer considered unacceptable in "polite company". ---
Future historians may yet call this "new antisemitism" (the term coined to describe what has been happening in Europe in the last 2 and a half years, since the Palestinians abandoned diplomacy for violence) a watershed in the long gloomy history of Jew-hatred on the European continent. Today, more than five decades after French police rounded up Jews on the streets of Paris for deportation to the East, no Jew with a kippah on his head feels secure walking the streets of any city or town in Europe.
Denis Diderot 21:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The newness of the new antisemitism is exaggerated too much 

message: Any comments on the proposal to change the current name of the article from "New anti-Semitism" to "Neo anti-Semitism", and direct this page to it. Grammatically, "Neo" is correct, "New" just makes it sound like it really is new and not a modern variant based on previous concepts. 
I know it's not nice to compare, but it is for this very same gramatical reasoning that we say "Neo Nazism" not "New Nazism". Also note the very different meaning of "New Nazi" (someon who recently joined the original nazi party) and "Neo Nazi" (not a member of the actual Nazi party, but a member of a modern variant). Al-Andalus 05:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New anti-Semitism or Neo anti-Semitism

message: What I particularly like about this article is the supreme irony of quoting Dershowitz saying that no Jewish leader has claimed criticism of Israel is dismissed as "antisemitism". He is too modest and, as is appropriate for a lawyer, very careful. I don't think Jewish leaders have ever suggested that criticisms of "particular policies" are driven by antisemitism. It would be nonsense to say: "You criticised the 'security barrier' because you hate Jews" -- transparently dumb. But in a broader sense, this is exactly what is done. In this article Dershowitz makes the accusation he very often does, that antisemitism is a "factor" in attacking Israel's policies. IOW, he does exactly what is being described as a straw man. 
I couldn't find in this article any mention of Norman Finkelstein, who levels precisely this charge (among others) at Dershowitz. Finkelstein suggests that the "new anti-Semitism" is fabricated. A balanced article would have referenced him.
I have no interest in editing this article whatsoever. I'll leave that to editors who are more closely interested in this subject than I am. I'm not watching it either, so any comments to my talk page, please.
I want to make absolutely clear that I do not agree with all of Finkelstein's positions, particularly where the Holocaust is concerned, nor do I disagree with all of Dershowitz's. It would be just too ironic to be accused of anti-Semitism on the page about anti-Semitism. I'm asking for balance, not anti-anything-ism. Grace Note 02:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dershowitz 

message: The following was the subject of dispute:
;---
…the new antisemitism—and it is new—is a global phenomenon conveyed by Internet, e-mail, television and video, and we do not yet know how the new communications media will affect its spread. … It is coming simultaneously from three different directions: first, a radicalized Islamist youth inflamed by extremist rhetoric; second, a left-wing anti-American cognitive élite with strong representation in the European media; third, a resurgent far right, as anti-Muslim as it is anti-Jewish. 	
Opponents of the term generally acknowledge that the "old" anti-Semites have opportunistically latched onto aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Arab anti-Zionism has led to a growth of anti-Jewish as well as anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world, but argue that claims of a "new" anti-Semitism have largely, or even primarily, been used as a tactic to stifle what these opponents of the term see as legitimate criticism of Israel. Many have questioned the linkage between anti-Semitism and opposition to Israel.
;---
SV|t|add 03:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: I know that we live not a hundred years ago but today; at the same time, I hold that we can't neglect to delve under the surface.  In particular, what are the motivations of the anti-Zionists, and why do we Jews, or most of us Jews, equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism?
Yes, it isn't our job to untangle their motivations, much less to state them.  But we have to remember, and note, that a great deal of the anti-Zionists in the West have nothing to do with Israel at all.  A student is rejected from a British University because he was in the Israeli Army!  Now, it's difficult to withhold judgment, isn't it?
To what you've written about anti-Zionism I can suggest adding only the analysis by which we Jews conclude that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites.  Of course, the answering analysis is, stop with the conspiracy theories!  That's very difficult to argue without appearing out of your mind.  But note that not all of us who conduct the former analysis make conspiracy theories. --VKokielov 05:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has been unprotected. -SV|t|add 17:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democracy and quickness of wit 

message: The article opening is way too long and rambling. Paragraph-length quotes really don't belong here. They should be placed further down in the article. LevelCheck 18:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article opening

message: The following recently added paragraph is, at best, marginally coherent, and seems rather POV: what the heck are "modern Jewish eyes"? And why should the narrative voice of the article say, "'Statements of principle' from the side have always been considered bad manners in diplomacy…"?
: These perceptions in modern Jewish eyes arise because the vast majority of Israel's critics have little to do with the conflict. "Statements of principle" from the side have always been considered bad manners in diplomacy, whilst in criticism of Israel around the world exactly these statements of principle (many of them on loan from Arab sources) dominate.
I'd be inclined to just remove, but this is obviously a contentious article, so what do others think about the paragraph? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:33, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
*It should be reworded to conform with NPOV. The paragraph clearly expresses what many of the proponents of the "new anti-Semitism" epithet feel, but Wikipedia should not lend editorial weight to its actual truth or falsity. LevelCheck 01:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be Mr. Marginally Coherent.  No matter.  I'm not contentious.  I'll try again. --VKokielov 04:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent, POV paragraph 

message: There are far too many external links in this article.  We should only be using the most relevant ones, or at least references to content in the article.  If footnotes have to be used, either hidden or explicit, that may solve the problem. --Viriditas  | Talk 02:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I would like to add and clarify content in this article using Pierre-Andre Taguieff's book.  If anyone has any information about the author, that would be great. --Viriditas  | Talk 02:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pierre-Andre Taguieff

message: === A new linguistic law ===
Whenever a cultural phenomenon X reappears after a period of decline or absence, some people will call it "the new X" or "neo-X". Thus, for example "the new romantics", "the new realists", "neo-Nazism", "Neoliberalism" etc. These expressions don't imply that X is something new. To the contrary, they assert that X is something old that has re-emerged. But as soon as people realize that X has reappeared, they begin to compare the new X with the old X. And then they may discover some differences, and they may say things like "the new X is B, whereas the old X was A". Subsequently some people may discover that some of the new X is A as well. Rather then saying "the new X that is A", some people will use expressions like "the old X", "traditional X", "classical X", "paleo-X". Thus at this point some people will include "the new X that is A" in the concept of "the new X", and they will continue to call it "the new X". Other people will also include it in "new X", but often refer to it as "old X". Finally, some people will exclude "X that is A" altogether from "the new X". 
=== On the history of the expression "the new anti-Semitism" and the history of the new anti-Semitism ===
The expression "the new anti-Semitism" first became popular in the early 1970s and was used to describe certain phenomena noted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The main phenomenon was the reappearance and apparent acceptability of anti-Semitic stereotypes in public discourse. The expression was controversial from the beginning, since people were called anti-Semitic who didn't see themselves as anti-Semitic or didn't want to be seen as anti-Semitic. Especially controversial was the claim that words like "Zionist" and "Zionism" could be euphemisms for "Jew" and "the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world". To be more precise, the claim was not controversial when applied to some neo-Nazi groups who had clearly adopted this usage in their "exoteric" pronouncements. (Though it was of course denied by the neo-Nazis.) But the claim was widely controversial even when applied to other openly racist groups. The expression became even more controversial when some commentators claimed that almost all forms of anti-Zionism were anti-Semitism. The basis for such claims was (1) that "Zionism" was "Jewish nationalism". To be against Zionism was therefore to be against Jewish nationalism. Because anti-Zionist supported other forms of nationalism (e.g. Arab or Palestinian) they were clearly biased against Jews. (2) Even if Zionism was understood in a more narrow sense as support for the Jewish state, anti-Zionists applied standards to Israel that they did not apply to other states. For example, they did not demand that Arab states should cease being Moslem. The anti-Zionists obviously didn't accept this argument. They generally rejected the first wide definition of Zionism and argued that Zionism should be seen as a form of colonialism, imperialism or racism, whereas Arab and Moslem nationalism (Islamism) should be seen as a struggle for independence.
=== On the year 2001 ===
In 2001 Pierre-André Taguieff, a French historian of political ideas, presented an updated version of his old analysis of "the new Judeophobia".  He argued that after the 1967 Six-Day War, a "new anti-Semitism" was spread across the world around a "conspiracy myth" labeled (by Taguieff) "absolute anti-Zionism". The main sources for the myth were the Arab Moslem world and the Soviet empire. Around demonized images of Zionism and Israel, all the ancient anti-Semitic themes were conjured. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, was massively diffused in 1967. He further maintained that a second wave of Judeophobia had swept across the world in the late 1990s. This time around the Soviet empire was out of business, but judeophobic themes were often amplified by passing from some Arab source through the far right to some leftist groups.
Taguieff listed 4 characteristics of the "new Judeophobia": (1) The massive use of anti-Racism to promote anti-Jewish goals, (2) "Banalization" of the themes and language of Holocaust deniers, (3) Legitimization of anti-Semitic agitation by reference to radical anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism and criticism of free-trade globalization, and (4) Interaction with Islamist notions of Israel as the "little Satan" mixed with a demonized image of the Zionist control of the Western world.  He thus disctinguished between "the old Judeophobia", which was based on explicit racism, and "the new Judeophobia", which was based on "demonological or absolute anti-Zionism". Taguieff's terminology has been adopted by other researchers and commentators and thus "the new Judeophobia" is a rather well-defined expression which means (in general) the modern (post 1967) use of anti-Semitic themes legitimized by anti-Zionism. Sometimes the expression "new anti-Semitism" has been used as a synonym of "new Judeophobia".
=== On the ambiguity of the term "new anti-Semitism" ===
From a November 2001 editorial by  Amotz Asa-El in Jerusalem Post:
In the post-war era, again, anti-Semitism fueled a Zionist psychosis across the former Eastern Bloc, ultimately unleashing another mass immigration to Israel.
YET, TODAY'S challenge is different, since all these precedents were part of the Jews' European experience. Today's crisis is about anti-Semitism entering an entirely new phase in its already elaborate history.
Previous turning points in the development of anti- Semitism - since early Christianity condemned our forefathers, ourselves, and our descendants as Christ's killers - included the barring of Jews from public office in the waning days of the Roman Empire, a measure that socially marginalized the Jews; prohibitions on land ownership and cultivation, which enhanced the Jews' image as transient guests wherever they resided; the 1096 Crusaders' mass murder of entire communities in Germany; the 1215 Lateran Council's yellow-badge decree, which made the Jew carry his own discrimination wherever he went; the late Medieval expulsions, which made the threat of displacement a hallmark of the Jewish psyche; the 1648 massacres in East Europe, which happened despite an unwritten alliance between the Jews and the Polish nobility; and, of course, modern anti-Semitism, which depicted the Jews as nearly anyone's demon, from the fascists' anti-patriots to the Marxists' plutocrats and the Stalinists' "rootless cosmopolitans."
Now, just when the Christianity that invented it goes through pains to turn its back on anti-Semitism, it is being adopted by an Islamism intent to scapegoat the Jews for its own failures and eager to mobilize deep-seated prejudices among Christians against the Jews.
Newsweek cover story April 2002:
Many see the rise in Western Europe of what they call the "new anti-Semitism" as even more worrisome. Since serious Israeli-Palestinian fighting began in the fall of 2000, there has been a spike in harassment and vandalism targeting Jews, especially in France. Much of that is in poor communities where immigrant Muslims and immigrant Jews from North Africa live side by side. Unemployment and frustrations are high. Arab satellite stations, as well as European news networks, broadcast a steady stream of reports on Palestinians under fire, their homes destroyed, their lands reoccupied, their children killed. There is also, in many parts of Europe, a residue of the old racist attitudes that spawned the Fascist and Nazi policies of the 1930s. One of the presidential candidates in France's upcoming elections, Jean-Marie Le Pen, skirts the limits of the law baiting both Arabs and Jews. He's expected to garner 10 percent of the vote
Murray Gordon for AJC August 2002:What is referred to as the "new anti-Semitism," which resonates so powerfully in Western Europe today, is not exactly new. Arab attacks against Jews occurred during and after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 to root out the PLO, which had been using the country as a platform to shell Israeli towns and settlements. What is different about today's Arab violence is its scope and intensity.
2003 headline from Jerusalem Post: "Jews fear 'new' anti-Semitism in quiet German city"
 Surveys say anti-Jewish assaults and incidents in much of Europe are at their most frequent since Hitler's defeat.
Germany is especially sensitive because, within living memory, Hitler put to death 6 million Jews. But violence is more prevalent in France, where slums are crowded with disaffected young Arabs.
"Of course, we're afraid - we are terrified," said Ima Buchinger, an 18-year-old student, at the Regensburg synagogue on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the nationwide Nazi pogrom of 1938.
Tall and blonde, she might pass for a Wagnerian opera diva. Still, she said, young Arabs, Turks, and Germans taunt her and her Jewish friends, sometimes threatening physical violence.
As she spoke, German police in a Volkswagen van were at their usual spot outside, just as security forces watch over synagogues in Vienna, Paris, or London.
Rabbi Dannyel Morag advises calm but caution to his Regensburg community - 700 in a city of 160,000, many of them recent Russian immigrants with a thin grasp of either Hebrew or Torah.
"So far, we're OK," he said, "but in big cities it can be terrible. Some Jews can't find non-Jewish business partners because so many Germans think there may be trouble again, and they're afraid."
--Denis Diderot 06:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity and history 

message: From a November 2001 editorial by  Amotz Asa-El in Jerusalem Post:
In the post-war era, again, anti-Semitism fueled a Zionist psychosis across the former Eastern Bloc, ultimately unleashing another mass immigration to Israel.
YET, TODAY'S challenge is different, since all these precedents were part of the Jews' European experience. Today's crisis is about anti-Semitism entering an entirely new phase in its already elaborate history.
Previous turning points in the development of anti- Semitism - since early Christianity condemned our forefathers, ourselves, and our descendants as Christ's killers - included the barring of Jews from public office in the waning days of the Roman Empire, a measure that socially marginalized the Jews; prohibitions on land ownership and cultivation, which enhanced the Jews' image as transient guests wherever they resided; the 1096 Crusaders' mass murder of entire communities in Germany; the 1215 Lateran Council's yellow-badge decree, which made the Jew carry his own discrimination wherever he went; the late Medieval expulsions, which made the threat of displacement a hallmark of the Jewish psyche; the 1648 massacres in East Europe, which happened despite an unwritten alliance between the Jews and the Polish nobility; and, of course, modern anti-Semitism, which depicted the Jews as nearly anyone's demon, from the fascists' anti-patriots to the Marxists' plutocrats and the Stalinists' "rootless cosmopolitans."
Now, just when the Christianity that invented it goes through pains to turn its back on anti-Semitism, it is being adopted by an Islamism intent to scapegoat the Jews for its own failures and eager to mobilize deep-seated prejudices among Christians against the Jews.
Newsweek cover story April 2002:
Many see the rise in Western Europe of what they call the "new anti-Semitism" as even more worrisome. Since serious Israeli-Palestinian fighting began in the fall of 2000, there has been a spike in harassment and vandalism targeting Jews, especially in France. Much of that is in poor communities where immigrant Muslims and immigrant Jews from North Africa live side by side. Unemployment and frustrations are high. Arab satellite stations, as well as European news networks, broadcast a steady stream of reports on Palestinians under fire, their homes destroyed, their lands reoccupied, their children killed. There is also, in many parts of Europe, a residue of the old racist attitudes that spawned the Fascist and Nazi policies of the 1930s. One of the presidential candidates in France's upcoming elections, Jean-Marie Le Pen, skirts the limits of the law baiting both Arabs and Jews. He's expected to garner 10 percent of the vote
Murray Gordon for AJC August 2002:What is referred to as the "new anti-Semitism," which resonates so powerfully in Western Europe today, is not exactly new. Arab attacks against Jews occurred during and after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 to root out the PLO, which had been using the country as a platform to shell Israeli towns and settlements. What is different about today's Arab violence is its scope and intensity.
2003 headline from Jerusalem Post: "Jews fear 'new' anti-Semitism in quiet German city"
 Surveys say anti-Jewish assaults and incidents in much of Europe are at their most frequent since Hitler's defeat.
Germany is especially sensitive because, within living memory, Hitler put to death 6 million Jews. But violence is more prevalent in France, where slums are crowded with disaffected young Arabs.
"Of course, we're afraid - we are terrified," said Ima Buchinger, an 18-year-old student, at the Regensburg synagogue on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the nationwide Nazi pogrom of 1938.
Tall and blonde, she might pass for a Wagnerian opera diva. Still, she said, young Arabs, Turks, and Germans taunt her and her Jewish friends, sometimes threatening physical violence.
As she spoke, German police in a Volkswagen van were at their usual spot outside, just as security forces watch over synagogues in Vienna, Paris, or London.
Rabbi Dannyel Morag advises calm but caution to his Regensburg community - 700 in a city of 160,000, many of them recent Russian immigrants with a thin grasp of either Hebrew or Torah.
"So far, we're OK," he said, "but in big cities it can be terrible. Some Jews can't find non-Jewish business partners because so many Germans think there may be trouble again, and they're afraid."
--Denis Diderot 06:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the ambiguity of the term "new anti-Semitism" 

message: In reference to Wikipedia:Lead section, the current lead is too long, too complex (not clear), and incomprehensible to the average reader.  Denis Diderot's recent addition to the lead should be added to a "History" section, as it is not necessary in the lead. The current description added by Jmabel needs to be condensed down to two small sentences.  Please try reading this article as if you were a totally disinterested reader who knew nothing about the topic.  If I were such a person and I was reading the article in its current state, I would not read past the first paragraph. --Viriditas  | Talk 04:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Isn't it the nature of the beast that any attempt to define "new" and "leading edge" cases of anti-semitism is automatically POV?
:We aren't attempting to define the concept, but to describe it in terms of the NPOV policy. --Viriditas  | Talk 06:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Que? 

message: A note of this needs to be made in the article.  Many groups on the left sympathize with the palestinians as being an oppressed people, which comprises their main opposition to the state of Israel, this article makes no distinction between anti-semitism and opposition to jewish colonialism of palestine.--68.74.30.182 23:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to Israel is not directly anti-semitic 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anouncing policy proposal 

message: I think it should be removed by now. MathKnight 12:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my opinion that it is still necessary, although if one was to remove it, I wouldn't object. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article gone major changes during recently. What more do you think we should clean up? MathKnight 12:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "nature of the new anti-Semitism" and "state of the controversy" sections need to be tightened up.  Some of the blockquotes, like the one in the "Anti-Semitic cartoons" section could be paraphrased and linked to the full quote to save space.  Same goes for the quotes in the incidents section.  I could keep going, but you get the point.  The article needs work.  --Viriditas  | Talk 13:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Clean Up label is still neccesary? 

message: Responding to an idiotic comment on the discussion page of Black supremacy, I found myself at The Holocaust.  Mindful that this article is an overview of the subject with numerous other, related articles elsewhere on this web site, I still think this piece could use some major additions, major work.  The subject is not a primary interest of mine, so I don't foresee myself contributing much more beyond that which I already have.  But this is a general solicitation (I haven't done so on the wiki page set aside specifically for that purpose; I figured this was more direct) for contributors to converge upon the page and improve the piece.  I've made some suggestions in talk.  Take 'em or leave 'em, but please contribute however you feel so moved.  The article seems to have been nominated for featured article status, and that effort (understandably) failed.  The next time it's nominated, such a thing shouldn't happen again.  Peace. deeceevoice 13:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Holocaust]] needs help

message: It is written : "One claim made by opponents of Israel and/or the notion of a new anti-Semitism is that defenders of Israel insist that any criticism of the State of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism."
I never heard about such a claim. I've heard about the claim (from opponents of the notion of a new anti-Semitism) that defenders of Israel would often use the word Anti-Semitic to disqualify any criticism of Israel, but never saw the claim that defenders of Israel would insist that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Do you have any sources ? --Marcoo 12:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 10)#Straw men galore. Jayjg (talk) 14:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I fail to see any difference whatsoever; can you explain what you see the difference as being? Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: And the links provided give sources of the claim. Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make; indeed, the French links you brought make the same strawman argument. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw-man anti-Semitism

message: Because Jayjg is asking me, I will give sources for what I included in "Opponents, Opponents of the claim of New anti-Semitism assert that:" part.
1. "The double standard is in favor of Israel in regard of disrespect of the international laws."
See (in french) :
"notre dénonciation lors des manifestations anti-guerre du "deux poids, deux mesures" concernant l'Irak que l'on bombarde d'un côté et Israël qui jouit d'une totale impunité malgré ses crimes, ses violations des résolutions de l'ONU et sa possession d'armes de destruction massive"
, see  for automatic translation.
2. "The Israeli-Arab conflict is important not because of the amount of casualties but for geo-strategic, symbolic, religious, historical reasons."
(editing)
3. "Many Anti-Semitic allegations come from Zionist non-Jewish people who spread the idea that Israel is the only legitimate State for Jews."
(editing)
--Marcoo 14:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not whether or not people have made this claim, but rather whether they have have used these arguments to claim there is no such thing as "New anti-Semitism".  Please remember, this article isn't a replay of pro and anti-Israel arguments, but rather pro and anti "New anti-Semitism" arguments". Jayjg (talk) 14:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. But the first sources I will give will be links to arguments I read on archived pages of french discussion forums on the internet. Will it be enough ? --Marcoo 15:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous editor on a discussion forum?  I think you'll have to find more reputable sources than that. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: They're not credible citable sources.  Wikipedia represents mainstream or at least notable views. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources. Jayjg (talk) 21:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, think about it from another perspective; if you could cite any anonymous poster on a Discussion forum, then the Wikipedia:No original research policy would be meaningless, since I could simply post something on a forum, then come here and cite it. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Marcoo, does your latest source talk about "The New Anti-Semitism"? Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Marcoo, again, I ask do your sources discuss "New anti-Semitism" or not? Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, which automatic translation would you recommmend, and what makes these commentators notable? Jayjg (talk) 05:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I used it, and went carefully through them, and it is as I feared; the articles do no actually address the concept of a "New anti-Semitism", but rather they generally simply assert that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.  In fact, http://www.radioairlibre.be/infos/michel-warchavski.htm and http://www.mrap.asso.fr/differences/2004/differences251/anniversaire05 are actually examples of the strawman argument that supporters of Israel or Sharon claim all criticism is anti-Semitism. You need to find sources that describe the concept of the "New anti-Semitism", and not simply ones that insist that "anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that you don't understand what relevant links are. Yes, proponents of a "New anti-Semitism" argue there is a connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, but not that they are the same thing.  As well, the return, or comeback, or resurgence of anti-Semitism is not the same thing as the concept of a "New anti-Semitism", which argues that, in fact, this kind of anti-Semitism is New. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read one more time the french articles. They're talking about an Anti-Semitism which is a new kind for people who see it. It's exactly the same concept that you call in the US "New Anti-Semitism". They're not talking about a resurgence of usual Anit-Semitism. --Marcoo 22:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Please quote, on this page, the sections you think point to a "New anti-Semitism". Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Google translates that as A group of intellectuals European Zionists has just found the solution, while utilizing the unconscious one and a concept pass key which they name "the semantic slip".  When the Zionism is denounced, even as one criticizes Israel, one has, sometimes unconsciously, like objective not the policy of a government (the Sharon government) or the colonial nature of a political movement (Zionism) or the institutional racism of a state (Israel), but the Jews.  Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Google translates that as Those which denounce the acts anti-semites, realities or fruits of "semantic slips", but do not say anything the exactions anti-Arabic carry a share of responsibility in communautarization for the spirits and the reinforcement for the anti-semitism, because it is not racism, whatever it is and from where that it comes, that they fight, but only the racism of the other.  They are certainly not them, Tarnero, Lanzman and other Taguieff, which has the right to make the lesson with the militants of the radical left and the movement against commercial universalization, which since always, were with the point of all the combat antiracists, and never deserted some none. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Google translates that as The MRAP will never accept that the judgment of the criminal policy of Ariel Sharon is comparable with anti-semitism.  The will of some to move the israélo-Palestinian conflict on a Community or religious ground, whereas it raises exlusivement repeat it, of a question of justice and international law, in the respect of the resolutions of the United Nations, is of an extreme gravity.  This attitude can only standardize the anti-semitism (the profanation of the Jewish cemetery of Herrlisheim proves that contrary to the remarks made by the president of CRIF, the anti-semitism of the extreme right-hand side did not disappear!),  and to support the development of all racisms, hatred and violence as well as communautarism. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism".  Keep in mind, the source is alleging any criticism of Sharon's "criminal" policies is being equated with anti-Semitism, exactly what is described in the "Strawman antisemitism" section. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Feel free to add your comments on the issue as well, Jpgordon. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I don't speak any French, and I utterly distrust Google translations because of their intense technological bias, so I don't really have any way to give an opinion of the issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm surprised to see you re-insert the problematic statements again and again, when there are clearly problems with them, and when I am clearly involved in dialogue here with you. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you assume you are correct? You certainly inserted your information as if you felt that way. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Did you not see my comments above?  I went through the text, and they did not appear to say at all what you claim.  It doesn't say New anti-Semitism, and your translation of "extreme right" as "old one" is extremely liberal, to say the least.  Could you work with the question raised above, please? Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opponents 

message: "Un groupe d'intellectuels sionistes européens vient de trouver la solution, en faisant intervenir l'inconscient et un concept passe-partout qu'ils nomment "le glissement sémantique". Quand on dénonce le sionisme, voire quant on critique Israël, on a, parfois inconsciemment, comme objectif non pas la politique d'un gouvernement (le gouvernement Sharon) ou la nature coloniale d'un mouvement politique (le sionisme) ou encore le racisme institutionnel d'un état (Israël), mais les Juifs."
:Google translates that as A group of intellectuals European Zionists has just found the solution, while utilizing the unconscious one and a concept pass key which they name "the semantic slip".  When the Zionism is denounced, even as one criticizes Israel, one has, sometimes unconsciously, like objective not the policy of a government (the Sharon government) or the colonial nature of a political movement (Zionism) or the institutional racism of a state (Israel), but the Jews.  Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please explain which specific argument this supports. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First source

message: "Ceux qui dénoncent les actes antisémites, réels ou fruits de "glissements sémantiques", mais ne disent rien des exactions anti-arabes portent une part de responsabilité dans la communautarisation des esprits et dans le renforcement de l'antisémitisme, car ce n'est pas le racisme, quel qu'il soit et d'où qu'il vienne, qu'ils combattent, mais uniquement le racisme de l'autre. Ce ne sont certainement pas eux, les Tarnero, Lanzman et autres Taguieff, qui ont le droit de faire la leçon aux militants de la gauche radicale et du mouvement contre la mondialisation marchande, qui depuis toujours, ont été à la pointe de tous les combats anti-racistes, et n'en ont jamais déserté aucun."]
The famous book by Taguieff Michel Warschawski is referring is called "La nouvelle judéophobie" (literally "the new judeophobia").
:Google translates that as Those which denounce the acts anti-semites, realities or fruits of "semantic slips", but do not say anything the exactions anti-Arabic carry a share of responsibility in communautarization for the spirits and the reinforcement for the anti-semitism, because it is not racism, whatever it is and from where that it comes, that they fight, but only the racism of the other.  They are certainly not them, Tarnero, Lanzman and other Taguieff, which has the right to make the lesson with the militants of the radical left and the movement against commercial universalization, which since always, were with the point of all the combat antiracists, and never deserted some none. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism". Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please explain which specific argument this supports. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: O.K., but while he refers to that book, I can't understand the argument he is making, can you clarify? Perhaps improve the translation? Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In few words, for Michel Warschawski, the fight against a so-called "new antisemitism" is a false fight, because for him the idea of a "new antisemitism" is developped outside a context, outside the global fight against racism. And the newt paragraph explain why Warschawski consider the so-called new one as a strawman anti-Semitism. --Marcoo 23:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Second source

message: "Le MRAP n'acceptera jamais que la condamnation de la politique criminelle d'Ariel Sharon soit assimilée à de l'antisémitisme. La volonté de certains de déplacer le conflit israélo-palestinien sur un terrain communautaire ou religieux , alors qu'il relève exlusivement répétons le, d'une question de justice et de droit international, dans le respect des résolutions des Nation Unies, est d'une gravité extrême. Cette attitude ne peut que banaliser l'antisémitisme (la profanation du cimetière juif de Herrlisheim prouve que contrairement aux propos tenus par le président du CRIF, l'antisémitisme de l'extrême droite n'a pas disparu!), et favoriser le développement de tous les racismes, de la haine et de la violence ainsi que du communautarisme."
:Google translates that as The MRAP will never accept that the judgment of the criminal policy of Ariel Sharon is comparable with anti-semitism.  The will of some to move the israélo-Palestinian conflict on a Community or religious ground, whereas it raises exlusivement repeat it, of a question of justice and international law, in the respect of the resolutions of the United Nations, is of an extreme gravity.  This attitude can only standardize the anti-semitism (the profanation of the Jewish cemetery of Herrlisheim proves that contrary to the remarks made by the president of CRIF, the anti-semitism of the extreme right-hand side did not disappear!),  and to support the development of all racisms, hatred and violence as well as communautarism. Please feel free to improve the translation, and help me understand why you think this is a discussion of "New anti-Semitism", as opposed to an example of "Strawman anti-Semitism".  Keep in mind, the source is alleging any criticism of Sharon's "criminal" policies is being equated with anti-Semitism, exactly what is described in the "Strawman antisemitism" section. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please explain which specific argument this supports. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Third source

message: All of the sources in this section alleging anti-semitism on US campuses come from either an article on the Anti-Defamation League website (itself using words such as 'allegedly') or a text file with no sources mentioned. If better sources cannot be found (especially considering the section claims the offences were caught on videotape) then this section should, at the least, be considerably reworded, if not deleted. 
Additionally, the section on the San Francisco bay report 'ignoring the racist, violent nature of the atttacks' is clearly POV. illWill 19:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents in the United States section 

message: I propose that this enormous table be removed, and the contents summarised in a shorter paragraph. As quite a lot of the material is the point of view of Cotler, I don't think it warrants the amount of space it takes up, expecially when much of it is duplicated elsewhere in the article. The idea of 'six categories' and 'thirteen indices' is an attempt to present the problem in a manner which may be scientifically measurable, but Cotler's assertions are quite vague and could be subject to interpretation.
For example:
* What exactly is "European hierarchical anti-semitism"? Has Cotler any evidence that such a distinct phenomenon exists?
* What is the difference between the "Theological anti-Semitism" of the Islamist world and "State-sanctioned anti-semitism"? 
* What does he mean by "culture of hate"?
It seems that Cotler's main point is that unfair treatment to Israel (inspired by religion, racism or other causes) constitutes anti-semitism. I can't see anything in that enormous table that strays very far from material which could be summarised in two sentences. Any thoughts?illWill 22:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, though it might take three sentences. :-) Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Good summary. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irwin Cotler table

message: While I think that the article still needs some work (though it actually flows fairly well), I am not sure why it needs the NPOV tag.  I was impressed with the general level of balance here, in explaining both claims and counterclaims without the omnipresent "Some people say...other people believe...some critics assert..." of so many controversal articles.  Is there a reason to keep the tag? --Goodoldpolonius2 03:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag?

message: Israeli settlers in Gaza, angered over the gaza pullout, have staged numerous rallies and demonstrations to try to gain support in greater Israel. According to The Guardian, the actions of these activists have included having children leaving their houses with their hands up or wearing Star of David badges. These were Nazi practicies, and the settlers are trying to associate the actions of Israel with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. 
To the best of my knowledge no one has outright called this new anti-Semitism as of yet, but the guardian clearly indicates that the intent of the protesters is to draw a comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany. This article states that such comparisons are anti-Semitic in the rules of new anti-Semitism. I realize that the rules on original research may apply. User:Jpgordon reverted my addition and I won't start a revert war, but would instead appriciate some comments. In the meantime I am going to add it to the gaza pullout article instead.
--Uncle Bungle 17:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents in Israel 

message: Right now, the article contains a stubby mention of Norman Finkelstein. In its entirety, it reads "Norman Finkelstein dedicates the first half of his book Beyond Chutzpah to debunking claims of new anti-Semitism, arguing that it simply provides political cover to supporters of Israel. He notes that Jewish leaders consistently claim there is a new wave of anti-Semitism on the basis of what he considers scanty evidence every couple decades."
Given that Finkelstein is a very controversial figure—in the proper sense of controversial, I'm not using that as a euphemism—a passing mention of him like this probably does not serve our readers very well. This should either be fleshed out or removed. (It also could be worded better, I guess I'll go do that, but I haven't read the book in question, so I'm in no position to flesh it out.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
:For now I've worded it more neutrally, but it really adds nothing to the article. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finkelstein 

message: Is Noam Chomsky really "Jewish," as is claimed in the article?  My understanding is that he was born Jewish but is now atheist (or at least secular).  Does anyone know for sure?  --zenohockey 00:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky 

message: This paragraph was deleted (corrected here):
: === Israel Shahak ===	 
: Israel Shahak parsed the Israeli governmental-administrative structure and process as essentially comprising a constitutional theocracy based significantly on race and noted that when the label "anti-semitic" or "self-hating Jew" was applied to him for this analysis it was akin to a Nazi expression because the Nazis called Germans who defended Jewish rights "Anti-German" or self-hating Germans.
In my view it is important to point out where the rejection of criticism of the concept of "New Anti-Semitism" comes from. -- Vít Zvánovec 18:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know he was talking about the concept of the "New anti-Semitism"? Did he describe it that way? Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: His name should be spelled "Shahak", and he is certainly a significant figure. Of course he wouldn't be using the term "new anti-Semitism" in this context: he was not carrying on an abstract intellectual discussion of this thesis, he was objecting to being accused of anti-Semitism for his opposition to the current politics of the Israeli government. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was accused of anti-Semitism because of books like "Jewish history, Jewish religion", which were about his views of Judaism, and this article lists the views of people discussing the New anti-Semitism - that way it avoids original research. Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It's already in Wikiquote; why is it important to have it here? Jayjg (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: Since no-one has mentioned it that I can spot, the cartoon attributed to Latuff is a bit odd. Run a search for "Latuff" on google-images and the one on this page is the only example I have found where the style of mixing photo with drawing is used, leading me to suspect. The text style in the speach bubble is not typical either. Less clear cut is my view that the words do not follow Latuff's style. Overall, I believe that this cartoon has been mis-attributed.
80.6.104.41 21:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't actually understand why the cartoon is there at all. Is it supposed to be anti-semitic? Or at least do some people see it that way? I can't see how it's any different in character from say http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,1517810,00.html. The only difference appears to be that George Bush is American and Sharon is Israeli. Is any criticism of Israeli military action automatically defined as new anti-semitism by followers of this doctrine? If so, it should be explained in the article that that is the case. Unless someone can explain why the cartoon is anti-semitic, or else change the article to define 'new anti-semitism' as any opposition to Israeli policy. In any case it seems awfully convenient to be able to write off all criticism as anti-semitic = racist = EVIL. 87.74.15.60 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latuff Cartoon

message: I made several edits on 25 December 2005. These were purely for better reading and I tried hard to be both clear and precise, and maintain NPOV. In particular, I think that the wordiness of one of the opening paragraphs ('locus' and 'pretexts' are words that are meaningless to the average reader) was unnecessarily confusing. 
Also, please remember that links should only be used where relevant to the content. I don't think it helps to link words like criticism.
Brw12 06:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I don't think "pretext" is obscure at all. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up article 

message: Re: the poster at New anti-Semitism#Incidents in the United States. I actually hadn't noticed this before; I noticed it now because no one had bothered putting a license tag on the image; I've labeled it as . Sure strikes me as a variant on blood libel against Jews, especially the reference to "slaughtered according to Jewish Rites", suggesting that child-murder is a religious matter. Would it be legitimate to say as much in the article, or would that cross the line of original research? -- Jmabel | Talk 11:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it counts as original research to point out something this blatent. --NHSavage 11:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: True. The source for this poster  is titled Blood Libel.--NHSavage 11:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's on what appears at a quick look to be an anonymous "Messianic Judaism" website. Unless I'm missing something, that's not a citable source, even if in this case I think they are correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yup, both are good sources. Thanks for finding them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely good citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood libel 

message: I have done quite a lot of work on this section and I hope it is now improved both from NPOV and references point of view. However, I do have a POV on these matters (especially relating to AUT) and so I hope other will take a look at what I've done and check that my POV has not unduly influenced what I've done.--NHSavage 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidents in UK

message: Although I agree with SlimVirgin that accusations of anti-Semitism directed at the left are new, the article's examples of anti-Semitism are not primarily leftist denunciations of anti-Zionism, but rather a mixed bag of contemporary anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Consequently, I think that the introductory passages should match the article's content. The alternatives would be to clarify the introduction, so that the reader is clearer that we are talking about all kinds of accusations of contemporary anti-Semitism, or to remove from the article the "old" anti-Semitism, which is not perpetrated by the left. James James 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chesler in particular states that the new anti-Semitism is new because it is espoused by progressives: "...performed by politically correct people in the name of anticolonialism, anti-imperialism, antiracism, and pacifism." This is in contrast to the old anti-Semitism, which is embraced by right-wing racist groups. --Viriditas 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the content needs to match the intro, but the solution is to flesh out the content, not to make the intro inaccurate. All the books on the new anti-Semitism that I have read make it clear that it's a phenomenon emanating primarily (although not exclusively) from the left. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you meant to say "restrict the content only to those things that actually match the intro"? Anyway, you're welcome to write whatyou like. I only came here on RC patrol and I don't have any great interest in slugging it out. James James 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait a minute. Are we now going to make Wikipedia endorse the validity of this type of accusations? This a very controversial subject and the intro (and everything for that matter) should completely stay away from anything close to suggesting that the dust has in any way settled on this (instead of just leaving a token paragraph at the end for the "other side"). -- Dissident (Talk) 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primarily the left 

message: We need sources for all of these:
* Critics of the concept contend that it only serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
* Opponents of the concept of New anti-Semitism assert that:
** Antipathy toward Israel's policies, its character as a Jewish state, or even its existence, does not necessarily amount to anti-Semitism.
***People may have legitimate reasons to criticize or condemn the actions of any state, and Israel is as subject to this as any other.
***There are Jewish groups and Jewish individuals who hold views critical of Israeli policy; some of these (though far fewer) even question the legitimacy of Israel's character as a Jewish state. Some Haredi groups regard the state of Israel and Zionism as secularist heresies, and a few fringe organizations, most notably Neturei Karta, have called for the creation of a unitary state of Palestine in the region. A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the state of Israel and Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism. Former Knesset member Tamar Gozansky is one such figure, while prominent Jewish intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber articulated similar views in the mid-twentieth century.
***Many left-wing groups within mainstream Israeli politics hold views regarding some Israeli government policies similar to those criticized as anti-Semitic when expressed by left-wing groups outside Israel.
** A frequent target for accusations of new anti-Semitism — the socialist Left — maintains a principled stand against any form of bigotry.
** Accusations of anti-Semitism may be used to discredit those who criticize the actions of the Israeli government.
** Comparing Israel with regimes known for repressive policies is commonplace within Israeli politics as well, with right-wing Zionists comparing Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler.
** Palestinians and their sympathizers have reasons to oppose Israel independently of its connection to the Jewish people. Some of these sympathizers bear ill will toward the Jewish people, while others do not.
** Frivolous accusations of anti-Semitism could undermine the struggle against more serious examples of it.
* In turn, critics of this view believe that associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticisms, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies. They point out that, during debate over the establishment of the State of Israel, most notably, many Hassidic Jews considered this manifestation of Zionism heretical.
Here the anonymous "critics" are not speaking for themselves, but serving up strawman arguments for the wikipedia editors to shoot down.  For each statement attributed to "critics" there should be some indication of which specific critic is speaking and that these are the terms the "critic" prefers to use. If, as I expect, these statements supposedly from "critics of the idea of a new anti-Semitism" cannot each be specifically sourced, they should be removed. If they will not be removed, they should be replaced with stronger arguments. TopRank 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself links to, and summarizes, statements from critics of the term "New anti-Semitism". Please feel free to read them.  If you are aware of other critics, and can provide some encyclopedic links, they would be most welcome.  However, you cannot make up your own arguments; this is original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced strawman arguments 

message: The article currently bears the  tag - who is disputing what? The tag has been there since October and if there is no dispute, then it should be removed. Izehar 10:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Izehar. Diderot added it but hasn't edited the page since, so I think it's okay to remove it and have done so. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed? 

message: I've done my best to clean up the citations on this page into a reasonably uniform style. This added a lot of information, because title and author information was missing before for nearly all online citations. There were a few dead links. For some of these I could easily find appropriate substitutes. I'm afraid the Internet Archive was no use, possibly because some of these were too recent to be up there yet, or possibly because they aren't going to be archived. Without anything but a blind link, it was pretty hard to identify appropriate substitute citations.
Currently, 
#The citations I couldn't verify—and some statements that were simply lacking any citation—are marked with .
#There are two places where I could really use some help on citation of Hebrew-language articles, because I can't read Hebrew. And, needless to say, if those citations don't bear out the claims made, I'd have no idea.
#I made some (very minimal) use of the name attribute of the ref element to make multiple references to the same note. I'm not sure I like that, though. We could have duplicate notes instead, with different, sequential indexes. What do other people think?
BTW, this new footnoting system is definitely a simplifier. I recommend it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up citations 

message: I've restored the characterization of Chomsky as an anarchist. His politics are more relevant here than his being a linguist (though I did not remove the fact that he is a linguist). If there was question whether Chomsky considers himself an anarchist (the terse edit summary suggests someone may have doubted this), I assume that the following will be more than adequate citation:    . That's all from the website of Z magazine, to which he is an important contributor. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky 

message: I've restored Unbehagen's deletion that Islamic stores in the UK are increasingly stocking anti-Semitic material, including Mein Kampf. Unbehagen argues that, as this book is available in many large bookstores in the UK, its availability in Islamic stores is not surprising. However, there are no large Islamic stores in the UK selling books; those that do are very small and focus on material relevant to Islam. It's therefore notable that increasing numbers of them appear to believe that Mein Kampf has such relevance. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good arguement - I hadn't seen it that way.  BUT - if the nature of the Islamic bookstores is as fragmentary as you suggest how can anyone have done a meaningfull survey? This does look like work taken from a Blog - so do you still think we should include. Unbehagen 15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic bookstores

message: I added a few tags for where citation is neede. This article lacks sources in a major way and in the same time it make sweeping arguments. Clean up is badly needed. // Liftarn 09:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: I have added an external link to a very recent and equally insightful article on the New Anti-Semitism by the renowned British historian Bernard Lewis. Enjoy. Pecher Talk 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bernard Lewis on the New Anti-Semitism

message: On February 18, 2006, User:Liftarn inserted no fewer than 19  requests for citation into the article.  In the majority of cases, the sentences in question were immediately preceded or followed by direct citations.  In a small minority of cases the citations were in linked articles, or in were websites which had gone bad.  In one case he inserted 3 requests for citation inside a direct quote from a source, and in another he actually added his own POV into a direct quotation!  This is a gross abuse of the template and the editing process. Jayjg (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disruption is not unusual for Liftarn. The same user inserted patent nonsense into the List of unrecognized countries  and engaged in wholesale removal of sourced material, including no fewer than 33 (!) endnotes, on Dhimmi . Pecher Talk 09:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Except for possibly (and barely) the first sentence "Disruption is not unusual for Liftarn" this doesn't read like a personal attack. It reads like a description of your conduct, and suggests a pattern that could make someone appropriately doubt your good faith. - Jmabel | Talk 16:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template 

message: I've removed this quote from the "state of the controversy#examples cited" section:
:However Eli Muller wrote "Some Jews will invariably denounce any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, using a powerful allegation as a barrier to dialogue. /../ many negative things can and should be said about Israel's current policies without the speaker being subjected to charges of anti-Semitism." ("Locating the hate in anti-Zionism", Yale Daily News, February 28, 2003 )
This was added by Liftarn on January 12.  Apart from the fact that it's an undergraduate writing in a student newspaper, which makes it an inappropriate source, if you read the article, you'll see that it in fact says exactly the opposite of the impression given by the quote, namely that a lot of the anti-Zionism the writer encounters on campus boils down to "bigotry" and "fanaticism."
When selecting quotes, it's important to stay true to the original tone and intent of the piece. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without passing judgement on the particular quotation, I'd consider the Yale Daily News generally citable. It is one of the probably half-dozen leading student newspapers in the U.S., and standards are probably better than plenty of professionally run local papers. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quoting out of context

message: I've moved the following from the page because it need one or more sources:
:Some have questioned whether any large portion of opposition to Israel is actually rooted in anti-Semitism; some have argued that the increase in anti-Semitism among Arabs and Muslims, while lamentable, is a nearly inevitable outgrowth of the hostility between Israel and much of the Arab world, and is strictly an epiphenomenon of that conflict.
I'd be surprised if any reputable scholar in a relevant field were to argue that Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism is "strictly an epiphenomenon" of the Arab-Israeli conflict, given the anti-Semitism that predated the State of Israel. Bernard Lewis has pointed out that some leaders in the Muslim world are almost at pains to point out that they're anti-Semitic, not just anti-Israel, as a matter of national or personal pride. For example, after President Khatami of Iran denied that his govt was anti-Semitic, a newspaper known to express the views of Khamenei appeared to correct him, saying it was important not to exaggerate the difference between the Jews and the Zionist regime because: "[t]he history of the beginnings of Islam is full of Jewish plots against the Prophet Muhammad and of murderous attacks by Jews ..." Lewis also cites the daughter of President Nasser, who complained about a film portraying her father as anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. Lewis writes (quoting a newspaper article about the incident): "she objected to a passage in [the] film indicating that 'Nasser was not against the Jews, but against Zionism, because she wanted to portray her father as a hero of the anti-Jewish struggle'." (Lewis in Those who forget the past by Ron Rosenbaum (ed)) It could still be argued that, although it's clearly anti-Semitism and not just opposition to the govt of Israel, it's still only an outgrowth of the latter, but it's a difficult position to maintain, so it'd be good to attribute it. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source request

message: Anyone interested in writing on the question of why Ariel Sharon is held responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre, but Elie Hobeika, who actually ordered the killings, was not.  My understanding is that Hobeika was well-received in various European capitals where Sharon is persona non grata.  This seems to be support the argument that anti-Zionism relies on double-standards with respect to human rights.
Adam Holland 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharon, Hobeika and the Sabra and Shatila massacre