text:
Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 1

Unsorted text
The very name of Anti-Semitism is an atavistic misnomer. Who still really harbor hostility against the Jewish people or Israel because "they belong to the Semitic race", even more ridiculous to say its because of the Linguistic family Hebrew belongs to. ---
 * While some aspects of the anti-Semitism phenomenon are similar to xenophobia, which is the fear of foreign culture, anti-Semitism is distinct in Western culture, because it hold hostility against the parent culture of most modern Westen cultures.

European culture is based on civilization of Greeks and Romans, which were heavily influenced by ancient civilizations of Middle East, and also on "barbaric" cultures of Germanic, Slavic and other tribes. But it has very little to do with Jewish culture. With exception of some borrowings in religious matters (which certainly weren't dominant even for that), there has been no significant influence from Jewish culture on European. And no way it is some kind of "parent culture". Taw 14:21 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * The error is in the very notion of "parent culture" or even the idea that one culture is based on some other culture. All cultures are constantly changing, and often frequently borrowing from other cultures.  "western culture," to whatever extent it is real, is "based"  not only on Hebrew culture and Hellenic and Roman culture, but on African and Chinese cultures too.

 * When people make any claim that one culture is based on another ("parent") culture, they are making an ideological claim that specifies one set of relationships for a particular purpose. English claims that European culture is based on Roman civilization was meaningful at a time when they were building empire.  Claims to Greek antecedents were useful when people were advocating democratic government.

 * Richard Rubenstein has argued that there is something sepcial about Anti-Semitism because of the important connection between Hebrew culture and modern European culture (I don't buy the argument but I think it is fascinating and worth reading and thinking about). His point is that Christianity claims to be the heirs to the covenant between God and the Children of Israel, and that much of the language of the New Testament comes from or refers to the Hebrew Bible.  I certainly do think it is fair to say that many Christians do not view Jews simply as another people (and thus potential objects of xenophobia), but rather as people with whom they have a special, perhaps strange relationship.  Perhaps even a relationship they want to deny.

 * As for more general Jewish influence on European culture, I would suggest that many traditions in music stem from the Biblical Psalms, and that there has been a literary influence as well (Auerbach wrote an essay on this in his book Mimesis. In many parts of Europe, Jews preceded current dominant populations, and were long-time participants in public life; I can't see how you can study European history without studying Jewish history (meaning, more specifically, the history of the Jewish community in Europe).  Europe is a place, and the culture of Europe is the culture of that place, and Jews have been active occupants of that place for millenia.  Deal with it. Slrubenstein

Earlier discussions have been archived to
 * Talk:Anti-Semitism/archive
 * Talk:Anti-Semitism/archive2

Just wanted to open the page by saying: Nicely put, April. I for one appreciated what you said. Danny (who also happens to be Jewish).

How can you say this? GrahamN posted attacks against all Zionists, in which derides every one of them as racists, and that he literally hates them. How is that you don't disagree? (I haven't seen on word of disagreement from anyone here yet, and in the real world silence is tacit consent. That may be unfortunate, but its a fact.) April then says that I should not slander others as racist. I agree, but huh? It was GrahamN who denounced every Jewish and Christian Zionist in the world as a racist, who denounced them all as evil, and then bluntly stated that he hates them. It is this explicit hatespeech I object to. I assume you don't approve of it either. RK

However, since you insist, and since I cynically believe you can find examples of almost anyone doing almost anything to anyone else... I did a web search. For a beginning, see this link: http://www.io.com/~jewishwb/iris/archives/551.html ... "With my own eyes, I wept. I wept that a Jewish policeman would attack a Jewish child. I wept that a Jewish government would use violence against Jewish citizens." ... This was not chosen because it's the best source, but because it was the first allegation I found. Thirty-second search. Please don't make me search for more and better sources - I will almost certainly find 'em, people being people the world over, and this sort of thing depresses me.) Note that I do not have the slightest idea whether this is a true or a false allegation. It is an allegation, ergo such allegations exist, ergo I deplore the actions cited in the allegation if in fact those actions happened as described. So am I anti-Semetic for condemning the hypotheitical actions of a hypothetical Jewish policeman against a hypothetical Jewish child? I think not.

 * First off, I udnerstand that what you are proposing is an example. But my response is this - of course a person would be an anti-Semite if they did such a heinous thing. Only a person filled with hatred towards Jews would dig for unsubstantiated rumors slander about Jews, and then justify condemning Jews (qua Jews) in public for said totally unfounded rumor. RK

 * Further, let us for the sake of argument say that the story was true. Only an anti-Semite would use the religion of a criminal to attack Jews as a people. When a (Catholic Christian) policeman was recently arrested in my own state for unnecessary violence against a (presumable Christian) citizen, did I go to the Wikipedia entry on Christianity and use this as an example of a legitimate NPOV opinion against Christians? Of course not. Did anyone else? No. Only a bigoted Christian-hater would do such a thing. So what worries me is that you propose that such actions are acceptable towards Jews, yet it is obvious that no one here would allow such an unfair action to be used on Wikipedia to slander Christians, Muslims, atheists or Hindus. This in of itself is the problem. What about this is so confusing? RK

While I want to speak up in self-defense, I also don't want to clutter Wikipedia with more of this. I have therefore created a meta link: Anti-Semitism vs Anti-Zionism. I politely request that this dispute be taken there, where it is more apt. I shall respond to the above points on the meta page, and to any future points in this debate there also, in order to encourage this. -- April

Guys, Wikipedia is not the place to argue about your personal politics, religion, or character. It's a place to rationally discuss what belongs in encyclopedia articles. Go shout at each other in the meta link above and leave the rest of us alone to get some useful work done. --LDC
 * Yes, that would be nice. --KQ

I've unlocked this page by request (I don't know who locked it). But please, do take your dispute to the meta link. If you manage to hash out something useful, bring it into the article. --Stephen Gilbert

I wasn't a party to the dispute -- I just wanted to explain my modifications to the page. I removed the quotes -- in the MLK case my reason can be seen at Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.. In respect to the other two -- I don't think articles should include extended quotes from people, unless they are a generally recognized authority (e.g. academic researchers--and on a topic as controversial as this, I wouldn't even quote academics, because there is no academic consensus on what they'd be saying), or the topic of the article is the quote (e.g. discussion of meaning of a bible verse), or the quote is short and famous (quoting from speeches by MLK or JFK or Churchill or someone like that would be okay on an article about them, or about World War II/Civil Rights movement/West Berlin). And above all quotes should be short, and should not be a substitute for actual article text.

I hope the content of the quotes is still reflected in my summaries of the arguments; if I have missed something significant, please add it.

I have also change the section on anti-Zionism a lot, because it was strongly biased against anti-Zionism. Basically: The original section did not do this; I have tried, although I may have missed some things, and I may have unbalanced it too far the other way. I also tried to elaborate on exactly what people opposed to Zionism mean when they call it racist, or they say they oppose Israel's existence. The article took the worst possible bunch of anti-Zionists (e.g. people who might say "Zionists, like all Jews, are racist pigs who think they are better than everyone else, and they should all be drowned in the Mediterranean sea")--which admittedly do exist--but it ignored people like me, who oppose Zionism, but do NOT endorse those kind of things.
 * 1) whether anti-Zionism is antisemitic or not is controversial (I think we can all agree that some incarnations of anti-Zionism are antisemitic -- but some people here appear to believe anti-Zionism is antisemitic in and of itself, or at least in all its significant current incarnations)
 * 2) hence, with regard to the controversial forms of anti-Zionism, the article should not come to an opinion as to whether they are antisemitic or not
 * 3) rather, it should just describe each sides arguments, as fairly as possible

Finally, I want to try as much as possible to avoid argue about whether anti-Zionism is or is not antisemitic (my view is that many anti-Zionists are antisemitic, but not all are, e.g. me). But I'd be happy to hear how I've got one side or the other of the argument wrong, or left important things out, or given more space to one side than the other, or something like that. - SJK 6 Sep 2002

I broke the article into 2 pieces: anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. This is not because I believe anything in particular about either idea, but because it will allow contributors to report on the various ideas and their relationship to one another more easily.

Some people think anti-Zionism is necessarily anti-Semitic. (I'm inclined to agree with them, but I'm not a spokesman for any cause, so my POV won't be going into any article). Let's write about groups and their spokesman who:
 * 1) do believe that Zionism is racist
 * 2) do not believe that Zionism is racist
 * 3) do believe that anti-Zionisim is anti-Semetic
 * 4) do not believe that anti-Zionism in anti-Semitic

--Ed Poor 14:03 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

I big chunks of text, from Zionism to anti-Zionism. My purpose in re-organizing was to make it easier for the reader to understand the various views:
 * some people hate Jews, which is anti-Semitism
 * some people believe Jews deserve their own nation, which (I think) is Zionism
 * some people oppose Zionism, for various reasons, which is anti-Zionism

--Ed Poor 15:01 Sep 6, 2002 (UCT)

The linking of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism seems very controversial and not NPOV. Not to mention that it's perhaps better placed under Anti-Zionism, which seems more NPOV as currently written. Among prominent American anti-Zionists, for example, are several Jews (Noam Chomsky being probably the most famous); some claim they are in fact anti-Semites, but this is a controversial claim, not a neutral statement of fact. There are also several anti-Zionist Orthodox Jewish sects, most notably the Satmars, who oppose Zionism on religious rather than anti-Semitic grounds. In any case, it seems extremely objective to imply that nearly all anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic. The strongest claim that's justifiable is that perhaps "most" are, with an explicit proviso that there are some who are not (with a statement of a few of these exceptions, as I've just mentioned above). But this is a controversial enough article that I'll solicit some feedback before making edits. -- Delirium

I think it is interesting that before the Holocaust, Zionists were actually a minority among Jews. Most Jews were not Zionists and a large number were anti-Zionists. Danny

IIRC, part of the reason for Zionists being a minority amongst religious Jews were somewhat circumstantial and cultural: the prominent Zionists were from the European secular "elite," and so were naturally opposed by religious Jews, particularly those not from Europe. But this really should all be in an article somewhere, eh? --- Delirium

Actually, that's not exact. There were religious reasons underlying the opposition. On the other hand, I was referring more to the Bund (socialist Jewish cultural autonomists) and the Communists in Eastern Europe, the Jewish Territorialists (looking for a homeland anywhere else but Palestine), the Reform Movement in America and Germany, etc. Eastern European Zionists were generally not of the elite, and the big fight in the Zionist Congress (I think it was 1902, but I could be off by a couple of years)was over the Uganda/Argentina debate. Danny

 * Since Judaism carries beliefs which predate other religious traditions, and does not hold aspects of other traditions, Jews have faced a long history of hateful discrimination by people of different faiths.

Isn't this a claim that every religion could make? The christians could point to roman burnings, the arabs to the crusades, pagans to the inquisition, atheists to the historical inability to swear an oath in british courts, members of every religion in countries with state atheism, all non-Muslims in countries under Sharia law.

The paragraph is also arguing that religious anti-Semitism is down to doctrinal differences and the comparative age of Judaism. While those may be factors, I think that's a massive over-simplification.

Finally, I'm not clear on the difference between hateful discrimination and non-hateful discrimination. Martin

Time for a better definition. Furthermore, there are various causes of anti-Semitism in various historical periods. For instance, Graeco-Roman anti-Semitism was distinctly different from contemporary anti-Semitism and was based on social, rather than racial or religious reasons. Cicero didn't care whether Jews rejected Jesus or not (see Pro Flacco, for instance). Many historians argue that the rise of anti-Semitism after the Crusades was linked with the rise of an indigenous middle class among returning serfs who fought in the Holy Land and sought to assume the role of international traders that was long held by the Jews of Europe (that is not to say that they did not claim religious sanction for blood libels, etc., but their primary motivating factor was economic, not religious--see, for instance, Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew). Of course, at other times, motivations were primarily religious (though not necessarily anti-Jewish as anti-non-Christian--both variations existed) and racial (for example, the Nazi period). Danny 23:33 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

For 208, I'm kind of surprised that you cite Nightline as a source. Hardly a bastion of academic integrity. It's an old debate on these pages, and frankly, I do not very much like the page as it stands--too much on anti-Zionism, not enough on anti-Semitism. However, I will reiterate some of the points made in the past. 1) Anti-Semitism is a recent term coined to describe a specific phenomenon--the dislike of Jews. It was coined as a euphemism but it was coined with a very specific meaning in mind--dislike of Jews. As for the euphemistic part of it, your argument seems to me to be very much like arguing that a kitchen is also a WC (watercloset, a euphemistic term for a bathroom, itself a euphemism). My kitchen has running water; it also has a closet, therefore it is a WC. Euphemisms don't work like that. I'll get back to that in a moment. First I want to add that Semitic itself is not an ethnic group--it is a language group. Indo-European is also a language group but it is not an ethnicity. African Americans speak English; so do Native Americans, however, they are not of the same family/places of origin as, say, British Americans. They are people that speak the same language and in most cases share the same basic culture. Similarly, not all people who live in Egypt today are of the same basic ethnicity as people in Saudi Arabia. They speak the same language, share many of the same cultural components (religion, customs, taboos, etc.), but they also have different histories. Similarly, assume for a moment that European Jews are descended predominantly from the Khazars--that does not mean that Jews who live in Israel do not speak a Semitic language, any more than it means that Jews who spoke Yiddish are a Germanic people. Language is not a sole determinant of ethnicity. When the term anti-Semitism was coined, it was based on a foggy notion of race and ethnicity that by modern standards is simply incorrect. It seems, therefore, that to coopt anti-Semitism for other ethnic groups only serves to perpetuate that myth of distinctive racial origins. That is what happens when a euphemism is taken as fact. I reject the notion that Arabs are a Semitic people, just like I reject the notion that Jews are a Semitic people. Of course, there are people today who do claim that the Arabs (but not [Indo-European] Persians or [Turkic] Turks) are Semites and that anti-Semitism is inclusive of them. I think that can be worked into the article, but it seems to me to be historically inaccurate to coopt Arab peoples into the history of the hatred of Jews. Since that is a relatively new term, I think it should be clarified as such--even in the first paragraph. On the other hand, the general meaning of the term as it is used to describe an important, largely European phenomenon should not be expanded into oblivion. I'll wait for your comments before I make a change. Danny 02:07 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * Trimmed up a little, those last two paragraphs would make a very good summary at the top of the article itself. Tannin 02:20 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC) (PS: I know better than to dive into a hotly controversial topic without reading the whole thing carefully, consulting references, and sleeping on it first. I know better, don't mean I do better. Oh well....)

 * Thanks, Tannin. I'm waiting to get my head bitten off from any number of directions for writing them. ;-) Danny 02:24 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

- I made some changes to the article, especially in the section which mistakenly claimed that Judaism does not allow people from any group to join, and is not universalist. I am not sure how this claim crept in. I am taking this opportunity to point out that traditional rabbinic Judaism has never had such a view, and still does not (with the exception of certain Ultra-Orthodox communities today.) I inser for clarification an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity on this topic. RK

 * Judaism does not characterize itself as a religion (although one can speak of the Jewish religion and religious Jews). The subject of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) is the history of the Children of Israel (also called Hebrews), especially in terms of their relationship with God. Thus, Judaism has also been characterized as a culture or as a civilization. Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan defines Judaism as an evolving religious civilization. One crucial sign of this is that one need not believe, or even do, anything to be Jewish; The historic definition of 'Jewishness' requires only that one be born of a Jewish mother, or that one converts to Judaism in accord with Jewish law. (Today, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews also include those born of Jewish fathers and gentile mothers if the children are raised as Jews.)

 * To Jews, Jewish peoplehood is closely tied to their relationship with God, and thus has a strong theological component. This relationship is encapsulated in the notion that Jews are a chosen people. Although many non-Jews have taken this as a sign of arrogance or exclusivity, Jewish scholars and theologians have emphasized that a special relationship between Jews and God does not in any way preclude other nations having their own relationship with God. For Jews, being "chosen" fundamentally means that Jews have chosen to obey a certain set of laws (see Torah and halakha) as an expression of their covenant with God. Jews hold that other nations and peoples are not required or expected to obey these laws, and face no penalty for not obeying them. Thus, as a national religion, Judaism has no problem with the notion that others have their own paths to God (or "salvation").

 * Christianity, on the other hand, is characterized by its break with Jewish identity and its claim to universality. As a religion claiming universality, Christianity has had to struggle with religions that make radically different claims about Gods. Most Christians believe that Christianity represents the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham and the nation of Israel, that Israel would be a blessing to all nations. This crucial difference between the two religions has other implications. For example, conversion to Judaism is more like a form of adoption (i.e. becoming a member of the nation, in part by metaphorically becoming a child of Abraham), whereas conversion to Christianity is explicitly a declaration of faith. Depending on the denomination, this conversion has a social component, as the individual is in many ways adopted into the Church, with a strong family model.

 * In contrast to the cultural identity shared by Jews, Christianity has been incorporated by many different cultures around the world. In most cases, there has been at least some difficulty in discerning which teachings and practices are central to Christianity and cannot be changed, and which are "merely" cultural and can be adapted to a new culture without compromising the faith. The doctrine of the Incarnation has often been applied to mean that the Church itself can be enfleshed in a new cultural setting without compromising its essence.

RK, just for your general knowledge, the definition which I put in and which you reverted for your own statement (which is inaccurate on a number of levels) is almost a direct quote from David Berger, Professor of History at Brooklyn College and at City University of New York in the introduction to the book he edited History and Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism. You can find it on page 3. In case you want to challenge his scholarship, I'd remind you that you have actually cited him yourself in the Schneersohn article. It's been a pleasure. Danny 16:17 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

 * Danny, Prof. Berger does not limit the meaning of the word anti-Semitism to the brief snippet you want to use. It means much more than you are willing to admit, and I cannot fathom why you are resiting the standard definition of this word. The word means what most people say it means, not what you'd like it to mean. Therefore I currently disagree with this overly brief definition for two reasons: (1) Wikipedia requires a consensus. What others writers on this subject also should be considered. Wouldn't you agree? (2) On this point you are incorrect. By snipping everything he has written to a couple of sentences, you are distoring his person's views, and making it look as if he has a uniquely narrow definition of the word. Last point - In other Wikipedia articles the introduction and summary discussed a subject far more fully. Why are you so against it for this article? RK

 * Finally, I take offense at your false implication that I am challenging Prof. Berger's scholarship. I have done no such thing. Further, you are very confused, as you never mentioned the results of his scholarship! Rather you only snipped a couple of sentences out of one of his many writings, and mistakenly believe that is all that he has to say on the meaning of the word "anti-Semitism". That is out of line, as well as incorrect. RK

Jewish self-hatred
[If the Neturei Karta are] not saying [hateful] things about themselves, it follows that they are not saying these things about all Jews, only some. Either way, they are not saying anything anti-Semitic; of course they aren't, because they are Jews, and a Jewish anti-Semite is an oxymoron. -- Simon J Kissane

 * No, they don't teach hatred of themselves - but they do teach hatred of all other Jews in the world. RK

[The Neturei Karta ] can't be antisemites because they are Jews. To take a different example: suppose some guy, let's call him Jack, is a Protestant and he hates Catholics. Now it is true that he is anti-Catholic, but he isn't anti-Christian because he is a Christian. Or another example: Ahmed is a Sunni and he hates Shi'a. Now it is true he is anti-Shi'a, but he is not anti-Muslim because he is a Muslim. In the same way, Neturei Karta may well be anti-Reform Judaism, anti-Masorti, anti-Modern Orthodox, and anti heaps of other Jewish groups as well, but that doesn't make them antisemitic any more than Jack hating Catholics makes him anti-Christian or Ahmed hating Shi'a makes him anti-Muslim. "Jewish anti-Semtitism" is an invention of intra-Jewish propaganda, plain and simple. -- SJK.

I have absolutely nothing against Jews as a religion or an ethnic group. I do disagree with many of Israel's policies, and disagree with Zionism; but my reasons for doing so are not anti-Semitic at all. You seem to almost want to redefine anti-Semitism to mean "anyone who disagrees with me". I not only find that sort of rhetoric very offensive to myself, I also think it shows disrespect to the victims of real anti-Semitism. -- Simon J Kissane

As I said above, "ultra-Orthodox antisemitism" does not exist. Ultra-Orthodox are Jews, Jews cannot be anti-Semites, therefore there is no such thing as ultra-Orthodox antisemitism. To say this isn't to be antisemitic, it is to apply simple logic and common sense. Claiming that some ultra-Orthodox groups are antisemitic is simply propaganda. I am not denying the existence of antisemitism. Plenty of it exists in the world. All I am denying is that there are Jewish antisemites. A Jewish antisemite is like a black white supremacist -- they simply can't exist. SJK

 * Anyone who claims that black racists don't exists has never lived in the black community. There are a small number of self-hating black people, and the rest of the black community is not at all happy about this. And I am not talking about black Republicans, who some ultra-liberal black extremists pretend are anti-black (they are not, of course.) Rather, I am talking about black people who really don't like other black people. Just because they shouldn't exist doesn't mean that they don't exist. RK

If Neteuri Karta hate all other Jews (which I somewhat doubt, but I will take your word for it for the sake of the argument), they are still not anti-Semites, because they are Jews. They both consider themselves Jews, and they are generally recognized to be Jews. Therefore they cannot be antisemites. Plenty of other people can be and are antisemites. But for a Jew it is impossible to be an antisemite. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this simple piece of common sense. SJK

In Sudan IIRC its a case of Arabs enslaving blacks, not blacks enslaving each other -- but even if it isn't in that case, it's true that blacks have enslaved each other plenty of times before in history. But that isn't racism. How can it be possibly racist for a black person to enslave another black person? Immoral, yes; but racist, no. SJK

RK, have you ever considered that someone might disagree equally with policies that Israel has and policies that other countries have, yet publicly put most emphasis on Israeli misdeeds because of considerations of political relavance. The Middle East Conflict is a topic of constant interest in international politics. And one might simply evaluate that, looking at the evidence, Israel at present is more in the wrong than the Arabs are. Whether one is right or wrong to think that, it need not in any way be motivated by anti-Semitism. -- SJK

 * I disagree; I still hold that there are are black racists, there are self-hating homoseuxals, and there are some anti-Semitic ultra-Orthodox Jews. Police have documented attacks on homosexuals by men who have later turned out to have latent homosexual tendencies. Similarly, in Israel and America hatespeech is published against all Jews on the planet, by certain ultra-Orthodox sects. (The propagators of the hatred, of course, somehow find a way not to target themselves). RK

- SJK is saying that by definition a person cannot practice racism towards other members of his ethnic group.

 * But obviously a person can do this! Daniel C. Boyer

 * Police reports prove this wrong. We are trying to describe the real world, not what we wish the world would be look. RK

If racism means to view some other group of people as inferior to your own because of their race, it would be impossible to do this if you were actually a member of this racial group. Unless racism is defined differently then I suppose that what RK is suggesting is a contradiction. -- sodium

 * Hating Jews isn't racism because Judaism isn't a race. Similarly, hating homosexuals isn't racism, because homosexuals aren't a race. Third, anyone who does such things developes elaborate psychological defense mechanisms to rationalise why they themselves don't fall into the category that they are attacking. I thunk you are describing what you think ought to exist, rather than what does exist. RK

 * No, you have missed the point entirely...

I don't believe I have missed the point. I was trying to sum up SJKs position: "All I am denying is that there are Jewish antisemites."

 * First off, hating Jews isn't racism because Judaism isn't a race. Similarly, hating homosexuals isn't racism, because homosexuals aren't a race

Actually Judaism is a race as well as a religion, stated on the main Anti-Semitism page. This is irrelevant anyway, broadly I was talking about any group which finds any other group inferior because of some attribute.

 * [Second], you totally misunderstand the psychology of the people who do such things

SJK was simply arguing over the *definition* of antisemitism. Antisemites claim Jews are inferior because of their race/religion. You have to be from another race/religion to do this - it is impossible to find yourself inferior. Inferior to what? Are you saying that some Jews hate the rest of the jewish community? This would undoubtedly be a bad thing, but it is not antisemitism. -- sodium

 * I see what you mean, but this is not the sole definition of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jewish people, period. There are many who hate Jews only because of their beliefs and practices, and not because of their ethnicity. These people don't argue that Jews are inherently inferior in a genetic or spritual sense; they hate something about Jewish people; something which may be real, such as their resistence to assimilation, or ability to gain good jobs. Or they may believe something which is imaginary, such as the belief that Jews are greedy and spiteful. RK

I'm sure a lot of people would still consider a Jew hating (or believing inferior) his own race to be antisemitic or racist, but I would call that some form of self-loathing, since at least its not based on a superiority complex. And yes, it does exist.

Moved sentence
I moved the following sentence down here because it is to terse: Paul taught that the Jews were no longer in a special relationship with God, and that in God's eyes only Christians were the true offspring of Abraham.

Paul gives a detailed account in Romans 10 and 11. Can somebody give a more accurate summary, please? -- Di Stroppo

 * To be precise: I'm just saying that the cited sentence does not give an account of what Paul is teaching and that somebody should come up with a better summary. -- Di Stroppo

 * An article on anti-semitism is not, I think, the place to detail a complex Christian theology. But for present purposes (i.e. citing some of the verses that illustrate this particular pointand have been used to legitimize and motivate anti-semitism), I'd think II Corinthians 5-10 and Galetians 2: 14-16 would suffice -- and Hebrews 8: 13: "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." -- SR

Spelling/title
I would like to suggest we use the spelling "antisemitism" rather than "anti-Semitism". Not only is it easier to type (and I say it looks nicer too), but it is preferred by a several Jewish authors on the grounds that it discourages somewhat silly arguments like "Arabs are Semites too!", which although maybe etymologically correct don't fit with how the word is actually used. Comments? -- SJK

Which is the preferred spelling: anti-semitism or anti-Semitism? I think anti-Semitism is much more appropriate, but we have many examples of both.

 * It doesn't make much difference. I personally prefer anti-semitism because I like lowercase letters, but I wouldn't go out of my way to spell-check a whole article to make it conform.

anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism
''There is little or no debate in the Jewish community. Even Europeans (who are much more anti-Semitic than Americans) admit that its probably wrong to say that Jews and Jews alone are forbidden from having a land of their own.''

You yourself said that the Neturei Karta are anti-Zionist and Jewish. Whether you consider them anti-Semitic or not, that means that there is debate within the Jewish community. And, by the way, when you describe anti-Zionism as saying the Jews and Jews alone should have no land, you are assuming that everyone is in favor of racial or religious nation-states. One may also be anti-Zionist by being opposed to these in general, right?

 * As I see Neturei Karta, they are an extremely marginal segment of the Jewish public, both from the point of view of sheer numbers and that of their social status in the general Jewish community. Because of that, the fact that they have a different opinion than most of the community does not qualify as a debate that goes on inside it. In regard to the second point, being anti-Zionist today (that is, insisting that Israel's existence as such must be stopped), should be accompanied with denying the right of Palestinians for an indepentent state and combined with some sort of a solution how to prevent Arabs from fulfilling their promise of throwing 5 million Israeli Jews to the sea, or otherwise it's either hipocrisy or anti-Semitism of genocidal proportions. --Uriyan

Someone writes "You yourself said that the Neturei Karta are anti-Zionist and Jewish. Whether you consider them anti-Semitic or not, that means that there is debate within the Jewish community." My response: No, it means no such thing! Consider: There are a tiny, insignifcant percent of black people out there who somehow have becom racist, and who hate blacks, call them "niggers", and slander all other blacks in hateful terms. Would any sane person then conclude that "there is debate within the black community" whether blacks are dumb niggers to be despised? No! No such debate in the black community exists. The simply fact of the matter is that in every large group, you can always find a insignificant, tiny fringe group that hurls hatespeech at other members of the group. This doesn't prove anything except that self-hatred is an interesting psychological phenomenon to study. RK

 * RK, while I do not like what Neturei Karta says, there is a certain religious legitimacy to their opinions, which were accepted by the bulk of Orthodox Jewry till 1938. They are just hold-overs. In that case, condemning them as anti-Semitic is rather harsh. See, for instance, VaYoel Moshe on the three oaths. Furthermore, they do not hate Jews. They believe that Jews have abandoned their religion, and respond in a fervent manner. Kanaim pog'im bo, you know. Danny

Church of Stan
Previously I had written this statement "Are you asking why this theology is considered anti-Semitism by Jews? An analogy - imagine that a new religion was created, and in it people around the world claimed that God no longer loves Christians, but that God only loves the members of the new Church of Stan; further, they teach that 'Stanians' are now the new Christians, and that all the old Christians will be damned unless they convert to Stanism. I think that most people would argree that such a hypothetical action is anti-Christian, yet this is what Paul and his followers did to the Jews." I was trying to use a made-up name. To my surprise, there was a recent comment about this; evidently someone has created a religion is called Stanism!

 * Frater Parvise writes "STAN does NOT claim that Christians will be damned unless they convert; as STAN is all there is, including ALL the religions of the world, Christians are already Stanists. See the New Church of STAN doctrine at http://www.pantribe.net. [Frater Parvise]

title: Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 2

Discussion

 * Reasons for removal:

Others would argue that Palestinians are embittered because they feel they were unfairly expelled from their country. This has nothing do to with religion.
 * We are not talking about proposals to a Palestinian states; we're talking about the reason why most Muslim Arabs (non-Palestinians) find Israel to be religiously inacceptible. I feel the sentence above was off-topic, although the subject could probably be discussed (consequences of the arab-Israeli conflict as opposed to the inherent hostility towards Jews). --Uri

I wish this sentence hadn't been deleted from the article:

 * Others would argue that Palestinians are embittered because they feel they were unfairly expelled from their country. This has nothing do to with religion.

I have re-written it as:
 * Some advocates explain the bitterness of Palestinian Arabs as a natural response to what they call unfair expulsion from "their country", an argument which presumes that the land from which they were expelled was rightfully "theirs" (see Palestinian homeland).

--Ed Poor 12:30 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)

I've modified the "anti-zionism" section slightly, to remove the old canard of there being an "arab state" (rather than various states which have an Arab majority), and added the following explanatory text to the paragraph immediately afterwards:

 * For example, there is no specific "Arab state", just as there is no specific "European state", "African state", "Homosexual state", "Heterosexual state" or "Hispanic state". Rather, there are a number of nation states, many of which have a majority which shares racial or cultural characteristics in addition to their citizenship, which is also shared by minorities which do not possess those "majority characteristics."

This revision seems to more closely approximate a NPOV on this argument Jacob

I have to remove this proposed change. Your word games have been carefully constructed in order to deligitimize the State of Israel alone. That's a violation of NPOV. It is also intellectually dishonest, as Arabs themselves say that Arabs deserve to have ethnically Arab states. In fact, the vast majority of Arabs feel that this is valid; this is why so many ethnic Arab states exists. I seriously doubt that they are lying about their own beliefs. Your claims about "homosexual" states are so irrelevant, that I can't believe that even you take them seriously. They are so obviously not relevant that one can only conclude you are grasping at straws in order to deligitimize the rights of Jewish people. Curiously, you don't slander Japan, China, or any of the Arab or Hispanic nations as wrong for their mere existence, but you clearly imply that it is racist when Jews want to have the same rights as other human beings. That is precisely what many Jews view as Anti-Semitism, and what all Jews agree is anti-Zionism. You deny Jewish people the same rights that ever other people on this planet are allowed to possess. RK

 * No, the previous word games (the ones which you have restored) were carefully constructed in order to cast a spurious legitimacy onto Israel alone.

 * Just as Japanese people have a right to have a Japanese nation, just as Chinese have a right to live in a Chinese nation, and just as Arabs have the right to live in any nearly two dozen distinct Arab nations, Jews too have a right to live freely among themselves as well. This is what Jewish writers since the Emancipation have termed "normalcy"; the goal of Jews to live as other peoples do.

 * The comparison between Chinese/Japanese and Jewish is spurious, the former being based on membership of a country (the right claimed by Jews), while the latter is based on ethnicity/religion. If the comparison is to stand, a parallel needs to be drawn, demonstrating that ethnicity/religion/nationality are equivalent concepts - as it stands, you're simply stating that by sleight of hand, and hoping that that statement is accepted. Which is extremely biased towards the Israeli POV. Similary, why do you claim legitimacy by extension with the existence of predominantly arab states, but reject extending that argument when it implies a need to have "European", "African", "homosexual" and "Hispanic" nation states? Is it because the "arab" example is part of Israel's mythos, and has been claimed so often that it has received a kind of unthinking acceptance, whereas extending the argument shows it to be a ridiculous one?

There are two issues here: one has to do with different kinds of identities, the other is methodological. The identity question is complicated because in the 195h century, when modern Zionism developed, "Jews" were identified both by religion and race. Both of these categories (and for present purposes I think "race" and "ethnicity" and "nationality" are interchangable)are salient. When Israel declares itself a "Jewish" state, it is not defining itself as a religious state but as an ethnic/national (and, in the 19th century context, racial) state. I do not know if Saudi Arabia defines itself as an "Arab" state -- I do not know if it claims to be a "nation" state at all, although the term "Arabia" in the name of the country suggests as much. But Saudi Arabia most definitely defines itself as a Muslim state. The point is, this is an exclusive way of defining a state, and the point of this is, you cannot criticize Israel for having an exclusive notion of its statehood without also criticizing countries like Saudi Arabia.

The second issue is methodological -- how do we understand the role of identity in modern states? Much of the discussion of Zionism hinges on the Declaration of Independence, a document which defines Israel as a Jewish State. The question is, are such documents (whether they have the force or law or not) the only way to study the role of identity in state formation? If a country has no document officially identifying itself as a nation state, does this mean that it is not a nation state? I do not think so. Indeed, the most interesting work in political theory these days includes critical scholarship that reveals the underpinnings of modern nation-states, how states that have been held up as paragons of liberal politics (in which people are only citizens, and as citizens are all equal, and any other identity -- religious, national, ethnic, racial, is irrelevant) in fact have relied on national and ethnic identity. Israel has a document that defines itself as a nation state because the Zionist project had to involve a relocation of people. No such relocation was necessary for Italy, France, Germany (well, yes a little with Germany -- and interestingly enough Germany has a "law of return" very similar to Israel's), and England. Nevertheless, if you look at documents from the nineteenth century you will see that at the same time that these states were sometimes celebrating liberal ideals (all citizens are equal; any other identity is irrelevant), they were also amploying nationalist discources to legitimate themselves.

I am no expert on the history of Arab states. But I would not be at all surprised if during the struggle against the Ottoman Empire, and later the British and French, emergent leaders appealed to some sort of "Arab nationalism." This is an empirical question, and someone who has studied these countries has to inform us of whether this did indeed occur. But you will not find it out just by looking at the Syrian or Jordanian constitution -- you need to study a variety of data. Slrubenstein

 * Your line "for present purposes I think "race" and "ethnicity" and "nationality" are interchangable" seems to me to presuppose the outcome of the discussion, which is whether "race" and "ethnicity" are interchangable concepts with "nationality". Why should those three concepts be interchangable? For example, an individual may be of Chinese ethnicity but of US nationality - the two are not mutually incompatible, and do not at all imply Chinese nationality (though such an individual may hold or be entitled to dual Sino-USA citizenship, that is by no means necessarily the case). Jacob

-

The comparison between Chinese/Japanese and Jewish is spurious, the former being based on membership of a country (the right claimed by Jews), while the latter is based on ethnicity/religion.

 * No, this is false. The Chinese and Japanese themselves have alway held that they were (respectively) both ethnicities and nationalities, much in the same way that the Jewish people always held. The same ws true in the past of the Greeks, the Romans, the Akkadians, the Babylonians and the Persians. The big difference is that the Chinese and Japanese survived attempts to conquer them, while the Jewish people did not, and only recently was able to restablish their state. RK

If the comparison is to stand, a parallel needs to be drawn, demonstrating that ethnicity/religion/nationality are equivalent concepts - as it stands, you're simply stating that by sleight of hand, and hoping that that statement is accepted. Which is extremely biased towards the Israeli POV

 * Nonsense. You are using your own defintions of "ethnicity" and "nationalist", and then Jews whose beliefs aren't the same as yours. As S. L. Rubestein has written here on Wikipedia many times, the Jewish concepts of ethnicity and nationality are not the same as the ones that you are referring to. As he has pointed out, it was traditional for nationality and ethnicity and religion to be fused concepts, and it is only a relatively recent innovation for them to have become separated. So are you demanding that Jew must change their beliefs and actions to fit these modern new definitions. If yoy do that, you must also do that for Japanese, Chinese and Arabs. But you choose to pick on the Jews, and on the Jews alone. This kind of unfairness is what many Jews call anti-Semitism. RK

 * Such "changes" to the definitions have already been absorbed by other nations - including Japan, China, Iraq, Saudi, etc - arab ethnicity does not make one a citizen of Saudi, only Saudi citizenship does that. Similarly, Chinese ethnicity does not make for Chinese nationality - indeed, there are many people of Chinese ancestry whose nationality is, for example, British or French, rather than Chinese, and who are not entitled to Chinese citizenship. In other wodes, the concepts of "race", "ethnicity" and "nationality" are not interchangable. Jacob

Similary, why do you claim legitimacy by extension with the existence of predominantly arab states, but reject extending that argument when it implies a need to have "European", "African", "homosexual" and "Hispanic" nation states?

 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I never argued against the the right of black African states to exist, nor did I argue against the right of Hispanic states (such as Spain) to have the right to exist. You are attacking statements that no one has made. RK

 * No, I was commenting on your line above ("Your claims about "homosexual" states are so irrelevant, that I can't believe that even you take them seriously."), which focussed on a single word in a list of characteristics which groups often use to define themselves.

Is it because the "arab" example is part of Israel's mythos,

 * There is no "mythos" of Arab nations. Many ethnic and national Arab states do exist; this is just an indisputable fact. I can't trust people who have the nerve to claim otherwise. RK

 * I was not claiming that states do not exist which has a majority of people who share a given ethnicity - indeed, I said precisely that in the addition which you deleted from the article. Rather, I am arguing that ethnicity is not the same thing as nationality - the former is a sociological phenomenon, while the latter is a legal one. I refer you to the "US citizen of Chinese ancestry" example above, though use a "Morrocan citizen of Jewish ancestry" if you prefer. You seem to be arguing that the terms "ethicity" and "nationality" are interchangable, and hence a given ethnicity necessarly implies a given nationality (or, if you prefer, one of a given set of nationalities). That is clearly not the case. Jacob

Jacobgreenbaum misunderstands the current discussion -- we are not using the term "nationality" in the legal sense. This is an ambiguity that should be cleared up in the article. The point is, some times people use the word "national" in the legal sense (a citizen of), but other times people use the word differently. In the first case, "national" is definitely NOT comparable to ethnicity. In the second case, it is. In the second case, some political theorists still distinguish between nationalities, which are indigenous to a place, and ethnicities, which are immigrants. When I wrote above that for present purposes, ethnicity and nationality are interchangable (with race, as well), I obviously did not mean "national" in the legal sense. Also, when I wrote "for present purposes" I meant just that -- for this discussion of the notion of Israel as a Jewish state. I do not think it is useful at this point to bring in very different examples (Chinese-Americans); in any event, even if you think it would be useful to bring in such diverse examples, the whole point of the phrase "for present purposes" was to highlight the fact that my argument is restricted to a specific case, and not meant to be generalizable to other cases.

So I see most of the above discussion as being about semantics. Obviously there are Arab citizens of Israel, and if you want to define "national" as a citizen, then these Arabs are Israeli nationals. That this is so indicates that in many ways Israel is a modern liberal state.

Nevertheless, if we want to discuss Zionism and anti-Semitism, we need to use the word "national" in a very diffferent way -- in a way that corresponds to the ways politicans and scholars have used it in discussion the rise of nation-states (from the late 18th century on) and "nationalism" as an ideology. In these contexts, "national" clearly is much more like race or ethnicity than "citizen." Slrubenstein

 * Actually, from what you write above, it really does sound to me like you are using "nationality" in the unique sense - unique to Israel, that is - of "ethnicity" when referring to Israel, and using the same word ("nationality") in a very different sense, "legal nationality" when referring to everyone else. In which case, how is it "anti-semitic" to insist that the same definition (the generally accepted legal sense) be applied in all cases? It seems to me that applying a different definition to a word specifically when discussing zionism as from discussing other subjects is, in itself, a dubious practice.

 * As for this being "semantics" - yes, it is: The article is arguing that "anti-zionism" equates to "anti-semitism" because it (anti-zionism) denies that ((ethnicity sense) "nationality" equates to ({legal sense) "nationality"}) for Jews while accepting the ((legal sense) "nationality") of non-Jews. However, and as my Chinese-American example makes clear, and as you appear to accept above, the ((ethnicity sense) "nationality") of non-Jews does not equate to their ((legal sense) "nationality"), since you are using very different definitions of "nationality" in each case. Giving the lie to the claim that anti-zionism is anti-semitic because it treats Jews as a special case, different from non-Jews. In fact, the equation of the two definitions of "nationality" is never made, neither for Jews nor for non-Jews, except by zionists, who appear to use whichever definition (ethnicity or legal) is most helpful to their argument at the time, blurring or ignoring your two different definitions in the process and treating - as you state - "ethnicity" and "nationality" as interchangable terms, even though no nations other than Israel (and, to some extent, Germany) treat those terms as interchangable.

 * If anything, then, what you state demolishes the argument in this article which equates anti-zionism with anti-semitism. Jacob

 * I do not think I am using "nationality" in a unique sense, although I do admit I am using it in a non-legal sense. France, Germany, and Saudi Arabia are nation-states.  They are not just states, in which there are people who may be identified as "citizens" or "subjects."  They are states whose legitimacy is in part based on the identification of a political boundary (the state) with a cultural boundary (the nation).  This is an historical fact.  It also raises the problem of how to deal with subjects or citizens who do not "belong" to the nation.  In some cases such non-nationals (not in the legal sense where "national" simply = citizen, but in the cultural sense) are given "equal rights before the law, in some cases they are not.  Some theorists like Jurgen Habermas and Brian Barry believe that this is possible, desirable, and sufficient.  Like you, they would say that a particular state may have a majority of people who beling to a particular ethnic group of nation, but for them this is politically inconsequential (or rather, the state should involve legal apparatuses such that it would be inconsequential).  But many others have pointed out that even when all citizens (regardless of nationality) are equal before the law, informal social institutions, and the implicit relationship between legal/political practices and culture, result in a situation where ethnicity and nationality really do matter, in a way that liberal constitutions cannot accommodate.  All of this is preface to two points I want to make (and tried to make earlier): first, Israel is a nation-state, not because it defines itself as such in its Declaration of Independence, but because it was founded precisely to mimic European nation-states like Germany, France, and England.  Second, even if the Suadi Arabian constitution did not declare it to be an "Arab state," it is still a nation-state in the same way Israel is.

 * In any event, I do not think any "nation-state" is racist merely by virtue of being a nation-state. I am not accusing Israel of racism, nor am I accusing Saudi Arabia of racism.

 * you continue to conflate two notions of nation, with the effect of muddying the water. To say that there exists a nation and that nation deserves a state (a rationale for France and for Israel) does not mean that that state should exclude non-nationals, should deny them citizenship, or deny them equal rights as citizens.  Zionists are claiming two things, in response to those who equate Zionism with racism: first, that anti-Zionists wish to deny the nation of Israel what the International community has allowed Czechs, Slovaks (you know, they now each have their own country -- a bi-national state was replaced by two nation-states), Lithuanians, etc.  Second, that anti-Zionists hold Israel to a higher standard (of political rights) than its Arab neighbors.

 * By the way, this does not mean I think that any country should deprive its citizens of equal rights under the law -- my sense is that both Israel and Saudi Arabia have a lot of work yet to do to ensure this.

 * Thus, I would agree that perhaps a significant number of citizens (or subjects) of Israel and Saudi Arabia may be racists. And that will affect public poicy, often in bad ways.  Slrubenstein

 * Hmmmm - I'm not talking about "racism" as such, but about the equation of ethnicity with nationality - and stating that denying that equation in general does not equate to anti-semitism when applying that principle to Israel. Jacob

 * I think that this more concise presentation of your view is reasonable, except you must explain that by "nationality" you mean solely in the sense of citizenship, because really many people do not mean it that way. Nevertheless, your view raises certain questions.  On this basis, would you deny the Palestinians a state "of their own?" (I realize that we would still have to argue about whether Arab citizens of Israel are equal under the law, whether Palestinians living in Israel could enjoy all the rights of citizenship.)  Were you opposed to the division of Czechoslovakia?  Are you opposed to French law, whereby people born in France (even to parents who were born in France) may not be French citizens?  Are you opposed to Germany's law of return?  Are you equally a critic of the lack of democracy in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia?  Do you believe that those four countries should (even as a condition for membership in the UN) adopt modern liberal constitutions (whereby anyone can be a citizen and all citizens are equal before the law; there is a strict separation of church and state; and strong laws against discrimination of minority ethnic groups)?  I ask these questions in part out of sincere curiosity -- but also to suggest why many Zionists see a double-standard in current political opinion. Slrubenstein

I left in the added "third path" of a bi-ethnic state. But I cut the following because it lacks NPOV and is inaccurate:
 * This is the situation in which the vast majority of the world's ethnic groups live, quite happily. However, most Zionists will accuse anybody who suggests this solution of anti-Semitism, because it denies their ambition to fulfil what they see as their rightful destiny; they believe that the land of Israel was promised to them, and to them alone, by God.

First, it is at best questionable that the vast majority of ethnic groups live in liberal-democratice, pluralistic, multi-ethnic states "happily." Look not only at the popular press, but at many academic journals and books, and you will see that the unhappiness of many people living in multi-ethnic states, and the fragility of the political institutions that sustain them (hello -- remember Yugoslavia?). This is not to say that a multi-ethnic state is in and of itself a bad idea or cannot work, nor is it to say that it is not a conceivable sollution to the current problems in Israel-Palestine. But it is simply false to say that this is the norm, and a generally succesful norm to boot. Let's see what happens in N. Ireland, Zimbabwe, and Sri Lanka first, shall we?

Second, those Zionists who pionered the "Jewish State" were largely atheists; although the Religious right is very influencial in Israel today, it would still be a huge error to think that belief in God or God's promise of the land of Canaan to the Jews is really behind what is going on. Believe me, if you convinced all Jews living in Israel that God did not exist (and therefore never gave them Israel -- and you know, by the way, some devout religious Jews are not Zionists), you would STILL have the problems we find today. To suggest that belief in God has something to do with the problem suggests false sollutions and will prevent us (or, them) from finding the right sollutions. Slrubenstein

Firstly: The third path isn't a "bi-ethnic state", which would barely be more equitable than a mono-ethnic state. It's very simple! All that is being suggested is a straightforward secular democracy, along the lines of the USA, the UK, Canada, France, and every single other regular democracy. It is the norm! You give examples of N. Ireland, Zimbabwe, and Sri Lanka etc. The "unhappiness" there is caused by inequality, not equality! Secondly:  Maybe I was being charitable by attributing to religion the Zionists' desire to dominate all other ethnic groups in the area. If it is not religion then what is it? GrahamN 16:25 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

 * I think the rationale for the Jews wanting the "Holy Land" is that following World War II and the Holocaust, it seemed that the Jews needed a safe haven they could call their own, and the international community via the UN was willing to give them one. Wesley

This paragraph could go in another article:
 * There is also a large body of opinion that believes that the most just outcome in the area is for all the people in Israel/Palestine to share a single state in which all people will have equal status, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

How about proposals for a Palestinian state? --Ed Poor

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 2


text:
Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 3

Wesley writes "As for RK's comments, it appears that "hatespeech" is just a word used to describe politically incorrect opinions, and has very little to do with 'hatred' in the older more conventional sense of that word. "

 * No, Wesley, that is an outrageous claim. GrahamN regularly makes violently anti-Semitic outburts on Wikipedia. It hurts me very much that not only does this not bother you, but that you think his diatribes are merely "politically incorrect". Do you really think that its Ok to violently hate millions of Jews and Christians who believe that Jews have the right to a state, as GrahamN admits he does? Your tone in recent weeks worries me, and it seems that you are presenting aspects of your personality that I have not seen here before. RK

 * RK, your conclusion is wrong because your premises are wrong. You base your "hatespeech" comment on the idea that Zionism = Jews. There are ultra-Orthodox Jews who are anti-Zionist; they believe the "true Israel" must be established by God, not man. There are many Reform Jews who are anti-Zionist, and more who wouldn't classify themselves as anti-Zionist but are certainly opposed to the policies of Israel.

 * Let us make one thing very clear. Disagreement with the policies of the government of Israel, or the means by which Israel was established, is not anti-Semitism. It is disagreement with a past and present political movement, no more, no less. I, personally, do not hate those who do believe in these policies. But I deplore policies which I disagree with, and Israel has many. I deplore atrocities, whomever commits them and by whomever they are committed; this includes atrocities against Arabs by Zionists, against Zionists by Arabs, against Zionists by non-Zionist Israelis, against non-Zionist Israelies by Zionists, against Arabs by Arabs... or any other bloody permutation that you care to name.  This does not make me anti-Semetic. It makes me anti-atrocity.  Let us not demean the many, many people who have suffered from anti-Semitism, unto torture and death, by applying the label indiscriminately to those who merely disagree with the politics of a regime or territorial movement. -- April

 * RK: First of all, I haven't been following these discussions or "outbursts" closely, so I'm not going to give any blanket approval or condemnation of statements I haven't read. It seemed to me that GrahamN was at a genuine loss to understand how Zionists justify an exclusively Jewish state if not on the basis of religion, and mentioned "plain evil" as the only possibility he could think of, BUT I thought did so as an invitation to have someone correct his misunderstanding. Perhaps I misunderstood.

RK, I find it difficult to take you seriously when you throw around emotionally loaded words so carelessly. For example, what is the difference between "violent hatred", "hatred", and "thinking that what someone else is doing is wrong"? Normally, I would think violent hatred would have some component of deliberate physical or emotional harm. Yet you use the phrase in a context where I see no evidence of deliberate harm, or planned deliberate harm, other than GrahamN saying that Zionism is wrong and racist. Now, you and others might be hurt by his remark, but that doesn't mean that hurting you emotionally was his intent. You might possibly call the statement hateful if he had stated that Jews were evil, but since he didn't in that paragraph, I'm at a loss. I don't know what to think, or what you mean by "violent hatred" or "hatespeech", so it's simply hard to take such accusations seriously when I don't know what they are supposed to mean. I fear they aren't supposed to mean anything specific, but are merely rhetorical devices. Please correct me, as I genuinely hope I'm laboring under a misunderstanding. Wesley

 * No, Wesley, you are not laboring under a misunderstanding. You are making it clear that you don't have a problem with GrahamN's flat-out admission that he hates all Zionists, which is the same thing as hating most Jews. I don't understand why you don't have a problem with this; it's very disappointing. I suspect that Jesus would be sad to see people justify such hatespeech against his people and his nation.

 * I don't think it's my place to judge GrahamN, you, or anyone else. I've tried to address the terms used in the debate, not take sides in the debate itself. I don't think insults advance either side. I'm quite certain that I've done far more to cause Jesus sorrow than anything I've typed online, grievous though some of my remarks may be.  -As for the article itself, if it uses words like "hatespeech", I hope that such terms are well-defined there. That's all. Wesley

To Graham and RK - please cool it. These kinds of insults do not belong here. Grahams point of view 'Zionism is racist' and RK's point of view 'anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic' are both widely held, and controversial views (which is unsurprising given that wars are fought over these kinds of arguments). We are here to write articles, not to act as an arena for these kinds of disputes. You both need to display more sensitivity for other people's points of view if we are to all work productively together to improve articles. Enchanter

 * We won't ever improve the article while anti-Semites flood this forum with anti-Semitic hatespeech against Jews. Why is this simply concept so confusing to you?

-

RK, your conclusion is wrong because your premises are wrong. You base your "hatespeech" comment on the idea that Zionism = Jews. There are ultra-Orthodox Jews who are anti-Zionist; they believe the "true Israel" must be established by God, not man. There are many Reform Jews who are anti-Zionist, and more who wouldn't classify themselves as anti-Zionist but are certainly opposed to the policies of Israel.

 * I must disagree. Most Jews are pro-Zionist to some extent. Zionism is merely the belief that Jews have a right to a Jewish state. Further, most people who are members of Zionist organizations currently are Jews. Secondly, you may have misread what I wrote. I agree that there are still some anti-Zionist Jews; I have written about them in great detail (see the archive page). To makr this clear, I agree with you! Thirdly, although what you write about Reform Judaism was true 100 and 50 years ago, it is now decades out of date; it is now incorrect. Fourthly, I myself have repeatedly written that mere disagreement with certain policies of Israel is not anti-Semitism. Again, I agree with you. But when a person like GrahamN comes along and flat-out publicly states that he hates all these Jew, well hatred of most Jew is anti-Semitism. That is what the word means. RK

 * Let us make one thing very clear. Disagreement with the policies of the government of Israel, or the means by which Israel was established, is not anti-Semitism.

 * I totally agree; your point is covered in great detail already on this very Talk page. See this entry and its archive for more info. I think you are countering an argument that no one is making. We all agree with you. (Always a nice thing to hear!) RK

It is disagreement with a past and present political movement, no more, no less. I, personally, do not hate those who do believe in these policies. But I deplore policies which I disagree with, and Israel has many. I deplore atrocities, whoever commits them and against whomever they are committed; this includes atrocities against Arabs by Zionists, against Zionists by Arabs, against Zionists by non-Zionist Israelis, against non-Zionist Israelies by Zionists, against Arabs by Arabs... or any other bloody permutation that you care to name. This does not make me anti-Semetic. It makes me anti-atrocity. Let us not demean the many, many people who have suffered from anti-Semitism, unto torture and death, by applying the label indiscriminately to those who merely disagree with the politics of a regime or territorial movement. -- April

 * Um, what atrocities do you believe are being committed by zon-Zionist Israelis against Zionist Israelis? And what atrocities do you believe  are being committed by Zionist Israelis against non-Zionist Israelis? I have never heard anyone, even Arabs, make such a charge. I can't imagine what you are referring to. The Israeli, American, Arab and European newspapers have never mentioned any such events, ever. I am disturbed to hear you making these claims without any basis whatsoever. It sounds like you really have it in for the Jews. RK

 * As someone else said, that was meant to be a hypothetical case: hate the atrocity, no matter who's doing what to whom. However, since you insist, and since I cynically believe you can find examples of almost anyone doing almost anything to anyone else... I did a web search.  For a beginning, see this link: http://www.io.com/~jewishwb/iris/archives/551.html ... "With my own eyes, I wept. I wept that a Jewish policeman would attack a Jewish child. I wept that a Jewish government would use violence against Jewish citizens." ... This was not chosen because it's the best source, but because it was the first allegation I found.  Thirty-second search. Please don't make me search for more and better sources - I will almost certainly find 'em, people being people the world over, and this sort of thing depresses me.)  Note that I do not have the slightest idea whether this is a true or a false allegation. It is an allegation, ergo such allegations exist, ergo I deplore the actions cited in the allegation if in fact those actions  happened as described.  So am I anti-Semetic for condemning the hypotheitical actions of a hypothetical Jewish policeman against a hypothetical Jewish child?  I think not.

 * It's my belief that trying to tar those who disagree with one with slurs of bigotry, when no bigotry is actually in evidence, is both a weak tactic and a harmful one. Something that long experience has taught me:  be precise, and condemn the action you deplore, not the person committing it. (Hey GrahamN, talkin' to you too here. :) Sling that "anti-Semetic" around too much, and you only empower the racists, by actually lending credence to the old canard that the term is just used to silence political opponents. I refuse to let the serious problem of anti-Semitism be degraded that way. Check out my posts to sci.skeptic on DejaNews, wherein I have verbally walloped on Holocaust revisionists who tried just that.

 * A long time ago, in a city far away from where I am now, my mother was a US civil rights activist with "Women for Racial and Economic Equality." She was an enthusiastic and idealistic promoter of equality of all peoples, of the ideal that individual potential mattered far more than ethnic or socioeconomic background.  And one day, when she was running for a leadership position within the group, another woman argued that she should not be allowed to have it. Why?  Because she was "racist".  It was incidents like that which, alas, let the term "playing the race card" into the vocabulary, thence to be seized on and used gleefully by racists everywhere.  RK, I beg of you, in all seriousness, don't make the same mistake.

 * And now, as Enchanter so wisely points out, this doesn't really belong here. (She said, after adding several paragraphs. Apologies.) I second his motion, and suggest that we take this to meta, or better yet, all try to see each other as individuals with different points of view, and work together to build a better Wikipedia. -- April

 * RK - You are repeatedly insinuating that others are racist or anti-semitic without good reason. (I would have thought it is quite clear that April is speaking hypothetically and is not making any specific allegations). Again - these kinds of insults are out of place, and April for one certainly deserves an apology for your misunderstanding her. Enchanter 14:40 Sep 4, 2002 (PDT)

 * RK, I think you are probably quite mad. I have never made an anti-Semitic remark in my life.  As for your accusation that I am violent, I'll have you know that I am a pacifist.  Once more you slander me because I dare to say things that you know to be true but which you wish were left un-said.  I think Wesley is saying that the non-religious Zionists' motivation for wanting Jews to dominate Israel-Palestine, was that it should be a haven from anti-Semitism. This sounds reasonable, but it is a reasoning that only works while anti-Semitism is a widespread phenomenon.  So it is clear that Zionists have a vested interest in keeping anti-Semitism alive; if there were no anti-Semitism, there would be no moral justification for the apartheid.  It seems to me that accordingly, you Zionists have adopted two strategies for keeping anti-Semitism alive.  Firstly you try, in articles like this one, to re-define the word "Anti-Semitism" to include anybody who opposes Zionism, in the hope that this will allow Zionism to float along in perpetuity on a hovercraft of circular reasoning.  Secondly, you behave like utter bastards towards the Palestinians, so that all right-minded people will despise you. In case you are confused, I repeat that by “you” I mean “you Zionists” not “you Jews”.  OK?  GrahamN 14:23 Sep 4, 2002 (PDT)

 * Whatever you think of Zionists, this is not the place to vent your opinions. These insults reflect very badly on Wikipedia.  Please stop. Enchanter 14:40 Sep 4, 2002 (PDT)

GrahamN writes "I think Wesley is saying that the non-religious Zionists' motivation for wanting Jews to dominate Israel-Palestine, was that it should be a haven from anti-Semitism. This sounds reasonable, but it is a reasoning that only works while anti-Semitism is a widespread phenomenon. So it is clear that Zionists have a vested interest in keeping anti-Semitism alive..."

 * GrahamN, please stop filling this forum with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. This kind of obsession about Jews is unhealty.

GrahamN writes "if there were no anti-Semitism, there would be no moral justification for the apartheid. It seems to me that accordingly, you Zionists have adopted two strategies for keeping anti-Semitism alive.  Firstly you try, in articles like this one, to re-define the word 'Anti-Semitism' to include anybody who opposes Zionism, in the hope that this will allow Zionism to float along in perpetuity on a hovercraft of circular reasoning.  Secondly, you behave like utter bastards towards the Palestinians, so that all right-minded people will despise you. In case you are confused, I repeat that by 'you' I mean 'you Zionists' not 'you Jews'.

 * The Zionists GrahamN refers to are most of the world's Jews. So GrahamN claims that he can't be an anti-Semited because of word games? I find this quite unconvincing. Frankly, he has a grudge against Jews that he just can't control, and is trying to use Wikipedia as a forum to vent. I believe that he should go elsewhere.

title: Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 3