Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 8

message: I've added a quote from Monsignor Oesterreicher that I think has great relevance to this article. I believe it is in the right place but perhaps some of you veteran editors who have been editing this thing so harmoniously could take a look and see if that is so.--Mantanmoreland 15:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your quote is a reference to double standards with regards to criticizing Israel's policies.  But prejudice against Israel isn't the same as anti-Semitism, although it is related and there is a bridge between the two.  There is a lot of material for such a topic.  Maybe one solution would be to break apart what is considered to be the components of the NAS theory and deal with them in separate sections -- one of them is the argument that an underlying anti-Semitism on behalf of the critics is the motivator for what is claimed to be double standards in criticism.  --Ben Houston 23:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but note his use of the term "prejudice," meaning anti-Semitism. I think what makes this quote interesting is that Monsignor Oesterreicher was a critic of Israeli policies and also did not like it when Jewish leaders unfairly criticized the Vatican. Yet he had a clearthinking view of the whole concept of anti-Semitism. The double standard of which he speaks has been repeatedly also cited as a manifestation of the new anti-Semitism, very much as Monsignor Oesterreicher himself said. --Mantanmoreland 23:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the quote is a good one but it doesn't really belong in this article as it is -- it feels like it would be prefectly at home in an article that alleges specifically double standards with regards to criticism of Israel and the reasons for.  The main issue is that the quote doesn't mention the term NAS.  The connection to NAS is your own -- in your opinion he is describing a component of NAS.  Thus (for the time being at least) it appears as if you did original research to make that connection.  Now if someone else in a reputable source refers to Oesterreicher quote as relevant to NAS than it would pass the bar as being not OR but then you would have to mention who makes that connection and introduce the quote that way.  Do you see what I mean here?  The distinction between OR and non OR takes a while to get used to.  --Ben Houston 23:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are making this more complex than it really is, Ben (and actually have done that generally in your comments). The quote clearly fits in to the evolution of the concept, particularly in the context quoted. No OR involved at all, unless you include reading the source before commenting on it.--Mantanmoreland 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Note this earlier in the article: "To this day [1983] he continues to be a strong champion of the Jews and the state of Israel whenever he thinks prejudice is at work. " Prejudice meaning anti-Semitism.--Mantanmoreland 23:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Others may have different views, I'm just stating my thoughts.  I have in the past been ripped apart by editors more aggressive than myself for doing things like your addition that on other topics, I may have been taught by incorrect example.  Also, I only gave my thoughts because in your first responses to me below you mentioned this quote.  --Ben Houston 23:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can't speak to who's been telling you what, but your interpretation of WP:NOR, what you posted on my talk page, is wildly off-base and wikilawyering.--Mantanmoreland 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay, I'm not looking for a fight.  I didn't even attempt to remove your quote from the context you put it in.  I have though moved the historical uses of the term (that whole section, and it did contain your quote) into is own article to allow us to focus here on the modern meaning of the term.  Feel free to duplicate your quote elsewhere in this article.  I won't remove it.  --Ben Houston 03:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oesterreicher quote 

message: The article neuters critics.  It does this in two ways.  First, the arguments of critics are misportrayed as less critical then they actually are.  This is most obvious if one compares Brian Klug's essay "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism" with the way his views are summarized in the article.  The second method of neutering critics is by covering their views in the "What is the new anti-Semitism?" section.  There are two subsections of this definition section, "An old phenomenon" and "New, but not anti-Semitism", which actually cover major criticism of the concept but they are subverted and misportrayed as implicitly supporting just with slightly different views of the topic.  There should be a distinct criticism section and major critics should go there and their arguments should be accurately portrayed.  Also criticisms within the criticism section should be organized topically (like the rest of the article) rather than by the name of the individual making the criticism unless absolutely necessary.  --Ben Houston 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear on which specific parts of the criticisms are "misportrayed" - can you give examples? Jayjg (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, if a person's views are misrepresented, there should be no difficulty editing the quote as we would in any other article. --Leifern 17:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree:  there should be no difficulty editing such quotes.  CJCurrie 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CJ, I've got a few more Klug articles now, and his testimony to the British inquiry, so I'm hoping to clarify his views. The Nation article is not the best representation of them. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutering critics

message: The other serious issue with the article is its confusion of the listing of evidence of increased hostility and attacks towards Jewish people and symbols with the specific theory of NAS.  The increase in hostility and attacks is real and it should be appropriately condemned and documented in Contemporary anti-Semitism.  To view NAS as just describing the increase is to fundamentally misunderstand the concept (as defined by Foxman, Chesler and Klug) and the topic of this article.  The concept of NAS, according to Foxman, Chesler and Klug, actually offers a way of understanding this increase as being part of a rising global coalition of anti-Semitism, the reawakening of an old hatred that is, for the most part, devoid of context.  This is a specific interpretation of the evidence, an interpretation that leads one to draw specific conclusions, and it is the interpretation of this evidence that critics such as Brian Klug disagree with, not the evidence itself.  (To understand where I am coming from I highly recommend reading Brian Klug's essay "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism", I am parroting him.)  --Ben Houston 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is a second important formulation of the concept "new anti-semitism" that doesn't posit a "rising global coalition" as claimed by Foxman and Chesler.  From the perspective of someone whose goal is to fight against anti-semitism, the trends which comprise the concept "new anti-semitism" share one important characteristic: they are the key areas where anti-semitism must be fought today.  The new trends (as opposed to pre-existing right-wing anti-Semitism) are all being driven by non-productive, but distinct, responses to the "unfolding tragedy in Israel."  In this view, there is no claim that there is any real coordination or alliances between the separate trends.  But still, the separate trends, when viewed collectively as the "new anti-semitism", pose a serious threat that requires major attention -- the new anti-semitism is a true multiheaded hydra.  This is how Jonathan Sacks appears to view the concept .  His view is immune to the criticism of Brian Klug.  --Ben Houston 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing evidence with NAS's interpretation

message: The article is about the modern theory of NAS, not the term "New anti-Semitism" and its various meanings thoughout history.  As such the section covering other historical uses of the term, Changing meanings, is too prominent and serves as a distraction.  Could we do the dab thing and create other articles for each of those separate meanings?  Or, if multiple other articles is overkill, could we create an article entitled "New anti-Semitism (term)" that describes the various historical uses and meanings of the term?  To ensure clarity, but it might be going too far, we could rename this article as "New anti-Semitism (concept)" or "New anti-Semitism (theory)".  Or could we make use of a wiktionary entry to cover the various meanings?  This will allow us to again focus on the true topic of the article.  (I believe that focusing this article will help to clarify that the evidence of an increase in attacks and hostility towards Jewish people and symbols is distinct from the specific and controversial interpretation of these events offered by the theory of NAS.)  --Ben Houston 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I understand your point, Ben. I added a comment from Monsignor Oesterreicher that was spot-on the concept but did not involve use of the term "new anti-Semitism." I think that use of the term is relevant but I think the article indeed discusses the concept, and does so quite comprehensively in fact. So I am not sure what this point addresses.--Mantanmoreland 22:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand.  What are your thoughts about the two previous concerns I listed?  --Ben Houston 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go through the article again, but nothing stood out. On my first reading I thought that it actually was a thorough article and balanced. But I will read again.--Mantanmoreland 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I read it through again. Actually I really don't share your concerns. Klug's very thought-provoking commentary is given fair and very prominent and respectful treatment, so maybe I am missing your point on that. I do think there could be more on the non-Jewish clergymen and political leaders who have spoken out on this issue. It is not just a "Jewish issue."--Mantanmoreland 23:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: NOTE: I have just now split out the historical uses of the term to the new article New anti-Semitism (term) to allow for a better focus in this article.  I think they are appropriately linked together.  --Ben Houston 03:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Mantanmoreland.  I'm going to make a few more edits tonight if that is okay with you -- I am allowed to edit the article.  I am not a vandal, I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year and racked up around 4000 edits now.  I am not reverting your quote addition (though I moved it), could you not just blindly revert my attempt at improving the article?  Thanks.  --Ben Houston 04:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Bhouston, I agree with Mantanmoreland that the massive changes you've made need to be discussed first.  I don't see the purpose in creating a fork from this article.  I also don't understand the differentiation you are attempting to make in creating separate articles for "theory" and "term". Not only that but in the chunk you removed to the new "term" article , you added a new large section on "modern usage" which then goes on to discuss "concept"...which I thought you were supposedly trying to differentiate from "term".  I think the solution to alleviating the length of this article is to address it in THIS article and NOT to create a POV fork that just adds even more verbage. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree with Ben Houston here. While the tentative steps towards New anti-Semitism (term) may be a bit rough... this is typical of a newly created branch off of an existing article. (→Netscott) 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is about modern NAS theory, not term

message: Does anyone have feelings either way about whether the cartoon section should stay? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an opinion on the issue -- either way is fine with me.  --Ben Houston 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cartoons

message: Since I think it's inappropriate for an article to become a good article while it's the subject of an arbitration request, I removed the nomination. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination

message: Does anyone have thoughts on the Zipperstein section? I'm inclined to remove it because it's a weak argument, but I'm hesitating because he's a critic of the concept, and removing him would leave us with only Klug as a main academic opponent (plus Chomsky and Finkelstein). Is there another academic critic we could replace Zipperstein with? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just done another proofread of the article, it would be appreciated if some of those who say the article is POV would bring some good academic sources to the table with the POV they feel is not well represented. We have enough Klug, and I have another paper of his that gives up an update on his views, so that section can be improved. The Finkelstein paragraph is weak; if he devotes a third of his book to the new anti-Semitism, surely he does more than just criticize Chesler, who isn't even mentioned in our article. Could one of the people who have read it add something about his basic arguments? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll revise the Finkelstein section later this week.  I agree that the paragraph, at present, is fairly weak: the Chesler criticism is hardly the main point of his book.  I'm also inclined to keep Raab and Zipperstein, and I'm not certain what criteria you're using to describe their argument as "weak".  CJCurrie 23:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the Zipperstein point hard to understand i.e. that the disproportionate criticism of Israel is just part of the disproportionate responses to everything since 9/11. It's an odd argument, but I may have misunderstood him. Maybe I should go back and read it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zipperstein

message: :A couple months ago I figured that eventually there would be an article like Academic boycotts of Israel.  In order to give such a potentially contentious article context I started work on a similar article relating to the academic boycott of South Africa.  See:
::Academic boycott of South Africa (I just moved it from a draft within my userspace, it needs major clean-up from other contributors, hint hint)
:Many of the same issues arise with that boycott as with the current one, although of course there are many differences.  Best.  --Ben Houston 00:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Leflyman

message: Removed this sentence from the responses section (European Union):
"According to the French Interior Minister, the number of anti-Semitic attacks in France in 2004 was more than double that of the same period in 2003."
The reference supplied  does not support the claim, with the most relevant section reading: 
"In a March 2005 annual report to the Prime Minister, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (NCCHR) indicated that there were 1,565 racist and anti-Semitic incidents in 2004, nearly double the 833 recorded in 2003. The number of anti-Semitic incidents--including physical assaults, attacks against property, cemetery desecrations, threats, and reported insults--increased from 601 in 2003 to 970 in 2004. Disturbingly, the number of incidents occurring in schools nearly tripled. There have been no reported deaths due to anti-Semitic violence since 1995, but 36 persons were injured in anti-Semitic attacks in 2004."
Nor is the information supplied about the source accurate. There are other problems with the sentence apart from its sourcing, conflating France with the EU in particular. --Nydas 18:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that, Nydas. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attacks in France

message: I've taken the liberty of moving the Earl Raab paragraph from the "rebuttal" section to the "anti-Israelism" section.  I hope this decision will not engender much controversy.  CJCurrie 23:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It flows better. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earl Raab

message: Until the 1980s, Jews in the US were generally perceived as left of center.  Sometime during the Reagan era, the organized Jewish community started supporting Republicans.  25 years later, it's almost been forgotten that organized Jewry used to be leftist.  Today, the Republican/Christian right seems to be strongly aligned with Israel. That's a huge change in position.  (Most US Jews still vote Democratic; 77% voted for Kerry..  The leadership, however, is further to the right.).
<P>
In Israel, with the decline in Labor and the rise of Likud, something similar happened, with the ruling coalition moving further to the right.
<P>
The opposition from the Left has to be seen in this context.  More on this later. There's a book on the shift, but I have to find the reference.  --John Nagle 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point you are bringing up is discussed partly in the article Israel lobby in the United States.  It is just mentioned that the leadership of the so-called lobby is more aligned with the right-leaning than left.  Interstingly, some people make the claim that the right-leaning is more influential because the republicans in power like that tilt -- an Israel at war is useful to the exercising of American power in the middle east (such as the goals expressed by groups like the PNAC and so forth), an Israel at peace with its neighbors would be of less value strategically.  Thus those leaning right are given more influence/power and with that comes more funding (from people that want access or want proven results) and thus the whole formal lobbying infrastructure starts to lean more and more to the right because that is what is reinforced.  I think there is some truth to this perspective, although there are clearly other currents at work.  --Ben Houston 23:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Your dictum that "[t]he opposition from the Left has to be seen in this context" is troubling from a policy perspective; has anyone commented on this in the context of New anti-Semitism? Perhaps suggested these "trends" are somehow related? Jayjg (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this 2002 article in the Economist, "Anti-Semitism in Europe". This is a British perspective: "Politically once mostly on the left, many Jews moved to the right during Margaret Thatcher’s and John Major’s time in power." and "The most striking phenomenon, however, is the steady shift of sympathy away from Israel, especially on the left." So the Economist has tied the two trends together. It's not original research.  --John Nagle 16:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't tie the two "trends" together that I can see. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; it mentions only the British case, and does not suggest that the two phenomena are related. What I find rather shocking, though, is John Nagle's use of the anti-Semitic "Jewish Tribal Review" website as a source. One need go no further than the Jews at the Steering Wheel page, which attempts to document the pernicious influence of Jews who have the temerity to head non-Jewish organizations. There, it views as "valid" questions such as "to what degree do these people have allegiance to the Jewish victimology tradition, by extension to what degree do they hold dear the state of Israel and/or other Judeocentric interests within their respective organization's policy? Also, to what degree do they reflect a "Jewish view of the world," so popularly declared as something very real in Jewish circles -- particularly in deconstructing and/or subverting the non-Jewish social, cultural, and political order?" Jayjg (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source isn't Jewish Tribal Review; it's the Economist.  If you can get through the Economist's registration system, you can see the same article there. --John Nagle 18:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you used was JewishTribalReview. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For a US reference, see this 2002 Salon article, "Jews and the GOP", especially page 2, "More visible anti-Semitism on the left than on the right?". Part of the point of that article is that tarring the Left with the brush of anti-Semitism is a feature of Republican political strategy. "Their reluctance to endorse all of Ariel Sharon's actions doesn't necessarily mean that those Democrats are anti-Israel, much less that the party is. But Republicans are trying to spin it that way."  --John Nagle 18:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the point of that article is that tarring the Left with the brush of anti-Semitism is a feature of Republican political strategy. No, that's not part of the point of the article; it neither says nor implies that.  You need to stick to what the sources actually say, rather than spinning conspiracy theories out of them. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left to right move 

message: JayJG:  I did restore the "Anti-Semitism is crying wolf" cartoon, though; it's a good illustration of the POV of some of those who oppose the concept of New anti-Semitism.
In other words, it's good for a straw-man argument.  Thanks Jay: you've given me sufficient grounds to delete it.  
If you really want to use a cartoon, why not search out one that Tikkun ran a few years ago (in which members of that group were depicted protesting the occupation of Palestine, while a figure representing "right-wing Zionists" attacked them as anti-Semites and self-haters)?  This image was actually attacked as "new anti-Semitism", if memory serves.  CJCurrie 23:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, almost certainly, the most blatant display of bad faith it has been my displeasure to witness in some time. Are you so suspicious of my motives, then, that you will immediately revert as a "strawman argument" any edit I make in support of someone discounting New anti-Semitism? If there was any credibility left in your claim for some sort of alleged neutrality regarding this article, or the editors here, it has completely vanished now. Jayjg (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think I've gone beyond the call of duty in assuming good faith during some past discussions on this page (for instance, by not making ad hominem attacks when challenged).  It's possible that I interpreted your previous remark in an unfair or uncharitable light; if so, I apologize.  I never thought the image was appropriate, however, and I stand by my argument in support of its removal.  CJCurrie 01:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't follow the straw-man argument point. It's a good image to represent that POV. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My concern was that you didn't object when Liftarn added it, but did object when Jayjg restored it. You can see why that looks problematic. As for the cartoon, I have no strong feelings about it either way. I thought it was a good illustration of that POV, but if you can find a better one, I'm sure I'll be fine with that too. I hope from now on we can judge content according to whether it improves the article, and not based on whether we normally agree with the person who added it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have to go with CJ on this. My belief, as stated previously, is that neither the cartoon (nor the cartoonist) are notable enough to merit inclusion in this article.  Just as we've had a fairly stringent standard for the scholarship/critical sources which discuss NAS, we should also apply that same selectivity to illustrations (decorative or otherwise)-- particularly ones, as in this case, which lead to problematic interpretations by readers. --LeflymanTalk 03:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any image that illustrates new anti-Semitism well is going to lead to problematic interpretations for readers; it goes to the heart of this article, and the concept, that some people see one idea in a set of words or images, and another group sees exactly the opposite. If we're looking for a "safe" image to illustrate the concept, we've kind of missed the point. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm afraid I can't agree with this reasoning. There are untold numbers of equally non-notable cartoons one could arbitrarily choose as an illustration. Heck, there were over 1000 created for the Iranian Anti-Israel/Holocaust cartoon exhibition (and 76 submitted for the Israeli Anti-Semitic Cartoon Contest). We shouldn't just inject a cartoon into an article, particularly for a controversial topic such as this one, because we think it "goes to the heart of the article"; more than anyone, you should appreciate how that would be a form of Original Research. (I note that an oddly ambiguous new section has been added to NOR which claims that "Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments" -- this is clearly inaccurate, especially in the case of topics such as this one.) --LeflymanTalk 05:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latuff cartoon

message: I meant to say earlier that I removed the examples just to keep the length down. It might be worth starting a separate article for them. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Anti-semitism is so emotive a topic that it helps to perform a thought experiment. Suppose someone were to claim that there is a form of prejudice called anti-kiwism, an irrational hatred of New Zealanders. What might convince us he was right? Criticism of the New Zealand government? No. A denial of New Zealand's right to exist? Maybe. Seven thousand terrorist attacks on New Zealand citizens in the past year? Possibly. A series of claims at the UN Conference against Racism in Durban that New Zealand, because of its treatment of the Maori, is uniquely guilty of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, accompanied by grotesque Nazi-style posters? Perhaps.
From the article: "Proponents of the concept argue that…"; "Critics of the concept argue that…"; "That there has been a resurgence of anti-Semitic attacks and attitudes is accepted by most opponents of the concept of new anti-Semitism." The article is about a contested idea. To some authorities it is self-evidently not only a concept but a tangible phenomenon, while to others it is an example of chaotic conceptualisation. Four authors are cited as proposers of this concept and each seems to define it in a different way. What is a necessary condition for an anti-semitic action or discourse to count as "new anti-semitism"? That the left should be involved? The far right? Muslims? Two of these in an unholy alliance? All three in an even less holy alliance? Simply that it is occurring in recent decades (e.g. the bans on ritual slaughter)? The article doesn't make this clear. Itsmejudith 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article repeats what the main sources are saying. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fair enough, I appreciate that you have been writing for the enemy. But it repeats what which sources are saying about what? Some are using the term "new anti-semitism" or directly stating that there is such a phenomenon. Others contest the term. The article makes that clear. So far so good for a Wikipedia entry about a contested idea. But already there is potential for disagreement. See talk: totalitarianism for a discussion of whether an article is about a term or about a reality that the term refers to.  Itsmejudith 20:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not about a term or about a phenomenon that a term might refer to. It is about a concept. People agree about some parts of the description of the concept and disagree about other parts. Some people think the concept is an empty class. Others think it refers to a phenomenon. The debate is relatively new. Yale University has just set up the first forum in North America devoted to the study of anti-Semitism in response to this confusion and to the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. Hopefully some good academic work will come out of that. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope so too, starting with clearing up the conceputal confusion. I understand what you mean about a concept (or better its referent?) being an empty class. For example, many people believe that eco-terrorism is an empty class, and that is discussed in the relevant article. The problem is different here, in that there is disagreement about New anti-Semitism even as a term - i.e. its definition is still shifting and not yet settled. Itsmejudith 20:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's obviously a concept, since differing terms have been used to describe it, though "New anti-Semitism" is the most commonly used one.  Jayjg (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... lost me there. Different terms are used to describe peace and war - because they're different things. Itsmejudith 20:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And different terms are sometimes used to describe the same concept, especially when it's a fairly new concept, as in this case. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg enforced very strict adherence on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid that any source referenced must make explicit references to Israeli apartheid.  Thus any supporting information from a source that did not mention Israeli apartheid could not be used -- to do otherwise would involve original research.  I trust he applies his high standards similarly across multiple articles.  --Ben Houston 05:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Necessary and sufficient conditions

message: Ken, regarding your header change, Klug is saying that what others are calling new anti-Semitism is new, and is a prejudice, but it's not anti-Semitism; hence the header. He says it is a "brand new bug" not a mutation of an existing virus. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header 

message: What's thinking on Forster and Epstein's "The New Anti-Semitism", their 1974 book?
I've been reading it, and it's such a period piece.  They were worried about now-defunct left-wing organizations of the 1960s, the Young Socialist Alliance, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Spartacus League, most of which barely made it to 1974.  They make a key point: "In the United States the Radical Left sees the Jewish community and its institutions as part of the "Establishment", an affluent, smug, "liberal" obstacle to the growth of revolutionary conciousness". (p.9)  That's where we are today, with leftist anti-globalism protestors being against Israel, as mentioned in the article.   The "Establishment", in the US, UK, and Israel, has moved much further to the right since 1974, of course, leaving more room on the left for opposition. 
I had no idea that Jesus Christ Superstar, the Broadway musical, was considered anti-Semitic, but this was apparently a big issue in 1973.  "For Jews the rock opera was a disaster mitigated only by the fact that the lyrics were often unintelligble and that New York theater prices might well keep many people, even those who liked rock music, away".(p. 93)
Then there was a flap over a book on Meyer Lansky, "the man who organized crime", who was a fugitive hiding in Israel at the time.  And Portnoy's Complaint, which was what passed for pornography back then, was considered anti-Semitic.  
It's interesting seeing what people were wound up about in the not too distant past. It helps put the issue in perspective.  --John Nagle 20:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What issue? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there an updated second edition?  I thought that there was only one version of the text.  Actually, this is probably the wrong time for humour ... CJCurrie 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's never a wrong time for that, CJ, although I'm not sure I got the joke. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forster and Epstein's place in this history 

message: there is no anti-semitism on the right and never has been, it is exclusive property of the left as it always has been, including Nazi Germany, a totalitarian centre-left state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.49.1 (talk • contribs) 
What the hell are you blabbering on about?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the far right, in reality leftist