Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 13

message: The section entitled "A new phenomenon, but not antisemitism" begins with the statement: That there has been a resurgence of antisemitic attacks and attitudes is accepted by most opponents of the concept of new antisemitism
But when you click on the reference for this statement, you are taken to a couple of comments that specifically deny any such increase has taken place! Gatoclass 12:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I discussed that and related problems here (point 4a).  There was some promising low-key informal mediation going on here for a while, but it appears to have stalled.--G-Dett 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source contradicts itself

message: Whenever this article is again available for editing, I request that :Category:Judaism-related controversies be added to it for obvious reasons.  --Wassermann 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add this category 

message: It is a reliable source because? --Cerejota 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://www.zombietime.com 

message: :An early use of the concept in close to its modern form was in the late 1940s, when the Soviet Union was accused of pursuing a "new anti-Semitism" against Jews, of the sort manifested in the so-called Doctors' plot, a supposed conspiracy by Jewish doctors to poison the Soviet leadership. 1 Stalinist opposition to "rootless cosmopolitans" – a euphemism for Jews – was rooted in the belief, as expressed by Klement Gottwald, that "treason and espionage infiltrate the ranks of the Communist Party. This channel is Zionism."2
*1 Schwarz, Solomon M. "The New Anti-Semitism of the Soviet Union," Commentary, June 1949.
*2 Pravda, November 21, 1952.
Comments:
I've already stated my objections to this paragraph on many occasions (most notably here and here).  I now believe there can be no justification for keeping this paragraph in our article.  Solomon M. Schwarz's article is entirely unrelated to the modern concept of "new antisemitism", and was in any event written three years before the so-called "Doctor's plot".
I am not averse to including some reference to the influence of Soviet anti-Semitism on the concept of "new antisemitism", if modern authors have made this connection (indeed, the Taguieff paragraph suggests a practical way of approaching this subject).  The Commentary paragraph, however, must be deleted.  CJCurrie 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one has responded, I've taken the liberty of removing the paragraph.  CJCurrie 01:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary article (again)

message: :French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff writes that the first wave of the new antisemitism emerged in the Arab-Muslim world and the Soviet sphere following the 1967 Six Day War, citing papers by Jacques Givet (1968) and historian Léon Poliakov (1969) in which the idea of a new anti-Semitism rooted in anti-Zionism was discussed.1 He argues that anti-Jewish themes centered on the demonical figures of Israel and what he calls "fantasy-world Zionism": that Jews plot together, seek to conquer the world, and are imperialistic and bloodthirsty, which gave rise to the reactivation of stories about ritual murder and the poisoning of food and water supplies. The Israeli victory of 1967, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and the Palestinian deaths during the first Intifada all served to reinforce the caricature.2
*1 Pierre-André Taguieff cites the following early works on the new antisemitism: Jacques Givet, La Gauche contre Israel? Essai sur le néo-antisémitisme, Paris 1968; idem, "Contre une certain gauche," Les Nouveaux Cahiers, No. 13-14, Spring-Summer 1968, pp. 116-119; Léon Poliakov, De l'antisionisme a l'antisémitisme, Paris 1969; Shmuel Ettinger, "Le caractère de l'antisémitisme contemporain," Dispersion et Unité, No. 14, 1975, pp. 141-157; and Michael Curtis, ed., Antisemitism in the Modern World, Boulder, 1986. All cited in Pierre-André Taguieff. Rising from the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe. Ivan R. Dee, 2004, p. 159-160, footnote 1.
*2 Pierre André Taguieff. Rising from the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe. Ivan R. Dee, 2004, p. 62.
Comments:
First, a technical point: Taguieff's book was published in 2002, not 2004.  The latter date refers to its translation and publication in America.  In the comments that follow, I will use 2002 as the date of publication.
Second, a clarification: Some time ago, I argued that the wording of the above paragraph did not indicate whether or not the papers by Givet and Poliakov were relevant to the modern concept of "new antisemitism".  I've since had a chance to consult these works, and am prepared to drop this objection.
This takes us to the main point at issue.  Our current paragraph is a rough transcription of the first paragraph of Taguieff's translated "Rising from the Muck", Chapter Three, "Construction, Content, Functioning, and Metamorphoses of the "New Anti-Semitism": Toward the Islamization of Absolute Anti-Zionism".  The original paragraph appears as follows on pp. 62-63 of Taguieff's book (any typographical errors are my own):
:A case has been rightly made that, after the Six Day War of June 1967, a "new anti-Semitism" began its worldwide career.1  It centred on a mythical conspiracy theory that I have called absolute anti-Semitism2, with its two main bases in the Arab-Muslim world and the Soviet Empire.3  A number of traditional anti-Jewish themes have clustered around the demonical figures of Israel and a fantasy-world "Zionism": Jews plot together; Jews seek to conquer the world by all means; Jews are cruel and bloodthirsty by nature (hence the reactivation of old legends of "ritual murder"4 or the poisoning of food and water supplies); Jews are "imperialistic," and so on.5  In addition, there is the literature of Holocaust denial, with its claim that the genocidal gas chambers never even existed.6  Its "popular," or anyway "popularizable," conclusion is that the Jews and their "allies" invented the "tall story" of their own extermination, and that they are therefore guilty of "the biggest lie ever"7 -- itself a recycled version of the old stereotype of Jews as "liars by nature."  One is reminded of Hitler's homage to Schopenhauer in Mein Kampf:
::"One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true.  He called the Jew `The Great Master of Lies.'  Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in making Truth prevail."8
*1 See Jacques Givet, La Gauche contre Israel? Essai sur le néo-antisémitisme, Paris: Jean-Jacques Pauvert, 1968; idem, "Contre une certain gauche," Les Nouveaux Cahiers, No. 13-14, Spring-Summer 1968, pp. 116-119; Léon Poliakov, De l'antisionisme a l'antisémitisme, Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1969; Shmuel Ettinger, "Le caractère de l'antisémitisme contemporain," Dispersion et Unité, No. 14, 1975, pp. 141-157; and Michael Curtis, ed., Antisemitism in the Modern World, Boulder: Westview Press, 1986.
*2 See my critical study: "L'antisionisme arabo-islamophile. Éléments d'une analyse froide de la forme dominante de l'antisémitisme contemporain," Sens No. 11, November 1982, pp. 253-266.  I focus there especially on an article published in Le Monde on June 17, 1982, in the form of a publicity announcement: "Le sens de l'agression israélienne," signed by Roger Garaudy, Father Michel Lelong, and Pastor Étienne Mathiot, and reprinted in Roger Garaudy, Mes Témoins, Paris: Éditions "À Contre-Nuit," 1997, pp. 108-116.  For a criticial analysis, see also Alain Dieckhoff, "Le sionisme, `diable' des Palestiniens," Les Nouveaux Cahiers No. 79, Winter 1984-1985, pp. 17-22.
*3 See Yohanan Manor, "L'antisionisme," Revue française de science politique 34/2, April 1984, pp. 295-323; and Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites, op. cit.
*4 See Salomon Reinach, L'Accusation due meurtre ritual, Paris: Librairie Léopold Cerf, 1893.  On the accusation that Jews are inherently cruel and dominating, see my Le Protocoles des Sages de Sion.  Faux et usages d'un faux, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 354-357. 
*5 Many examples of press articles expressing this standard Judeophobia may be found in the report of the Simon Wiesenthal Center: Egypt: Israel's Peace Partner: A Survey of Antisemitism in the Egyptian Press, 1986-1987, Los Angeles: Simon Wiesenthal Center Publications, 1988; and in Rivka Yadlin, An Arrogant Oppressive Spirit: Anti-Zionism as Anti-Judaism in Egypt, New York: Pergamon Press, 1989.
*6 See Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Assassins of Memory: Essays on the Denial of the Holocaust, New York: Columbia University Press, 1992 (a collection of essays published in France between 1980 and 1987); Alain Finkielkraut, The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998; Florent Brayard, Comment l'ideé vint à M. Rassinier.  Naissance du révisionnisme, with a preface by Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Paris: Fayard, 1996.
*7 See my study "La nouvelle judéophobie.  Antisionisme, antiracisme, anti-impérialisme," Les Temps modernes No. 520, November 1989, pp. 1-80.
*8 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, London: Hurst & Blackett, 1939, vol. I, ch. X.
(Note:  There are no references in this passage to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, nor to Palestinian deaths during the first Intifada.  These are instead mentioned on pp. 64-65, wherein Taguieff outlines what he describes as the second wave of the "new antisemitism".)
There are some problems with our current summarization of Taguieff's paragraph:
(i)  On a minor technical note, it seems inappropriate for us to identify the disputed NAS concept as simply "the new antisemitism" in our first sentence.  This wording implies that we are dealing with an actual and undisputed phenomonen, when there is in fact no agreement on this point.  (To prevent confusion: I would not dispute that the
phenomena described by Taguieff are anti-Semitic; whether they constitute "new antisemitism" in the modern sense of the term is much less clear.)
(ii)  More fundamentally, the current paragraph doesn't really fit with the chronological flow the history section.  Much of it refers to Taguieff's arguments/extrapolations written in 2002, and not to the actual discussions surrounding the NAS concept in prior decades.  As I've already noted, this doesn't strike me as the best approach for our History section.
What then should be done to fix the paragraph?  If it were entirely up to me, I would (i) shift the focus from Taguieff to Givet and Poliakov, (ii) explicitly focus on the "NAS" concept's emergence in France in the late 1960s, (iii) shift Taguieff's arguments to a new section of the article dealing with the recent history of the NAS
concept.
I suspect, however, that these proposals would only lead to another round of slow-motion debates, and end without any resolution.  In the interests of moving forward with improving the page, then, I'm willing to present the following as a compromise proposal:
:The concept of a "new antisemitism" rooted in anti-Zionism was raised in France in the aftermath the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.  The French philosopher Pierre-André Tanguieff cites a number of works written on this subject in his La Nouvelle Judéophobie (2002, trans. 2004), including publications from 1968 and 1969 by Jacques Givet and Léon Poliakov.  Taguieff's position is that the "new antisemitism" [or should we use "nouvelle judéophobie"?] of this period was centred in the Arab-Muslim world and the Soviet empire, and that it was marked by anti-Jewish themes centred on "demonical figures of Israel" and what he calls "fantasy-world 'Zionism'": that Jews plot together, seek to conquer the world, and are imperialistic and bloodthirsty.  (footnotes the same as before)
More information perhaps could be provided about Givet's and Poliakov's works, if others are interested in pursuing this theme. I'll leave that to someone else, however.  
By the way, I haven't been able to obtain a french-language copy of Taguieff's book.  Does anyone involved in this discussion have it?  CJCurrie 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one has raised an objection, I'll make the change.  CJCurrie 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taguieff paragraph

message: :In 1974, Forster and Epstein, officials of the Anti-Defamation League, published The New anti-Semitism, which appears to be the first book-length treatment of the subject. They expressed concern about manifestations of antisemitism and opposition to Israel, drawing attention to what they called "Arab propaganda" and "the oil weapon" in international affairs.1 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 Spartacist League.2
:Allan Brownfeld, writing in the Journal of Palestine Studies, argues that the term "new antisemitism" emerged as a result of efforts by some to re-define the term "anti-semitism" to include anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel.  He cites the Forster and Epstein book as one of the first manifestations of this trend. Brownfeld argues that this altered definition trivializes the concept of anti-semitism, by turning it into "a form of political blackmail" and "a weapon with which to silence any criticism of either Israel or U.S. policy in the Middle East".  He adds that the "false imputation of anti-Semitism" is a "violation of Jewish ethics and values", and that the shift in the term's meaning "will be welcomed by genuine anti-Semites who will, as a result, be able to escape responsibility for their own bigotry".3 
:*1 Forster, Arnold & Epstein, Benjamin, The New Anti-Semitism. McGraw-Hill 1974, p.165.
:*2 Forster, Arnold & Epstein, Benjamin, The New Anti-Semitism. McGraw-Hill 1974, p.9.
:*3 Allan Brownfeld, "Anti-Semitism: Its Changing Meaning", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3.
Comments:
Jayjg has argued that these paragraphs should be excised from the article, on the grounds that (i) the Forster/Epstein book offers an idiosyncratic definition of "new antisemitism" which is not relevant to our purposes, and (ii) the book is more notable for the opposition it has garnered (ie. Brownfeld, and pp. 21-26 of Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah) than for the arguments it raises.  I would beg to differ.
The Forster/Epstein book argues that a new anti-Semitism emerged in the United States following the 1967 and 1973 wars, grounded in part in anti-Zionism and political opposition to Israel.  The authors identify this development as emanating from several sources, including the radical right, "Arabs and pro-Arabs" (to use the politically incorrect terminology favoured by the ADL authors) and the radical left.  The Forster/Epstein book was also criticized at the time of its release (see below) for offering a problematic definition of "new antisemitism", and for conflating all political opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism.  In other words, the book is entirely relevant to the current debates surrounding the "new antisemitism" concept: it should be kept, and improved.
Incidentally, the Givet and Poliakov publications from 1968 and 1969 were extended, book-length essays.  Leaving aside its other problems, the phrase "appears to be the first book-length treatment of the subject" is factually inaccurate and needs to be dropped.
The first paragraph (dealing specifically with Forster and Epstein) should be reworded to read as follows:
:In 1974, Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein, officials of the Anti-Defamation League, published a book entitled The New anti-Semitism.  The authors expressed concern about new manifestations of antisemitism and opposition to Israel in the United States of America, which they described as emanating from radical left, radical right, and "pro-Arab" figures.  Forster and Epstein argued that "the heart of the new anti-Semitism" could be found in "indifference to the most profound apprehensions of the Jewish people", "a blandness and apathy in dealing with anti-Jewish behavior", and "a widespread incapacity or unwillingness to comprehend the necessity of the existence of Israel to Jewish safety and survival throughout the world".
[Citations:  "Gerald Smith's Road" (19-48) + "The Radical Right" (285-296), "Arabs and Pro-Arabs" (155-174), "The Radical Left" (125-154); the "heart of the new anti-Semitism" quote may be found on p. 324.]
:Reviewing Forster and Epstein's The New anti-Semitism in Commentary magazine, Earl Raab argued that a "new anti-Semitism" was indeed emerging in the United States of America in the form of opposition to the collective rights of the Jewish people.  However, he criticized Forster and Epstein for conflating "anti-Israel bias in general" with antisemitism, and for "sometimes interpret[ing] the failure to be pro-Israel as anti-Semitism".  Referring to the activities of European nations in the Yom Kippur War, Raab added that there are "a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to Jews which are not anti-Semitic in nature, just as there are a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to blacks which are not racist in nature".
For the "response" paragraph, I am prepared to excise the Brownfeld material (or at least relegate him to the footnotes, or perhaps another section of the article).  In his place, I would recommend that we instead focus on a review that Earl Raab wrote for Commentary magazine in May 1974 (pp. 53-55).
Raab's response to Forster/Epstein is quite interesting, insofar as he argued that there was a new anti-Semitism emerging in America at the time, centred in opposition to the collective rights of the Jewish people.  However, he was also  critical of the vague and all-encompassing definition favoured by Forster and Epstein, and specifically criticized their depiction of political opposition to Israel as being inherently anti-Semitic (for all intents and purposes).  An extended quote should suffice to demonstrate this point:
:Forster and Epstein fail to distinguish clearly between these two kinds of indifference in discussing the situation within the United States.  They also fail to make an analogous distinction in considering the question of Israel.  "The destruction of the Jewish state," they write, "is itself the ultimate anti-Semitism"; and despite the way in which this statement grandly sweeps over some of the normal aspirations of international politics, one is tempted not to challenge it because because of the awful import of the word "destruction."  However, Forster and Epstein often stretch the word in practice to mean anti-Israel bias in general, and they sometimes interpret the failure to be pro-Israel as anti-Semitism.
:"Thus, on the 1973 war, they say that "the palpable erosion in worldwide sympathy and friendship for Jews" since 1967 had helped to relay "the message that yet another attempt to annihilate the Jewish people would be greeted in the mid-70's with massive indifference if not active support."  They complain that "we have no reason to believe that the world -- beyond the United States and a few moral places here and there -- is at all prepared to accept fact instead of fantasy or outright lies when it comes to the Middle East."  After Yom Kippur, the Arabs and the Soviet Union charged Israel with aggression. England, France, West Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey refused to allow American aid to Israel to go through their ports or air.  The Vatican "struck a position of neutrality."  In short, "Just thirty years after the Holocaust, a new chapter was being written in the history of European anti-Semitism."
:The policies of England, France, et al. toward Israel in October 1973 did indeed stem from indifference, but it was indifference of the kind exemplified by the voter who doesn't care whether his candidate is anti-Semitic.  These nations clearly did not have a commitment to legal or moral principles which outweighed their own needs -- in this case, oil.  If the Israelis had had the oil instead of the Arabs, there is no question where those European nations would have stood.
:There are, in other words, a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to Jews which are not anti-Semitic in nature, just as there are a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to blacks which are not racist in nature.  Attempts to impose rigid quotas on the hiring or training of teachers, social workers, doctors, and lawyers are disadvantageous to Jews as a group on more than one count, but they are not necessarily anti-Semitic in the sense of being designated to hurt the Jews as Jews.  Similarly, the creation of Israel set up new conditions of vulnerability to Jews, but these are not necessarily related to anti-Semitism either.  If an Amish state had been set up where Israel is, the Arab nations would not have been much more hospitable toward it than they have been toward the Jewish state; Soviet strategy would not be basically different."
Raab's views may be summarized as follows:
:Reviewing Forster and Epstein's The New anti-Semitism in Commentary magazine, Earl Raab argued that a "new anti-Semitism" was indeed emerging in the United States of America in the form of opposition to the collective rights of the Jewish people.  However, he criticized Forster and Epstein for conflating "anti-Israel bias in general" with antisemitism, and for "sometimes interpret[ing] the failure to be pro-Israel as anti-Semitism".  Referring to the activities of European nations in the Yom Kippur War, Raab added that there are "a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to Jews which are not anti-Semitic in nature, just as there are a number of objective conditions of disadvantage to blacks which are not racist in nature".
CJCurrie 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one has raised any objections, I'll incorporate my changes into the article.  CJCurrie 00:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Forster/Epstein and Brownfeld paragraphs

message: :In the 1980s, radical left-wing movements voiced increasing opposition to Israel, controversially claiming that Zionism was a racist and colonialist movement. In 1984, historian Robert Wistrich delivered a lecture in the home of Chaim Herzog, the President of Israel, in which he spoke of a "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism," the characteristic mode of which was the equation of Zionism with Nazism. He stated that "in recent years these grotesque Soviet blood-libels have been taken up by a part of the radical Left — especially the Trotskyists — in Western Europe and America".1
:In the mid-1980s, the Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban argued that "the New Left is the author and progenitor of the new anti-Semitism."2 Other commentators stated that the tendency to criticize Israel actions more vehemently than those of other nations was a form of antisemitic prejudice. Monsignor John M. Oesterreicher said in 1983: "Nobody says anything against the Egyptian authorities for oppressing the Coptic Christians. No one protested vehemently against the forced closing of St. Joseph's College years ago in Iraq, nor against the laws in Jordan prior to 1967 which prohibited Christians from acquiring new property. If Israel did any of these things, everyone would cry bloody murder... This is prejudice."3
:*1 "Anti-zionism as an Expression of Anti-Semitism in Recent Years", lecture delivered to the Study Circle on World Jewry in the home of the President of Israel, December 10, 1984.
:*2 Rubin, Daniel. (ed.) Anti-Semitism and Zionism: Selected Marxist Writings. International Publishers, 1987, p. 35.
:*3 James C. O'Neill, "God's 'Loving Will' Spurs Church's 'Jewish Connection," Our Sunday Visitor, July 10, 1983.
Comments:
The Wistrich paragraph is factually accurate in its current form, but is also a bit selective in the facts it presents.  I would recommend expanding it to read as follows:
:In the 1980s, radical left-wing movements voiced increasing opposition to Israel, controversially claiming that Zionism was a racist and colonialist movement.  The historian Robert Wistrich addressed this subject in a 1984 lecture delivered in the home of Chaim Herzog, the President of Israel.  Wistrich argued that a "new anti-Semitic anti-Zionism" was emerging, a distinguishing feature of which was the equation of Zionism with Nazism. He argued that this view was prevalent in Arab countries and the Soviet Union, but said that it had also been taken up by the radical Left, and particularly Trotskyist groups in Western Europe and America.  Wistrich did not specifically accuse the latter groups of antisemitism, though he argued that their statements were no less dangerous for this.
Two further comments:
(i)  I would recommend appending Abba Eban's statement to the end of this paragraph, rather than the beginning of the next one.  I haven't yet been able to obtain a copy of Daniel Rubin's book, and will have to assume that the Eban quote is accurate and fairly cited.
(ii)  Readers might notice that there's something missing from this paragraph: a representative statement of the radical left's views.  If we're going to present this issue in a balanced and NPOV manner, it would be in our interests to include a statment from a prominent radical Left figure responding to the charge of anti-Semitism.  I'll try to find such a statement in the near future.
Concerning the Oesterreicher section ... frankly, I'm not certain what this is doing here.  Oesterreicher isn't discussing "new antisemitism", or even old anti-Semitism, in any conceptual sense.  He's referring to the international criticism of Israel that followed the 1982 invasion of Lebanon.  His comments (which I don't object to in principle, btw) might be relevant to Wikipedia's article on Antisemitism, but I can't see why we're including them here.  
I'd be prepared to change my opinion, if anyone can present a compelling reason for keeping the reference.  CJCurrie 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote from Wistrich is compelling; it's not just "increased opposition to Israel", it's "grotesque Soviet blood-libels". Your version downplays the antisemitism outlined in Wistrich's statements. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stated above that I'd prefer to present information in an "objective and dispassionate manner".  I'm not certain that latching onto the "blood-libel" comment serves any useful purpose.  That being said, I'm not opposed in principle to its inclusion.  If you think my version downplays the *accusation of* anti-Semitism in Wistrich's statements, I could return it without difficulty.  CJCurrie 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I just noticed these comments. Just to address CJCurrie's point, I've reverted the Monsignor's thoughts in briefer summary form, because the previous raw quote failed to put his comment in context. He was addressing Israel and Jews being singled out for criticism as "prejudice." This captures the new anti-Semitism though not using the term.--Mantanmoreland 15:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oesterreicher's quote has nothing to do with the evolution of the "NAS" concept (unless we're now defining the term so broadly as to include every defence of Israel from real or perceived "disproportionate criticism" into the discussion).  The quote's inclusion is original research, and it must be removed accordingly.  CJCurrie 02:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wistrich, Eban and Oesterreicher paragraphs

message: I would also like to see a supplement added to the "History" section, dealing with the emergence of the "new antisemitism" concept after 2000.  I'll save that for another post, however.  CJCurrie 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I somehow missed all of this when it went up.  It all looks very good to me; I would think implementing it step by step is the right approach, and may allow others to see if they have any issues and then consult your specific reasoning.  Good stuff. Mackan79 18:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: After 2000

message: I notice that a 1983 quote from Monsignor John M. Oesterreicher was removed since I last edited this article. He believed that "prejudice" was the reason Israel was being singled out for criticism. See . Any objection if I put it back in somewhere?--Mantanmoreland 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly object, for reasons I've already stated elsewhere (see above).  JMO's quote doesn't have anything to do with the "NAS" concept, however defined. CJCurrie 02:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oesterreicher quote 

message: Aside from the rather obvious issue of poisoning the well, which would preclude any of these descriptions of Foreign Policy magazine, you can't make a claim based on your personal interpretation of an interview with one of the magazine's editors. Please review WP:NOR and WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the pro-[[globalization]]/pro-[[free trade]] political magazine ''[[Foreign Policy]]'' 

message: On the 17th an anon inserted the name "Brian" before a reference to Brian Klug. I could understand inserting the first name if this were the first time he were mentioned, or if he had been mentioned earlier but there had been several intervening sections since which didn't mention him, or more than one Klug mentioned was mentioned in the article. However, the insertion in question was in a sub-section of a whole section devoted to Brian Klug's views, in which he is named no less that a dozen times. His name is used in a large pull-quote, and there is even a picture of him with his name. Do we imagine the reader has suddenly forgotten which Klug we were talking about a couple of sentences earlier? Or are we trying to indicate that this is a different Klug? And yet, when I removed that neoplasm, I was reverted with the claim that "Wistrich is also named, and Wikilinked". Of course Wistrich is named and Wikilinked at that point, since it's the first time he has appeared in the text of the article. You don't see him constantly being referred to as "Robert Wistrich" after that initial introduction. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't the first time he's mentioned, Jay. Itsmejudith 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I didn't see that. However, there are eighteen paragraphs in three lengthy sections in between this section and the previous section mentioning him. That is not the case for Klug. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm glad you acknowledge that Wistrich is both mentioned and Wikilinked earlier in the article, you seem to have only read the first half of my edit summary, Jayjg: Wistrich is also named, and Wikilinked, above, so what's the big deal? It's a new section. My view is that giving somebody's full name at the start of a new section, especially in a long article, is a courtesy and convenience to a reader who uses the TOC, but I'm not going to get into a pissing match over it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A particularly pointless revert 

message: Do other editors agree with Isarig's observation that it constitutes well-poisoning to describe the journal "Foreign Policy" as right-of-centre?  CJCurrie 23:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. Nearly all the people and think-tanks are named without any political description or affiliation (except for a few "anti-fascists"). I'm also concerned that the Foreign Policy article is completely silent about the journal's political views, but it seems so important to label them here. I don't know enough about FP to know whether it is, but I might (or might not) have a different view if the other article said that FP were an advocacy publication... — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see a problem with "right-of-center"; it situates the argument with regards to free trade, globalization, etc., not with regards to the question of antisemitism.  (NAS advocates spread out pretty evenly across the political spectrum, as far as I can tell.)  My concern with the Strauss material, however, has less to do with how it's introduced than with what we've elected to quote.  Scan up this page to a sentence beginning, "At the same time that we're throwing academic robes over everything..."  My misgivings remain now what they were then.--G-Dett 23:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: Is there any reason why there's an external link to "Myth of New antisemitism" under See also as opposed to References or Further reading? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Quite correct to point it out. Changed. Thanks.--Cberlet 01:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also: "Myth of New antisemitism" 

message: Jeff Halper from israeli committee against house demolitions, was interviewed by norwegian TV (actually on kind of a travel program). I just thought some of his comments may be interesting for the article, though somewhat similar views are probably covered elsewhere in the article. The interview can be viewed here: http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/klipp/142202   From 25:00 and onwards a minute or two. He claims NAS is a new cynical pr tool, and that "the NAS says: Every critizism of Israel is anti-semitism." and a few other things. Could this be a useful source? if so, please help yourself! pertn 13:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting  and strong comments against NAS

message: The position of critics needs to be in the article, however, this section is just a Finkelstein soapbox. What makes him more of an authority than say Chomsky or other critics? <<-armon->> 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section should be expanded, and the views of others added.  CJCurrie 23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try. What I suggest is that we use scholarly sources on the subject. Norman Finkelstein may be a notable conspiracy theorist and therefore worthy of a mention, but not given this much space where he's presented an authority equivalent to a Bernard Lewis. <<-armon->> 23:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Finkelstein is a published academic.  Your POV toward him is not significant.  CJCurrie 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he's an "academic" for the next year or so anyway. <<-armon->> 23:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Only that the current wording was chosen to prevent any misunderstanding of Finkelstein's position.  I could try to shorten his section, if others think this would be an appropriate option.  CJCurrie 00:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A contradictory political ploy" soapbox 

message: By way of an explanation for my change:  Wikipedia articles must not only be written from a NPOV standpoint, but should also avoid the appearance of partisan attacks on public figures.  Having pictures of Tariq Ali and Noam Chomsky under the heading "The Left and anti-Zionism", in a discussion about perceived new trends in anti-Semitism, could very easily lead inattentive readers to draw an unflattering conclusion (and to miss the point that these authors were responding to general criticisms).
Several editors have removed this sub-header without any explanation.  I trust that anyone who wishes to remove it now will first engage with my concerns.  CJCurrie 04:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Response"

message: I've also returned the material on Independent Jewish Voices, which is at least as significant as the material on the Euston Manifesto.  CJCurrie 04:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IJV

message: I'm reading through the references that supposedly support the claim that "the far right made overtures to anti-war activists on the left to join forces against government policies in areas where they shared concerns,[18] mainly civil liberties, opposition to U.S. military intervention overseas, and opposition to U.S. support for Israel." It simply isn't there. There is NO documentation that I'm seeing that the right made any overture to join forces. What the Public Eye does seem to be saying is that anyone taking a position that differs from their own editorial view is de facto in league somehow with The Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. However, this is an article about the concept "The New Antisemitism." The Public Eye material is NOT history that's any more than peripherally (and with no small amount of editorial bias) related to this article. saying some fringe anti-Semite sat on a panel in a little anti-war meeting somewhere 17 years ago hardly seems lile encyclopedic documentation that "the far right made overtures to anti-war activists on the left to join forces..." on anything. As to the other examples, they are mixing speculation with fact, namely, the magazines speculation that anti-war rhetoric from tjhe right is directed at progressives--this is far different than any actual evidence of recruitment of th left by the right.Boodlesthecat 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the section has been reverted back without explanation. Wateva. If Wikipedians think a shoddily written, left wing polemic published on a fringe website that would never pass any kind of serious editorial review (making claims such as "the far right made overtures to anti-war activists on the left" that are never backed up in the text) counts as serious "history" of a concept, I'm not gonna argue. Boodlesthecat 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you also see the Chip Berlet piece in the New Internationalist as a poor-quality source? NI is a long-established magazine in the centre-left, Berlet is an experienced analyst, and the piece itself is measured in its language and makes no outlandish claims. Itsmejudith 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extremely poor quality, relative to its relevance to this article. It's a chatty account of conspiracy theories. It provides zero evidence of a "left-right convergence," (which is the claim it is being used as a reference for), and is full of unsupported bits like "an increasing number of Arabs and Muslims have grabbed onto antisemitic conspiracy theories to explain devastating struggles over land and power." Centre-left tabloid journalism.Boodlesthecat 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving "Reports of a left/right convergence"--this is speculative, peripheral, biased and ''not'' history