Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 5

message: I'm going to concentrate on the UK but I'm sure my concerns apply to other countries too:
National Union of Students 
There are concerns that the support for Palestine...it should develop procedures for dealing with allegations of discrimination.[53]
I'm not sure about this bit.  It is a bit parochial, a few leaflets and comments are bad, but are they really a national issue?
Academic Boycott of Israel 
At the same time that the above allegations about NUS were made, some Israeli academics were facing a boycott by the AUT [54][55] The academic boycott was at the behest of nearly sixty Palestinian groups [56] and, in line with that call, contained an exemption for "any conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonial and racist policies". The motions passed at AUT conference called for a boycott of the universities of Haifa (due to alleged mistreatment of Ilan Pappé) and Bar-Ilan (for awarding degrees to students from the College of Judea and Samaria, based in the Ariel settlement). This was seen by many on both sides as the first step to a wider boycott being pushed by the proponents [57]
The boycott was overturned at an emergency conference held on 26 May 2005. Reasons cited for the decision were: the damage to academic freedom, the hampering of dialogue and peace effort between Israelis and Palestinian, and that boycotting Israel alone would be bigotry. The boycott was described as antisemitic by some groups and individuals [57], most prominently the Engage group [58] while there was also much opposition to the boycott on other grounds such as damaging academic freedom or being counterproductive [59]. Others defended the boycott and rejected accusations of anti-Semitism.[60][61]
This is a bit more substantial, but the references are a bit pants, [57] is an accusation of anti-semitism (from Julie Burchill!) and doesn't really qualify as "some groups and individuals", there is a better source ([58] Engage), but these are the only two claims that the situation was anti-semitic.  With [59], [60], and [61] saying that it isn't.  So the section as a whole is misleading.  It needs rephrasing so that the accusations of anti-semitism come first, and it also needs some better sources for the it-is-anti-semitic side, I'm sure there were more credible people that Burchill saying it. 
Ken Livingstone 
Journalists and Jewish groups also protested against London's controversial mayor Ken Livingstone for meeting with controversial Muslim scholar and preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has supported Palestinian suicide bombings against Israeli military targets.[62][63][64]
al-Qaradawi's visit was indeed controversial, and he has been condemned as being anti-semitic from many quarters, but there is nothing here that says anyone called Livingstone anti-semitic, or that this represents an anti-semitic 'incident'.  At the very least this could do with rephrasing and retitling (i.e. 'Visit by Yusuf al-Qaradawi').  Surprised there's no mention of the concentration camp thing, although that'd be even harder to phrase I suppose.
George Galloway 
Also, during the 2005 UK General election, the election for the constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow in London's most heavily Muslim district was tainted by incidents of tyre-slashing and vicious verbal assaults on the incumbent Labour candidate Oona King, who is half African-American (from a U.S. emigrant) and half-Jewish. King's support for the war in Iraq, which was unpopular with many British voters and with Muslims in particular, may also have been instrumental in her unseating by George Galloway, candidate for the new, anti-war RESPECT Party. According to BBC News online "Ms King ratcheted up the tension when she accused Mr Galloway's supporters of anti-Semitism following an egg-throwing at a memorial to Jewish war dead". Former Labour MP Tony Banks accused Galloway of exploiting racial politics to win the seat, which Galloway denied (although he stood by a statement he had made during the campaign that King "had been responsible for the deaths of many people in Iraq with blacker faces than hers".[65]
Again with this one the references aren't very good and it is phrased badly, basically being about the King vs. Galloway election campaign, not the allegations of anti-Semitism.  The allegation of anti-Semitism is by King against Galloway's supporters (not Galloway himself, she's not that stupid), so the article should reflect that, the only reference is [65] which simply says ""Ms King ratcheted up the tension when she accused Mr Galloway's supporters of anti-Semitism following an egg-throwing at a memorial to Jewish war dead" but a more indepth analysis would be something like . --Coroebus 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing claims for "Country-specific incidents 

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

message: This article has been fully protected for about seven weeks, extremely long for wikipedia standards. No progress has been made in the discussion for the last week. Are the parties moving toward mediation or some other form of dispute resolution? If not, then I will formally request unprotection. Calwatch 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, this article has been protected for a ludicrously long period.  What could Mel say before unprotection that he couldn't say equally clearly afterwards? --Tony Sidaway 06:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll adopt my usual process.  I'm going to unprotect this article but will engage in an aggressive poicy against anyone who, after over two months of protection, edit wars. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove protection?

message: If future edit wars are to be avoided, the inherent controversy of the idea has to be made clear at the outset.
The article should be clear in the first paragraph that the concept of "new anti-semitism" is the idea that attacks on Israel/Zionism (and maybe also the US?) encourage/are manifestations of/are informed by anti-semitism.  This is the real meaning of the phrase, as made clear in the fourth paragraph "Proponents of the term "new anti-Semitism" argue that it is associated with the Left, anti-Americanism etc ".  That is why the idea is controversial - lots of people support and lots dispute this linkage.  In contrast, no-one disputes that anti-semitism still exists.  
However, in the most gormlessly-POV fashion, the article (at points) tries to present new anti-semitism as a neutral catch-all term for ALL modern anti-semitism, as if it was a term that in itself implied no "association" with other political ideas, eg anti-Zionism.  The 1st line reads: "New anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents"  If this is all the phrase meant, it wouldnt be so politically charged.  It would also be largely redundant.  
Basically, the first paragraph needs to be completely re-written to make clear what the concept of "new antisemitism" generally implies, beyond a banal statement that antisemtitism still exists, and (in outline) why these extra implications are so controversial.
--Danward 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come on: make the controversy clear 

message: What does the paragraph below have to do with new anti-Semitism? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be noted that the Israeli media also engaged in speculation of a massacre at Jenin.  On 9 April 2002, Ha'aretz printed an article which asserted that Shimon Peres was privately describing the battle as a "massacre".  IDF officers were also cited as having expressed "grave reservations" about the battle, and one officer was quoted as saying, "However many wanted men we kill in the refugee camp, and however much of the terror infrastructure we expose and destroy there, there is still no justification for causing such great destruction."Aluf Benn and Amos Harel, "Peres calls IDF operation in Jenin a 'massacre'", Ha'aretz, 9 April 2002.
It doesn't; rather, it's a classic example of original research.  No-one (except a Wikipedia editor) has brought this up in the context of New anti-Semitism; thus, this inclusion "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source."  In this case, the editor wishes to refute the common claim that the "Jenin massacre" allegations are an example of New anti-Semitism, so he brings one example of various senior Israelis making the same claim. Unfortunately, he forgets that he must actually quote someone who says "Jenin massacre allegations weren't really an example of New anti-Semitism, because Peres also privately called the battle a massacre". Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jenin

message: CJCurrie, this has nothing to do with the new anti-Semitism. You are reporting on one of the ways in which claims of a massacre built up (but by no means the only one). To add it is original research, and not even good original research, because there were journalists reporting there was a massacre who were holed up in the camp and who were not reading Haaretz. 
However, that's beside the point. The point is that you must find a source that says: "These allegations were not a manifestation of new anti-Semitism (or anti-Semitism), because Shimon Peres was using the same vocabulary." Find a source who says that, and you can add what s/he says, sticking closely to exactly what s/he says. Otherwise, please do not add it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Israeli media also engaged in speculation of a massacre at Jenin. On 9 April 2002, Ha'aretz printed an article which asserted that Shimon Peres was privately describing the battle as a "massacre". IDF officers were also cited as having expressed "grave reservations" about the battle, and one officer was quoted as saying, "However many wanted men we kill in the refugee camp, and however much of the terror infrastructure we expose and destroy there, there is still no justification for causing such great destruction." (Aluf Benn and Amos Harel, "Peres calls IDF operation in Jenin a 'massacre'", Ha'aretz, 9 April 2002.) These statements were later retracted. Sharon Sadeh, who has argued that the international press was responsible for demonizing Israel in its depiction of the battle, acknowledges that this article "contributed to the initial damning impression of events in Jenin". Sadeh has also argued that Israel's decision to block journalists from the camp was a strategic error, which led to accusations of a cover-up. (Sharon Sadeh, "How Jenin battle became a 'massacre'", The Guardian, 6 May 2002, p. 7.)"
See above. CJCurrie 06:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jenin again

message: I wasn't party to the original consensus intro so I don't want to start a fight, but since there is a disussion about this, I would have to agree with CJCurrie that my understanding of New anti-semitism is that it emanates from the left, while much of the contemporary resurgence of anti-semitism originates from the right, or from muslims.  Now I'm sure there are arguments to be made that an atmosphere of left wing endorsement of anti-semitism might potentiate other forms of anti-semitism, I have not heard it said that all contemporary anti-semitism is new anti-semitism.  Therefore I would certainly need to see sources asserting this before I would accept it.  I'm not going to edit the intro because this seems to be very contentious, but I'm just making my views known. --Coroebus 07:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources on New anti-Semitism include a resurgent and Muslim originated anti-Semitism as part of the phenomenon.  Have you read the sources on New anti-Semitism? Jayjg (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the ones in this article, and I certainly didn't come across that claim.  Then again, the sources in this article are quite poor quality. Can you point me towards any? --Coroebus 17:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at earlier versions of the intro, before the mediation, there were sources in there that were good, although I don't think they were online. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I get time I might try and track down some academic sources, if I find anything good I'll post it here. --Coroebus 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New or contemporary anti-Semitism 

message: Also, if you're going to assume that a deletion was an accident, then assume it. Don't write a snide edit summary.
I didn't think my summary was especially snide, and I thought it best to let you know that I didn't consider the deleted point to be contentious.  CJCurrie 01:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summaries