Talk:New antisemitism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

the whole topic is an pro-Israel propaganda

if a person is anti-israel does not make him anti-semitic....I don't call for despise or killing of jews...however, I don't believe they had any rights in Israel now...that does not make me an anti-semitic arab.. I would like you to add a paragraph that expains how the jews where treated in arab lands before israel was created compared to europe in the days of the "classical anti-semitism"...if any body says that they were not treated normally..he is a lier....and by the way....if they considers themselves semitic...I consider my self semitic too....in fact old arabs and israelites were on the same genetical origins....we were all the sons of SAM....MOREOVER...WE and THEM are the sons of ABRAHAM....they are the sons of ISAAQ and we are the sons of ISHMAEL...they do recognize ISHMAEL.

Sourcing claims for "Country-specific incidents

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 [1]. --Coroebus 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Classic anti-Semitism

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

Remove protection?

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)

I think it might be advisable to wait for Mel's next comments on the article (though I believe most of us are willing to accept his wording for the introduction). CJCurrie 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Come on: make the controversy clear

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)

Unprotected

I'm going to edit based on my comments in Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Sourcing_claims_for_.22Country-specific_incidents so could we discuss them now? --Coroebus 09:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All the incidents mentioned are regarded as examples of the new anti-Semitism i.e. coming from the left, related to radical anti-Zionism etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They may well be, but they are not sourced that way. --Coroebus 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can expect the words "new anti-Semitism" to appear in every single report we reference. We've defined it, and we've linked to many sources who are defining it. The definition is:

It is a form of Judenhass that emanates from the left. It is characterized by the demonization of the world's only Jewish state and of Jews as an ethnicity and a religion. Israel's right to exist as an equal member of the world community is denied. The Jewish people's right of self-determination is denied. Double standards are applied, whereby the actions of the Jewish state are judged according to a different standard from the actions of all the neighboring states around her. Jews as a people are held collectively responsible for the actions of the Jewish state. Symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism are used: for example, blood libels are resurrected, the Jewish state and Jewish people are associated with wild conspiracy theories involving Jews or Zionists or Israelis plotting to take over the world, or being in control of other governments, or being responsible behind the scenes for various acts of terror mistakenly attributed to others. Arab and Islamic anti-Semitism are excused and ignored. Straw-man attacks are made, whereby Jews are alleged to claim that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, and that is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable, and to deny that there is any such thing as the "new anti-Semitism." All of the above is accompanied by an international resurgence of violence against Jews and their synagogues and schools, particularly in Europe. It is found in conjunction with anti-Americanism (because Jews are believed either to control or be too influential with the American government), anti-Zionism, and the anti-globalization movement.

All the authoritative sources who have written about the phenomenon agree that these are the key components, so when we find them, we can offer them as examples, so long as someone has discussed them in terms of anti-Semitism or attacks on Jews. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My worry is that Livingstone has not been (at least in the sources provided) accused of anti-semitism, and that most of the discussion of Galloway has nothing to do with the allegation of anti-semitism against his supporters. Add to that that we appear to be accusing them of anti-semitism (not reporting others allegations), which is OR (and unwise in the case of Galloway). The NUS thing is a bit ephemeral but has been discussed in terms of new anti-semitism so I'd just want to tidy that up. --Coroebus 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Livingstone has very definitely been accused of anti-Semitism (got into quite a bit of trouble recently over it), as has Galloway, and without question his supporters. The section talks about it in relation to that election. By all means go ahead and clean it up as you see fit, and we can talk later if there are any disagreements. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Slim, whose definition is this? CJCurrie 11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All the sources put together. The above are the issues they agree on. It was posted weeks ago. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "all the sources from one side of the argument put together". It's been a while since we discussed this, so could you remind me as to which sources you consider authoritative? CJCurrie 23:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to look in the archives; they're either there or in the article. By "all the sources," I mean all the sources who study new anti-Semitism. The above are the elements they appear to agree on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking you which sources you consider to be authoritative. Please respond. CJCurrie 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cotler

This doesn't seem to belong in the section it was in, and I'm not sure where else to put it, so I'm moving it here in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In his article "Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness", Irwin Cotler, at the time Canada's Minister of Justice, wrote that "classical or traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, or denial of, the right of Jews to live as equal members of a free society; the new anti-Semitism — incompletely, or incorrectly, [referred to] as "anti-Zionism"... — involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is intrinsic to each form of anti-Semitism — and common to both — is discrimination. All that has happened is that it has moved from discrimination against Jews as individuals — a classical anti-Semitism for which there are indices of measurement (e.g., discrimination against Jews in education, housing, or employment) — to discrimination against Jews as people — a new anti-Semitism — for which one has yet to develop indices of measurement.

Cotler identifies distinct categories to illustrate the scope, character and specific instances of the new anti-Semitism. He describes them as Genocidal, Political, Theological, Cultural, Anti-Israel, Economic and State-sanctioned. Broadly, he asserts that anti-Semitism has expanded from the hatred of Jews to include hatred of Jewish national aspirations, the hatred of Israel's status as a sovereign nation, and the denial of its right to an equal role in the global community of nations. Cotler identifies distinct indices by which this prejudice may be manifested, ranging from the state-sanctioned theological anti-Semitism of some Islamic governments to the Cultural anti-Semitism which he perceives in the European elite. He also stressed that such prejudice may be overtly manifested (in the case of anti-Semitic rhetoric) or subtly manifested through diplomatic pressure, or by the economic boycott of Israeli businesses and their trade partners.

Jenin

What does the paragraph below have to do with new anti-Semitism? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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."

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)

Right-wing anti-Semitism

Organisations: Al-Qaeda, America's Nazi Party, Aryan Nations, British National Front, British National Party, Combat 18, Democracia Nacional, Fiamma Tricolore, Forza Nuova, Front National, Heritage Front, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Hrisi Avgi, Institute for Historical Review, Jew Watch, Jihad Group, Ku Klux Klan, Patriotic Youth League, Nacionalni stroj, National Alliance, National Democratic Party of Germany, Nationalist Movement Party, National Socialist Front, Nieuw Rechts, Russian National Unity, Stormfront, Sweden Democrats, The Saviour Sect, Vanguard News Network, Vlaams Belang, White Aryan Resistance, and many more. Individuals: Alex Linder, Arthur Butz, David Duke, David Irving, Don Black, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Imad Mugniyah, Kevin Alfred Strom, Osama bin Laden, Pat Buchanan, Richard Verrall, Shaun Walker, Tom Metzger, Willis Carto, and many more.

These are some examples of organisations and individuals that I consider anti-Semitic. They are all right-wing. This new supposedly changed paradigm in anti-Semitic beliefs and expressions is confusing - does it mean that the rightwing organisations/people I consider to be anti-Semitic aren't really responsible for the international resurgence of anti-Judaism? Does it mean that their anti-Semitism is - in any way - less significant than this left-wing anti-Semitism? Which left-wing groups have done what anti-Semitic acts exactly? The article doesn't say and I would really like to find out. In what way is the "Muslim Student Association at San Francisco State University" (one of few specific incidents) associated with left-wing politics? Shouldn't the introduction of this article make a sharp distinction between this phrase and real anti-Semitism so that people don't start thinking that the British National Party or Jean-Marie Le Pen couldn't be anti-Semites, since they're not leftwing and all. Article20 05:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem at the moment is that the article doesn't sufficiently distinguish between left-wing anti-Semitism (which is what I take the new anti-semitism to mean) and the recent increase in anti-semitic incidents which are attributable both to the new anti-semitism, muslim youths (re:Palestine), and right-wingers (old fashioned classic anti-semitism). --Coroebus 08:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points, and we do need to write a careful and well-referenced section about this. The sources say that the new anti-Semitism stems from the left and their radical anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, and anti-globalization. However, Islamist anti-Semitism feeds into that (is that right-wing or left-wing?), and classic right-wing anti-Semitism uses it as (in my words) a Trojan horse, because suddenly anti-Semitism is, as it were, fashionable again, so they're able to feed into that.

These are new political alignments, and to some extent all the old paradigms are falling away. It's something that many on the left (center and radical) in Europe, and those who have been active in anti-racism, are dismayed about and are trying to distance themselves from. Because it's a new alignment, it's necessarily confusing, and we won't find clear-cut answers anywhere. What we should perhaps do is try to write a carefully sourced section that honestly reflects that confusion. I can try to start it (though it won't be for a few days), and then the rest of you can check it against your sources and add your own material to it, if you like. Or if anyone else has ideas on how to get it started, go right ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Article20, I meant to add: it would be good if we could leave the intro as it is, and try to develop these ideas in the body of the text, because the intro has just been decided on as a compromise text after mediation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"These are new political alignments, and to some extent all the old paradigms are falling away." So are you saying that Revisionist Zionists may have entered into an alliance with neonazi/neofascist groups to counteract an alliance between the left and the Muslim world? As for the different intros that has been decided on, I prefer this one. "Because it's a new alignment, it's necessarily confusing". On the "positive" side; if specific groups/individuals (other than Red Ken) aren't identified, it is possible to have the accusation of anti-Semitism loom over anyone you disagree with politically. Which will eventually (and unfortunately) render the term anti-Semitism meaningless as it, depending on perspective, might be applied to just about anyone and everyone. Which in turn might be seen as a motive for certain right-wing elements. Article20 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying here. Anti-Semitism from the right-wing has been around for over a century; anti-Semitism from the left is comparatively new. New anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) So are you saying that this New anti-Semitism has replaced plain old anti-Semitism "as all the old paradigms are falling away"? Does it mean that the rightwing organisations/individuals I consider to be anti-Semitic (see above) aren't responsible for the new international resurgence of anti-Judaism? Or are you saying that those organisations/individuals aren't really anti-Semitic, as "old" anti-Semitism apparently is an outdated concept? I've listed just a few of the right-wing groups that I consider anti-Semitic, if anti-Semitism from the left is so significant in the world today that the very definition of anti-Semitism should be changed, at least you could do is provide a similar list of left-wing groups you consider anti-Semitic. If you put Ken Livingstone in the same league as Jean-Marie Le Pen or Alex Linder, or if you put National Union of Students in the same league as Ku Klux Klan or Combat 18 the accusation of anti-Semitism will become meaningless. You do understand that, don't you? Article20 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear what your point is. One of the features that makes New anti-Semitism "New" is that it comes from the left. That's what all the literature says. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to debate, or, for that matter, why you refuse to use your actual userid. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it anti-Semitism that comes from the left or anti-Semitism that comes from the right that is responsible for the international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse? Article20 03:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Has the concept of New anti-Semitism replaced (the traditional notion of) anti-Semitism, or do two different concepts of anti-Semitism exist simultaneously? If so, which concept more accurately describes anti-Semitic beliefs and expressions? Article20 04:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you asking here, rather than reading the sources and reporting what they have to say on it? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Article 20: I'm going to address this point shortly, via a compromise wording which I hope will be acceptable to most parties. CJCurrie 01:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition

[Please note that I've moved this discussion elsewhere. Do not respond under this header.] CJCurrie 06:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the following sentence be added to the introduction:

"The term "New anti-Semitism" refers to a specific concept of anti-Semitic activity, and should not be confused with the more general phenomenon of contemporary anti-Semitism (although proponents of the term argue that it is a part of the same)."

Reasons:

• "New anti-Semitism" is easily confused with "contemporary anti-Semitism", even though the terms refer to very different things. As a recent EU study notes, contemporary anti-Semitism emanates from different sources, ranging from radical left to radical right to radical Islam. Quite obviously, the phenomenon is not equivalent with the concept of "NAS". For the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with these debates, we should distinguish the terms.
• Until March of this year, the "NAS" article distinguished between the general and specific meanings of the term. Leaving aside the question of why this clarification was removed, there is no reason why it cannot be restored now.

I have made an effort to express my point in neutral language, and it is my hope that we can achieve concensus on the matter without unnecessary bickering. Constructive adjustments and style corrections are welcome. CJCurrie 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• I support this. Just a thought, would it be better if "concept of anti-Semitic activity" was replaced with "concept that describes anti-Semitic activity"? Also, Contemporary anti-Semitism should have it's own article, right now it's a redirect to this one (or better, create Anti-Semitism in the 21st century and redirect Contemporary anti-Semitism to that article). Article20 05:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I object to this. CJC, you were part of the mediation and agreed to stick to it. The intro was agreed upon. Secondly, the writing makes no sense. What does "specific concept of anti-Semitic activity" mean? What is a "concept of activity"? What is the "more general phenomenon of contemporary anti-Semitism?" What is "contemporary anti-Semitism"? Who says that whatever you're referring to is a "more general phenomenon"? Please help to build up the body of the article, rather than trying to re-open the issue of the intro so soon after the agreed version was inserted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(i) Yes, I was part of the mediation and I accepted Mel's wording on a provisional basis. There was never a requirement that the wording be cast in stone, nor the further additions would not be permitted. Please don't pretend that there was.

(ii) Contemporary anti-Semitism is, as the term implies, anti-Semitism that is contemporary (irrespective of the political ideology it emanates from).

(iii) A specific concept of anti-Semitic activity is, as the term implies, a concept of anti-Semitic activity that is specific to certain phenomena (ie. ideology, place on the political spectrum, etc).

(iv) I have been trying to build up the main body of the article. This doesn't mean that I am not also at liberty to suggest further revisions to the introduction. CJCurrie 05:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you agree to stand by Mel's suggestions, unless they involved a policy violation. Don't make me go through the archives and e-mails to find where you agreed that, because you know you did. Further additions can't be permitted by people who were involved in the mediation just days after the new intro is inserted. And it's not just an addition. It's one that fundamentally alters the tone of the intro, not to mention that the writing makes no sense.

Do you have a source that says contemporary anti-Semitism is something other than new anti-Semitism? My sources use them interchangeably.

Please start reporting what the sources say about new anti-Semitism. Please don't do anything else. Our personal opinions are completely irrelevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you agree to stand by Mel's suggestions, unless they involved a policy violation. Don't make me go through the archives and e-mails to find where you agreed that, because you know you did.

Actually, I specifically argued that further adjustments might be in order for the introduction. [2] [3] Mel didn't object to my comments in principle, and it never occurred to me that further debate on the subject would be considered "unacceptable". (For what it's worth, I planned to run the proposed changes by Mel before adding them to the article.)

Do you have a source that says contemporary anti-Semitism is something other than new anti-Semitism? My sources use them interchangeably.

This is the first time you've said so. Could you please provide an example?

In response to your question, I would refer you to the Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002-2003: Executive Summary (PDF file), which describes contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe as emanating from several diverse sources. CJCurrie 06:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've said so, and I've already provided a source. I can look for one again, but I can't do it right now. You know, you could simply have asked me for a source, rather than starting with "can you explain this," and ominously pointing to a link, as though I'd been caught smoking behind the bike sheds and was about to be spanked by the headmaster. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Slim, is that it is not NPOV to argue that "NAS" and "Contemporary anti-Semitism" are one and the same. Your decision to create the redirect page seems to me both arbitrary and unjustified, particularly when there was a serious discussion taking place on the issue elsewhere. (And my tone was not intended to be accusatory so much as disappointed, though this may not have been conveyed properly).

By the way, could you please comment on the EU study? CJCurrie 06:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What is your question about the EU study? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you not agree that it identifies contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe as emanating from several diverse sources (ie. radical left, radical right, radical Islam)? CJCurrie 07:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A request

I'm asking everyone to edit this article in good faith. We have been through months of turmoil since CJCurrie arrived and then requested assisted from HOTR. Since then (with blame on all sides), we've had horrible revert wars, serious personal attacks, protracted mediation, a page protected for two months, and at the end of it, we still have an article that badly needs improving, in terms of the writing, the flow, and the sources. With the help of the mediator, we agreed on an intro, which was inserted a couple of days ago, and already CJCurrie is trying to change it. That is unacceptable, and is not a sign of good faith.

The ADL is not an organization that only "has as its stated aim" that it fights anti-Semitism. It does fight it, and to suggest otherwise is very silly. How the Israelis responded to the allegations about Jenin is irrelevant to the new anti-Semitism. It is that Israel was so easily accused of a "massacre" by journalists who did not check any of the claims that some sources have suggested was a manifestation of NAS. We say that; we name the sources; and we move on. If other sources have specifically addressed the point, we quote them. But we don't add a long paragraph about Israel's response to Jenin, because it's not relevant. If you want to add it somewhere, go to Battle of Jenin 2002.

Leflyman, I reverted your citation request, because this is an agreed intro, and because there are lots of sources out there who say it, so that some sources have said it is not a contentious point. CJCurrie, it would have been almost as fast for you to add a footnote than to delete the request, because you're familiar with who has made this claim.

Anyone who is here to bash Israel, please find somewhere else to do it, preferably another website. We are trying to write an article, as the intro says, on "the concept of an international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse which is held to be associated with certain left-wing political views." That is what the article is about; nothing else, and we are not here to argue the issue, but simply to write what other people have said about it.

We should be able to do this without ending up hating each other. I am requesting, please, a sincere show of good faith from everyone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) In the first place, the current wording for the introduction was never intended to be a permament fix, immune from any and all attempts at revision. I cannot speak for Mel, but I'd be quite surprised if he intended for his recommendation to be cast in stone.

(ii) Readers will observe that I did not unilaterally adjust the introductory wording: I made a suggestion, and solicited comment. While I was prepared for the possibility of that SV would oppose my suggestion, I did not anticipate that she would interpret it as a display of bad faith. I cannot for the life of me understand how trying to build consensus for a possible change in wording is "unacceptable".

(iii) Following criticism from Jay and Slim, I added further sourced information indicating that Ha'aretz's coverage of the Battle of Jenin was part of the international debate concerning "New anti-Semitism". This change was arbitrarily reverted. Why?

(iv) My comments about Earl Raab and Steven Zipperstein were also arbitrarily removed, without so much as an explanation. Why?

(v) Good faith is a two-way street, Slim. If you want the discussion to function properly this time, you should not arbitrarily revert good-faith contributions, castigate attempts to build consensus for change, or interpret changes that you oppose as "attempts to bash Israel". I'm quite prepared to work constructively with other contributors, but I won't be able to do it alone. CJCurrie 05:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The agreed intro was intended to be a fix for longer than two days. Just please leave it alone. Once we have an article full of brilliant prose and good source material, then we can return to the intro if necessary.

There was no consensus for change on the talk page. You made a suggestion; there were objections. You shouldn't then repeatedly add the same material.

Your comment about Raab etc were removed as part of the revert. I have restored them, but be aware that if you add bad material, good material might be inadvertently removed too. We all risk that.

I am asking you most sincerely to try to edit in a collaborative manner, to stop the talk-page arguments and allegations, and do not keep reinserting material that people object to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Slim, I cannot see how it violates either Wikipedia policy or common courtesy to engage in a free and open discussion about the introduction. I do not see any need to apologize for raising the issue, and I will not refrain from further discussions on the subject in the future. I do not intend to make any adjustments to the introduction without a full discussion on the talk page and consultation with the mediator; beyond that, I am under no obligation to remain silent on matters of concern. CJCurrie

You agreed to the current intro. Have the integrity to stick to your agreement. I accept that this doesn't mean it's cast in stone for the next 20 years, but it has to be able to last longer than two days! For the record, I will not be responding to anything else you say about the intro, and my silence will mean that I disagree with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(i) Yes, and that's why I didn't try to change the wording myself.

(ii) Since you've already disagreed, this doesn't come as a tremendous surprise. CJCurrie 06:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

After the article being locked for nearly 3 months, and finally coming to an agreement (via a mediator) regarding a new introduction, it's not to much to ask that people leave the intro alone for more than 2 days. In fact, it's not too much to ask that people leave it alone for a couple of months. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Jay, your opposition to my proposed change is misguided. Mel's introduction was not presented in the form of an official ruling: it was a suggestion for the participants in the debate to consider. Our mediator never required that it be included in the article.

I may be mistaken, but I do not believe that proposing changes to a non-binding suggestion should be considered as inappropriate. CJCurrie 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jenin addition

On another matter:

There was no consensus for change on the talk page. You made a suggestion; there were objections. You shouldn't then repeatedly add the same material.

I assume this is about the Ha'aretz article controversy. To this end, I would direct your attention to the second article that I've quoted in the passage, Sharon Sadeh's "How Jenin battle became a 'massacre'".

Sadeh's article is written specifically about foreign coverage of the Battle of Jenin, and it is written from a strongly critical standpoint. Please consider the following excerpts:

Despite flimsy evidence British papers jumped the gun to apportion blame when a West Bank refugee camp was attacked, says Sharon Sadeh. As a result, the reputation of the press has been damaged.

The Independent, the Guardian and the Times, in particular, were quick to denounce Israel and made sensational accusations based on thin evidence, fitting a widely held stereotype of a defiant, brutal and don't-give-a-damn Israel.

Consider, for instance, the following reports, which appeared on April 16. Under the headline "Amid the ruins, the grisly evidence of a war crime", the Independent's Phil Reeves wrote: "A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight has finally been exposed." Reeves, like his Times and Telegraph colleagues, all quote the same lone individual, Kamal Anis, who said that he "saw the Israeli soldiers pile 30 bodies beneath a half-wrecked house. When the pile was complete, they bulldozed the building, bringing its ruins down on the corpses. Then they flattened the area with a tank." The verdict of Times correspondent, Janine di Giovanni, was no less harsh: "Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting ... have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life." This was followed by an emotive leader in the Guardian, on April 17, which compared the effects of the Israeli operation in Jenin to September 11.

I'm sure you get the picture. There is no question that Sadeh's article is relevant to an article on "NAS" (she doesn't use the specific term, but we've already established that this isn't requisite for inclusion).

The article also includes this observation:

In fairness, Israel's own blunders have contributed to the initial damning impression of events in Jenin. Statements by the foreign minister, Shimon Peres, that the Palestinians might present the Jenin battle as a massacre, and that of the IDF spokesmen, to the effect that "hundreds" of Palestinians were killed - both statements were later hastily retracted - fuelled confusion and suspicion. These errors were compounded by blocking journalists and aid agencies from entering the camp, which led to another charge, also widely reported, of an alleged cover-up by the Israeli forces.

But does all this justify the overall line and tone of coverage? Pictures of the devastation in Jenin commanded substantial space and were accompanied by emotional descriptions taken from survivors, without a serious attempt to cross-examine their claims, and often without even recording the Israeli version of events (which was meticulously documented throughout the operation).

Sadeh's article, if articled in a clear and fair manner, provides a useful supplement to the international press's coverage of Jenin. Why are you so opposed to its inclusion? CJCurrie 06:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with new anti-Semitism. The author doesn't mention it, not even indirectly. And if Israel did contribute to the Jenin misunderstanding, so what? The author writes that that was only one factor. There were other factors, as other authors say.

Ever since you arrived on this page, you have offered us your personal opinions about Israel and anti-Semitism over and over, either directly or by looking around for articles that you agree with politically, and it has led to chaos and a lot of wasted time and energy. We are not here to exchange personal views or add them to the article. We are here only to repeat what writers have said about new anti-Semitism (or the contemporary resurgence, or lack thereof, depending on POV). They don't have to use those exact words, but they do have to be clearly and unambiguously on-topic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already made my points on this matter. Rather than responding to you directly, I'm going to ask that someone else provide an outside opinion. CJCurrie 06:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you not see the #Jenin section above? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jenin again

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)

"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)

About good faith

Slim, would you please explain this? CJCurrie 05:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of explanation do you want? Contemporary anti-Semitism is new anti-Semitism, as opposed to the old right-wing anti-Semitism that has been going on for a much longer time, so I created a redirect.

CJC, I'm very serious about this. If these problems (snide remarks, constant reverting, insertion of material designed to attack Israel), continues, I will take this case to the Arbcom, and we can all face the music together. I'm sick of it. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to act out the situation we're writing about, and definitely not to use this article as a platform to attack Israel, or Jews, or the Israeli government, or anything that government has done. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

I've responded to your specific concerns in different areas elsewhere on this page. For the moment, I'll simply add that that I'm currently making a genuine effort to remain civil despite strong temptations in other directions. CJCurrie 06:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for that effort. I am making the same effort. But could we please stop arguing (even in a civil way)? It is getting us nowhere and probably making both of us angry. Please let us simply stick to finding sources who talk about this topic directly, and reporting what they say with no embellishments. And on the talk page, we should only discuss those sources and what they say; nothing else. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Restraint, Slim, is also a two-way street. CJCurrie 06:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: A request (from SV)

I would say that anyone who is here to bash the Jewish people should go elsewhere. Also, note that the article should be about "New anti-Semitism", not what the current intro says. As it is now; we have an article that doesn't distinguish between left-wing anti-Semitism and the recent increase in (contemporary) anti-Semitic incidents which are attributable to (mostly) far-right groups and Muslim fundamentalists. I sincerely mean (no games, no nothing) that this is a serious problem. Furthermore, the title is offensive (one reason is that it relegates anti-Semitism to old anti-Semitism, or classic anti-Semitism) and inaccurate (see comments above) so I suggest it should be changed to Allegations of New anti-Semitism or New anti-Semitism (term). I'll try to show good faith and I'll hope that everyone else will do the same. Article20 06:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that anyone who is here to bash Jewish people should go elsewhere (preferrably to hell). I'm not convinced that anyone in the current discussion has actually done this, mind you ... CJCurrie 06:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has done that either, just thought SlimVirgins's advice to potential Israel bashers was too narrow in scope. And I like to bash anti-Semites, whether it's called for or not. Also, even though this article is about this new anti-Semitism, it should at least explore how recent right-wing anti-Semitic incidents impacts the "New anti-Semitism notion" that recent incidents are attributable to the left. Article20 07:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who is here to bash Israel or any Israeli governments (or indeed, to bash anti-Semites) needs to join the others in hell. We are here only to write an article sans bashing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who bashes any Israeli governments needs to join the others in hell? Good lord! By this logic, about half the Knesset would be consigned to the eternal flames. CJCurrie 06:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Ah wait, you wrote "anyone who is here" for said purpose ... never mind. CJCurrie 06:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to bash anyone CJCurrie; we're just supposed to be writing an article about the phenomenon of New anti-Semitism. That means using sources which discuss New anti-Semitism, not engaging in political debates on Talk: pages, or using whatever sources we can find to try to create original research arguments which attempt to refute the fact that it exists. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that there are many authors who reject the term "New anti-Semitism", considering it to be a political slur against opponents of Israel or Israeli policy. "The fact that it exists" is not accepted by authors such as Norman G. Finkelstein and Tariq Ali; for that matter, the 2002-03 EU report did not come to a conclusion on its existence or lack thereof.

I suspect, however, that these objections will fall on deaf ears, as they have so many times before. A few contributors to this discussion are convinced that "New anti-Semitism" (and specifically their interpretation of the same) is THE TRUTH, and will not countenance any arguments to the contrary or even the suggestion that a debate exists. I can't see any hope of a consensus emerging until all sides are willing to admit that there's more than one side to the story. CJCurrie 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition (again)

[The discussion under the previous subheader has become somewhat muddled; I'm moving the discussion here]

I propose that the following sentence be added to the introduction:

"The term "New anti-Semitism" refers to a specific concept of anti-Semitic activity, and should not be confused with the more general phenomenon of contemporary anti-Semitism (although proponents of the term argue that it is a part of the same)."

Reasons:

• "New anti-Semitism" is easily confused with "contemporary anti-Semitism", even though the terms refer to very different things. As a recent EU study notes, contemporary anti-Semitism emanates from different sources, ranging from radical left to radical right to radical Islam. Quite obviously, the phenomenon is not equivalent with the concept of "NAS". For the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with these debates, we should distinguish the terms.
• Until March of this year, the "NAS" article distinguished between the general and specific meanings of the term. Leaving aside the question of why this clarification was removed, there is no reason why it cannot be restored now.

I have made an effort to express my point in neutral language, and it is my hope that we can achieve concensus on the matter without unnecessary bickering. Constructive adjustments and style corrections are welcome. CJCurrie 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's both original research, and un-encyclopedic. Please don't give readers of Wikipedia articles advice on what they should or shouldn't do in the article itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jay, it's an attempt to restore a vital clarification that was arbitrarily removed from the article in March 2006. CJCurrie 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

SV question

Could you address the questions I asked about this above? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I did. Could you comment on the EU study? CJCurrie 06:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start this again!!! You didn't, so please do it. The writing makes no sense to me, and I asked specific questions about what it means. Please answer them rather than just reposting your point in a different section! This is very, very discouraging. It was exactly this behavior that led to all the trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your response, because genuinely thought that I did address your points. For my part, your insistence that "New anti-Semitism" and "contemporary anti-Semitism" are indistinguishable makes no sense to me. Would you not agree that there is a general phenomenon of "anti-Semitism" in the world today? Would you not agree that this phenomenon emanates from diverse sources?

Although we disagree on the viability of the term "New anti-Semitism", both of us are familiar with the concept and know what it designates (or purports to designate). Do seriously you think that this concept encompasses the whole of contemporary anti-Semitism? CJCurrie 07:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of New anti-Semitism is the acceptance of resurgent anti-Semitism; from the 1950s to the 1990s anti-Semitism was seen as a pariah, but it has become more acceptable again, though it often needs to be packaged and marketed in unique or more subtle ways. As an example, one could take an old anti-Semitic text, and freshen it up and make it marketable again by replacing all occurrences of the word "Jew" with the word "Zionist". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this interpretation is that the same argument was made in 1974 and 1982, in successive books published by the ADL (meaning that if the '50s to '90s argument is true now, then the ADL's 1974 book was wrong.) Norman Finkelstein has addressed this in Beyond Chutzpah, articulating the view that the claim of "New anti-Semitism" is repeatedly trotted out whenever Israel's international reputation is in jeopardy.

And, to respond to the predictable objection, of course Finkelstein isn't arguing that anti-Semitism doesn't exist in the modern world. He's simply promoting the view that NAS-proponents have lost sight of the real issue, and are rushing to defend Israel with a too-casual and too-frequent cry of anti-Semitism. CJCurrie 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

New or contemporary anti-Semitism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The "academic sources" that Slim and Jay speak of include works by Phyllis Chesler, David Rosenbaum, Alan Dershowitz, and others. They represent only one side of the argument, and none are unassailable. I recommend reading Norman G. Finkelstein's "Beyond Chutzpah", especially the first third of the book which deals specifically with the issue of "New anti-Semitism". CJCurrie 00:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha'aretz Jenin article

SlimVirgin has argued that the source materials cited in the following paragraph do not address "New anti-Semitism", and that the paragraph does not belong in the article. I believe that the Sadeh article is part of the larger debate over "New anti-Semitism", and that the paragraph should be included. What do other readers think?

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." 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.

CJCurrie 07:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are engaged in original research. Sources A, B, and C say: "An example of the new anti-Semitism was when the world's media assumed without evidence that there had been a massacre in Jenin." You then look for a source D that says: "Some members of the Israeli government also used the term 'massacre'." CJCurrie's conclusion: "It can't have been an example of new anti-Semitism if the Israeli govt was doing it too." YOUR conclusion. Read WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They think that you are engaging in OR. In this particular case, you are trying to use internal Israel leadership's humanitarian concerns to whitewash modern blood libel. At this point you only prove that attacks on the Jewish state are unreasonable, vicious and actual. Now tell us you are doing this strictly for encyclopdic truth and clarity. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your insinuations notwithstanding, HS, what I am suggesting that the Israeli media was a part of the international speculation about a possible massacre in Jenin. I'm also conveying Sadeh's argument that these reports were a contributing factor in international coverage of the same possibility. (For the record, I'd be quite willing to clarify Sadeh's belief that the international response was unjustified ... assuming that the "demonisation" reference doesn't already make the point clear enough, that is.)

Could I request that people without well-established track records on this discussion page comment on the matter? It really doesn't add anything to the discussion if only the usual suspects weigh in. CJCurrie 08:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "what I am suggesting [sic] that the Israeli media was a part of the international speculation ..." EXACTLY!! What you are suggesting. WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR SUGGESTIONS!! How many times do you need to be told? Read the policy! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained the problem above, at #Jenin; did you not see that? I'll help out, by repeating it: This is 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". And if you don't want "the usual suspects" to comment on the matter, then what are you doing here? Are you proposing that you withdraw from the Talk: page? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you quote a source that claims the Jenin 'massacre' is an example of new anti-Semitism? --Coroebus 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:

• "The new nexus of antisemitism" (Melanie Phillips.The Spectator (British magazine), March 22 2003):

"And of course there was Jenin, the so-called ‘massacre’ or ‘genocide’ reported as such by virtually the entire media, where in fact 52 Palestinians died of whom more than half were terrorists while Israel sustained (for it) the huge loss of 23 of its soldiers. This astonishing media distortion was conceded at the conference by the (extraordinarily brave) Palestinian politics professor Mohammad Dajani, who also observed that a distraught Palestinian public was – on this and other occasions -- whipped up by biased and emotional Palestinian reporting which showed little concern for the truth. But the big lie of the Jenin massacre is now believed as fact, contributing to the belief that Israel is a criminal state."

That doesn't say anything about it being 'new anti-Semitism'.

• Um, before replying, perhaps it might help to actually read the article, which is titled "The new nexus of antisemitism", and points out:

"But an even more striking feature is that, while the old antisemitism still festers away among neo-Nazis, the new antisemitism is a phenomenon of their sworn enemies on the political left. So as the Canadian law professor Irwin Cotler observed, we now have the mind-twisting situation where anti-Jewish hatred is harnessed to the cause of anti-racism and human rights, with Israel being compared to both Nazism and apartheid by those who define themselves against these ideologies." (emphasis mine)

--Leflyman^Talk 18:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I presumed you'd posted the relevant parts. --Coroebus 18:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies; I assumed that when you asked for a source, that providing a link to an article and a quote about the "Jenin massacre" would be what you wanted. I take it that the source is now satisfactory to you? --Leflyman^Talk 21:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No need for apologies, as I said below, I was playing devil's advocate, I'm aware this event has been associated with 'new' anti-semitism, but I noticed that the article didn't actually cite sources claiming directly that it was. --Coroebus 21:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• The massacring of the truth (Amnon Rubinstein, Ha'aretz, September 9, 2002):

" A new film by Mohammad Bakri, "Jenin, Jenin: A One-Sided Movie" portrays the IDF as an embodiment of evil and cruelty, and its soldiers as the butchers of helpless citizens in Jenin..."

"Why is this at all important? Because a propaganda war is being waged against Israel - including an electronic intifada - that has no counterpart in other conflicts. It does not simply entail criticizing Israel for its policies, or a government stand, or an attack on one issue or another. Rather, it is a propaganda offensive aimed at portraying Israel as a monstrous state - propaganda without restraints.

...

"And indeed, this propaganda - in which Israelis also participate - has all the signs of hysterical anti-Semitism. Not all criticism of Israel - as harsh as it may be - is anti-Semitic. But the new Arab and Palestinian propaganda shares common characteristics with the old hatred - obsessiveness and monstrousness."

--Leflyman^Talk 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor does that, although it does talk about a 'new Arab and Palestinian propaganda' which may, or may not, be intended to be the same as 'new anti-Semitism'. What I'm trying to point out here is that we have to be careful about insisting on exact wording, this whole article is in actuality rather poorly sourced, quite a lot of it is OR by any standard, but certainly by the standard of insisting on explicit reference to 'new anti-semitism'. On the particular question, I don't think we need to get into an argument about whether the Jenin massacre was or was not an example of new anti-Semitism, it is enough that it has been so described (although you haven't established that with sources), and people can refer to the relevant article if they want more details. --Coroebus 18:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another example: http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/articles/sins-of-omission.htm. Chesler she discusses this at greater length in her book The New anti-Semitism. Here's another which actually reviews several sources on the New anti-Semitism, and here's another. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For Slim and Jay:

(i) Under your definition and your terms, it is both acceptable and appropriate for this article to reference criticisms made by NAS-proponents against the international community's coverage of the 2002 Battle of Jenin.

(ii) Sharon Sadeh's article does, in fact, criticize the international community's coverage of Jenin. She doesn't actually use the term "NAS", but under your definition she doesn't need to -- she's clearly referring to the same perceived phenomenon.

(iii) Sadeh also argues that some government decisions and media reports within Israel were contributory factors toward this international response. She specifically cites the original Ha'aretz article to this end.

(iv) Sadeh also argues that these decisions and reports did not justify the tenor of the international reporting on the battle.

In other words, Sadeh has written an interesting and provocative piece arguing that Israel had a contributory causal (though not a moral) responsibility for the international community's distorted coverage of Jenin. It would appear to me that such an observation would be a useful addition to an article on "NAS", your accusation of "OR" notwithstanding.

Your insinuations notwithstanding, HS, what I am suggesting that the Israeli media was a part of the international speculation about a possible massacre in Jenin. I'm also conveying Sadeh's argument that these reports were a contributing factor in international coverage of the same possibility. (For the record, I'd be quite willing to clarify Sadeh's belief that the international response was unjustified ... assuming that the "demonisation" reference doesn't already make the point clear enough, that is.)

Could I request that people without well-established track records on this discussion page comment on the matter? It really doesn't add anything to the discussion if only the usual suspects weigh in. CJCurrie 08:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

::You wrote: "what I am suggesting [sic] that the Israeli media was a part of the international speculation ..." EXACTLY!! What you are suggesting. WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR SUGGESTIONS!! How many times do you need to be told? Read the policy! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, Slim, that you may have missed my point. The role of the Israeli media in Jenin coverage would, I acknowledge, constitute "OR" if presented on its own ... but not when said information is coupled with analysis relating directly to the NAS debate. As it currently stands, it's necessary background information to Sadeh's article.

(And I can hear you fine -- you don't need to shout.) CJCurrie 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand OR. We've been trying to explain it for months, and what you're doing is a classic case of it. Your source says nothing at all about Jenin being, or not being, an example of new anti-Semitism. It is YOU who are making that connection. That is OR. It is not allowed.

Also, if you're going to assume that a deletion was an accident, then assume it. Don't write a snide edit summary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your source says nothing at all about Jenin being, or not being, an example of new anti-Semitism.

Have you read the entire article? CJCurrie 01:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have, and it says nothing about New anti-Semitism, or any other kind of anti-Semitism. Have a look. You seem to assume that just because an author argues that "the international press vilified Israel based on false accusations of a massacre, and this is an example of New anti-Semitism", that means the whole "Jenin massacre" = New anti-Semitism concept is now in play, and that you can now bring arguments to refute it. But this is exactly what the WP:NOR policy forbids! It says something is "original research" if "it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." Sharon Sadeh is not making any arguments about whether or not "Jenin massacre" allegations are an example of New anti-Semitism, only you are. Find some reputable source which makes this argument, please. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadeh argues that the international community demonized Israel in its coverage of Jenin. Slim has mentioned elsewhere that accusations of "NAS" do not need to mention the term -- they simply have to deal with the same perceived phenomenon. My reading is that Sadeh's article does this, your accusation of OR notwithstanding. (Btw, your quote about "reputatable sources" seems strangely out of place in this discussion). CJCurrie 02:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As Slim made clear, the articles in question are unambiguously about anti-Semitism; moreover, they invariably use the phrase "anti-Semitism". However, Sadeh neither states nor implies that this demonization of Israel was an example of anti-Semitism. Indeed, if you insist that any article claiming that Israel is treated unfairly by the international community is an article about New anti-Semitism, then you yourself are arguing that anti-Israelism is a type of anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jay, in light of of Slim's recent edits, I'm going to drop this matter at least for the time being. CJCurrie 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

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)