Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 30

There is definite bias in the text

There was a section under "antisemitism in islamic texts" and was about teh treatment of non-muslism within muslim states which had nothing to do with antisemitism, so i removed it.

Please sign your comments). I confess I agree. I have always seen in the internet obviously anti-semitic trash collecting so called Talmudic phrases (either out of context of made of plain cloth) showing prejudice of the Jews against Goys. It is easy to ignore history and put together a number of anachronica aphorisms and then call it antisemitic or islamophobic or anticristian. See the whole debate on what the Pope said, some months ago. At the very least, I would like to see some authoritative reference for that part. It wouldn't hurt if it were written by a scholar on Islamism, who could actually put the phrases from the Koran within their context.--Ninarosa 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correction. Reading better the part that had been deleted (and now reinstated)--I agree even more with the anonymous user. These are rules for non-muslims--it is NOT anti-semitism. Christians, animists, whoever, were also subjected to the same rules. Many Christian countries had rules for non-Christians. Definitions of "us" and "them" exist across time and culture--and not all may be ascribed to anti-semitism. Even the biblical Kingdom of Israel and Judah had restrictions for non-Jews. If not deleted, that paragraph needs at least a better introduction to distinguish between treatment of "others" and anti-semitism.--Ninarosa 02:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a rule is discriminatory or calls for the discrimination against a group of people, even if it comes from a religous book, it is still discrimination.--Sefringle 05:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More or less. First, it is not discrimination against Jews in particular (which would be anti-semitism), and definitively not because they are "dangerous" or "inferior". Second, I can make an argument that most countries in the world have a conditions and rights that apply differently to citizens and not citizens. Citizenship is a modern concept, but in pre-modern times (which is the part of the edit), being Muslin in Islamic countries would be the criteria for this sort of citizenship. But the strongest argument is really the following: it may be discrimination against non-Muslims, but it is not discrimination agains Jews, therefore, it is not anti-semitism.--Ninarosa 08:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I understand your logic correctly, you are saying that if Jews were persecuted along with the Roma people and gays (an example), then one cancels another and such persecution doesn't count as antisemitism. This seems like original research. Also, I don't see how modern states and citizenship are relevant here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Humus, you're missing the point. The Jewish people in concentration camps during World War Two were in there purely because they were Jewish, so it was clearly anti-semitism as their Jewishness was the one and only reason they were in there. However, if a Muslim state discriminates against ALL non-Muslims equally, Jewish and Gentile, then the Jewishness is no longer the reason for the discrimination, but the lack of Muslim faith is. It's not a question of one cancelling out the other, it's a question of looking at the true reasons for something evil happening, so that you can deal with that evil effectively.
Antisemitism, as explained in the article (have you read it???) is prejudice towards Jews BECAUSE they are Jews. If I went and bombed a bank in the United States, and 10 Jews died, along with a few non-Jews, that would NOT be antisemitism, because I didn't target the Jews because they were Jewish. The same logic applies here. The Muslims had rules for non-Muslims. They didn't care if you were Jew, Hindu, Christian, Zoroastrian, whatever. If you were non-Muslim, then you had less rights. It had nothing to do with being Jewish, except for the fact that Jewish = non-Muslim. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 11:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In another words [1] + According to Lewis, in contrast to Christian antisemitism, attitude of Muslims toward non-Muslims is not one of hate or fear or envy, but rather simply contempt.--Aminz 11:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contempt for Jews is hardly incompatible with antisemitism.Proabivouac 11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. And on the broader outlook, calling stuff like this "antisemitism" cheapens the criticism of genuine antisemitism. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 11:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Part of being Jewish is not being Muslim, is it not? And, as Jayjg has pointed out, portions of the Qur'an and various hadith single out Jews in particular. Even today, we are faced with calls for Jews to be exterminated, with the aid of the rocks and trees they hide behind.Proabivouac11:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proa, we are talking about classical times, not recent times. So "Even today, we are faced with calls for Jews to be exterminated, with the aid of the rocks and trees they hide behind" is not relevant. Also, may I ask you and Jayjg to refer to secondary sources. Please let the scholars to read the primary sources like Qur'an and Hadith and draw conclusion from that. Thank you very much. --Aminz 11:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. These sort of conclusions are also made by authors like Spencer but there should be a reason why he can not publish these books in academic presses. --Aminz 11:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As with the order supposedly given by Muhammad four days before his death to expel all Jews from the Arabian penninsula, I doubt that this Hadith is authentic, but neither is it a modern fabrication.Proabivouac11:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Humus, just to confirm Kirby's point. If the Nazis had persecuted ALL non-Aryans (however they defined it) in the same way, we would have identified general prejudice, xenophobia, but NOT anti-semitism. But there was specific persecution of the Jews BECAUSE they were Jews. It was not "cancelled" because there were ALSO specific persecution of the Roma BECAUSE they were Roma. In the case of this paragraph, the laws seem to apply to Jews, Christians, animists, budists, whoever. And to none of them if they convert to Islam. Anyway, I moved one paragraph to the bottom of the section and I believe the problem was partially solved. Now a discussion on the treatment of dhimmis is followed by the debate on how Jews received the worse treatment as dhimmis--therefore, it is prejudice specifically against Jews. I STILL think the section has some bias, and too much weight is given to authors who support the thesis of antisemitism in "pre-modern" Islam, and I am not sure those are the ones with the best evidence or better reputation among other historians. (And I can recall more than a couple of situations in which Jews had more priviledges than Christians in the Islam). But then this is a can of worms I am not ready to touch. Yet.--Ninarosa 16:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the confusion here arises because editors are assuming they are to interpret the content of the Qur'an. That can't be done in this article. It must be written up from recent scholarship interpreting what the Qur'an says. There is thus no point at all in falling out over whethe the Qur'an has bias against Muslims or not. All that needs to be done is to identify the important secondary sources that discuss the question, read them, and summarise fairly what they say. Itsmejudith 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the "confusion" is cultivated here by certain editors who insist that there was no antisemitism under Islam before 1948, and only anti-Zionism after that. Denial of historical facts and encyclopedias don't mix. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are right.--Sefringle 05:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Humus, the focus is now the classical periods of Islam, not before 1948. --Aminz 07:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The goal is - as always - to blame Jews for their own persecution, and to perpetuate the canard that antisemitism is only understandable opposition to Israeli policy. How, then, are we to explain the Hebron massacre of 1929? How are we to explain Mohammad Amin al-Husayni's collaboration with the Nazis and complicity in the Holocaust?Proabivouac 05:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proabivouac, it is not only others who make these statements but rather some of the Jewish scholars themselves. --Aminz 07:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My objection is quite valid: a time machine is required to explain these persecutions as reactions to Israeli policy. Of course, we may always resort to the Banu Qurayza defense: Jews were about to do something horrible to their persecutors. Strange, isn't it, how their persecutors always know what is about to happen, and how to avert it. Who knows what the Jews of 1930s Germany were about to do?Proabivouac 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not valid in the context of "antisemitism". How do you know if they were Christian and had done the same thing, Muhammad would have treated them differently? Also, for the record, Banu Qurayza were certainly involved in negotitations with Muhammad's enemies and had already broken their treaty. In fact, they didn't attack because of Muhammad's diplomat efforts to produce disagreements between them and Quraysh. You might want to argue that their punishment was more than what they deserved but they were not certainly innocent. --Aminz 09:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Banu Qurayza were certainly involved in negotiations with Muhammad's enemies" - so what? Muhammad had his personal issue with the Quraysh that he sought to impose on everybody else. His relationship with Mecca was one of raids on Meccan caravans, while others were busy conducting legitimate trade. His "Constitution" forbade them from conducting the legitimate business with Mecca they'd always conducted, while requiring them to support him against the predictable (and warranted) consequences of his raids. Who wouldn't try to escape such a one-sided arrangement?Proabivouac 10:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still this is not in the context of Antisemitism. Medina was by no means peaceful befor Muhammad came. Over a hundred years, there was internal civil wars. Muhammad's "Constitution" solved many of the longstanding issues. The Jews actively opposed Muhammad, not only in relation to Muhammad and Quraysh. --Aminz 10:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What were they supposed to do, accept that it's a great thing that Muhammad et al. were stealing the goods of their trading partners and divying them up among themselves, and that they could no longer do business with Mecca? Because some dissident preacher from Mecca shows up and tells them so!Proabivouac 10:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proabivouac, I have not studied this issue in details, so I might get back to you sometime later. But I know that there were no racial motivation. In fact, Muhammad was willing to accept Jews as believers(while keeping their own religion) on the basis of monotheism. It was odd to him that the Jews prefer polytheists over monotheists. I am in any case sure that none of these happened because Muhammad was a Jew-hater or antisemitic whatsoever. Similarly, I don't think the Qur'an is an antisemitic text as this article tries to implicitly say. --Aminz 10:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, please! It is not "denial of historical facts". It is about using concepts where they are appropriate and rejecting them where they are not. If you can't distinguish anti-semitism from other systems of exclusion and priviledge, the concept simply loses its meaning. It is more or less like if you highlight everysingle word in a book: at the end, it is the same as if you had highligthed nothing at all.--Ninarosa 07:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, where they are appropriate and where they are not? I can see no answer in your comments. Beit Or 07:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nina, I completely agree. I think that, without a doubt, Jews were persecuted. But the persecution was not antisemitism, because it wasn't done to them because of hatred for Jews. It was done to them, along with Hindus, Christians, etc. because they weren't Muslim. Just because Jews are persecuted does not make it antisemitic. They have to be singled out and targeted in order for the persecution to be antisemitic. But there is NO evidence, nada, that Jews were treated that much differently than all the other nâmosalmân (non-Muslims) that were living under the Caliphate at the time. It's totally ridiculous that such a thing is called antisemitism. Nay, antisemitism is the Ku Klux Klan, British Israelism, etc. etc. (Have you read the antisemitism article????) Playing the race card at the drop of a hat is a waste of time.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 08:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beit, I explained at least three times where I don't think the concept of anti-semitism applies. Kirby explained it. Aminz explained it many times as well. If you don't agree with my answer, fine, I can live with that. Wikipedia is not about making everybody agree with each other, and I have seen worse articles in the Wiki. This one here is reasonably fair. But at least I understand that one of the pillars of the wiki experience is to assume good faith. Assumptions on "certain editors" denying historical facts, or "the goal is to blame Jews for their own persecutions" simply goes against this basic WP:AGF. But I am going to stop this discussion here. The talk page is not a forum and I don't intend to make it one.--Ninarosa 08:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your problem is with semantics rather than content. You're trying to redefine the definition of antisemitism so that at least some hostility to and persecution of Jews does not count as antisemitism. There is one scholar who agrees with you, but the majority opinion is that persecution of Jews is still antisemitism, even if people of other religions suffer together with Jews. Your position is furthermore inconsistent. In the Christian world, the position of those who did belong to the dominant faith did not differ much from that in the Muslim world. They were also discriminated and persecuted, for example, Catholics persecuted Protestants and Orthodox Christians no less than Jews. Jews were accused of desecrating the host, but so were others, for example, dissenting priests. Yet you're not raising any objections to the existence of antisemitism in the Christendom. Is there a reason why you're singling out Islam as an object of apologetics? Beit Or 09:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe User:Kirbytime's signature answers your question. I asked him to change it,[2] but to no avail.Proabivouac09:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, when all the scholars I have seen have a different diffinition of antisemitism than that of Beit Or, then it is probably Beit or who is redefining antisemitism. --Aminz 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beit Or, please read the opening sentence of this article "Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group". Discriminating against all non-Muslims =/= "hostility or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group". Antisemitism is more than just persecution of Jews. It has to do with the persecution of Jews to specifically target and destroy both their culture and way of life. The holocaust, for instance, can be correctly described as antisemitism, EVEN THOUGH gypsies, blacks, homosexuals were targeted. Jews were deliberately targeted because of their Jewishness. Der Ewige Jude is antisemitism. There was nothing the Jews could do to appease the nazis. But the Muslims just wanted the Jews to convert to Islam, along with Christians, Hindus, etc. They did not actively publish propaganda, they didn't send them to death camps, etc. Jews that converted to Islam were left alone (for the most part). And that last point is the precise reason why the description of "antisemitism" is not applicable. Persecution? Yes. Injustice? Yes. Disgraceful? Yes. Antisemitism? No.

Also, I love your new signature, Proabivouac. But you are mistaken. A green heart has more than one meaning. Hope, envy, love, --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 09:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought green is the color for Islam. --Aminz 10:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beit Or, I will try to explain again. I don't doubt that you can find instances in the Islam where Jews were persecuted for being Jews. Targeted as Jews. With particular portrait of Jews as lazy, or greedy, or whatever. In these cases, we can call it antisemitism. But general exclusions of non-Muslims are NOT antisemitism. In the Christian world, there were several limitations for non-Christians. These were not antisemitic. There were specific limitations and persecution of Jews--these were antisemitic. One case (general exclusion) does not prevent the other (particular exclusion), but they are NOT the same thing. You may keep guessing my excuse motives to "single out Islam as an object of apologetics" (???) Or you may try to consider that maybe, just maybe, it is a good faith disagreement. Regarding scholarly sources, a brief search to JSTOR took me to Ben halpern, "What Is Antisemitism?" Modern Judaism, Vol. 1, No. 3. (Dec., 1981), pp. 251-262. [3] He wrote quite explicitly: "to note that antisemitism is "essencially" related to "the Jews" as its object suggest much more than a simple tautology, or its logically corolary, that antisemitism is a form of group prejudice." For Halpern, antisemitism is not only persecution of Jews, but the perception of "THE JEWS" as this collective being, different from others. Therefore, the name does not apply to general prejudices or persecutions, but to prejudices and persecutions that assume "THE JEWS" as a group with certain characteristics. It is not simply semantics. It is the concept itself that can be completely watered down if it applicable to anything in which Jews are ALSO involved, but without distinction from other groups.--Ninarosa 10:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's similar to Claude Cahen's argument [4]--Aminz 10:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ninarosa, bringing some scholarly sources is a good idea, but Halpern's definition of antisemitism does not in any way support your argument; if anything, it refutes your position. Muslim antisemitism rests on a strong theological basis. The Qur'an portrays Jews as perverters of scripture, killers of prophets, people who incurred the wrath of God and so on and so forth; you can read the article for more of that. This image fits nicely in Halpern's definition of antisemitism. Beit Or 10:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, this article is POV. Aside from that, we should not decide whether something is antisemitism or not. That would be original research. We need to find a secondary source which connects particular ideas to antisemitism. --Aminz 10:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arminz, which article is POV? Beit Or, perfect: if you want to say that the Qu'ran's portrays of Jews are antisemitic, on base of these images, or that the Qu'ran has been used for antisemitic persecution, also on base of the description of what "the Jews" (not the dhimmis) are, be my guest. The discussion then would be on other basis. But you CANNOT say that sharia restrictions to *non-Muslims* are antisemitics because simple does not fly.--Ninarosa 15:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ninarosa, I don't see any consitency in your approach. For example, yellow badge and other vestimentary regulations imposed on Jews in Europe are universally considered to be examples of antisemitism. The yellow badge, however, originated in the Muslim world. I am at a loss why one and the same thing should be considered antisemitic in Europe, but not antisemitic in the Muslim world. Beit Or 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is POV because it tries to say that the Qur'anic image of Jews is uniform. It is infact far from uniform. Jews are both accepted as believers and rejected as unbelievers. Some themes might appear more than the others but it is not certainly uniform. --Aminz 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, Beit Or description of Qur'anic image of Islam is POV. Well, if this is the case, I see no reason not to include a paragraph in the part for Islamic text, for instance, saying exactly that. Like, for instance, "Some scholars hesitate to identify anti-semitism in the Qur'an since there are contradictory images of Jews in the book. Scholar X, for instance, remind us that side by side with the depiction of Jews as killers of prophets, they are also nice, tree-huggers and love to smell the flowers" with the references to the special passages. It is important however that you don't look at the passages of the Qur'am by yourself: this would be primary research. You must find a scholar who supports this view. It will be harder to make the case, however, that the negative images of "the Jews" in the Qu'ram were not used as basis for anti-semitic persecution.--Ninarosa 20:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not seen any sources saying that the Qur'an has antisemitic connotations. Encyclopedia of the Qur'an writes: "The image of the qur'anic Jews is far from uniform (which, as an aside, is true concerning almost any other qur'anic theme), and the attitude towards them is ambivalent. On the one hand, they are recognized as true believers, while on the other, they are rejected as infidels." --Aminz 21:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether the Qur'an is antisemitic or not is the subject on which the article reserves its judgment. Your continuing claims that the article says the Qur'an is antisemitic have no basis in the text. However, no matter how you view the attitude of the Qur'an towards Jews, it is impossible to understand Muslim antisemitism without the image of Jews in the Qur'an. This is the reason why this section is and will be in the article. Beit Or 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Jane Gerber is the source that pointed out the negative images of the Jews in the Qu'ram. (Gerber (1986), pp. 78–79, note 37 in the text). If the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an is another point of view, I should be there as well, but it does not mean that the vision of the Qur'am having antisemitic images should be deleted. But, hey, it is my opinion, and you all have been fighting about it much before I have even shown up for this page. At this point, I just want a) that dhimmi restrictions are not presented as antisemitic, which DOES NOT EXCLUDE presence of antisemitism (as it has been defined by the article) in pre-modern Islam; and b) that someone fix this section in a way it flows with more coherence and better transitions.--Ninarosa 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, why should regulations like the yellow badge be considered antisemtic in the Christian context and not considered antisemitic in the Muslim context? Beit Or 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beit Or, we can go on until doomsday--because it was not only a yellow badge. Because yellow was also associated to prostitutes. Because it fits within a larger debate on what "the Jews" are. Because there were specific restrictions on Jews, not only on non-Christians. But it is not the role of wiki editors to give their opinion on what was or was not antisemitism. Find a scholar whos says that general restrictions regarding non-muslims are anti-semitic per se. and we can bring the debate to the text, adding the two POVs.--Ninarosa 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just as an example, take a look at History of the Jews in Morocco#Under the Almohads (1146-1400s) (note that the article doesn't even mention mellahs - it needs improvement, as many others in WP). I hope that reasonable editors would channel their energy into improving our encyclopedia, rather than engaging in denial of documented facts and wasting their own and others' time trying to prove the unprovable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have any WP:RS source which connects these to antisemitism? If not, it would be original research. --Aminz 11:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not advocating the inclusion of a particular event into this article, but are you trying to say that mass murders, forced conversions and segregation are not "hostility or prejudice toward Jews", i.e. Jews somehow deserved this? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I am not saying that. Can you please read the thread of discussions in this section. --Aminz 12:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why was the Psychology of Anti-semitism deleted? --Thanatopsis2002 01:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) thanatopsis2002Reply[reply]

Utter Rubbish

"Today, Denmark has one of the lowest rates of anti-semitism in Europe, at only 11%."

Oh really? How do you measure that? So 11% of all danish people are anti semitic? This is clearly either made up or from a rather dubious source, and should be removed forthwith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

If anyone reads Danish, there is a report here on Anti-semitism in Denmark.--Ninarosa 19:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nowhere in that study is there a claim to the effect that 11% of Danes are anti-Semitic .. and for any reader to come anywhere close to drawing that conclusion, they would have to make the remarkably flawed assumption that anyone who happened to think that modern “Zionism is comparable to Nazism”, is an anti-Semite (a claim that the Simon Wiesenthal Center would no doubt be proud of, but that is hardly a glowing reference, is it? .. especially given the number of prominent Jews who themselves make that very claim and assert that political Zionism is racist).
In fact, the report highlights what it considers to be a far greater cause for concern: widespread Islamophobia (according to the definition of Islamophobia that has been laid down by the Runnymede Trust).
Assuming good faith, I can only deduce that the claim results from a rather ham-fisted attempt to translate the report title: ELEVERNE SKAL LÆRE AT SKELNE, which means “'Pupils must learn to differentiate'” (not Anti-Semitism in Denmark, as stated above .. and where “elverne” means ‘pupils’, as opposed to “elve”, which means ‘eleven (11)’; and where “skelne”, in this context means, “differentiate” (not “discrimnate”, which would be its meaning in certain other contexts)Orpingtonian 11:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dude, don't be so hysterical. Ninarosa did not claim the report says that 11% of Danes are anti-semitic, only that there is a report on anti-Semitism in Denmark available in Danish. Which is true. Yes, it is also about anti-Muslims, but it is indeed about anti-Semitism too. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, I would kindly request that you do not address me as 'dude', dude, and stick your rather ignorant references to being ”hysterial” where the sun don’t shine. Secondly, I suggest try reading the above again. Thirdly, the report is not about anti-Semitism in Denmark, as you claim - it contains references to (amongst many other things) anti-Semitism in Denmark. Orpingtonian 15:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oooooookay then. Hows about we all calm down a bit. This discussion is getting way more heated than its subject would lead one to believe. Orpingtonian, despite what you may believe, no one here is out to accuse Danes of being a collective group of Jew-burning anti-Semites (haha, supposed to be funny... lighten the situation). Seriously though, take a step back please - keep in mind our civility policy and stick to the facts. Unfortunately, I can't read Danish so I won't be much help on that front, but I can tell you that yelling at each other is not going to help matters. --Chabuk T • C ] 18:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A recent very interesting study, widely syndicated, and to be published shortly in Kyklos, the Review for International Social Sciences, puts the rate of "bigotry" against Jews held by Danish citizens at only 2.5%. The countries with the most prevalence of bigotry against Jews appear to be Spain and Greece. It is notable that among five targets of bigotry studied (racial bigotry, anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-Jewish bigotry, anti-immigrant and anti-homosexual bigotry) anti-Jewish bigotry ranked fourth in prevalence while anti-Muslim bigotry ranked a close second in prevalence behind anti-homosexual attitudes. By the way, the report states that "the lowest proportion of bigoted persons was in Sweden (13 percent), Iceland (18 percent), Canada (22 percent), and Denmark (22 percent). Here is where you can read the report...[5]. BernardL 19:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing order of paragraphs.

Sefringle, I see you reverted the change of paragraphs I had done. Could you explain why? I don't want to revert it back before discussing it.

It seems to me that the other version was more logical: a) a general assertion about the dhimmis, b) followed by a paragraph discussing the status of Jews among dhimmis, c) the different oppinions regarding this status, and d) closing with a paragraph on historical conditions in which anti-Jews sentiments were identified. Nothing had been deleted. As it reads now, the general assertion about the dhimmis does not seem to relate to the rest of the article, and suggests that restrictions against "non-Muslims" are in fact anti-semitism.--Ninarosa 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have proposed a different paragraph order. See if it is more acceptable.--Ninarosa 00:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that is the problem. Jews are non-muslims. Restrictions against Jews (even if they apply to other groups as well) are anti-samitism. Saying otherwise is like saying because the KKK was against Blacks and Jews, and other groups as well, they cannot be consitered Anti-Semitic. That is obviously not the case at all. The origional order is better, because it doesn't change the meaning.--Sefringle 02:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree, because the restrictions could be as well called "anti-Christians". Or "Anti-Animists". Or "Anti-Candomblé". But since it is not against Christians per sé, or animists per sé, or candomblé praticioners per sé, it just does not apply to any of these. Keep in mind that I am not saying that because they are general restrictions to non-Muslims (and not anti-semitism), it excludes the existence of real anti-semitism (i.e., the low status of Jews, as Jews, among other dhimis, as suggested by Jane Gerber)--which is exactly the focus of the following paragraph.
But by now I have read the whole talk page and it seems to be a recurring theme, so I am not sure we will get to an agreement on this point. Let me try in another way: for style, it makes more sense a general statement (legal treatment of dhimmis), followed by a more particular statement (treatment of Jews within dhimmis), without an unrelated sentence in the middle. I am not even proposing to eliminate that sentence. I have proposed to put it before of after the discussion on Jews as dhimmis--but not in the middle.--Ninarosa 02:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be anti-Christians". Or "Anti-Animists". Or "Anti-Candomblé" as well but that doesn't change the fact that it is still anti-semitic. If restrictions to non-msulims are demeaning to Jews it is still anti-semitic, even if it is anti-other religions as well. Being anti- things other than just Jews as well as Jews does not make you exempt from antisemitism.--Sefringle 02:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Being anti- things other than just Jews as well as Jews does not make you exempt from antisemitism." Of course it does not--but not because of those rules. The KKK is not antisemitic because they have delusions that "Aryans" are superior to other groups; they are antisemitic because BESIDE being white supremacists, they also target Jews in particular. And Catholics in particualr. And Blacks in particular. Since they preached the superiority of the "white race", you could also presume they are Islamophobic. But hatred against Islam is not, as far as I know, a particularly important part of the KKK credo, so you won't see "Islamophobia" associated to their description (at least not yet). It is just included in the general racism. Jews, Blacks, Catholics and foreigners however, are singled out in their ideology--and therefore, they can be described as anti-semitic, anti-Catholic, racists and xenophobic.
Again, I don't believe we will get anywhere with this line of argument, so what do you say about the question of style and transition from one paragraph to another? If not by my changing order of paragraph, do you see any acceptable way to address it?--Ninarosa 03:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leave it as it was. The origional version was fine.--Sefringle 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that we are at an impasse because I disagree on both counts: because of the argument and because of the style. The original version is not fine. This paragraph...

Anti-Jewish sentiments usually flared up at times of the Muslim political or military weakness or when Muslims felt that some Jews had overstepped the boundary of humiliation prescribed to them by the Islamic law.[49] In Spain, ibn Hazm and Abu Ishaq focused their anti-Jewish writings on the latter allegation. This was also the chief motivation behind the massacres of Jews of Granada in 1066, when nearly 3,000 Jews were killed, and in Fez in 1033, when 6,000 Jews were killed. [50] There were further massacres in Fez in 1276 and 1465. [51]

is preceded by one about Dhimmis in general, and followed by another on the status of Jews as Dhimmis. As it is, it just does not belong there. Before getting to too many reverts, I would like to suggest still another version, keeping the paragraph, but edited, in a way that connects better the two "dhimmi" paragraphs.--Ninarosa 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's your objection to it? I don't understand your point. Beit Or 07:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beit, I have one objection that is not going to be solved: that restrictions on non-Muslims are being considered by the editors as being simply anti-semitism. It has already been discussed multiple times in this talk page, and we will keep going back and forth. So be it. My second objection is regarding style and clarity. This intermediary paragraph stands like a sore eye and the transition between the earlier one (where the restrictions to dhimmi are explained) and the later paragraph (where the status of Jews as dhimmi is discussed) are just unclear. I suggested three possible changes--to put the paragraph at the end of the section, as example of antisemitic events in the Islam; to place it earlier in the text, as a prelude to the discussion on dhimmis; or to edit it by connecting to the earlier paragraph, where the restrictions on the dhimmis are explained, and the perception that Jews disregarded those restrictions in certain situations caused/or was used as an excuse for persecution/massacres against Jews. I am not suggesting to cut or delete anything, just to improve the way the information is presented. If you have another suggestion on how to improve it, please let me know, because the more I read it, the more I am convinced it does not work as it is.--Ninarosa 08:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, the next time one someone edits that piece, please fix the word "humiliation" (it reads "humilitation"). I had fixed it, but if I do it again, it will be to change the section back to one of my suggestions...--Ninarosa 08:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dhimmi regulations is not directly relevant to Antisemitism. Here is one argument for that [6] --Aminz 11:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arminz, it MAY be relevant if you explain that, according to some authors, Jews were treated worse than other dhimmis; or that breaking of dhimmi restrictions was cause for actions against Jews but not actions against Christians, for instance. But it is not relevant on its own.--Ninarosa 15:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least in Medieval times, according to some scholars, Jews were not treated worse than other dhimmis. Encyclopedia of Islam writes: "there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism." --Aminz 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is so, Aminz, it means that there is disagreement regarding it. The place to add this information is in support of the Bernard Lewis' statement, which is later challenged by other authors. I would use the name of the scholar who wrote the entry, instead of simply Encyclopedia of Islam. My fear, however, is that the article will become a name-dropping war: you add an author who supports the inexistence of anti-semitism in pre-modern Islam; Beit Or finds other two authors who say otherwise; you find a third author to support your view, and pretty soon the article is just a ping pong of oppinions. There must be a way to give due weight to both schools of thought. Which one is more accepted? which one is mainstream?--Ninarosa 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, true. There are other POVs as well. S. D. Goitein, a preeminent scholar in the areas of Jewish-Arab relations and Islamic culture: "Still “anti-Semitism,” that is, hostility directed against the Jewish community, was not entirely absent from medieval islam, as has been assumed."(Footnote to Encyclopedia of Islam )..."Although the term [antisemitism] is perhaps inapprorpiate in medieval Islamic setting, it is used here to differentiate animosity against Jews from discrimination practiced by Islam against non-Muslims in general. The Genizah material confirms the existence of a discernible form of anti-Judaism in the time and the place considered here, but that form of 'anti-Semitism', if we may use this term, appears to have been local and sporadic rather than general and endemic." --Aminz 02:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The section on Sweden is really poor. While it's terrible for the individual to be verbally attacked it is hardly interesting for an international audience to read about these minor incidents, especially when there have been much worse examples of antisemitism in Sweden. For instance, the attempt to burn down a jewish building in Malmö in 2003 and the existence of Radio Islam etc. Any Swedish speaking people around here that wish to comment on this? 09:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a fluent Swedish speaker, I find the idea that the existence 'Radio Islam' somehow equates to anti-Semitism, to be as preposterous and fallacious as claiming that anti-Zionism, opposition the state of Israel, or opposition to the barbaric policies of the government of Israel, somehow equate to anti-Semitism.
Nor in fact does the attempt to burn down a Jewish building in Malmo necessarily equate to an act of anti-Semitism. If it did, then you would have to assume that any crime ever committed against a Jew, or a Jewish institution, is motivated by anti-Semitism .. and conversely, that any crime ever committed by a Jew, against a non-Jew or non-Jewish institution, is motivated by racial prejudice against non-Jews. Orpingtonian 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iranian Cartoon Shows Nazi Swastika Growing Into Jewish Star of David

Iran, having vowed to wipe Israel off the map, appears to be fomenting anti-Semitic sentiment through its media.,2933,250710,00.html Crocoite 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (I'm striking-through the article summary and removing the hyperlink to FoxNews so I'm not accused of copyright infringement.) Crocoite 22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't tell if that cartoon is supposed to be pro or anti Nazi. Frotz661 01:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last time I checked, this was a talk page about the article on antisemitism, not an instrument of propaganda for the Bush administration or a forum for general debate. Please refrain from posting "news" here... 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last time I checked, this is a talk page about the article on antisemitism, and it's hard to think of a better place to bring up an example of it in practice, with a possible eye to including it in the "Antisemitism in the 21st century" section. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, you're right. But why not make some suggestions for changes or better include it the article with the NPOV sources instead of just posting a link to some silly news site? 15:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, some of us are better at some things than others, I guess. And it was a suggestion, really: "Include something about Iran fomenting anti-Semitic sentiment". At least it was put here, not on the main article page! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parallel article

Is this article supposed to exist?[7] It looks like it's supposed to redirect, but isn't quite working? Maybe someone can fix it. Mackan79 04:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

N/p. Thanks, Mackan79 06:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exculpatory wordplay

Arabs cannot, by definition, be antisemitic.

I forget the name for this fallacy, but it uses two different meanings of the word to make dual assertions:

  1. Arabs are not discriminatory, hostile or prejudiced toward Jews (specific sense)
  2. Antisemitism means being discriminatory, hostile or prejudiced toward Semites, and since Arabs are Semites and no group opposes itself, Arabs obviously cannot be called "antisemitic" (broad sense).

My question, of course, is not whether either point is valid, but rather Who makes the second point? (Casual conversation with acquaintances and co-workers is not source material.) --Uncle Ed 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This claim is made quite often, e.g. [8]: "Muhammad Khalifa Al Murar, the Executive Director of the Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, repudiated Israelis claims [that they are] 'the real Semites. Paradoxically, they accuse Arabs who are Semites themselves, of anti-Semitism." See also [9], [10], etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of Quote from Cohen[11]

Mark Cohen is stating the view of majority of scholars regarding the issue we are writing about here. Why is it POV? It is a report. --Aminz 10:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, it is a report. Of his POV. Which incidentally happens to be yours. The section already lists whole lot of facts. Maybe you forgot, we already talked about it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the view of majority of scholars and if it agrees with that of mine is not the point. This section starts with a section on Qur'an making the impression that the Qur'an is an Antisemitic text which can be at most a minority view. --Aminz 11:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's is all in your head, including those pink glasses. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. You don't want to accept it even when most scholars disagree with you. --Aminz 11:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aminz, I hope you realize that historical facts are undeniable. We already have this opinion, putting it in the intro of that section makes an impression of denial. It's a bad idea and won';t stick. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If these are historical facts, then most scholars should be foolish? Can you explain that? --Aminz 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can explain that. It is for a couple of reasons including that Jews were treated like Christians. That's the historical fact. --Aminz 11:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't you expand History of the Jews in Morocco and add a section about Mellah. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article as of now is supporting the User:Aminz/The_neo-lachrymose_conception_of_Jewish-Arab_history theory (which is actually a myth). --Aminz 11:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I can not see any reason to exclude the views of majority of scholars on this issue. --Aminz 11:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is simply Cohen's belief that the majority of scholars support his view. Incidentally, can you clarify what Cohen means? Beit Or 12:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cohen in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies doesn't say "I think most scholars concede" but rather "most scholars concede". So, he is reporting rather than giving his personal view. And what he says is not new. It agrees with what Norman Stillman says in EoI:"Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books."
Cohen, an expert in this field, is informing us that "most scholars concede" rather than giving his own conjectures on that. --Aminz 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to this twisted logic, everything that scholars write without preceding it with qualifiers like "I believe" is a fact. This claim is too nonsensical to merit a rebuttal. Beit Or 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cohen is not saying what I think is true in this case. He is saying what most scholars agree with. That's not a personal view but a fact he is informing us. --Aminz 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beit Or, where does the article says that most scholars concede with that. --Aminz 23:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aminz, even your neo-lachrymose quote says "Though aware that the romanticizing view was misplaced, Cohen argues that by any standard, Jewish life was better under Islam than under Christianity." Note: better, but not inexistent. And our article describes exactly that in detail. What you are trying to promote is that "myth of interfaith utopia" that he warns against. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The myth of interfaith utopia is the "story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain". That's a myth. There is no dispute that there were discriminations and at times persecutions but Jews were mixed with other ethnic groups and were not specifically singled out. That's the point. --Aminz 10:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether "mixed with other ethnic groups" or not, doesn't matter. There were "discriminations and at times persecutions" of Jews because they were not Muslims, or for whatever other pretense, doesn't matter. You are free to wear your pink glasses, but don't put them on WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For RfC

Dispute explanation: Mark Cohen Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies states that:"most scholars concede that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized".

Cohen's research specialty is Jews in the Muslim world and is considered to be one of the leading scholars of the history of Jews in the Middle Ages under Islam.

The dispute is over inclusion of Cohen's quote attributed to him [12]. It was removed based on the arguments that "This is simply Cohen's belief that the majority of scholars support his view". Those users who want to include this argue that 1. the quote is explaining the view of majority of scholars on antisemitism in Muslim lands 2. the whole section on Islam is arranged and written with the aim of supporting the view of a minority of writers who believe Antisemitism has roots in the Qur'an and has been there from the beginning. --Aminz 04:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. The view of the majority of scholars that Cohen is writing about for example matches with what Encyclopedia of Islam, a prestigous academic source on Islam, that writes:"Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books."--Aminz 04:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well as its a quoted source it seems difficult to remove it. If there is an alternative point of view, it should also be sourced and presented as an alternative. Maybe a compromise would be to have an expanded section including more of this point of view(!) but as a seperate subheading. The view currently comes before all the other sections, elevating this point of view above all others and discrediting the (also sourced) material below. Also it could be included in the criticism worked into the other sections. I suspect the problem is not just it's inclusion, but the way in which it is included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I agree that something along the lines of "Some writers have perceived antisemitism to be inherent in the religion itself, even in the Qu'ran and that there have also been elements of anti-semitism in Islamic history; and among Muslims in the modern world." should be added if we can source it (which I think it should be possible). I guess Bat Ye'or should have probably said something to that effect but that group is a minority (as the above quote indicates). --Aminz 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other point is that only a minority of scholars(at most) may view Qur'an and the early history of Islam to be an antisemitic text but the article as of now gives the impression that it is a major view. --Aminz 09:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And per discussion in Islam and Antisemitism article, the EoI quotes used in this article are not in the context of antisemitism. Leaving aside that they are in several cases chosen selectively,they are NOT infact in the context of antisemitism. --Aminz 09:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should concentrate on historical facts, such as those in History of the Jews in Morocco, Mellah, Farhud, and many more. As I said earlier, there is no reason to repeat an opinion that's already expressed in this long section, and certainly no good reason (other than POV) to push this opinion in front. For weeks if not months User:Aminz's only activity here is to whitewash the section detailing persecution of Jewish minority under the rule of Islam. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jews and Christians were treated the same and Jews were not persecuted because they were Jews. So, based on the definition of Antisemitism, these were not antisemitism as all these academic sources testify [13]. --Aminz 10:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same? Were there Christian ghettos like Mellahs? Were there unprovoked pogroms of Christians like Farhud? BTW, I don't see how persecuting one minority absolves the ruler from persecuting another. We already talked about all this. Here, I wasnot going to do it, but you are asking for it: An account by Solomon Cohen dated January 1148 CE describes the Almohad conquests:

"Abd al-Mumin ... the leader of the Almohads after the death of Muhammad Ibn Tumart the Mahdi ... captured Tlemcen [in the Maghreb] and killed all those who were in it, including the Jews, except those who embraced Islam. ... [In Sijilmasa] One hundred and fifty persons were killed for clinging to their [Jewish] faith. ... One hundred thousand persons were killed in Fez on that occasion, and 120,000 in Marrakesh. The Jews in all [Maghreb] localities [conquered] ... groaned under the heavy yoke of the Almohads; many had been killed, many others converted; none were able to appear in public as Jews."[1]

Humus sapiens ну?
Humus sapiens, please see [14](Within this complex human tapestry, the Jews were by no means obvious as lone dissenters, as they had been earlier in the world of polytheism or subsequently in most of medieval Christendom). If you think some incident is antisemitism, please find secondary sources saying it is so. There should be a minority of writers agreeing with you. That is totally fine to me. Please find them and we can add them as well. But most scholars don't see the technical term "antisemitism" to be applicible to Islam for various reason. --Aminz 11:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

</reset> Humus sapiens, My point is that we have a quote in which Cohen is giving the view of majority of scholars. We can continue this discussion but in Wikipedia, we are concerned with verifiability and not truth. --Aminz 11:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your confusion comes from the 19th century terminology. Persecution of Jews such as described above surely constitutes antisemitism, or Jew-hatred, or "hostility or prejudice directed to Jewish persons as a religious, racial, or ethnic group". It is not a "technical term" and doesn't need your or anyone else's permission or approval. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies is written in 2002 and not in 19th century. Please clarify your statement. --Aminz 23:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not a regular editor here, and not well-aquainted with the literature. It looks like the two views are that antisemitism is 1) built into Islam; and 2) a modern artefact.

The section Antisemitism and the Muslim world says the main article is Islam and antisemitism, and to see also Arabs and antisemitism. Cohen's view is presented near the top in both of those. If this section is to summarize those more detailed pages, then it seems to me that Cohen's view should be similarly presented here. That said, the section is already quite long. Repetition should be avoided, summary style is good, etc. Might we put at the beginning of the section two succinct paragraphs summarizing the two views, and then go on to the chronological account? To keep the length down, we might shorten the paragraph of citations to the Qur'an, shorten the paragraph on dhimmis, and condense all the 'Cohen says/Goitein argues' into the first two paragraphs, moving the rest of it to Islam and antisemitism and/or Arabs and antisemitism. Tom Harrison Talk 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Suggestion:

I suggest this:

"While there were discrimination and at times persecution of Jews in Muslim lands, according to Mark Cohen, 'most scholars concede that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently, in the nineteenth century, against the backdrop of conflicting Jewish and Arab nationalism, and was imported into the Arab world primarily by nationalistically minded Christian Arabs (and only subsequently was it "Islamized")'. (reference to Lewis and Cohen). "

In this way we are acknowledging existence of discrimination and persecutions. --Aminz 23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with including it at all. We should be consistent with the "Christianity" section. In the Christianity section of this article, there is no scholar mentioned who talks about how Christianity is not antisemitic just befroe the discussion of religous verses in this article.--Sefringle 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sefringle, the point is that there is no such dispute on that side. Classical islam was different from Classical Christendom. Please take a look at [15]. Thanks --Aminz 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And my point is we should treat the two the same. Both Christianity and Islam have a long history of antisemitism. In the past Christians were more antisemitic. Now Muslims are more antisemitic. Long story short, they are very similar in nature. As far as formatting goes, it is best if the two sections look similar.--Sefringle 02:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Q: Is it definitely true "Now Muslims are more antisemitic"? I don't doubt there are extreme groups but you believe it true of Islam in general today? --BozMo talk 10:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sefringle, "Both Christianity and Islam have a long history of antisemitism." and the quotes above don't match. If by, antisemitism, you mean "discrimination" or "persecution", I have included this in the above suggestion. I think it is a fair writing. --Aminz 02:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There most certianly was both persecution and discrimination against Jews in both the Christian and muslim world, and this is not a new phenomenon. For example the Jew killings in Fez and Granada in the 1000's. But to get back to the topic, consistency is improtant.--Sefringle 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I acknowledge that. Please note that in my new suggestion I started the sentence by "While there were discrimination and at times persecution of Jews in Muslim lands,".
Now, getting back to the topic, which of those discriminations do you think were both discrimination and antisemitism, and which of them was discrimination alone? --Aminz 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What part of the first sentence of the article you don't get: "Antisemitism... is discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed to Jewish persons as a religious, racial, or ethnic group." ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know exactly though I have some ideas. I searched and found Jewish Encyclopedia saying: "The term "Anti-Semitism" has its origin in the ethnological theory that the Jews, as Semites, are entirely different from the Aryan, or Indo-European, populations and can never be amalgamated with them. The word implies that the Jews are not opposed on account of their religion, but on account of their racial characteristics. As such are mentioned: greed, a special aptitude for money-making, aversion to hard work, clannishness and obtrusiveness, lack of social tact, and especially of patriotism. Finally, the term is used to justify resentment for every crime or objectionable act committed by any individual Jew." --Aminz 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how that excerpt about the origins of the term from a 1906 JE article is relevant to our discussion, but thank you: I included the link to JE for our readers to see a perspective from a century ago. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Aminz comments speak to the heart of the matter, the relationship between Muslims and Jews of different creeds pre-Israel is also crucial to the antisemitism terminology. To be honest i think the term is oversubscribed and sometimes is confused and replaced with anti Judaism because as we all know not all Jews are Semitic ( I don't want to go into numbers) and the use of the (antisemitic) label against Muslims (which most are not Semitic) is sometimes out of context. This fixation on racial purity is a sad relic from centuries of European oppression of the Jews. It is common knowledge that Jews in the Arab World are still regarded as Arabs. I acknowledge that while there was discrimination at times on the whole the treatment of Jews in Muslims lands were exceptional for those times. It has to be said that the STATE OF ISRAEL and Zionism confused the lines greatly when it came to Judaism and Ethnicity. --Palestine48 06:27, 04 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not here to redefine words. Anti-Jewish is the accepted dictionary definition.--Sefringle 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever definition "antisemitism" has we have a quote that "most scholars concede that Arab anti-Semitism in the modern world arose relatively recently". Even if that one thinks it wrong, Wikipedia is not about Truth, it is about verifiability. Now, I think the widely used definition of antisemitism is narrower than that of those editors who oppose the above quote think. --Aminz 07:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonsense. Serious encyclopedias systematize facts based on evidence. By such selective quote mining you only discredit yourself. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
H.S. please be civil. --Aminz 07:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taking Lewis definition, can you please explain why discrimination against the category of Dhimmi qualifies as antisemitism. Taking Helen Fein's influential definition: as "a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions – social or legal discrimination, political mobilisation against the Jews, and collective or state violence – which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews.", can you explain why discrimination against the category of Dhimmi qualifies as "a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions...which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews" --Aminz 20:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would we take an idiosyncratic definition? To make certain WP users feel better? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re RfC: The sentence should read that "most scholars concede etc." This is a scholar writing a dictionary. Maybe it's wrong, but anything could be wrong. HS, if you don't like this wording, then go out and find a good reference from a scholar who says that anti-Semitism didn't arise recently. HS, when I see an editor use insult, I am inclined to give the other side a second look. Jonathan Tweet 15:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Aminz, I can see why you like Cohen, but he doesn't deserve to be the sole reference in the section summary. The summary of the whole section should take into account history, context, etc. Cohen's comments are about the 19th century and belong in that subsection. I'm on your side about including Cohen, but don't overdo it. Jonathan Tweet 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonathan Tweet, I added that because Cohen was saying what "most scholars" think. He was not giving the view of himself alone. --Aminz 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've read similar idea in "Cultures in Conflict: Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the Age of Discovery"[16] by Bernard Lewis which shows Jews live in Muslim countries peacefully while Christians tortured them. I don't deny there were some extremest Islamic viewpoint which hated Jews but apparently it weren't common.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--04:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All based on the era. At times certian Christian countries persecuted Jews, at other times they didn't. Same thing with muslim countries. That is probably why World Book Encyclopedia gives the same amount of attention to both Islamic and Christian antisemitism.--Sefringle 04:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This challenge, as the Christians viewed it, gave them grounds for expelling the Jews. After they were expelled from Spain in 1492 (and from Portugal in 1496), many Jews settled in the Ottoman Empire, where they enjoyed a fair measure of toleration.[17]. Sa.vakilian(t-c)--04:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support the Cohen quote. Why will some users on this page not allow a reliable source?Bless sins 00:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on my first reading of article

This article seems to be long, also it seems to me to have some overly long sections duplicating content in other articles. It would be much punchier and better with a work through. Personally, I also think that an attempt to prove a point about something as exegetically complex as the New Testament by citing isolated verses isn't very clever (try reading them as you read the article: as isolated verses they are incredibly hard to follow, and it uses the New Testament like a cruddy tele-evangelist): it would be much more convincing to quote a couple of top tier Biblical scholars on the issue, wouldn't it?

On this other discussion, I think it is too much to ask for there to be a consistent definition of anti-S across the vast range of people who use the term so trying to tie down the article content based on definition is very difficult. Again, acknowledging the variation has to be a good start. --BozMo talk 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another daft question ot two: (1) what was "highly explicit" about Hitler's ideology? Is explicit the right word (given his ideology was to a degree concealed, albeit it the intent was unambiguous)? (2) If all discrimination of the type described is anti-semitism presumably we need to differentiate between intentional and unintentional... direct and indirect anti-semitism, as with discrimination? --BozMo talk 09:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BozMo, I welcome constructive edits, but why would we promote erroneous usage? That's what I believe "almost" does - on top of already existing "in practice". ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement as it stands is about usage, not correctness: "it is in practice used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews." If you want it to be about correctness change it to "should be used exclusively..." . If the usage exists, even incorrectly, then it is straight dishonest to deny the usage exists. The sentence with "almost" in reflects the comments later in the article that some people use the term to mean anti-Arab. I invite you to read the sentence and consider whether you believe it is truthful as stands. --BozMo talk 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the next section. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dictionary vs. Reality

I know that the dictionary tends to define "Antisemitism" as being "Anti-Jewish" but in a real life example, I think this is an error. Some years ago when I was on the student council of my university, a group of Palestinians came to the council in order to get funding for an event that they wanted to put on. Being the hardcore pro-Israel guy that I am and knowing full well that these people would in almost complete likelyhood going to use the event to spew anti-Jewish venom, I stated that the council should not fund any event that was antisemitic.

Well, it was at that point that the leader of the Palestinian group started screaming that they were not antisemitic because as Arabs, they are Semites themselves. Of course, this is true so I had to re-state and make the argument that the council should not support "anti-Jewish" events.

Sadly, since the student council was overwhelmingly left-wing, I was out-vote and the funding for the Palestinians went through.

But most importantly, I don't understand why the dictionary and people in general use the word "antisemitic" in relation to Jewish people even though it would appropriately be referring to Arabs as well. It's like saying that someone is anti-European and thinking that means it only refers to Albanians. Jewish people are a small part of the Semitic world yet this phrase is thought of as only applying to Jews. I think that trying to take the lead and correct this syntactical error would be a worthy undertaking for Wikipedia. Jtpaladin 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please review WP policy No original research. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Humus, yes, I'm well aware of the Original Research rules and I wasn't suggesting that I take the lead and try and change the meaning as it is used in the dictionary. Only that something be stated regarding the misuse of the word in that both Jewish people and Arabs are Semitic and the word "anti-semitic" is really not really the best word to be used when describing "anti-Jewish" actions. I noticed that the article touches on that but it would helpful if some Arabic sources are included to explain their perspective on why they feel the word should be used to describe all antisemitic actions as including other Semities as well.
My previous experience with that Palestinian group underlines a need to better explain their perspective. Either way, I only mention it because obviously non-Jewish Semites see themselves as victims of antisemitic acts. I gladly leave others to handle this matter. Jtpaladin 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dictionary is right. While semites are arabs, antisemitism is not against all semites as a whole (see above link). It is one of those exceptions in english that just doesn't match the general grammer rules. There are other examples as well.--Sefringle 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine, but see last para section above. The statement as it stands is about practice not correctness and therefore either needs weakening to almost to cover notable erroneous use, as mentioned in the article, or needs changing to refer to correctness not practice. --BozMo talk 23:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They tried to change it by playing on ignorance, but it didn't work. Imagine someone insisting that lesbians are really inhabitants of Lesbos. Encyclopedias should not promote erroneous usage. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you read the comment to which you are attempting to reply, or did you just assume you knew what it said? --BozMo talk 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to your logic, the article Lesbians now has to have a provision to accommodate the "usage" such as above. Please, let's stop playing "gotcha". ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not playing "gotcha", and don't really appreciate your implication that this is not a serious point. There is a point which I have tried to explain several times and to which I have received a response which appears glib/flippant (I am avoiding more polemic adjectives). I am trying very patiently to explain why I think you need to think a little more about the words you use. EITHER you should have a sentence in the introduction saying "correct usage is XYZ" OR you should have a sentence saying "in practice the usage is almost exclusively" what you should not do is have a sentence saying "in practice the usage is exclusively" because this statement is FALSE. --BozMo talk 10:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a reason for aggravation. IMHO "in practice" takes care of that clause. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. Okay. As a mathematician perhaps I have more of a problem with the absoluteness of "exclusively" than most people. And perhaps the man in the street (if he'd ever heard of antisemitism: so probably not a street round here) would read the sense your way. I'm dropping it. :) --BozMo talk 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for being reasonable. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian references

The article makes a number of Biblical and historical mistakes that would require a considerable effort to correct.

The attempt to understand NT scripture is poorly accomplished by whoever authored the information.

Also, the historical reasoning for persecution of Jewish people in the early days of Christianity up to the Middle Ages is either ommitted, left incomplete, or simply in conflict with historical accounts that can be easily obtained from the online source, the Jewish Encyclopedia.

I'll take it slow and try and make some corrections and add historical data. Jtpaladin 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the support. Yes, I would very much like to work on this article. It's on my list of articles to edit. Again, I appreciate your encouragement. Jtpaladin 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Any reason why there is no mention of Shakespeare/ Merchant of Venice in this article? --BozMo talk 12:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFAIR, it was mentioned somewhere. Given the breadth of the subject, many of the article's parts were spun off into subarticles. Maybe we need another subarticle (Antisemitism in literature?) and an entry in the template. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could usefully be added to History of antisemitism, early modern period. Itsmejudith 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following section was removed without any valid reason.

As an epithet it is sometimes used to refer to critics of Israeli policies in the occupied territories.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Please discuss things on the talk page. It may othoerwise be seen as an act of vandalism. // Liftarn

Liftarn, antisemitism is a historical phenomenon. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it doesn't exist any more? // Liftarn
Painting it as an "epithet" will probably make certain kind of activists feel better, but WP is a wrong forum for that. BTW, sorry I clicked on the wrong button: I do not consider your edit vandalism. Just regular OR POV pushing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a question about "painting" something. That's what the sources say. You may not like it and I sure don't like that it is being used as an epithet, but that's a fact and the article should report that instead if trying to obfuscate facts. // Liftarn
It makes me so sad to read such pointless debate. Of course "antisemitic" (adjective) is an epithet. And antisemitism is a historical phenomenon for sure. Can you recognise that although you may have different POVs you can still work together to improve this article? I think so and look forward to reading further contributions from all angles. Itsmejudith 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that is is two very different (but related) uses of the same word. // Liftarn
Liftarn, there is only one use (see any dictionary), and there is denial. I am yet to see an antisemite who will openly admit it. BTW, your sources are non-RS partisan blogs and editorials. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you claim that everybody who has ever been called an antisemite actually is an antisemite? Well, that's denial (or is it denialism?). Also calling the sources "non-RS partisan blogs and editorials" also looks like denial. The sources include a Harward research paper, a Washington Post article, a book on the subject and so on. // Liftarn
Hmm. I think on this I am somewhere in the middle on this. I don't think the lack of this in a dictionary is relevant; Wikipedia is not a dictionary and examples of wilful misuse cited in dictionaries are very rare. At the same time this long passage on misuse is out of proportion in my view with the topic: it undermines the importance of antisemitism (to be fair, as does every instance of misuse). I think that the section on modern antisemitism should acknowledge (in the light of a reasonal set of notable sources) that there is no perfect definition and that some parties are accused of using allegations of AS as a cynical political ploy. Please bear in mind I am not pretending to know anything about anti-semitism: just about what is reasonable in WP. --BozMo talk 08:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not very fond of the idea either and the best would be if it could be in it's own article like fascist (epithet) to avoid devaluing the term. // Liftarn
Going to be difficult to avoid that decoming a POV fork, given who uses the term that way? --BozMo talk 10:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really, since they are used in very different (altough related) ways. // Liftarn
  1. "So you claim that everybody who has ever been called an antisemite actually is an antisemite?" - a strawman.
  2. "a Harward research paper" is a lie: "Harvard's Kennedy School of Government removed its logo, more strongly wording its disclaimer and making it more prominent, and insisting the paper reflected only the views of its authors. <ref>Clyne, Meghan. "[ A Harvard School Distances Itself from Dean's Paper]", ''[[New York Sun]]'', March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.</ref> <ref>Rosner, Shmuel. "[ Harvard to remove official seal from anti-AIPAC 'working paper']", ''[[Haaretz]]'', March 23, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.</ref> <ref>Safian, Alex. "[ Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors; Removes Logo from Controversial Paper]", [[Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America]], March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.</ref>
  3. "a Washington Post article" - it's an op-ed from a partisan, and the rest of your sources are of the same low quality.
I think our resources are better used elsewhere than to accommodate deniers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please remain civil and avoid name calling. If it's flesh and blood it's not a strawman. Ok, it's a working paper without any connection to Harvard, but it still a valid source. And by the way CAMERA is not really a reliable source. It doesn't matter here and now, but you may want to keep that in mind. // Liftarn
Sorry, please consider withdrawing the "lie" comment against Liftarn. Also I think your use of "deniers" is rather close to a personal attack. AFAIK Harvard research papers never reflect anything other than the views of its authors. It may be that they were more than usually embarrassed about it but that doesn't mean it wasn't from Havard. Regardless of this accusation, you have been successful in convincing me that notability is a question rather than a foregone conclusion. In my view op-ed from a Partisan rules out NPOV but still counts for some notability? --BozMo talk 10:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should have used the word deception instead of lie, but I am not going to apologize. Here's a related Liftarn's pet: Category talk:Hamas members#Category:Anti-Semitic people. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about rewriting the sentence to something like "According to some "antisemite" is sometimes used an epithet to refer to critics of Israeli policies in the occupied territories." and then list who said what. // Liftarn

Liftarn, this is what, the 4th different way you've tried to insert this POV? First it was at List of political epithets, which was AfDd, then it was Antisemite (epithet) which was speedy deleted and upheld on Deletion Review, then it was Category:Political epithets, which was CfDd. This is quite disruptive, even for you. Please stop inserting this nonsense. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jayjg, Perhaps the perception of this as a serial approach explains why the changes were met with such a personal attack on Liftarn? It does look to me like this perception is notable enough to go somewhere (but none of the proposed ways forward look right either). --BozMo talk 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Liftarn has been trying to do this for well over a year now; he insists that "antisemite" is a political epithet, not a description of someone who hates Jews, despite the fact that the people who make that claim are a self-interested extreme fringe. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please avoid personal attacks and remain civil. I am perfectly well aware of that "antisemite" is a description of someone who hates Jews, but it is also an epithet. Just like "nazi" is a description of someone supporting an specific authoritarian political ideology, but it is also an epithet used for a lot of people who does not support the nazi ideology. // Liftarn
Please review WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and WP:NPOV. It would be best if you didn't edit these kinds of articles again until you become familiar with them. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would reccomend the same for you. And I would reccomend that you back down from editing articles on the subject since you obviously have such strong opinions that it seems to cloud your judgement. // Liftarn
Okay, but the tone is still rather personal and I haven't seen the "not a description of someone who hates Jews" bit.... besides it clearly IS a political epithet in some contexts, e.g. used as an attack by the non-Jewish Evening Standard on Ken Livingstone who "hasn't got an antisemitic bone in his body" according to most British Jews. I was wondering whether the content he/she proposes was already in the intro to the New antisemitism article; perhaps with these other references added. --BozMo talk 17:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Livingstone, the guy who told a Jew that he was like a concentration camp guard? In any event, people accused of antisemitism inevitably insist that they are not antisemites, but merely aren't liked by Jews. The latest scam is to pretend that they are actually just "anti-Zionist", "Zionist" being the latest code word for Jew. It's pretty much the same across the board; whether it's right-wing antisemites, left-wing antisemites, or Islamist antisemites, they all claim that they couldn't possibly be antisemites, they're just being maligned for their political views. It turns out there aren't any antisemites in the world at all, just internal political refugees being unjustly persecuted by the jooooz. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFAIK Livingstone told a journalist from a right-wing newspaper who was trying to provoke a reaction that he had the morality of an SS guard. Livingstone didn't know that the journalist was of (loosely) Jewish origin and a huge right wing hate machine tried to turn it into an antisemitic attack. Livingstone's credentials on race are second to none. --BozMo talk 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Liftarn, please don't keep adding this. All words and phrases can be misused. Anyone who claims that someone is antisemitic only because they criticize Israeli government policy is misusing the term; that this misuse is allegedly common is a propagandistic strawman argument spread by antisemites, and by very virulent critics of the right of Israel to exist (as opposed to critics of the particular policies of a particular government), who want to deflect the suspicion that they may be antisemites by reducing the word to a misused political epithet. By trying to add this to the article, you're aiding and abetting that effort, which I'm sure you wouldn't want to do.
Some early feminists used to say that all men are rapists, so according to your argument, we should add Rape to Category:political terms, and should add to the article that "As an epithet it is sometimes used to refer to all men." Then maybe we should be careful always to write it in scare quotes, lest anyone suppose it's a serious term. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have sources for that so sure. We already have articles like feminazi so why not? But as far as I recall the claim is that all men are potential rapists and that makes more sense. // Liftarn
It does seem that Liftarn has one particular agenda; at least, the only time I notice him around is when he's promoting this one particular crabbed definition of antisemitism, as he has been for something like a year now. Every time it comes up, he discovers the same thing -- that he lacks consensus for it -- and shops it to another article. One would think one would take a hint. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I second that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


More that I canät be bothered fighting for it with editors who ignore WP policy. // Liftarn
FWIW I agree it shouldn't go in this article, and with your first paragraph SV. On "all men are rapists" that's not just some early feminists, I have heard that claim advanced far more often and more seriously than antisemitism (although I've been really shocked by finding an AS website today, I didn't really believe these things existed). Jayjig, you are more in danger of deciding everyone is an antisemite than Liftarn is of saying no one is. And to add a final remark about Zionism every Jewish friend I have ever had (and I have plenty, I went to the only UK school with its own synagogue at the time.... but I agree they probably aren't representative) told/tells me they condemn Israeli policy in Palestine. Are they all antisemites too? --BozMo talk 17:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what your comment has to do with mine. When David Duke goes on Syrian television to complain that Zionists are running the American government, that's not a complaint about "Israeli policy in Palestine". Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, if they are Jewish they are self hating Jews. ;-) // Liftarn
Okay, I misunderstood what you are refering to... the Prime Minister of Malaysia said something like that too didn't he and I know I am skating on paper-thin knowledge. I was thinking more of the distinction made by people like Independent Jewish Voices, who are called traitors, anti-Zionists etc. That real antisemitism is still around is enough of a shock for me today. I'm signing off. --BozMo talk 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a familiar strawman. Many Jews feel that political criticism of Israel is antisemitically motivated. In that sense it is not an epithet but a very real accusation. JFW | T@lk 18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no doubt in my mind that many people abuse the term anti-Semite in very much the way that Liftarn is alleging (there was even a Seinfeld episode poking fun at this phenomenon). That said, the term anti-Semite is hardly unique in that regard. I'm somewhat ambivalent about including that use of the term in the article -- however, I feel very strongly against adding a category tag reflecting that usage. --Jaysweet 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. here's a transcript of the Seinfeld episode I was referring to. Search for "anti-Semite." Very funny stuff, actually... Perhaps a compromise would be to work a mention of something like this into the article? I can see how mentioning that "anti-Semite has been used as an epithet against those who oppose Israeli foreign policy" could be a very divisive assertion -- but a Jewish comedian acknowledging that his people's paranoia regarding anti-Semitism sometimes gets out of hand, that seems much less divisive to me... Of course, just coming right out and saying it would be pretty unencyclopedic, heh... --Jaysweet 18:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another idea: The intro paragraph to Racist includes the text "The term racist has been a pejorative term since at least the 1940s, and the identification of a group or person as racist is often controversial." Perhaps some similar text would be appropriate here as a compromise? That text seems less inflammatory than the original text suggested by Liftarn.. --Jaysweet 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem is largely that the word "Pejorative" simply has a strong potential for sounding POV. Usually, calling something "pejorative" is to dismiss it as rhetoric, like you would say "limousine liberal" is a pejorative, or "death tax." Even with a different word, though, isn't it better to discuss these debates in the contexts where they actually arise? That seems more sensible to me. Mackan79 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, you raise a good point about the use of the word "Pejorative". Do you think the same comment should be removed from the Racism article, though? Hmmm... Yeah, this is a touchy subject. --Jaysweet 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, hard to say. I'd probably remove it in both, but the debates are possibly a little different (denial in the general racism context is, possibly, less of a concern). In any case, I guess I'd probably come out the same. Mackan79 21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help me improve this section of the article

Some has argued that the charge of antisemitism is being misused as a way to silence critisism of Israel.<ref>“Partisans of Israel often make false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence Israel’s critics. The ‘antisemite!’ libel is harmful not only because it censors debate about Israel’s racism and human rights abuses but because it trivializes the ugly history of Jew-hatred.” (Handleman, Scott, "Trivializing Jew-Hatred," in ''The Politics of Anti-Semitism'', ed. [[Alexander Cockburn]]. AK Press, 2003, p. 13.)</ref><ref>“Apologists for Israel’s repression of Palestinians toss the word “anti-Semite” at any critic of what Zionism has meant in practice for Palestinians on the receiving end.” ([[Alexander Cockburn|Cockburn, Alexander]] and St. Clair, Jeffrey, preface to ''The Politics of Anti-Semitism'', ed. Alexander Cockburn. AK Press, 2003, p.vii.) </ref> <ref>"More importantly, Finkelstein exposes the nastiness of smearing the label of anti-Semitism on Israel's critics. Mostly, he tells us what we already know." (Paul, Ari. [ "Norman Finkelstein's ''Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Antisemitism and the Abuse of History''"]. ''Tikkun'', October 11, 2005.)</ref> <ref>"Instead of seriously engaging with the issues raised (e.g. to what extent are Israel's current policies similar to those of apartehid and to what extent are they not?), the Jewish establishment and media responds by attacking the people who raise these or any other critiques--shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of the criticisms. Knowing this, many people become fearful that they too will be labeled "anti-Semitic" if they question the wisdom of Israeli policies or if they seek to organize politically to challenge those policies." ([[Rabbi Michael Lerner]]. [ "There's no New Anti-Semitism"]. [[Baltimore Sun]], February 7, 2007.)</ref><ref>“The lack of debate is, of course, a measure of the power of the Israel lobby to suppress discussion of its role, and the fear the lobby stirs among American writers, especially non-Jewish liberals who cannot afford to be tarred as anti-Semites, a death sentence in the profession." ([[Adam Shatz|Shatz, Adam]]. [ "Dialogue of the Deaf"]. ''The Guardian'', March 24, 2006.)</ref> <ref>"'I’ve been hurt — and so has my family — by some of the reaction,' Carter said. 'It’s the first time in my life I’ve ever been called a liar. A bigot. An anti-Semite. A coward. A plagiarist. He paused after each epithet. 'This has hurt,' he said." (Cohler-Esses, Larry. [ "Carter Faces, and Disarms, Jewish Crowd"]. The Jewish Week, January 26 2007.)</ref><ref>“The Great Silencer: No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most important weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy – an influence that AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite.” ([[John Mearsheimer|Mearsheimer, John]] and [[Stephen Walt|Walt, Stephen]]. [ "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"]. KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series, Harvard University, March 2006.)</ref> After [[Jimmy Carter]] published his book ''[[Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid]]'' he was labelled an antisemite.<ref>“The charge has been leveled at Jimmy Carter over his recent book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." I, too, didn't like the book...Still, Carter's overall point about Israeli occupation of the West Bank is apt, and calling him all sorts of names does not change that...It's astonishing that in the 60 years since the Nazi extermination camps were liberated, anti-Semitism has revived and thrived. Still, it hardly makes sense to fight it by promiscuously throwing around the word "anti-Semite" so that it loses its punch or to flay Jewish critics of Israel." ([[Richard Cohen|Cohen, Richard]]. [ "Cheapening the Fight Against Hatred"]. Washington Post, February 6, 2007.)</ref><ref>[ Philadelphia Inquirer: Truth at Last]</ref>

I must have missed the wiki policy that says to remove entire sourced sections when it is worded confusingly. But I'll go along with it. Can someone explain to me how to fix this so it is no longer worded confusiningly, and then I'll proceed to include it in the article once more.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 10:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That has been already discussed in the preceding section. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I didn't check the talk page, I just saw a dispute that looked like "I just don't want to correct the writing; I'd rather see it go". So would this particular passage be more relevant in, perhaps, New antisemitism? From what little I know about New antisemitism it seems more Israel-related than historical antisemitism. My guess after a quick look is there is already sufficient coverage of criticism on that page, but the good stuff from this passage that is not present at the other page probably should be added there. The Behnam 11:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's too much? It's only one sentence! --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 18:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's one sentence of POV pushing supported by unreliable sources. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's two sentences suppoerted by reliable sources. Please help improve it instead. // Liftarn
It is not two sentences, and it is ridiculous to misuse the reference formatting to post your personal essays behind the wikilinks.Proabivouac 08:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Some has argued that the charge of antisemitism is being missued as a way to silence critisism of Israel." (one) and "After Jimmy Carter published his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid he was labelled an antisemite." (two). And it's not a personal essay since I am not one of the sources. As far as I know it's not against policy to give sources. // Liftarn
Is this two sentences?Proabivouac 10:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Two (count them: one, two) sentences and the sources to back them up. As it says in Wikipedia:Reliable source "Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work.". // Liftarn

Look, I have no connection whatsoever with this. All I did was see a big red -4,472 on my watchlist, and I reverted it because it seemed like sourced info was being removed. And then I see complaints of it not being written properly. So I say ok, I'll put it on the talk page. And here it is. Now, I'm still waiting for suggestions to improve it and put it back in the article.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 10:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems the complaints about the writing is a strawman. Also as per WP:ATT "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.". It also says (and I think this applies here) "this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material". // Liftarn
The issue of whether the charge of antisemitism is being used to silence criticism against Israel, or whether that defense is an excuse to perpetrate demonization of Israel without consideration of the consequences, is bewildering to people who participate in the debate, never mind those who are trying to read about antisemitism on Wikipedia. Perhaps there should be an article on this topic, but it is not related to the phenomenon of antisemitism per se. It's not even relevant to the article on New Antisemitism. --Leifern 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a bit stubby for an article of it's own and "new antisemitism" isn't mentioned in the sources. What about putting it under it's own heading, something like "Missuse of the term". Then it should perhaps be clearer. // Liftarn
In the previous section, I pointed out that the Racism article includes the similar text, "The term racist has been a pejorative term since at least the 1940s, and the identification of a group or person as racist is often controversial." Mackan79 has made a good case for why the term "pejorative" in that context may be POV-pushing... but I think if anyone here is denying that "the identification of a group or person as anti-Semitic is often controversial," then they haven't even read this talk page :D
So, with that in mind, how about some text that does not single out criticism of Israeli foreign policy, but briefly acknowledges these sorts of controversies, much like the Racism page...?
Or, alternatively, that text should be edited out of the Racism page. If it is okay to acknowledge that the term racist can be misused, but not okay to acknowledge that the term anti-Semite can be misused... well, I think that's exactly what the complaint is! heh.... (e.g. "Anyone who thinks the term 'anti-Semite' can be misused must themselves be an anti-Semite!" ;p :D ) --Jaysweet 15:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that some editors are violating NPOV by only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people. Viewpoints that they disagrees with, even if they are well sourced, are censored and deleted. // Liftarn

Reset indent. It's not a "point of view" that some people claim accusations of antisemitism are used to silence debate. There is no question that some people make that claim. What is controversial is whether the claim has any merit in terms of the effects or the motivation. The issue is how in the world it's relevant to an article about antisemitism. It's two sentences with endless footnoting at this point, but the argument has so much currency now that it certainly justifies its own article. --Leifern 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I would very much prefer to have it in it's own article, but what should the article be called? I dubt Antisemite (epithet) would be appreciated. I would also like some conflicting viewpoints, i.e. "everybody who is called an antisemits is an antisemite.". I have no idea how to find such views. // Liftarn
Antisemitism is Jew-hatred or prejudice. Somehow this talk page is full of attempts to deny or whitewash it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only when it is directed specifically against Jews. --Aminz 19:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such as 1066 Granada massacre, Mellah, and Farhud. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends on this question: if instead of Jews, say Christians were in that position, had they experienced the same thing? --Aminz 20:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Denial. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen that page. What is the point? --Aminz 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Straw man? In any case it's utterly irrelevant to the current subject at hand. Possibly it's allso an attempt to call those who disagree with him antisemites (try to keep civil). Anyway, could you please try to keep this on subject. // Liftarn

Ok, let's try to get this back on track. What are the specific complaints about the wording of the section in question? // Liftarn

It's not about the wording, it's about the section's existence. I think there should be an article - possibly with other articles on specific examples - on the Political rhetoric of the Arab-Israeli conflict that could cover terms from both sides. I am not sure how to structure such an article, though. Rhetoric may, after all, be based on true or untrue assumptions (and usually it rests on assertions that can't be proven or disproven). But antisemitism is itself real and deadly. --Leifern 12:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a bad idea, but that is a much broader subject and there is also the risk it goes the same way as the list of political epithets article with unsourced additions and blanking of terms editors disagree with. Also it should be mentioned somewhere in this article, perhaps in the bulleted list in the top or under the "See also" section. // Liftarn


HS has a point that major pogroms deserve prominent mention, as does the origin of 19th century Muslim antisemitism. Jonathan Tweet 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it is okay to mention major pogroms, but as "pogroms" not "anti-Semitic" incidents, unless majority of scholars hold that they are "anti-Semitic" incidents. --Aminz 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, give me a break. If antisemitism is defined, inter alia, as hostile acts toward Jews, and pogroms against Jews take place, it's not original research to label such a pogrom as antisemitic. Personally, I'm ok if we call it "systematic murder and pillage of Jews," but we have this umbrella term for this kind of thing. I also think the argument that discrimination against Christians and Jews is somehow different from antisemitism is novel and intellectually interesting, but I think we can easily find scholars who would characterize it as antisemitic. When crusaders butchered Moslems and Jews and some Christians if they got in the way, there is no question that this was motivated by antisemitism as well as anti-Islamic hatred and some sociopathic tendencies thrown in; but I have no problems citing all of them. --Leifern 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aminz, don't be ridiculous. A pogrom against Jews is antisemitism, no strings attached.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That depends if they were targeted because they were Jews. If they just happened to be Jewsish, but they were actually targeted for another reason then it's not antisemitism. // Liftarn

Aminz, "it is okay to mention major pogroms." Agreed. Currently, the text refers to pogroms but doesn't label them antisemitic. I don't think we have to. Jonathan Tweet 09:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aren't pogroms by definition antisemitic? // Liftarn
Jonathan Tweet, nobody here has ever meant to cover persecution of Jews; we even have a separate article called Historical persecution by Muslims. The point is that as most scholars understand it, antisemitism wasn't there in classical Islam because Jews and Christians were treated in the same way, not that there was no persecution. Further, the conspiracy theories against Jews or attribution of cosmic evil to Jews arose pretty recent in Muslim world. Muslims were looking at Jews and Christians with contempt but not with hate. For all these reasons, most scholars think antisemitism arose recently among Muslims(please see the cohen quote showing the view of majority of scholars). As usual, HS as usual is probably going to say to me (See denial). --Aminz 10:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect that Lewis and Cohen talk about racial antisemitism of the 19th-20th century. In fact, there is no such requirement in the definition: prejudice, hatred and/or hostillites towards Jews constitute Jew-hatred, for which the most common term is antisemitism. It is not a special "technical term" as you were trying to imply on this talk page.
In addition to a number of links above, see History of the Jews in Morocco#Under the Almohads (1146-1400s): "One hundred and fifty persons were killed for clinging to their [Jewish] faith. ... One hundred thousand persons were killed in Fez on that occasion, and 120,000 in Marrakesh. The Jews in all [Maghreb] localities [conquered] ... groaned under the heavy yoke of the Almohads; many had been killed, many others converted; none were able to appear in public as Jews." - other than deniers and whitewashers, who would say that this was not Jew-hatred? ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And how about the Farhud in Iraq that killed 180 Jews in only 2 days? Was that Jew-hatred? --GHcool 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
H.S. there is one difference between you and me. All your arguments are like "See this, and conclude that". On the other hand, I provide secondary sources for the conclusion rather than doing original research in making such conclusion. My problem is that you don't even buy the views of Zionist scholars such as Lewis. Lewis says there is little sign of any deep-rooted emotional hostility directed against Jews, or any other group, such as the antisemitism of the Christian world. He says there were clearly negative attitudes, which were in part the "normal" feelings of a dominant group towards subject groups (which exists in virtually any society). In part, more specifically, the contempt of the Muslim for non-believers who willfully choose to remain in their disbelief, while they had the opportunity to accept the truth; in part, certain specific prejudices directed against one or another group and not against the rest.
What do you think of the Jewish scholar H. LAZARUS- YAFEH? A review of her book published in the Journal of Semitic Studies, Oxford University Press says:

The relationships between the Jews and the Arabs throughout history have been the subject of numerous studies over many centuries. However, as long as the continuous Arab-Israeli conflict has not found a solution, historians will search through the past in order to find new evidence to prove the antiquity of the tension between the two communities and to illuminate its causes. The vicissitudes which have marked the lives of the Jews who lived under Arab rule or side-by-side with Muslims add to the complexity of the issue, and a great many of the assertions about Arab-Jewish relations made by scholars and amateurs alike are sheer speculation. This is particularly true of writers who strongly identify with either camp and have become emotionally involved in the subject. Consequently, the views they usually hold are often unbalanced, if not biased.

The present work, which comprises fifteen articles written in Hebrew by some eminent Orientalists, covers a kaleidoscope of topics and views whose common denominator is to portray the Muslims' reactions to Jews from the advent of Islam to the present time. However, after reading this interesting collection one can reach another surprising conclusion: in spite of the fact that most of the contributors are Jewish or Israeli Orientalists they have nevertheless provided us with well-balanced and usually well-argued accounts. This is no doubt due to the efforts and experience of the editor, Professor Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, one of the leading Israeli Orientalists, who has recently died.

In her introduction to the book the editor emphasizes two major points: (1) the conflict between the two communities has never been immanent and (2) in spite of the existence of discriminatory laws against Jews and Christians, such as 'the Pact of 'Umar', the prohibition against learning Arabic and reading the Qur'an, or laws compelling Jews to dress in distinguishing clothes, they have rarely been applied. Hence, the status of the Jews as ahl al-dhimmah normally enabled them to lead safe and peaceful lives under Islam, only occasionally disrupted during the times of certain rulers or their vizirs, or when conditions in general began to deteriorate within the Muslim empire.

In his important contribution entitled 'Islam and the Jews: Myth, Counter-Myth, History', Mark R. Cohen stresses the polarity of views among scholars in respect of the attitude of the Muslims towards the Jews. The author rejects the myth about inter-religious Utopia and the counter-myth which highlights the Jewish tragedy across history (named by S. Baron the 'lachrymose conception'). To prove this thesis about the coexistence between Jews and Arabs — as he prefers to see it — he analyses very skilfully some of the available sources and draws comparisons with Europe's often negative, if not disastrous, attitude towards the Jews.

Now, as usual, I think you would retort such scholarly pieces by "Nothing can change the facts". "See Denial" etc etc. --Aminz 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our article lists historical facts and reflects a variety of scholarly opinions. You are simply trying to push a single POV, preferably into the intro. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aminz, what on earth does your lengthy quote havfe to di with HS's point that "major pogroms deserve prominent mention?" Slrubenstein | Talk 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latest revert of link

So is a reliable source? If not would you like to have a look at the 113 other places on Wikipedia where it is cited? Or are there different levels of reliability on the same site? [18] --BozMo talk 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to be a very very POVish site advocating one single view. If only the website is sourced, then ofcourse it is unreliable. However, if the author is reliable, then we have to re-consider.Bless sins 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

israel's right to exist as definitional

I figured this would get deleted but was anticipating an explanation. For some, questioning Israel's right to exist is tantamount to antisemitism<ref>[ Anti-Zionism, criticism of Israel and Anti-Semitism revisited], on a pro-Israel web site.</ref>. Comments? Jonathan Tweet 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

relevance?--Sefringle 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would it have killed you to have said that in the edit? Before I get people too confused, let me say that I support Israel's right to exist. What I find interesting, however, is the issue of whether questioning that right or denying that right is, by itself, antisemitism. Either it is (worthy of mention) or isn't (worthy of mention). The referenced people regard questioning RTE to be antisemitism. Here's someone taking a side. Seems like a test for antisemitism is relevant to an "antisemitism" page. Did I put the reference in the wrong place? Jonathan Tweet 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see Anti-Zionism and New Antisemitism. Those articles pretty much explain the controversy over that issue.--Sefringle 03:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. After I've read up, then may I please summarize the controversy here? Seems worth mentioning. Jonathan Tweet 04:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it a notable view? Jayjg (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, it's a notable view. Look at the Anti-Zionism page and you'll see that it gets some real play. A quick summary here is warranted. Also, a summary here prevents an eager but ignorant editor from rushing in with a half-baked reference and adding the issue to the page (like I did). Jonathan Tweet 13:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is throwing a rock at an Israeli tank antisemtic or foolish? 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What makes you think that throwing a rock at an Israeli tank would be either "antisemtic" or foolish? Bus stop 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

islam and muslim and anti-semitism?

thats doesnt make any sense, Islam treat all human being same, that included jews, I dont see how Islam being anti-semites to the jews, its not Islam thats anti-semites, its just because jews betrayed the Muslim, for example in State of Palestine. At first they(the jews) were welcome to palastine, Muslim arent so care about, but then the jews betrayed the Muslim, stealing their land and took over the nation through force and ?law?.-- 13:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Jews didn't steal anything. The Ottomans thought the land they sold the Jews was useless. Thus the Jews were welcome as long as their land wasn't valuable. When it became valuable through hard work, the resentment started. If what you're saying is true, then the farms vacated in Gaza would now be operated by Palestinians instead of being in ruin. Frotz 17:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both of you should get down from your soapboxes. // Liftarn

Okay then sorry about, please be noted that the nation of palestine are nolonger their for somereason even I dont know. Can we change the article now? that is to exclude the muslim from anti-semitism? --Towaru 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely not. There is plenty of antisemitic history in the muslim world, much of it predates Zionism. (See the article for more detials) Besides, to ignore muslim antisemitism would be denial on our part of an important sector of antisemitic history, and would make this article extremely bias against Christianity and pro- Islam POV. There are plenty of reasons to believe that Islam is antiesmitic, which can be read in the article.--Sefringle 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fine, u only saying christian and islam being anti-semitism, how about jews themselve being anti-semitism, read here , I believe we must make new article about jews being anti-semitism, and sorry, is zionism same as judeoism?--Towaru 13:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody is saying that only Christians and Muslims can be antisemitic. I see plenty of Jews say and do things that make me wonder. Yes, it would be a good thing to add a section here discussing what are referred to as "Jews In Name Only" or JINO who, among other things, advocate the destruction of Israel and think that a certain guy with a funny mustache wasn't all that bad. They say they're Jewish, but that's the extent of their Jewishness.
What does that page have to do with antisemitism? Frotz 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:RS#Extremist Sources. Jews-for-Allah is an extremist source. I would take what they say with a grain of salt. Still see Self-hating Jew.--Sefringle 05:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jews for Allah is not extremist, where the hell did you get that from? They simply advocate the turning of Jews to Islam because they argue Islam as being fulfilling of Jewish... prophecy stuff. If that makes any sense. But they are definately not extremist.

Even zionism has been described as a form of antsemitism as it says that Jews are incapable of becoming assimilated into the countries they live in. // Liftarn

Who described it as such? And who decides what "zionism says"? Yonatan talk 12:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This talk about JINOs reminds me of self-hating black people. Ive never seen any in real life, but you get a few in fictional media created by black people as antagonists (eg Boondocks). I think this would be a good way to explain jews who are racist to jews.

Earliest Antisemitism

I see your point about the Bible (in this instance, the Book of Esther) not being a reliable historical source. But then, I don't understand why it's okay to refer to the Book of Maccabees in the following paragraph. Mt1999 03:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)mt1999Reply[reply]

we need secondary sources as citations. Otherwise it is WP:OR--Sefringle 03:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch. Feel free to remove it. I invite those who want to include it to provide a source. Grace Note 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helen Fein

I am going to give just one example of the pervasive OR and bias in this article.

"Though the general definition of antisemitism is hostility or prejudice towards Jews, a number of authorities have developed more formal definitions. Holocaust scholar and City University of New York professor Helen Fein's definition has been particularly influential".

Influential on whom? Who says so? Why, if someone says so, are we not citing their saying so? Why is her "definition" characterised as "particularly" influential? By what standard? Do you have any sources for her influence at all? People who have cited it and are themselves expert in the area of antisemitism (with recognised credentials, not just some guy who works for a think tank) would be the kind of thing we are thinking of here.

Do you have a source for her being an expert on the Holocaust? The biographies I find suggest she is a sociologist who specialises in genocides generally. I don't doubt she has written about the Holocaust but I can't see that she is a "Holocaust scholar". This is a subtle distinction but important. Here we are discussing antisemitism, not the theory of genocide. The presentation of Fein here implies that she is an expert on antisemitism, but she seems rather to be an expert on how genocides occur. The two are not necessarily congruent.

Why do I think that this passage is instructive or introduces bias? Because Fein's definition of antisemitism insists that it is latent and persisting. The implication of this kind of understanding of antisemitism is that it exists as part of the fabric of a society without its knowing it. IOW, expert "witchfinders" can uncover and describe "antisemitism" that its perpetrators were not aware of. This is not an objective description of antisemitism but a political position. Grace Note 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fein is regarded as an important Holocaust scholar. Just as an example, her work is listed by the EB in their Holocaust entry. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ask "who says so" and your response is to repeat the (unsourced, unfounded) assertion. It's okay. That's what I expect. The "rules" are for the little people. Britannica does not say that Fein is a "Holocaust scholar", and notes, as I have, the sociological bent of her work. There is a huge difference between someone who has studied the Holocaust as an example of genocide and its place in sociology and an expert on antisemitism and the Holocaust. But I tell you what: I think this article is irredeemable, so I'm going to pretend there isn't. Grace Note 05:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All you have to do is check her out on Google yourself. Of all the hundreds of scholars the EB could have mentioned, it chose her. She's referenced by the [[United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and has addressed their conferences. She's rated highly by other Holocaust scholars. She's cited in several of the academic books on the Holocaust that I have on my own shelves. One of her colleagues said: "With the publication of ... [Accounting for Genocide], Dr. Helen Fein goes to the head of the ranks with Hannah Arendt and Raul Hilberg as the most important scholars of the Holocaust." [19] She's written or edited nine books, including two on genocide, Accounting for Genocide: National Response and Jewish Victimization During the Holocaust, and Genocide: A Sociological Perspective. She's the executive director of the Institute for the Study of Genocide; president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars; and fellow of the Francois Xavier Bagnoud Institute for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University. Anyone who has studied the genocide of the Jews will tend to have become an expert on antisemitism. I don't see what difference it makes that her work has a sociological bent. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did check her on Google. I've refuted the Britannica thing, so no marks for simply repeating it. I do not know what "referenced by" the Holocaust museum means, and people address conferences for all sorts of reasons. You keep saying she is "rated highly" by Holoacast scholars but that is just your saying so. It is perfectly possible for someone to be cited in a book on a subject without being a scholar or expert in that subject. One has to take care not to indulge in promotion by attribution, IYKWIM. The cite by Aronson is the kind of thing we are looking for here (but a minus for its being a colleague, not an unaffiliated scholar who is referring to her). I am aware that she has written books, which, as I noted previously (you ignored the note), are more concerned with genocide as a phenomenon than the Holocaust in particular, with the exception of the one you note, which is an application of her work to that particular genocide. Her credentials have nothing to do with being a "Holocaust scholar" or an expert in antisemitism, since none of the institutions you name specialises in antisemitism or even the Holocaust that I am aware of. I do not agree that anyone who studies genocide must necessarily become an expert in antisemitism, even if they include the Holocaust among their studies. All in all, this is only marginally a figure in the field in question: sufficiently so that you can defend her inclusion, but not so much that you can really make a convincing case. Were she saying the opposite to the contention you wish to include, I believe you would remove her "definition" immediately. I'm not asking you to do that. As I said, I believe this article is irredeemable. I simply want you to be aware that this is a problem. Grace Note 09:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How have you "refuted the Britannica thing"? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LOL. I suppose whether it's been refuted is in the eye of the beholder. I see it as refuted rather readily (because it was a bit silly -- it didn't say that she was a Holocaust scholar at all but framed her as having made a sociological study of genocide). You clearly have a different view. That's okay. I don't expect the semiblind to be leading the wholly blind any time soon. A happy Pesach to you, btw. Grace Note 06:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It must be INCREDIBLY hard to maintain NPOV while editing this article. Good job. atomicthumbs 15:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction. It must be INCREDIBLY hard to maintain the PRETENSE of NPOV while editing this article. Good job? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:52, 4 April, 2007 (UTC)

Warning: antisemite at large

I would like to draw your attention to the discussion taking place at Military_history_of_Bulgaria_during_World_War_II.
There is a guy called Todor Bozinov who, when challenged about the fate of Greek Jews in north-eastern Greece during the Axis/Bulgarian occupation of 1941-44, all he has got to say is: «the Jews in Greek Macedonia and Thrace were not Bulgarian citizens, and we couldn't avoid direct German orders when it's not even our citizens whose deportation was ordered. I don't think you can blame us for not saving your Jews» !
At another discussion (at ) again he shamelessly says that «we couldn't save your Jews because they were not Bulgarian citizens.»...
Any sane and knowledgable person knows that the administration of a territory, whether legal or illegal one, has got full responsibility for the security of the people living in that territory, regardless of their ethinicity, religion, citizenship etc. The Bulgarian occupation authority in northeastern Greece, established as a result of a Nazi-Bulgarian agreement (Bulgaria was a formal Axis partner) was therefore responsible for the fate of all inhabitants of that region. The end-result of the Bulgarian occupation was (a) 100.000 Greek Orthodox fleeing from the Bulgarian occupation zone to the Nazi and Italian occupation zones and (b) the whole of the Greek Jewish population of the area perishing in Nazi concentration camps.
He or she who doesn't understand this basic principle of international law (respecting peoples' lives and assuming responsibility about their security) is either ignorant or, worse, an anti-Semite and as such he or she ought to be expelled from Wikipedia.
Parrisia 07:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because someone doesn't agree with you on an historical (read: ambiguous) matter , doesn't make them an antisemite. Please try to keep this discussion page for relevant information/problems... as it's truly muddy enough in here already.tactik 10:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if the person concerned or any person for that matter is anti-semite or any other type of racist, that shouldnt remove them form wikipedia but rather their racist views should just be made very clear as has been done Parasia. I am a muslim, and I big up the jews all around the world as human beings, but of course show contempt for the religion of judaism. Does that make me anti-semetic? No. One because though anti-semitism refers to Jews Im still not going to hate a cousin race of the arabs (or any race). Two, because it makes sense that any religious person shows a degree of contempt for all other religions. Peace out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Other commentators associate ...

The following statement in the "Antisemitism in the 21st century" section seems out of place and vague at best and a distortion at worse: "Other commentators associate some of these problems with the constant linkage of Israel to "The Jews" or "The Jewish State." If nobody can find a reliable source for it, I will delete it in one week. --GHcool 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'm deleting it. --GHcool 19:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed article on 4,000 Jews Rumor E-Mail

Hello, I'd like to write an article on the myth of the 4,000 Jews who were allegedly told not to go to work at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 that was started by an E-Mail from Al-Manar news service. Does anybody have an appropriate title for this article? ---- DanTD 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you could work on 9/11 conspiracy theories#Claims related to Jews and Israel. // Liftarn
I thought about using that as a reference. I just felt it needeed to be a whole new article, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Franklin Prophecy. ---- DanTD 17:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's what the article used to say, before it was shortended:

This claim made by Al-Manar, the television station of Hezbollah, has been repeated by a wide variety of other sources, such as Amiri Baraka. The original Al-Manar claim was:

"With the announcement of the attacks at the World Trade Center in New York, the international media, particularly the Israeli one, hurried to take advantage of the incident and started mourning 4,000 Israelis who work at the two towers. Then suddenly, no one ever mentioned anything about those Israelis and later it became clear that they remarkably did not show up in their jobs the day the incident took place. No one talked about any Israeli being killed or wounded in the attacks."

Al-Manar further claimed that "Arab diplomatic sources revealed to the Jordanian al-Watan newspaper that those Israelis remained absent that day based on hints from the Israeli General Security apparatus, the Shabak". It is unclear whether al-Watan (a minor Jordanian newspaper with no website) made these claims or who (if anyone) the alleged "Arab diplomatic sources" were. No independent confirmation has been produced for this claim.

In some versions of the story circulated on the Internet, the title was changed to "4,000 Jewish Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack" from its original "4000 Israeli Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack", spawning a further rumor that not only Israeli but all Jewish employees stayed away. On September 12 an American Web site called "Information Times" published an article with the headline "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," which it credited to "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." According to, "The '4,000 Jews' page is easily forwarded as e-mail, and this may explain the message's rapid dissemination."[20] The rumour was also published; according to the United States Department of State "Syria's government-owned Al Thawra newspaper may have been the first newspaper to make the "4,000 Jews" claim... its September 15th edition falsely claimed 'four thousand Jews were absent from their work on the day of the explosions.' "[21]

There were a total of 5 Israeli deaths in the attack (Alona Avraham, Leon Lebor, Shay Levinhar, Daniel Lewin, Haggai Sheffi), of which 3 were in the World Trade Center and 2 were on the planes. (4 are listed as American on most lists, presumably having dual citizenship.)

Early estimates of Israeli deaths, as of the total death toll and the death toll for other countries' citizens (e.g. India) proved substantially exaggerated. George W. Bush cited the figure of 130 in his speech on September 20th.

The number of Jewish victims was considerably higher, typically estimated at around 400;[22][23] according to the United States Department of State

A total of 2,071 occupants of the World Trade Center died on September 11, among the 2,749 victims of the WTC attacks. According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish. A later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, states, "based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner's Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish." This would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. A partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%. This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City's population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%.[24]

The figure "4,000" was probably taken by Al-Manar from a Jerusalem Post article of September 12 (p. 3) which said "The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack." This number was obviously not (as Al-Manar claimed) restricted to employees; in fact, Tsviya Shimon, minister of administrative affairs for the Israeli consulate and mission in New York, said on September 14 "that there might have been up to 100 Israeli citizens working in the World Trade Center". [25]

Furthermore, many Orthodox Jews left for work later than usual that day due to Selichot (additional prayers recited around the time of Rosh Hashanah).[26]

I'm not sure creating an article is a good thing, though. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's probably best presented in the context of the other 9/11 conspiracy theories. Maybe improve it in place, and see where it goes from there. Tom Harrison Talk 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I for one would agree with Jayjg and I will offer a personal statement that normally I wouldn't do. I was in Australia on 9/11 and felt awful about what happened, felt terrible for all those killed. Upon returning I learned that a close friend lost his sister (she was on the top floor of one of the buildings) and well I could see in the last years how he has aged. The Synagogue was filled, her best friend spoke of waiting for hours, then days for her to come home, with many calls to and from her family. Not one word in rancor was uttered and only her life remembered. So, perhaps an entry in the main article as to what some "believe" could suffice but a full article surely would only promote this myth (conspiracy theory). PEACETalkAbout 23:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etymology, modern usage, and inherent biases

I question the assertion of unanimous agreement on exclusion of non-Jewish semites, when the only voices cited seem to be British, Americans, and/or people of Jewish ethnicity. This seems to be an intrinsic cultural bias, then, in the way the word has arrived at its modern meaning. Do Arab scholars and/or non-Western peoples agree with this definition? If not, how can unanimity be claimed?

In particular, the use of the word 'antisemitic' to describe anti-Jew Arabs strikes me as an unfair manipulation of language, not merely because Arabs are semites themselves, but because this is an emotionally loaded use of Nazi terminology. In some cases, it is true, Muslim West Asians do come close to being Nazi sympathizers or apologetics. However, in many cases they don't; they may be non-racist bigots or merely politically opposed to Israeli policy, and they do not deserve to be painted with the same brush.

The validity of my point goes back to Nazi antisemitism, which was definitely based on race, *not* on religion, politics, or nationality. To sling about the word to describe non-racist bigots or political opponents, therefore, is a departure from its original meaning; and certainly, if one uses it to describe Arabs, there should be an overwhelming substantiation of purely racist intent.

The issue is complex and it is unfair to claim it has been settled once and for all merely on the basis of a partisan (primarily western and/or Jewish) selection of scholars and academics, when it affects many others.

What I would *like* to see is either (a) citation of agreement on this issue by non-Western and/or non-Jewish scholars *or* (b) toning down the insistence that the issue has been settled to unanimous agreement.

For the record, I should declare that I am neither Jewish nor Arab, nor Muslim for that matter, and I am certainly not a racist or bigot of any stripe. In short, I have no dog in this fight. Splitpeasoup 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You can use the word anti-Jewish if you prefer. You say it is a complex issue. What do you see as the complexity? Bus stop 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The complexity arises from the fact that (a) other semites (Arabs) do object to this definition, and their view is not represented here (b) at the time the term was coined, it exclusively referred to white, non-semitic, racists, so its extension to Arabs is a relatively modern innovation, and (c) I posit that this extension is partially deliberate, to color anti-Jewish Arab sentiment with shades of Nazi feeling, which may or may not be valid. Splitpeasoup 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may be well-worn ground, but the OED says anti-semitism is "Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-{sm}Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Se{sm}mitic a." Its first recorded use was in 1881, and in the sense of anti-Jewish, so the manipulation would be in changing the existing definition. Maybe the word in another language that translates as anitsemitism has a different meanings or origin. The English word for a man who hates Jews is anti-semite. Tom Harrison Talk 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are certainly right that the first recorded use was in the sense of anti-Jewish. However, as I replied to the other poster above, it is also true that at the time the term was coined it exclusively referred to white, non-semitic, racists, so its extension to Arabs is a relatively modern innovation. As for the OED definition, it reflects a Western-centric viewpoint. The general view of Arab academics and media is to the contrary. Which viewpoint is more valid is, as I said, a complex issue with political overtones, and I do not feel the current "this is the final word" attitude indicated in this Wiki article reflects that. Splitpeasoup 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last time I checked, "Arab academics and media" do not define English language. Incidentally, the same usage of this word in all other languages that I know of. If the Arabic language is different in this regard, it should be reflected in ar:wiki. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English-speaking Arab academics and media have the same right to the English language as do all other English speakers over the world. Splitpeasoup 01:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but that right does not extend to changing the well-known meaning of words. Isarig 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What on earth do you mean when you say "at the time the term was coined it exclusively referred to white, non-semitic, racists". Are you saying that Jews are "white, non-semitic, racists"? Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm, the term we are talking about is "antisemite", not "Jew". And it was coined by and used to refer to Nazis ("white, non-semitic, racists"), not Arabs or any other semites. Splitpeasoup 01:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See, this is where your confusion stems from, "antisemite" was not coined by Nazis, but by one Wilhelm Marr, who was dead more than 2 decades before Nazism became a political force in Germany. And Marr coined this phrase exclusively as a euphemism for hatred of Jews - in an ethnic and religious sense. It has never, ever meant hatered of "semites".
OK, how does that fundamentally refute anything I am saying? Marr was a white, non-semitic, racist, wasn't he? He certainly wasn't an Arab. The same for all of his ilk. So how did it become legitimate to apply this term to Arabs? What do Arabs have to say about this usage? Are their views being represented or acknowledged appropriately? -Splitpeasoup 02:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a reason I linked Wilhelm Marr to its WP article - it is so that people who are ignorant about the man and the word he coined, like you, can easily click and read things like "coined the term "antisemitism" as a euphemism for the German Judenhass, or "Jew-hate". It has nothing to do with Nazis, and nothing to do with Arabs or Semites. The word means, and has always meant "hatred of Jews". Isarig 03:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the reference is to Nazis. Not that that clears anything up. The plain and simple and most basic meaning of antisemitic is hating of Jews. But for some reason there is a question being raised based on etymology. I don't see the point. But I am staying tuned. Bus stop 00:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is hardly the first time this question has been raised. In fact this question is frequently raised. It is a controversial point, and deserves to be acknowledged as such. Splitpeasoup 01:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not a serious question at all. It is a diversion. As I suggested, the word anti-Jewish can be used in it's place. At least that is in my opinion. But the plain meaning of antisemitism is the same. Bus stop 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is considered 'controversial' by a fringe minority who is POV-motivated. It deserves no mention per WP:UNDUE. Isarig 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is considered controversial by essentially the entire Arab world, which is far from a "fringe minority". Arabs may not have had a stake in the word "antisemite" the first 50 years of its usage, when it applied to white racists. They certainly have a stake in it now, as it is often used to refer to them. Saying their opinion does not or should not count is cultural hegemony of the worst kind. -Splitpeasoup 02:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it's not, and I'd thank you not to speak for "essentially the entire Arab world". There is a fringe group, comprised mostly of POV-pushing Arabs, that considers it controversial. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the word knows it has nothing to do with Arabs, and it is NOT used to refer to Arabs today. Isarig 03:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The word's meaning is the same, is it not? The word "antisemitism" is used to indicate "hatred of Jews." Why would it be applicable in one instance and not applicable in another instance? I think you should bring concrete arguments into this discussion, if it is to have any meaning. Who is saying this? When are they saying this? Bus stop 02:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think Bauer wrote about this. The effort to dilute the meaning of the term Antisemitism from hatred of Jews to "hatred of Semites" - as if there was an instance of "Semites" persecuted together - began after the Holocaust, in order to present the Arabs as victims. If you have questions about this, see Amin al-Husayni. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ H. Z. Hirschberg, A History of the Jews of North Africa, vol. I (Leiden: Brill, 1974), pp.127-28. Solomon Cohen's account comports with Arab historian Ibn Baydhaq's sequence of events. Citing from The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslimsby Andrew G Bostom, ed. (Prometheus Books (2005) ISBN 1591023076 p.612
  2. ^ “The Great Silencer: No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most important weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy – an influence that AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite.” (Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series, Harvard University, March 2006.)
  3. ^ “The charge has been leveled at Jimmy Carter over his recent book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." I, too, didn't like the book...Still, Carter's overall point about Israeli occupation of the West Bank is apt, and calling him all sorts of names does not change that...It's astonishing that in the 60 years since the Nazi extermination camps were liberated, anti-Semitism has revived and thrived. Still, it hardly makes sense to fight it by promiscuously throwing around the word "anti-Semite" so that it loses its punch or to flay Jewish critics of Israel." (Cohen, Richard. "Cheapening the Fight Against Hatred". Washington Post, February 6, 2007.)
  4. ^ “The lack of debate is, of course, a measure of the power of the Israel lobby to suppress discussion of its role, and the fear the lobby stirs among American writers, especially non-Jewish liberals who cannot afford to be tarred as anti-Semites, a death sentence in the profession." (Shatz, Adam. "Dialogue of the Deaf". The Guardian, March 24, 2006.)
  5. ^ "'I’ve been hurt — and so has my family — by some of the reaction,' Carter said. 'It’s the first time in my life I’ve ever been called a liar. A bigot. An anti-Semite. A coward. A plagiarist. He paused after each epithet. 'This has hurt,' he said." (Cohler-Esses, Larry. "Carter Faces, and Disarms, Jewish Crowd". The Jewish Week, January 26 2007.)
  6. ^ “Partisans of Israel often make false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence Israel’s critics. The ‘antisemite!’ libel is harmful not only because it censors debate about Israel’s racism and human rights abuses but because it trivializes the ugly history of Jew-hatred.” (Handleman, Scott, "Trivializing Jew-Hatred," in The Politics of Anti-Semitism, ed. Alexander Cockburn. AK Press, 2003, p. 13.)
  7. ^ “Apologists for Israel’s repression of Palestinians toss the word “anti-Semite” at any critic of what Zionism has meant in practice for Palestinians on the receiving end.” (Cockburn, Alexander and St. Clair, Jeffrey, preface to The Politics of Anti-Semitism, ed. Alexander Cockburn. AK Press, 2003, p.vii.)
  8. ^ "More importantly, Finkelstein exposes the nastiness of smearing the label of anti-Semitism on Israel's critics. Mostly, he tells us what we already know." (Paul, Ari. "Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Antisemitism and the Abuse of History". Tikkun, October 11, 2005.)
  9. ^ "Instead of seriously engaging with the issues raised (e.g. to what extent are Israel's current policies similar to those of apartehid and to what extent are they not?), the Jewish establishment and media responds by attacking the people who raise these or any other critiques--shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of the criticisms. Knowing this, many people become fearful that they too will be labeled "anti-Semitic" if they question the wisdom of Israeli policies or if they seek to organize politically to challenge those policies." (Rabbi Michael Lerner. "There's no New Anti-Semitism". Baltimore Sun, February 7, 2007.)