Talk:New antisemitism: Difference between revisions

Jewish history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

New antisemitism was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 16, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

May I suggest that the current section be rewritten? Epstein and Forster's main argument is that the "new anti-Semitism" was highlighted by opposition to Israel: this should be emphasized in a summary of their text. (The peripheral arguments can also be mentioned, but in their proper place.) CJCurrie 03:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits by CJCurrie improved the paragraph. I made one minor change for style. The next paragraph, on the 1980s, could now use some work. It talks about the New Left, which was essentially dead in the US by the Reagan years. Were the writers cited for the 1980s writing about current events, or retrospectively, when they mentioned the "New Left"? --John Nagle 05:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus Christ Superstar thing was unclear. Were they offering it as an example of the new anti-Semitism, and if so, what was their argument? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you read the book? There are four pages on "Jesus Christ Superstar", including long quotes from the show. --John Nagle 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Epstein and Forster were complaining about back then is that it was reviving the old "Jews killed Jesus" thing, in a medium that reached a young, hip new audience. That was the "new" part; the old anti-Semitism got a makeover and they didnt't like it. Pages 90 to 102 are mostly about that musical. Some people were really wound up about that issue back then. --John Nagle 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that may be so, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new header lists his name and not his argument, whereas the other section headers try to sum up the content. What would people say the basic argument or position in the Finkelstein section now is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That "new anti-Semitism" is a political argument, and is not really about fighting anti-Semitism. CJCurrie 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could something like that be the header? E.g. "The 'new anti-Semitism' is just a political ploy." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Anti-Defamation League#Claims of a "new" anti-Semitism, there's some key information we don't have in this article:

• In 1974, ADL national leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein published a book called The New Anti-Semitism
• In 1982, ADL national leader Nathan Perlmutter and his wife, Ruth Ann Perlmutter, released a book entitled The Real Anti-Semitism in America (New York, 1982).
• In 2003, ADL's national director Abraham Foxman published Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (San Francisco, 2003)

In this article, it isn't made clear that those books all came from ADL officials. That's clear in the ADL article, and it needs to be made equally clear here. --John Nagle 18:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Creating" new anti-Semitism? The ADL's most significant function is tracking and exposing anti-Semitism, it's no surprise that various ADL leaders publish books about it. John, I must again strongly remind you that Wikipedia is not a muckraking investigative newspaper, trying to uncover secret plots and conspiracies. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Finkelstein. Perhaps it can go in his section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Creating" presumably not in the sense of creating the attitude, but creating the framework, the model, the construct describing the attitude. Of course, whether they did even that is another matter. - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the sentence on Jesus Christ Superstar:

Forster and Epstein's book also contains extensive criticism of pop-culture works that the authors believed were anti-Semitic, notably the 1973 Broadway musical Jesus Christ Superstar, because it blamed Jews for the death of Jesus (p. 93).

It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the topic of this article, which is quite lengthy as is. Perhaps it might go in an article about the book, or about Jesus Christ Superstar, if you really think it's very notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's properly cited, and it shows what was considered "New anti-semitism" back then, so it should stay in. As the history section, which is mostly factual, becomes more comprehensive and better organized, we may be able to cut down some of the more argumentative sections further down and get some space back. It's worthwhile to work on "who said what when". Looking at the historical sequence of events makes this issue clearer. The 70s-80s period is better now. Thanks. --John Nagle 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be properly cited, but it has nothing to do with the topic of this article. All sorts of things have been called "New anti-Semitism" at one time or another, including the racial anti-Semitism of the early to mid 20th century; however, this is an article about the modern concept of "New anti-Semitism", not anything that has ever been called "New anti-Semitism". As stated before, this article is already quite lengthy; please only include items which are on the topic of this article. Also, please avoid insulting edit summaries which refer to my edits as "vandalism"; that's a serious violation of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is attempting to redefine "new anti-Semitism". We've clearly established that claims of "new anti-Semitism", covering a wide range of perceived offenses, have been verifiably reported by reliable sources each decade since the 1960s. Just because some of those claims may now look silly in retrospect is not cause to remove them from Wikipedia. The historical cultural references help to put the issue in perspective. The article already had references from the 1940s, so the claim that this is an article only about the "modern concept" is demonstrably false. --John Nagle 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're attempting to re-define New anti-Semitism. The academics who described this subject talk about a key set of indicators and actors, and refer to events in the 90s and 2000s; we've clearly established this. The fact that someone used the phrase 30 or 50 years ago to refer to something else is irrelevant for the purpose of this article. Please stop trying to insert prochronisms into this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, this article is about the wave of anti-Semitism that almost all writers say began to sweep across Europe in the late 1990s/early 2000s. The mistake you repeatedly make on this page is to tell us what your personal opinions are, when all we're supposed to discuss and write about is what relevant, reliable sources say about this concept, not about some other. Also, I asked you before what you meant by the Jesus Christ Superstar thing "putting the issue in perspective," but you didn't reply and now you've said it again. What issue, and in perspective in what sense? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with the history section is that it jumps back and forth between European and US political issues, which tend to differ, without noting the differences clearly. The Trotskyists never had any real traction in the US. Abba Eban is cited as talking about the "new left" in the mid-1980s, quoted from "Anti-Semitism and Zionism: Selected Marxist Writings". But the quote doesn't make it clear whose "new left" he's talking about. US issues were quite different. Also, the role of the USSR in all this needs to be mentioned more. Several of the references mention the USSR, which was providing substantial aid to some Arab countries (especially Egypt) during that period, as being behind various anti-Israel actions. ("Nowhere in the world today is anti-Semitism masquerading under the guise of anti-Zionism more pervasively than in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" - Forster and Epstein, (1974) p. 221.) So there's a substantial Cold War aspect to this. --John Nagle 05:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the Forster and Epstein's work was perhaps a pre-cursor to the modern concept, but it's clearly not about the modern concept. Indeed, how could it be - New anti-Semitism describes events and trends that have mostly occurred in the 1990s and 2000s! This article needs to focus on the modern concept as it is currently deliniated, and studied by academics and other experts; older works which caught very early signs of the trend might be mildly interesting for historical reasons, but the article really can't spend huge amounts of time discussing them as well. Perhaps some of that material could be added to the Anti-Semitism article. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"New anti-Semitism describes events and trends that have mostly occurred in the 1990s and 2000s!" - that's a position statement and arguably original research. Actually, it looks from the cites like somebody (usually an official of the ADL) has relaunched "new anti-Semitism" each decade since at least the 1960s. It's branding, like "New Tide". A classic line in the advertising business is "The two most valuable words you can ever use in the headline are "free" and "new." You cannot always use "free," but you can nearly always use "new" if you try hard enough."[1] --John Nagle 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's what all the academics say, so it's hardly original research. What is original research is the conspiracy theory you are promoting that the Elders of Zion/ADL are promoting a "New anti-Semitism" brand. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, when Wistrich etc. talk about New anti-Semitism, is that part of the ADL conspiracy? When longtime left-wing activist Chesler starts noting anti-Semitism among her leftist friends, is it because she is in the pay of the ADL? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, all the academics who write about this agree that the concept this article discusses started in the 1990s/2000s, so that's not OR. The theory you're applying is Norman Finkelstein's. It's fine to add that to his section, but you can't diffuse it throughout the entire article as though it's a fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently swapped the placements of the Manchester graffiti and San Francisco anti-war rally images. My reasoning, which I gave in the edit summary, was that it is very clear that the placard is meant as an example of anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism on the Left, whereas it is not clear at all what the political motivations of the person who made the graffiti were (he might have been left-wing, far-right-wing, or a Muslim who doesn't identify with either the political left or right). So, as I wrote in the summary, I thought both images would be more appropriate to their sections if reversed. But SlimVirgin reverted the change without any explanation, which I found a very surprising action from an administrator whom I have had a lot of respect for. I invite her to discuss why she felt the earlier positioning of the images was better, and where we should end up placing these two images. Andrew Levine 16:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, this has all been discussed before, so if you look through the archives and click on the links in the caption, you'll see why the main image is used. As for the other one, I was about to delete it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was discussed before, but I don't believe there was ever a consensus agreement on the point. If the phrase "Counterfeit Jews" truly refers to the belief system of some obscure fringe-conspiracy group, then John Nagle's point is correct: it's "off in some weird land of its own", and doesn't deserve to be referenced in this article.

It might be worth noting that this particular matter (the meaning of the "Counterfeit Jews" reference) has been raised before, but never really addressed.

There were references to the phrase in the main body of the article, at one time, but they were quickly reverted. (In fairness, the reverts may have been for unrelated reasons.) [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7],

[8], [9], [10], [11]

In any event, I'm certain we can find a more suitable image. (Perhaps something that references the debate over "new anti-Semitism" would be appropriate.) CJCurrie 07:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC) amended 08:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJ, as a gesture of good faith, I'd like to see you start making edits to this article, or comments on the talk page, from the other POV, just for a change. You say you write for the enemy elsewhere, so please do it here, at least for a while. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The other POV" is already well-represented. Now, could you please address the concerns raised here? CJCurrie 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some strange reason it appears that everyone who is opposed to the concept of the New anti-Semitism also thinks that fascinating and highly thought-provoking image is "inappropriate", and should be deleted, or failing that at least hidden in some way, though the reasons put forward for its "inappropriateness" vary from day to day. If I weren't overflowing with good faith, I'd think the two were related. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me? I'm opposed to the concept, but I don't think I've ever suggested that the image be deleted. Clearly, everyone who thinks that the image should be deleted come from the "opposed to the concept" camp, but it would be surprising if that were otherwise, no? - Jmabel | Talk 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might have something to do with the fact that the current image represents the POV of a lunatic-fringe group, and doesn't address the actual debate over NAS. I'll grant that the image is fascinating (in the same sense as a train wreck), but I'd be hard pressed to find its "highly thought-provoking" aspects.

Before you ask, my preferred choice for an introductory image would be the caricature of Ariel Sharon as "Saturn devouring his children" published by The Independent a few years ago. Unlike the present image, that cartoon reflects the more substantive debates over accusations of "NAS" ... and it has the added advantage of being published by a non-fringe source. It's possible that copyright issues would prevent reproduction of the original, but it's been redrawn by amateurs a number of times since then -- surely one of those would be appropriate. CJCurrie 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's unsurprising you'd consider that one to be a better illustration, considering that that one was actually found to not be anti-Semitism, and won a bunch of awards. A strong argument for your side, no doubt, but hardly a good illustration of the concept. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a better illustration because it addresses the *debate* about NAS, and was argued pro and con. I'd be willing to consider something similar, if the Sharon argument offends you for some reason. CJCurrie 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a close look at the graffiti poster (Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg), you notice that it says in several places "Counterfeit Jews". That's apparently a phrase from the "End Times" Christians on the far right.[12] In fact, if you go to the page from which the poster was taken[13], the photographer notes "Notice the obscure reference to "Counterfeit Jews." This is apparently part of a little-known anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Africans are the real Hebrews of the Bible, and that those people who now call themselves Jews are all phonies, having stolen the title of the "chosen people" from the Africans, who are the true chosen people." Look up "counterfeit Jews" in Google, and you get a collection of wierd conspiracy theories. Here's an example.[14]. He has a theory that the Jews who emigrated from Russia to Israel after the demise of the USSR are gearing up for Communist Empire 2.0, or something like that. Anyway, that poster isn't "new anti-Semitism", or even mainstream "old anti-Semitism"; it's off in some wierd land of its own. (This is not unusual for San Francisco protest marches).

Finding some better image might be helpful. That one ends up looking silly when examined closely. --John Nagle 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is weird. Maybe it doesn't belong in the article at all. In any event, the graffiti picture is clearly misplaced in its present state. Andrew Levine 18:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was thinking of deleting it anyway, so I'll go ahead and do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do delete it. You'll remember that a couple of months ago I was basically accused of anti-semitism for questioning its copyright status. Jayjg said, as if it was a crime, that I "didn't like" the image. Too right I don't like it. It must be in line for the most appalling image to appear in Wikipedia. Even so, if it was typical of the images to be seen on demonstrations in western countries then it should definitely be included. But it isn't typical of anything. In the end what does the existence of this image prove about anything? Just that there is an individual twisted enough to produce such a revolting thing. Which unfortunately we knew anyway. Itsmejudith 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Community Security Trust one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally deleted the "graffii poster" picture, per above. Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg. I wanted to replace it with one of some leftist protest group burning the Israeli flag [15] but can't find anything with a suitable license. Can someone get copyright clearance? --John Nagle 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove that again. Just because people don't comment doesn't mean they agree with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to avoid this kind of deliberately provocative edit, John. Given that there was clearly no consensus for the image's removal, it's pretty extreme bad faith editing to pretend there was. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the main image on this article. It is entirely legal within Wikipedia, relevant to the content, and perfectly appropriate. --Leifern 21:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means do remove the image per User:Andrew Levine's and User:CJCurrie's well reasoned logic and the views of User:Itsmejudith (and myself obviously). (→Netscott) 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking for reasons to sweep the dirt under the rug. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth looking at the page from which this photo originated. [16] The author of the page has another image of this poster next to an anti-capitalist poster by the same artist with some text below saying that the guys holding the posters seemed to be from ANSWER - to respond to Andrew Levine, I would say that given this, the political motivations of the artist are pretty clear. If this is the only objection to the image than I think it should be kept. It is very evocative. GabrielF 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The image does a good job of illustrating the concept. I think it should stay as well. FeloniousMonk 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to Felonius. -- Avi 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support a change, for reasons that I've already mentioned. The "Counterfeit Jews" reference in the poster makes it fairly obvious that it represents a lunatic-fringe minority view that predates the NAS debate. (Btw, the fact that people standing nearby "seemed to be from ANSWER" is not proof of a connection.)

On a totally unrelated matter, I was just talking to Jay a few days ago about how some people have been known to drag in 4-5 supporters to create a false appearance of consensus during debates on disputed topics. Ghastly practice. I hope we never see it here. CJCurrie 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we say more about what's meant by "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 Spartacus League"? It's currently not clear what it refers to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They wrote "It is important to distinguish between the two left-wing movements in the world today: the democratic, liberal left and the totalitarian left". (p. 8) The "democratic liberal left" was seen as pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. The "totalitarian left" (or "Radical Left") "fails to eschew anti-Semitism and actively uses hostility against Jews as a weapon in its political struggle". They have a long list of organizations from the Radical Left; the ones listed were the ones notable enough to have Wikipedia entries.

What had them worried was that the Radical Left (usually called the New Left by its proponents) was closely tied to the Black Power and anti-war movements, which still had considerable political strength in 1974. Opposition to Israel from the Radical Left they trace to the Six-Day War of 1967. (p. 11) "New anti-Semitism", in their view, was born shortly after that war, when the Radical Left was at its peak, and grew as the Vietnam War wound down and attention moved to other conflicts.

So that's where and how they say "new anti-Semitism" started. --John Nagle 19:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for that. Perhaps some of it could be added to clarify the section? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Epstein had been running the ADL since 1947, and his previous books ("Danger on the Right", 1964, and "The Radical Right: Report on the John Birch Society and its Allies", 1967) were about trouble from the American political right.(p. 6). Trouble from the left was new and unexpected. So they titled their book "The New Anti-Semitism". --John Nagle 17:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do True Torah Jews Against Zionism fit into all this? They're a group of Orthodox Jews in New York who oppose Zionism. They apparently can turn out a crowd of 10,000 in New York City for a protest against the Israeli Embassy, so they're a reasonably large group. Their position statement begins "We implore and beseech our Jewish brethren to realize that the Zionists are not the saviors of the Jewish People and guarantors of their safety, but rather the instigators and original cause of Jewish suffering in the Holy Land and worldwide. The idea that Zionism and the State of “Israel” is the protector of Jews is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Jewish People. Indeed, where else since 1945 have Jews been in such physical danger as in the Zionist state?!"

There's also Neturei Karta, International Jews United Against Zionism, which has similar positions but seems to be more active in Britain and Israel. They report violence against Orthodox Jews in Israel by Zionists.[17] Is that "new anti-Semitism"?

Not sure what to make of this. --John Nagle 19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your question is. Do you have a reliable source giving it as an example of new anti-Semitism? Somehow I doubt that you do, and if you don't, there's no point discussing it on this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in a "Jews Against Israel" article[18] defines Jewish opposition to Israel as "new anti-Semitism". "It is no longer relevant who the author is and whether he is Muslim, Christian, atheist, communist, Maoist, Trotskyite, Socialist, Liberal, neo-Nazi, Israeli or Diaspora Jew." They list Neturei Karta as one organization opposing Israel. So there's a reasonably authoritative, although not neutral, source for that definition, with an explicit reference to one of the groups mentioned. --John Nagle 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on the purpose of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is supposed to present faithful descriptions of what reliable sources have said on a topic, then no, there doesn't appear to be much relevance. However, if the purpose of Wikipedia is to write original research in order to expose various Jewish and Zionist conspiracies, and to "out" the TRUTH about organizations like the ADL, then I can see where it would be quite relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on this from a neutral party would be appreciated. Thanks. --John Nagle 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel Jay is any less neutral than yourself on this matter? Just curious. -- Avi 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who lives near NK members in the US, I can tell you that they are extremely fringe (lunatic fringe comes to mind). Even the anti-Zionist Satmar Chasidim did not consort with murderers of innnocent Jews, as does NK. Torah True whatever is even smaller and newer than NK. So we are talking about a few thousand people, at most, out of tens of millions of Jews, and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Jews worldwide. Both of these are classic cases of what WP:NPOV#Undue weight considers the tiny minority whose opinion does not belong in any article, other than the article about the fringe groups themselves. -- Avi 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how frequently David Duke references appear in Israel-related articles, including this one, that seems to be a marginal argument. True Torah Jews claims to have mobilized 10,000 people for a demonstration in New York, and pictures do show a street full of people in black hats carrying their banners, so it's not just a few people. We still have that "counterfeit Jew" graffiti poster in the article, even though that's from an even smaller group. The notion of "undue weight" seems to vary depending on which side the organization is on. --John Nagle 20:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The million man march claimed a million people too, John. Pictures of 300 people look like a lot. They are so marginal as to be a violation of undue weight to add them. -- Avi 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism has only a 0.22% market share worldwide.[19]. That's arguably marginal. More to the point, I'm the only editor so far in this section to cite any real sources, although Jayjg (talk · contribs) did add links of questionable relevancy to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Satan. I'm not seeing any counterarguments cited to reliable sources. I'll wait a day or two to see what comes in, but so far, I'm not seeing anything that justifies excluding this material from the article. --John Nagle 22:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than WP:NPOV#Undue weight, of course . Yes Judaism is marginal, but Anti-Semitism relates to Judaism, so that argument is specious and facetious. Secondly, according to your own statistics, NK would have approximately a 0.00000066% market share, do you realize how rediculous that sounds? I think I now need to ask for a “neutral” editor to weigh in, for you have not answered my points -- Avi 22:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Satmar sect (the "True Torah Jews"?) apparently number about 120,000, with the biggest concentration (25,000 to 50,000; numbers vary [20]) in Brooklyn, New York City. The Neturei Karta are apparently much smaller; the only number I can find is 1200, and that's not from a good source. The Satmar are numerous enough to be a force in New York City politics. --John Nagle 03:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, do you have a source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satmar and Neturei Karta are quite different; the former dissassociate themselves from the latter, and, indeed, signed a joint media statement condeming NK a couple of years ago. As well, the paper you are citing states Many gentile assaults use statements from Israeli or Diaspora Jewish defamers as a way of legitimizing their attacks on Israel or Jews. Furthermore, a small number of anti-Israel Jews enable the media to present a Jewish community divided on key Israeli policy. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz mentions that the Boston Globe published two pictures of Israel's 55th anniversary parade: one of pro-Israel groups carrying flags and the other of the Neturei Karta, a small ultra-Orthodox group at a counter-demonstration, carrying banners that included the slogan "real Jews are anti-Zionists." This created the impression that an equal number of Neturei Karta and Zionists attended the parade. It doesn't bring Neturei Karta as an example of New anti-Semitism, but rather highlights the deceptive treatment of groups like NK which allows people to pretend that there is significant division in the Jewish community, rather than significant consensus with (as always) a few cranks disagreeing. In fact, your own section here is a perfect example of what Dershowitz and the paper are pointing out. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Neturei Karta is small enough to ignore, but Satmar is large enough to be notable. That's a start. --John Nagle 16:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satmar <> Torah True Jews. The TTJ's might also be Satmar Chasidim for all I know (they could also have nothing to do with Satmar), but they are not operating under the auspices of the Satmar Rebbe and Satmar establishment as far as I can tell. -- Avi 05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, can you say whether you have a reliable source that gives Neturei Karta as an example of new anti-Semitism? The paper you cite from Gerstenfeld says the opposite: he discusses "gentile assaults" that use statements from "Israeli or Diaspora Jewish defamers as a way of legitimizing their attacks on Israel or Jews." An example he gives is the misuse of Neturei Karta, who are used to give the impression of significant opposition, when in fact they are a tiny, fringe ultra-Orthodox group.

You appear to be doing exactly what Gerstenfeld was describing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising. Indeed surprising. How come there is no mention of what Lewis's definition of Anti-Semitism is? And that what Anti-semtism is NOT. Who wrote this section? Please let me know. --Aminz 11:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've already had this discussion, over a month ago: please see #Lewis and Taguieff above. Perhaps you forgot. In any event, can you please explicitly state exactly which sentences or paragraphs you think violate NPOV, and why? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, may I ask who wrote that summary. I have a few questions for that person. Thanks very much. --Aminz 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, why do you want to know? I suspect it was SlimVirgin, since (as I noted) you discussed it (above) with her at the time. Anyway, please explicitly state exactly which sentences or paragraphs you think violate NPOV, and why; otherwise the tag will have to go. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is surprising to me that there is no mention of Lewis's two criterion of checking whether something is anti-semitism or not (despite my discussions with SlimVirgin above). These were the main points of Lewis. This section is written in a way to make it sound as if Lewis is agreeing with what was already said in this article. Nothing about the following saying of Lewis for example:

There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic.

I added something to the intro but it was removed immediately; now I see this section. --Aminz 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, we discussed this before. This article is about the concept of the new anti-Semitism, so we are only interested in what Lewis has to say about that specifically. We can't go into his views in general; there isn't enough space for one thing but they also aren't relevant or, insofar as they are, he explains them himself in the article cited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this question: The title of Lewis's article is about "new anti-semitism". Why does he talk about anti-semitism there? When he is talking about anti-semtism in modern world and its examples, is he talking about new-anti semtism or the old one? --Aminz 07:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When he talks about anti-Semitism in the modern world, he's almost certainly talking about what he calls the third wave or new anti-Semitism. But it would depend on the context. Do you have an example? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The *opening* paragraph of his article on "new anti-semtism" reads

There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic.

Do you think this refers to current anti-semtism or the old one? --Aminz 07:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it refers to any kind of anti-Semitism: religious, racial, or ideological. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly in the context of criticizing the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism. Do you think it is *not* in the context of new anti-semtism? (Also please note that this is the opening paragraph on the article). --Aminz 07:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would say it refers to any kind of anti-Semitism. But I don't see the point of the question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase my question just to make sure I've understood it correctly: you think that the above quote is about anti-Semitism in general and therefore could not be used in this article since it is irrelevant to new anti-semitism. --Aminz 07:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. Perhaps you could just make your point rather than asking me questions. The reason I left that quote out of the section is that other people have said the same thing, so it's not part of Lewis's unique argument about new anti-Semitism (as opposed to anti-Semitism in general), which is that he regards it as a third wave. We can't repeat everything that every source we use has ever said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked just to make sure I haven't misunderstood your sentence "This article is about the concept of the new anti-Semitism, so we are only interested in what Lewis has to say about that specifically."

Here are my concrete suggestions:

Clearly Lewis is a proponent of the concept. But his POV is not included in the sentence :"Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland, are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism."

So, I suggest this:

"Some proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland, are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism. Other proponents hold that new anti-semtism does exist but it is "perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism" and even further "to hate and even to persecute Jews without necessarily being anti-Semitic".

Also,

We start the opening of the subsection on Lewis like the opening of his own article. --Aminz 08:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with adding Lewis to the intro, because we don't cite anyone else's particular views, but I've added something to his section to reflect your concerns. Does that help? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I modified it a bit. But Lewis is very notable. He is a proponent of the concept and doesn't "argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland, are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism." This sentence is quite unfactual. --Aminz 09:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of NAS? --Aminz 08:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis is very notable as a historian of Islam. What makes him notable on the topic of New anti-Semitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, the material you added to the intro has nothing to do with NAS. First, we can't single out Lewis's opinion for the lead, because why choose that source and not some other? More importantly, when he wrote: "to hate and persecute Jews is not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism," he wasn't talking only about new anti-Semitism. He was making a general point and using a rhetorical flourish to make it (because in reality, as you know and as Lewis knows, anyone who "hates and persecutes Jews" is going to turn out to be an anti-Semite). The material is completely inappropriate for the lead section because it's far too idiosyncratic and not on-topic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you keep trying to insert in various places that Lewis said that "criticism of the state of Israel or Zionism" is not necessarily anti-Semitism. But all the sources would agree with that, so it's inappropriate to attribute it only to him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making a section for me. :P Can you please solve this contradition for me. 1. "Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism. " 2. Bernard Lewis is a renowned, distinguished, notable,... scholar. 3. Bernard Lewis is a proponent of the concept

(1 & 3) --> "Bernard Lewis argues that anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, third worldism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland are coupled with anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism."

But this sentence is not correct --> The factuality of the intro is disputed. --Aminz 08:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it is not correct? Lewis holds the view that NAS is ideological anti-Semitism, based on opposition to the State of Israel and involving the demonization of Israel/Jews and the holding of them to standards not applied to others. Those are his two key criteria. The lead describes proponents' views in general; we can't get into the specifics of what each person thinks in the lead section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will read the article more closely again and will get back. :) --Aminz 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have only read Lewis's work(and part of Mark Cohen's work) about anti-semitism. It is a new concept for me hadn't heard before. So, that's all I knew about it and I try to be factual. --Aminz 08:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for telling us that. I think that may be the source of the problem. You appear to feel that Lewis's work is particularly important in the field of NAS, but it isn't. It's certainly worth mentioning, and even worth a section, but definitely not so important that it needs to be specifically highlighted in the lead or emphasized outside his section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis's area of expertise is not anti-semitism of course, but the template on "Anti-Semitism" mentions Lewis as one of the writers on Anti-Semtism and in any case, I am a fan of his. Anyways, the article should be written in a way (if necessary using weasel words) to avoid POV problems. --Aminz 09:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words are best avoided, and there's no POV problem with saying "proponents of the concept argue ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a very recent reliable source says that "all proponents argue that way", then I'll have no objection to it. Please give me time to review Lewis's article again. Cheers, --Aminz 09:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine any source saying that every single proponent makes every single one of these points, but then if we had to source things that way, 99 per cent of the encyclopedia would have to be deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Lewis is very notable when it comes to the history of Islam. What makes him particularly notable when it comes to New anti-Semitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not notable enough for his ideas to be singled out in the lead section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm starting to see why we're having so much trouble here figuring out the history. There seem to be two main threads in "new anti-Semitism". The first is the left/liberal opposition from the New Left/Radical Left of the 1960s and starting at the Six-day war of 1967. That's what Forster and Epstein talk about, writing in 1974. That thread lives on, today tied to the anti-globalization movement. But it's mostly talk, not violence. Endelman, writing in 2005, describes it as "worrisome, but not yet threatening" (Endelman, "Antisemitism in Western Europe Today", p. 77)

The other thread stems from the movement of sizable Islamic populations into Western Europe. That's the part that dates from the 1990s. That's where the violence is coming from. "Muslim youth, drunk on the heady rhetoric of radical Islam, do threaten Jews". (Endelman, p. 77)

Most of the disagreement stems from different interpretations of how these two threads, both real and both called "new anti-Semitism", relate to each other. Sources disagree on this, and US and Western European views seem also to differ. --John Nagle 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both strands together are being identified as NAS. What's your source for "That's the part that dates from the 1990s"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been arguing for quite some time that the term has multiple meanings, and I am in general agreement with this assessment. CJCurrie 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a source who backs you up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's turn that around: do you think a majority of writers on "NAS" are in agreement with the definition in this article? CJCurrie 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the books and articles by proponents that I have read describe those aspects; some concentrate more on one or another aspect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mightn't we clarify that in the intro? CJCurrie 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both these comments. It is bound to be difficult to write with consensus about such a strongly contested concept/notion. There has been similar controversy, for example, in how the article totalitarianism should be approached. But at least in that case the description of that concept is kept separate from the recounting of the history of the period to which it mainly relates. Telling the history of anti-semitism from the 1990s to the present would be a much easier task and one that is arguably more useful to the encyclopedia. If it were completed first then perhaps it would be possible to return to this article with new understandings. Itsmejudith 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough. The context back to the six-day war gives some sense of how the liberal left and radical Islam, rather unexpected allies, ended up on the same side in parts of Europe. But we could probably drop the material from the 1940s, Stalin, and the "Doctor's Plot", which really belongs to the history of Stalinism, and start at the six-day war in 1967. --John Nagle 22:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the editors who have done very little or no reading around the subject who are agreeing with the hypothesis (which is very unclear). There's not much point in that. We publish what the most authoritative sources on the subject have written. That is all we do. Therefore, those sources have to be read. There's no point in uninformed speculation about what they might say if you were to read them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, it was Chris O who added the large pre-1967 chunk, which was initially longer than this. I've never been very happy about its inclusion, as none of us has read the entire history of the development of anti-Semitism, so it's impossible to know whether the section is too selective. This is probably a good article to read about the background; it's Wistrich explaining what he sees as a new form of anti-Semitism (or new wave) to the President of Israel in 1984, where he talks about anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and the Soviet influence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not watching this talk very closely. What the Soviets (and many after them: notably the Left and the Arab world) called "anti-Zionism" - that includes the "Doctor's Plot", was very much antisemitism. Let me know if you need evidence. Stalinism is concerned with the political system, NKVD/KGB and the cult of personality. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice because this page is so active. I think the move is due, per Talk:Antisemitism#Survey. Objections? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would have opposed the anti-Semitism rename, but since it's happened we may as well be consistent. --Coroebus 16:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now to fixing double redirs]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashibaka, I reverted your change of the first header, because the current header asks what the concept is, and the next few sections explain what it is; to use the word "emergence" instead would be incongruous with most of the sections, except for history, and it begs the question: emergence of what? We are saying it's a concept; by using the word "emergence," you're implying it's a real phenomenon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the term "emergence", meaning the emergence of "New Antisemitism" as a phrase, isn't quite adequate to describe the subheadings. However, "What is the concept of the new anti-Semitism?" is a totally unacceptable heading because it is stated in the form of a question rather than a noun phrase. Besides, the entire article is supposed to answer that question. So, someone needs to come up with a good noun phrase for the subheadings, or remove the top-level heading entirely. (Also, someone needs to go substitute "antisemitism" for "anti-Semitism" throughout the article except for quotes... eew.) Ashibaka tock 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ashibaka, I personally don't see anything wrong with having a question as a header. The whole article doesn't answer that particular question, just the first section; the rest gives examples of where it's coming from and who has responded to it. So it seems appropriate in that sense. We could try "Arguments for and against the concept." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the history section wouldn't fit into that very well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit looks good, Ashibaka. Thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]