Talk:Antisemitism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 April 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

A statement

A statement that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism is plainly wrong, since anti-Zionism can be, and frequently is, a form of antisemitism. Braiman 11:54, 15 March 2008 (EDT)Braiman

You are completely correct, but this will never stand here. TmtamesP 11:58, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

That is completely incorrect, since anti-Zionism is opposition to the specific political ideology of Zionism, while antisemitism is irrational hatred of Jews in general. The fact that antisemites are by logical extension also anti-Zionists does not mean they're the same. You might as well say that anti-Communism is the same as Russophobia. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 12:08, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

You've obviously don't edit wikipedia. TmtamesP 12:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I have! I corrected a spelling error once! I think it was reverted later in an edit war, though... --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 12:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

A statement that moving your hands is not comunication is plainly wrong, since moving your hands can be, and frequently is, a form of comunication. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 12:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

They are two different things. Of course, having the attribute of antisemitism means that one will probably be anti-Zionist as well, but to construe from that fact the idea that opposition to the political and diplomatic methods of the state of Israel inherently includes antisemitism is as ludicrous as saying that 'since all Frisian cows are black and white, all black and white cows are Frisian'. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Ooh, ooh! A fallacy of illicit conversion! Quite a rare beast outside its natural habitats. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 12:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

No, its just like how modern conservativism inherently includes fascism, or the belief in the Christian faith inherently includes lunacy or a brain disorder. Both of those views are legit on this site. TmtamesP 12:23, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

And a fallacy of composition! We're really getting some good spottings today. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 12:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Opposing to the methods of the state of Israel does not qualify as anti-Zionism, it does not necessarily qualify as Antisemitism either. Yet, if one applies different standards to Israel and others, singles out Israel, criticizes Israeli methods, but ignores or excuses similar methods used by the other side, it is still not sufficient to qualify as anti-Zionism, but it is sufficient to qualify as anti-Semitism.Braiman 13:21, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

The equation of anti-Zionism to antisemitism depends on the belief of territorial self-determination which everyone doesn't believe in. Multiculturalists and internationalists that believe in a border-free world won't equate the two. On the other hand, some people equate Zionism to aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, but that has nothing to do with hating the Jewish people. --Nolidor (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Two Shekels

Anti-Zionism is often a cop-out for antisemitism. I disagree with policies of lots of governments but that doesn't mean I think the entire right of them to exist is at fault, and Zionism is, at it's base, a belief in a Jewish state. I may not be a fan of theocracy, but those who are anti-zionist are almost never simply against settlements, etc, but against the very right of Israel to exist as such. I went to college as this debate caught on and, being a lefty, was present at many pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist rallies and meetings, most of which frequently were clearly antisemitic.

I was protesting during Gulf War I, when the radio announced missiles falling on Jerusalem. The crowed cheered. I puked.

It's tough for others to understand sometimes, but, given the horrible problems with authoritarianism in the mideast, focusing on anti-Zionism, to those of us with family in Israel, seems a moot distinction.-- -PalMD ^--Do not read my blog 12:36, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

That's putting a certain dichotomy-based spin on things - why not criticise both of them? Also, comparatively lesser human rights violations in more democratic countries can hurt the cause of human rights more, since you get a 'why should we stop when they ...' reaction.

Also, 95% of those considering themselves Anti-Zionist I know are opposed to the expansionism of Israel (West Bank, for example, and sending in settlers), not the state itself. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Why would they consider themselves Anti-Zionists then? The whole Israeli left (~50% of Israeli population) are opposed to the expansionism and settlers, yet most of them are Zionists. The basic tenet of Zionism is establishing an independent state for the Jewish people in the historic homeland of this people. If you support this goal, you are not an anti-Zionist. However, if you deny this basic right to the Jewish people, you are an anti-Zionist and an anti-Semite.Braiman 13:03, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I must say that I agree. Creating a homeland for the Palestinian people does not have to involve the destruction of israel, which is essentially what anti-zionism is.-- -PalMD ^--Do not read my blog 13:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Seems to me a lot of this depends on how the terms Zionism and anti-Zionism are used. I've seen some use Zionism basically to mean the God-given absolute right to all of the land of ancient Israel to the Jewish people, with the implication (or outright statement) that the Palestinian people have no rights to it whatsoever. This is an extremist form, but one that does exist. I wouldn't call anyone who balks at that necessarily an anti-semite. But, if Zionism is used to mean the basic right to a state of Israel in some form, then perhaps many or most anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. But it's still a political issue rather than a religious or racial one. In my opinion, it would behoove everyone, whatever their opinions, to admit that the state of Israel is a fait accompli and isn't about to go anywhere, so we can all move forward with settling borders and working out the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Israeli settlements in the area are of course a huge issue, and if opposing their expansion is "anti-Zionist" then I suppose I'm "Anti-Zionist" in the sense that so would be nearly half the Israelis, and all my Jewish friends. But under PalMD's definition (which seems to be the more accurate one) I am not anti-Zionist. DickTurpis 14:08, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Just a brief point of order. The original Zionist thinkers were indeed concerned with creating an independent state for the Jewish people. They were not, however, hung up on it being in Palestine and considered other, much more realistic options. That the movement later came to focus on Palestine as the rightful place for such a state is the source of much of the current misery there. --Robledo 13:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, they did consider alternatives. The alternatives were rejected at the Zionist Congress for the reason you mentioned -- Palestine (aka the Land of Israel) was the only rightful place for the Jewish state. I don't think that the alternatives were somehow more realistic. How was Uganda more realistic than Palestine? Would the residents of Uganda accept the Jewish state on their land more readily than Arabs? Look what's going on in that area now without the Jewish state on top of it.Braiman 14:23, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

lol :) And how, exactly, does an "atheist, humanist Jew" make the leap to agreeing with statements such as Palestine (aka the Land of Israel) was the only rightful place for the Jewish state. Good luck, son. --Robledo 14:45, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Interesting point Robledo. When does a person of Jewish descent start to regard themself as something other than a Jew if they no longer subscribe to the Jewish faith? It would seem to me that despite racial stereotyping there has been a dilution of the gene pool since the diaspora. We British are often considered a mongrel race with Gaelic, Roman, Viking, Angle, Saxon, Jute, Danish and Norman influences, not to mention recent intermingling with Poles, Chinese, Indians and Africans. I identify myself solely by the country of my birth despite a fair compexion and very big nose. Genghis ^Marauding 15:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I think it's up to individuals how they choose to self-identify. I was just ripping it a little on the tension between B's self-description on his user page and his rather shrill statements here and elsewhere. Maintaining character is hard work, though, so he shouldn't feel too bad. --Robledo 15:36, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I see no contradiction or "tension" as you put it. I'd like to refer you to the Israeli declaration of independence. In its first part it describes the reasons and justifications for establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine from the Zionist point of view. Note that there is no mention of "divine promise" or any other religious argumentation. Note also that Zionism has been conceived and has remained in the mainstream as a completely secular national liberation movement. Religious Zionism has always been a minority branch (they have gained prominence recently, but it's a separate story).
I agree that self-identification is up to individuals. Genetics is only a part of the story. It's a contributing, but not a decisive factor. National identity is more in the minds than in the genes.Braiman 16:10, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Shite. The early Zionist movement's shift to insistence upon Palestine as the rightful site of a new Jewish state, some two thousand years after the fact of the first, can only be explained in terms of a religious imperative, explicit or otherwise. --Robledo 17:17, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, I respectfully disagree. The fact that the Jewish national identity survived for 2000 years cannot be used against it. There is nothing religious about it. "Divine promise" argument is based on a religious myth. The Jewish connection to the lost homeland is based on the historical facts and a collective memory, which became an integral part of the Jewish national identity. I'll give you an alternative example to think about. The majority of the people who identify themselves as Palestinians where born and bred outside of Palestine. Many of them a citizens of USA, Canada, France, Mexico, Germany, Jordan, etc. Some of them are Muslim, others are Christians, atheists, and I bet you can find Buddhists as well. Yet, they call themselves Palestinians and insist on their right of return to their lost homeland Palestine. Are they justified in their claim? Is there an expiration date to their plight? I say that as long that they preserve their unique national identity of Palestinians and keep the link to their historical homeland as an integral part of this identity, their plight will not expire. The same goes for the Jews. If you disagree, please suggest objective criteria for the expiration date.Braiman 18:30, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Er, I shouldn't need to point out that your ideas are a blueprint for mass population upheaval. If any culture is viewed as having some rightful claim on their "ancestral homeland" then where does it end? I'm from Welsh stock myself, and the Welsh have their own preserved culture and language from way back, enough to meet your criteria anyway. Britain for the Celts! Normans and Saxons out! In reality, possession is rather more than 9 points of the law where border disputes are involved. Israel exists and isn't going anywhere, no matter how much of a bad idea it was in the first place. You can't help but think that Israelis could be rather more magnanimous in victory though, and extend at least some sort of olive branch towards the Palestinians. --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 19:10, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Aye, this sounds a bit too much like the line of thought that kept Germany and France fighting over Alsace-Lorraine/Elsass-Lothringen for about 1100 years. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:20, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm not talking about border disputes or sizes of "ancestral homelands", which might be different from the sizes of current homelands. I'm talking about people who lost their homeland in its entirety, who have never had any other national homeland, and who kept a link to their lost one and only homeland as one of the defining elements of their national identity. In any other place they were a minority, usually a persecuted one. This situation is rather unique. If the Jews were to regain their independence, there was no other place on Earth more appropriate than the area in their National Homeland. I definitely disagree that re-establishment of the Jewish independence in their national homeland was a bad idea. IMO, it was one of the justest moments in the world history. Refusal to accept it was the one that led to a disaster.
And about the olive branch... I'm not sure how well you are informed about this conflict, but the olive branch has been extended. More than once. There has been a little thingy called "the Peace Process" going on here for about 15 years now. Some people even got Nobel Prizes for extending olive branches. Did not help much. The war is going on and people are still dyingBraiman 08:28, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Am I imagining it or was there once talk of a Jewish state somewhere like the Thousand Islands or something? Or is this something I came up with when I was drunk? I have a very vague recollection. I'll see if I can look it up. DickTurpis 14:34, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

All nation states are ultimately based on myths, younger than they claim to be, and founded on violence or the credible threat of it. Why is it that only the history of the foundation of one state is so often called out as particularly nefarious? And if you really car so much about the population that was in some place prior to migration, there are some other places where a native population has for one reason or other been largely displaced. The Palestinians are way better off by almost any measure than the Native Americans in the US or the Aborigines in Australia... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

<smart-ass_mode>It's two agorot.</smart-ass_mode>--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Wow, you have never remotely been near a reservation or Native American person have you? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you think would happen if the Navajo nation were to fire rockets at Arizona? And if you take metrics like how much land they have left and socioeconomic factors (excluding Indian casinos which are at best a mixed blessing) into account, the Palestinians are way better of. But maybe we should compare the Palestinians to the native Argentinians. Or the native Uruguayans... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Navajo nation is not living under a half-century long occupation nor a near decade long blockade restricting exports. As far as socioeconomic factors go, you might want to consider the World Bank reports over the past coupe of years that say the Palestinian economy could be boosted enormously if they were given free and unrestricted access to the land/resources of Area C, and how the economy of Gaza (which has the highest unemployment rate in the world right now by the way) could be improved through the lifting of the blockade. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, lift the blockade. After the Gazan government 1) recognizes the right of Israel to exist and 2) demonstrates that it won't use the opportunity to import more weaponry. Otherwise you are talking about something that you know damn well is not going to happen. CorruptUser (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've already addressed Hamas' position on Israel's existence. You can consult the Ephraim Halevy quote I cited. And second, the Shin Bet estimates that Hamas only devotes 12% or so of its budget to military needs. I've made references to Israeli intellience officials affirming that Hamas are the ones who enforce the anti-rocket ceasefires, so I see no need to go beyond the point of weaponry being a concern. I also have mentioned before that the blockade was never about security (why were chocolate, baby chicks, and potato chips all prohibited from entering Gaza) and cited a cable stating that Israeli officials confirmed the blockade was implemented so-as to keep the economy on a cliff. Tired of having to explain this to people who don't listen. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Khazars

The Khazar royalty and nobility were definitely Jewish (by conversion), and the article seems to imply that the Khazar state was solely Turkish. I think I'm going to elaborate on the theory, possibly create an article- assuming I can muster the focus.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's "Turkic", not "Turkish".--ZooGuard (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Types of Antisemitism missing here

First of all: No, Antisemitism is not (just) a prejudice. Many an Antisemitic person knows Jews personally. It is also different from racism. A (white) racist does not believe that black people control everything. An Antisemitic person does belief that Jews control everything. This is part of why it is so dangerous. That being said, imho there are (at least) the following types of antisemitism that should be mentioned:

1. Left Wing Antisemitism - Often manifested in "pro-Palestinian" positions that may well end up to be pro-Hamas or marching in demonstrations where things like "child murderer Israel" (in line with the old prejudice of ritual child murder) are uttered see this video for an example May overlap with Anti-Capitalist Antisemitism
2. Religious Antisemitism - Before World War II this was often Christian and along the lines of "Jews killed Jesus"; Nowadays it is often by people who read the Qur'an as calling for the killing of Jews
3. Anti-capitalist Antisemitism - Stemming from the bogus distinction between "good" entrepreneur and "bad" "bankster" while failing to see that both are necessary for capitalism to work (and both are unnecessary in Marxism) a classic example where the word Jew was openly used was the Nazi distinction between (evil) Jewish "raffendes Kapital" and (good) "Aryan" "schaffendes Kapital". Nowadays the association of banks with Jews is seldom uttered openly or at all
4. Secondary Antisemitsim - In a sense Antisemitism that can be summed up with the sentence "The Germans will never forgive the Jews for what happened in Auschwitz" - An Antisemitism that is either derived from making guilt in the Shoah seem less bad by making Jews seem bad or accusing Jews of somehow "profiteering" from the Shoah.

All of those can be combined with:

1. Antisemitism without Jews - Either Antisemitism in countries where Jews have historically never lived in significant numbers (e.g. Japan) or using of classical antisemitic tropes and stereotypes and either not applying them to Jews but rather to some other group (Idi Amin's campaign against Indians comes to mind) or not uttering the word "Jew" at all. As seen by right wing groups focusing on the names of certain banks (see anti-capitalist Antisemitism)

I hope I covered all bases. Let me hear why you virulently disagree with my Zionist propaganda :-P 141.30.210.129 (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So what do y'all opine? User:ChrisAmiss? User:Arisboch? User:AgingHippie? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Your problem is that you're fucking ridiculous and a moron. get the fuck out with this shit. I'm in no mood for your shitheaded antics. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I remember an argument, quite a virulent one in which I quickly shut-the-F-up, about Israeli policies regarding their new settlements, and it ended up with the pro Israeli stance accusing two others who held opposing views as being "anti-Semites." This despite the fact that all three were jewish. Is this an example of your #1 "Left Wing Antisemitism, and of course, does this mean that Jews who are opposed to Israeli policies are anti-Semites? Also non-Jews, but that's another discussion. PS Please consider registering so there is something to call you other than a number. That's too much, Like the number tattooed on your arm or something. Carptrash (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, ikanreed, what exactly is your issue with the BoN? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I take issue with your first definition, because I don't think it's ever a left-wing position to be antisemitic, either deliberately or unintentionally. And though the term child murderer may be tasteless and provocative, keep in mind that over 300 children were killed in the Gaza War of 08-09 and over 520 children were killed in the Gaza War of 2014, so the term isn't without merit. Especially in light of official Israel military doctrines like the Dahiya doctrine which involve targeting civilians/civilian infrastructure with disproportionate power in order to deter an attack. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that the "definition" of children includes 16 and 17 year olds, which make up a large part of Hamas's forces. CorruptUser (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This actually isn't true. Human rights organizations have gone through the evidence and concluded that the extreme majority of children killed were not participants in combat. The children who do take part in hostilities are very few. Of the over 500 killed last year, I believe only 6-13 were determined to be participating in hostilities. Most of Palestinian armed forces are between 18 and 29, not the other way around. Here's from B'tselem during OCL: "Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip - 22 took part in the hostilities, 318 did not take part in the hostilities, 4 it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities". Source: http://www.btselem.org/statistics/fatalities/during-cast-lead/by-date-of-event ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's B'tselem's initial figures during OPE: "According to B'Tselem's initial figures, at least 1,767 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip and Israel from the time the fighting began through 10 Aug. 2014. The fatalities include: 431 minors (one minor participated in the hostilities); 200 women (under age 60); 85 persons aged 60 and over. During the same period two Israeli civilians, one foreign national and 64 Israeli soldiers have been killed in Israel and the Gaza Strip." Source: http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20140812_preliminary_data_on_fatalities. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

From wikipedia

"In contrast, a New York Times analysis states that males of ages that are most likely to be militants form 9% of the population but 34% of the casualties, while women and children under 15, who are least likely to be legitimate targets, form 71% of the general population and 33% of the casualties." NYT BBC.

Look, life sucks in Gaza and the WB settlers are whackjob fanatics that I suspect one reason for the settlements is to keep them out of the rest of Israel. But while Hamas is murdering anyone who criticizes them, nothing they claim has any value. Without free speech, it's all hot air.CorruptUser (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because you're of a military age doesn't make you a combatant. "Most likely to be a militant" doesn't mean a thing. I hear these kind of arguments anyone tries to pacify Serbian war crimes in the 90's when people point to the busing of women and children in Srebrenica. And second, that doesn't really dispute what I argued in my rebuttal. The previous topic was whether children make up a large part of Hamas' forces; now you're changing the subject and frame of reference by focusing on whether those killed were civilians rather than combatants. And third, you misrepresented what I cited. This is what independent human rights organizations who do their own field work are finding, not what Hamas is "claiming" as you say. If Hamas truly wanted to propagandize the number of people dead, then they could easily claim that all of the 2200 killed last year were civilians rather than 1400. There's no reason to suspect that human rights organizations which have criticized Hamas themselves (for torture, judicial system, lack of press freedom, social conservatism, death penalty, etc) all of a sudden are silencing themselves with regards to civilian casualties. Lastly, consider what your sources mention. The ones claiming that those mostly killed were not civilians are Israeli spokesmen or members of the Israeli intelligence who have a personal, self-serving stake in the matter, which are not reliable in a war or conduct of military operations.ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd actually amend the claim that "the WB settlers are whackjob fanatics that I suspect one reason for the settlements is to keep them out of the rest of Israel." I suggest the WB settlers come in mainly two "flavours", the whackjob fanatics who're there because they think YHWH has given the land to them and the comparatively poor recent immigrants from places such as Russia who move to the settlements because of the financial benefits (low rents in contrast to the housing shortage in Israel itself and other government subsidies). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

In response to .129's original questions:

1. I disagree with Chrisamiss that there's no such thing as left-wing anti-Semitism, but also with .129's blanket equation of a pro-Palestinian stance with anti-Semitism, but I've been over that in discussions with .129 elsewhere, so I don't think it's necessary to rehash it here.
2. Here, I think two versions of bigotry are mixed together. The first one has often been called anti-Judaism to distinguish it from anti-Semitism. It was the one found in pre-modern Europe which saw Judaism, not people of Jewish descent, as the main problem. Unlike modern anti-Semitism, Jews who converted to Christianity (and were believed to have sincerely done so) essentially dropped out of the Jewish category. The second version is a weird reading of the Q'uran by some political Islamists and owe at least as much to the Arab-Israeli conflicts as to religion. I don't know what this type's stance is on conversion as a "fix", so that has to be factored in when considering if it's anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism.
3. I've addressed that specific claim elsewhere. In short, I think that .129 is reading anti-Semitism into places where it doesn't belong by insisting that criticism of certain kinds of capitalism is just dog whistle speak for anti-Semitism. For instance, a criticism of "unproductive" financial speculative casino capitalism by contrasting it with the part of capitalism which helps channelling money into investments in actual production would seem to automatically get slapped with the anti-Semitism label ("'cause they're really talking about da Jooz") which to me is just silly.
4. I'm not sure what this is targeting. Sure there are clearly anti-Semitic version of the "Holocaust industry", but again, automatically slapping the anti-Semitism label on the quite heavy-handed "because Auschwitz"-justification for any and all Israeli actions is not particularly useful either - see Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz's response for why the latter is problematic.

By contrast, anti-Semitism without Jews is a real, if bizarre phenomenon. I didn't know of the Japanese right wing version, but Hungary is a very good example of a country with practically no Jews which nevertheless has seen a lot of Jewish conspiracy theories and allegations that this or that political opponent is a Jew due to the right wing being on a roll in the polls. It seems to me that "Jew" in this context has taken on some of the qualities that "Fascist" did on the left in the 1970s in particular: A general term of abuse for someone you don't like but divorced from the actual religion/ideology (calling cops "Fascist pigs" is a classic slur). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Franco for example took the antisemitic propaganda popular during his time and simply replaced the word Jew with the word Freemason. There were no jews in Spain during Franco's reign (the 1492 law making Judaism illegal in Spain was only officially repelled in 1992 by king Juan Carlos) but there were some Freemasons... Ultimately any alleged "conspiracy" dominating the world becomes indistinguishable from old antisemitic tropes. And of course in some cases it is outright stated to be jews even if there aren't any. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there were a few thousand Jews living in Spain under Franco. What's more the Jewish population of Spain grew by a few more thousand during the early years of his reign as Franco allowed Jewish refugees from Nazism to enter his country either to reside in or to use as a route out of Europe. Furthermore, Napoleon's brother ended the Inquisition in 1808 (though I've seen 1834 listed as the year of its ultimate suppression), and the Alhambra Decree was rescinded by the Catholic Church in 1968. It's my impression that the 1992 policy you reference is essentially a Spanish law making Judaism a government-recognized religion. And while I take your point about Franco's anti-freemason ideology paralleling anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, it's not like it was a new innovation of his. That kind of seeing freemasons the way anti-Semites see Jews had already been done, including by Franco's friend Hitler. In other words, anti-Semitism, anti-Freemasonism, and anti-Communism as espoused by twentieth-century fascists were essentially the same ideology, even if a regime left out one of those groups. Rand0 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Banks are necessary to capitalism

So now this has been deleted twice and I am drawing the conclusion that my way of putting it is unclear, so I will try to formulate it out in more detail here...

The fundamental principle of capitalism is in essence Money ==> Money' that means money "becomes" more money (Money'). Now as any Marxist worth his salt (and indeed most classical economists) will tell you, all of the difference between Money' and Money can be accounted for ultimately by human labor. Old timey economists differed in "ground rent" (e.g. the money you earn by holding land) "interest" (the money you earn by lending money) and "industrial rent" / "profit" (workers working for you and you keeping the profit). Of course if one goes down to it, it all is derived from work. If I land money to somebody at interest he will have to work or have somebody work for him in order to pay it back. Land by itself does no earn money, only when it is worked.

So the problem with some anti-Capitalist rhetoric is that they say Capitalism is fine and dandy it is only the "banksters" who are evil. Their logic ultimately goes that while normal entrepreneurs "create jobs" (which is a false focus) or "create wealth" (which is patently absurd as no entrepreneur could do jack shit without workers doing - you know - all the work), the "evil banksters" only lend money and "don't create any real value". Now anybody who knows his capitalism or has read his Marx will point out that for banks Money ==> Money' just involves one further middleman. The entrepreneur starts out with a certain amount of money (often on loan from banks or shareholders) and buy the means of production in order to hire workers and buy raw materials and at the end of the day he will (if all goes according to plan) have a bottom line where he will have Money' (at least if you include the worth of all his investments). Thus he will be able to pay back his loans and for the Banker there will be Money==> Money'. Now this is normal and necessary in Capitalism. No reform of capitalism short of its outright abolishment will ever get rid of this mechanism. But of course it is more visible for banks with their interest rates than for "good honest" entrepreneurs with their bottom line. As the Nazis (but not only they) associated banks with Jews and entrepreneurship with "Aryans", this is in a sense the antisemitic school of anti-Capitalism. And it does not become any better if you leave out the word or implication "Jews". This whole "evil banskter" meme is called (rather euphemistically I might add) "shortened criticism of Capitalism" (verkürzte Kapitalismuskritik in German). Now "shortened" implies it could be "lengthened" and then it would be all fine and dandy, but it is "shortened" in the same sense that a woman who had to undergo female genital mutilation is in possession of a "shortened" clitoris...

If further questions exist, I will gladly point to some YouTube videos... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that the reason it's being deleted is that just because Jewish International Finance Conspiracy^TM is an old chestnut in anti-Semitism it doesn't follow that criticising "banksters" is automatically dog whistle speak for anti-Semitism. And the "shortened" criticism might just as well refer to the (over)simplification of targeting "bad apples" than a more thorough criticism of the system that encouraged them. This is similar to my objection of your automatic link between reports of Israeli bombardments killing children (which are accurate) with anti-Semitism because they "looked like" the old blood libel fairy tales. Just because you can see similarities in a set of descriptions doesn't mean that the motives behind them are the same, or that you can read the same (sub)context out of/into them. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It also downplays the centuries of associating Jews with "evil greedy bankers" that ended with a lot of people dead, corralled into destitute conditions, and generally abused to just ignore those stereotypes. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well criticizing real or imagined flaws of Israel is one thing. Running around screaming "child murderer Israel" is another thing entirely... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

By all means include the JIFC^TM, but don't automatically associate all who blame banksters with crypto-anti-Semites. At least give some good examples of those who clearly did dogwhistle the anti-bankster rhetoric in this way (I suspect such examples will be easy to find). It's more this knee-jerk assumption of anti-Semitism I'm cautioning against, as it seems to verge on a sort of "anti-Semitism-baiting" (looking for anti-Semites, rather than Reds, under the bed). ScepticWombat (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I may be a minority of one, but imho the "evil bankster" is a bad and harmful idea even if his/her Jewishness is never stated or implied. You might argue the term Antisemitism (though it is clearly an antisemitic trope) but it clearly harms the debate... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Gross over-simplication, borderline baiting and very bad writing were the drivers of my recent edits/deletions in that article. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the recent global financial crisis and the role banks played in it, I don't think criticism of banksters is at all odd. "Evil" isn't the word I'd use, but far too often the top dogs running the banks are corrupt, incompetent and/or reckless. Even when they are forced to leave their position, they almost never really get punished for the financial and economic mayhem they bring about and they can even rake in massive golden parachutes despite everything. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we can change the laws to stop that. Other countries have and it hasn't affected anything but fewer assholes trying to tank the economy. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The character or in fact the person of the people on top of the banks does not matter. They are in a sense replaceable manifestations of abstract forces of capitalism. If a publicly listed company that is traded on the stock market refuses to engage in certain business practices and thus hurts its bottom line, it will sooner rather than later be bought up by the competition. Criticizing "greed" of individuals instead of the system of Capitalism where what is often called "greed" is indeed the only option is exactly the time of wrongheaded criticism of capitalism that does not achieve a thing and has to be attacked as fervently as possible. Or in short: Oh for fucks sake read some fucking Marx. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we add a list of anti-Semites?

Do you guys think a list of anti-Semites would be appropriate for this page? QuantumDude^{I am beyond your understanding} 17:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if you want a flame-war... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes! name 'n shame the anti-semites.-Fat Aardvark (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not worth. Too long, too contestable. Just put 'em in the category and link to the category. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How would that solve the potential for flame-wars? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Spelling

As has been pointed out in one edit summary on another page, I should explain why "anti-semitism" with a hyphen is not a correct spelling. First of all, the obvious thing: My spellcheck says so. This will of course not convince everybody, as it shouldn't.

Now. Why is "anti-Zionism" a correct spelling and "anti-Semitism" not? Because Zionism is an ideology and *Semitism isn't. In fact *Semitism is not even an actual word. Hence "Antisemitism", a word that only exists as such in this entirety should always be spelled as one word. Thanks for your kind attention. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

Also, Nobody. Fucking. Cares. (other than you) MaillardFillmore (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"Quoting people does not prove your point" -- Mark Twain

"Don't believe all quotes of people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln

And as to the issue, if nobody cared, thaen there would not be any problem in changing it to the spelling I outlined, right? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"Engaging any marklar who marklars a stupid marklar such as "thaen" is not worth a marklar full of rancid marklar." --MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What if you start out with the word "anti-semite" and just add the suffix -ism behind it? And I'm pretty sure the "anti" in antisemitism, hyphen or no hyphen, shouldn't be capitalized. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:16, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

If we say that ideologies are proper nouns, thaen Antisemitism should be considered a proper noun, as it is an ideology, just like Fascism or Islamophobia. And I don't quite follow your logic, would you kindly rephrase it in a way that even people whose linguistic competence has been doubted by Maillard Fillmore [sic!] can understand it? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, ideologies aren't consistently capitalized—e.g. libertarianism, feminism, logical positivism etc.—only religions are. Calling antisemitism an "ideology" is also rather shaky to begin with. And to rephrase my initial point: what if "anti-semite" (a person opposed to (in this case a specific subset of) Semites) came first etymologically and the term "anti-semitism" was derived from it? Would adding the suffix -ism really require the removal of the hyphen in that case? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:29, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

(edit conflict)If I recall correctly, the term as well as the ideology<>In its modern form that is</> (and yes it is an ideology, i.e. a specific set of ideas and principles, in this case the dislike of Jews and everything Jewish<>Real or imagined. Sometimes Atheists are attacked for their "Jewishness"</> as well as the Jewish state of Israel) originate in Germany. Now if you know a thing or two about the German language, you know that all nouns are spelled with a capital letter and almost all composite words are spelled "together" without a hyphen. Thus we get "Antisemitismus" as the word from which "Antisemitism" ultimately derives. "Semite" on the other hand derives from the biblical character of Sem or Shem (one of Noah's sons IIRC) as opposed to his brother Ham. In some older interpretations, black people were attacked as the sons of Ham whereas Arabs Jews and (interestingly enough) white people were considered "better" as they were the "sons of Shem". This of course was either unknown to or ignored by the first Antisemites Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of how Germans spell nouns and construct compounds (though Antisemitismus isn't one since anti- and -ismus are just affixes) and I'm also aware that the English language has different conventions regarding these matters, so these German conventions aren't particularly relevant. Also, "dislike of X" really doesn't sound like a proper ideology. Which is still rather irrelevant since non-religious ideologies aren't consistently capitalized anyway. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Yes, Avenger, that is quite an interesting and informative text you have yourself there. I however, must object. Merriam Webster free dictionary dictionary.reference.com Oxford Learnersdictionary.com<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently there are other issues involved in how one spells said term that I was unaware. See a section of the corresponding WP article for reference Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Mhmm...WP:Dunning-Kruger effect <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What I was unaware of is the fact that the hyphen has been made out by some as to indicate ones ideological stance on said issue. I (and I guess y'all as well) was unaware of that. Had you read the linked section, you'da known that. Wou'da thunk? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The Joke

Your head

<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Why was section on Muslim antisemitism removed?

Surely Islam should answer to the same standards as Christianity. ^{— Unsigned, by: 79.182.136.135 / talk / contribs}

Because it needs proper citation. Rational Wiki has for the most part overcome its propaganda-style "listen-and-believe" phase, to say it in the words of batshit feminists. Just saying something doesn't cut it, there needs to be evidence presented.79.206.221.34 (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Most likely as a part of Mona's weird feud against me or out of the desire to whitewash Islamic antisemitism.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 12:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole section Arisboch wrote is going to be removed, unless and until he sources it. I began with the tendentious parts, but will continue unless and until he can manage to source his fact claims. He stated last summer that he doesn't "do sources." Unfortunately for him, this site does.---Mona- (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know and don't care what your personal nemesis does or doesn't, you apparently deal in unabashed antisemitism apologia (as long as these antisemites come from the Middle East, are Muslims or both) and also in victim blaming (of course the robbed and deported Jews from the Muslim countries were nasty evil Zionists, what else?!).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 17:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Arisboch, many Muslims (certainly not all) are antisemitic for the same reason so many Zionists are deeply Islamophobic. The two bigotries have been harnessed in the I-P war. Contemporary Muslim antisemitism is of a different kind, driven by different reasons, that that which propelled Christian Europe or the Nazis.---Mona- (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, bigots often change their pretexts, that's nothing new.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 17:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

And then sometimes victims become victimizers, rekindling and modifying a hatred.---Mona- (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That's why Islamists pirate a lot of their stuff from Western antisemites, right?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 18:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

And why many Zionists support the Islamophobia factories of such luminaries as Pam Geller, Daniel Pipes and others.---Mona- (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Almost all the Jews of Muslim countries fled following the Zionist ethnic cleansing[7] of Palestinians during the violent (including Zionist terrorism) founding of Israel in 1948, in some cases their countries feared they were "enemies within." On the other hand, many left voluntary because they were Zionists, and there was also extreme poverty in their Arab country of origin.[8] The only remaining community of any size is that of Turkey[9] and Iran[10]. Antisemitism is now quite widespread in the Muslim world, driven in large part by anger over Israel's treatment of Palestinians.[11] You're kidding, right? I thought this was an article on antisemitism, not slandering Zionism and Israel. This is an insulting rant and an apologia for the expulsion of the Jews of Muslim nations and Muslim antisemitism in general. Ironic that an article on antisemitism has now been edited to contain antisemitism. Why not just state the facts of Muslim antisemitism - just like with Christian antisemitism - and leave the rants out.

I see the antisemitic paragraph is still there. So much for this site being dedicated to rationality.^{— Unsigned, by: 79.179.242.19 / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!--JorisEnter (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend someone cites scholarship on the subject ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The "3D" test

I removed that. The so-called test for distinguishing antisemitism from anti-Zionism is not even sourced, and I reject much of it. Among other things, states, at international law, have no "right" to exist. (Imagine the former Soviet Union -- it can't go to the Hague and demand it's "rights" have been violated.) See, e.g., this excerpt from Ali Abunimah's book, The battle for Justice in Palestine."

Having some sort of "test" for antisemitism is ok, but it has to be based on something credible sources can agree on.---Mona- (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait, could this be a source? There are plenty of sources, I'm adding it back in with some of them. CorruptUser (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I wrote: "but it has to be based on something credible sources can agree on," You didn't meet that. And giving a string of google results isn't doing sufficient research for an article. Anything and everything shows up on google. ---Mona- (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

From the lady who cites 972mag and electronicintifada. You have no grounds to stand here. CorruptUser (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The test proposed here is a version of an abandoned working definition adopted by the EU and loved by militant Zionists. As I say, it has been abandoned. Please address the question of how it is that a state has a "right" to exist. then we can move on from there. A definition of antisemtism that includes much of Arisboch's version isn't going to stand here -- the majority does not view that as antisemtism. (EI and 972 are fact-based, reliable sources.)---Mona- (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If we are going down this route, you might as well ask whether individuals have the right to exist. CorruptUser (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Again I ask you: where in international law does a state have a "right" to exist? Please address the question actually asked.---Mona- (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Waiting

For anyone to show that nation-states have a "right" to exist in international law. To reply to the intelligent arguments set forth in Ali Abunimah's book excerpt I linked above. To show that to focus on apartheid South Africa, was a veritable "double standard." A current definition of antisemtism is serious business, and requires appropriate discussion, documentation, and reasoning.---Mona- (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

People have a right to peaceful assembly and free association, which means they have a right to self-organize and found nations, which means such proclaimed nations have a right to 'exist' to some extent. But this is all seemingly irrelevant since the paragraph in question only focused on the use of the Khazar myth to delegitimize people's Jewish identity. It actually made no positive absolute claim whether or not Israel has/should have a 'right to exist'. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:57, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

This is first about the definition of "antisemntism." But, to include the criteria Arisboch wants, means accepting that there exists a "right" for a nation to exist. Please demonstrate where that "right" is codified.---Mona- (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So do the Palestinians have the right to exist? I think they do. I think the Israelis do too. CorruptUser (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Simple. Here and here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:30, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

I'm still waiting for any citation about a nation-state having a "right" to exist.---Mona- (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Here. CorruptUser (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Bzzt, I'm not reading your research for you. YOU cite, and quote, where in international law it provides a nation-state has a "right" to exist.---Mona- (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's called a peace treaty. Everyone signing it agrees the other has a right to exist. Israel is recognized as existing by the vast majority of the world, even though you wish it wasn't. Virtually no one recognizes Kurdistan, therefore it doesn't exist. Such as life, and international politics. CorruptUser (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So you tell me, Mona, how would you tell the difference between someone criticizing Israel because they dislike Israel's policies, and because they want to ethnically cleanse or commit genocide against the Jews? The 3D test is fairly straightforward. Do you have a better one? CorruptUser (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I do have a better definition, but first I want to resolve this issue of a nation-state purportedly having a "right" to exist. Demonstrate that with credible sources, and I will back down.---Mona- (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Vote

3D Test to Include Double Standards

"Double Standards. While focusing on Israel is hardly proof of antisemitism (a person volunteering in an animal shelter doesn't hate people at homeless shelters, usually), outright denial of the extent of ethnic cleansing Jews faced from the Islamic world post '48 while focusing on the Palestinians is very much a double standard (and so is focusing on the fleeing Jews while ignoring the Palestinians)."

While focusing on South Africa is hardly proof of anti-white bias (a person volunteering in an animal shelter doesn't hate people at homeless shelters, usually), focusing on the blacks of South Africa is double standard.---Mona- (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(Or something along those lines)

1. Aye CorruptUser (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

   As how worded?---Mona- (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

2. This "3D" test is apparently a thing. We should criticize it, but we should at least let its proponents speak for themselves. By the test itself, I am cheerfully an anti-Semite. I don't accept the "legitimacy" of any Jewish claims to territory in Palestine, which seem to me to have been quite stale in 1948. If they wanted to stay there they should not have provoked a superior civilization in the first century. And I do hold Israel to a higher standing than any Arab regimes, and find it wanting. This flows from the fact that my government heavily subsidizes Israel, and defends its aggressive behavior against sanctions. To me, this involves getting mixed up in Old World tribal conflicts that are none of our business. I am not convinced of what benefits we here in the USA get from our too close relationship with Israel. I would happily support a reverse Law of Return to encourage Israeli Jews to remove themselves from harm's way in Palestine and relocate to the United States. This would be a curious position if I hated Jews as Jews; when in fact I am simply weary of the wars of Israel, and view the place as a failed social experiment in need of an exit strategy. But by the test, I am an anti-Semite; and by the test, being an anti-Semite isn't necessarily a bad thing. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 14:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

   As long as we don't pretend to edit the test, but document it as-is. Maybe the test even belongs under a header called "pseudo-antisemitic test" or something. The point being, don't manipulate what it is. It's an established thing (see below). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

   Rev, that's all fine. See my new section below. I don't object to including the test verbatim, provided it is not presented as "the" test and the material I offer below is incorproated into a discussion of this definition in the article. Indeed, given the hot topic status of this definition both in Europe and the U.S., such a discussion likely should have been here anyway.---Mona- (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This "double standards" criterion, if included, needs to also address the "special" treatment the U.S., and the West, has given Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians. Please read: We Single Israel Out Because We in the West Are Shamefully Complicit in Its Crimes, then we can address the actual "double standards."---Mona- (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You're free to include a version of the 3D test for antifilastinism on the wiki. Something like "Demonization: Claiming all Palestinians are complicit in supporting terrorists. Delegitimization: Denying Palestinians' identity or their rights as refugees, e.g. "Most current Palestinian 'refugees' were born in camps, they're not real refugees!" Double Standards: While focusing on Israel's claimed right to exist is not necessarily antifilastinic in intent, when combined with the outright denial of Palestinians' right to self-determination it is a clear example of antifilastinic double standards." Maybe it suddenly doesn't sound so crazy anymore, eh? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:45, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Could be, but at this article right now, I offer that article and also a definition of "double standards" that reflect those facts. Your response to those facts vis-a-vis the definition here at issue??---Mona- (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm, uh, not entirely sure what you're asking here? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Let's say, arguendo, I'm wed to this "3D" test. How does it stack up in light of this article I already cited? ---Mona- (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe there's a double standard in regards to media coverage of Israel (and maybe that double standard is even pretty justified). But anti-Israelism isn't the same thing as antisemitism. As the former phrasing literally said: "focusing on Israel is hardly proof of antisemitism". So I'm not seeing any trouble there. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

' "focusing on Israel is hardly proof of antisemitism". So I'm not seeing any trouble there.' The trouble is it takes that away in the definition so that virtually all BDS and pro-Palestinian activism becomes, per the definition, antisemtic. Please see my section below, where I begin a discussion of the volatile debates over this definition going on all over the Western world. As time permits, I can write and document more on what is so pernicious in this definition.---Mona- (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

3D Test to Exclude Double Standards

"Double Standards. This is generally an exercise in whataboutery." Can't vote, it depends on wording, which isn't given.---Mona- (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Umm, no, no it's not. _{Everything with you is whataboutery. This whole thing is whataboutery.} Double standards doesn't mean "focusing on Israel", but "holding Israel to a different set of standards entirely". The example given is pretty obvious; dismissal or denial of the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab lands while focusing on the plight of the Palestinians. Denial of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians while focusing on that of the Jews is also double standards. CorruptUser (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"dismissal or denial of the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab lands" To whatever extent that happened -- and it is controverted among reasonable people -- it is irrelevant to the plight of Palestinians vis-a-vis Zionists. It is rank whataboutery. And, has nothing to do with anything about Palestinians themselves, or to do with the West which helps Israel oppress them. This definition is about stopping BDS and world pressure on Israel to treat the Palestinians like human beings. I and most refuse to have a change of conversation about those topics. End of. ---Mona- (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This is getting silly

It's clear to me that we should include the 3D Test of Antisemitism - in full, and in original, as devised by Natan Sharansky. We can't just invent our own, it's not ours, it's made by him and has an accomplished structure we need to adhere to.

However, adding a section under it that may criticize the structure of the 3D Test is also something I think we need, e.g. considering Sharansky's questionable ethics towards palestinians (among many possible factors). But the fact remains, we're not free to just remove or add steps to the 3D Test of Antisemitism. It is an established construct, good or bad, ethical or unethical. We need to report on it, not change it. And no matter which criticisms we come up with, from little to openly damning the 3D Test, we still need to start in the direction of just reporting it as it exists, as intended by Sharansky, and by adapting and including responses to and uses of the 3D Test that are documented and notable, and which serve in regards to anti-semitism.

• Yes, the test deserves to have a section of the article.
• No, we're not free to retool the test.
• Yes, we should include documented uses and positive feedback of the test as it pertains to anti-semitism.
• Yes, we should include a section where we criticize the test as it pertains to anti-semitism.

This article cannot snowball into being about anything else than literal anti-semitism. We have the {{main}} template for when we want to say more to the reader to give a larger picture, but the stuff is not literally exactly on anti-semitism. Use it. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This test is opposed by Jewish Voice for Peace

The proposed definition here is Zionist propaganda, first adopted as a working definition by an EU study group, and then repealed in the wake of great criticism. This definition continues to be supported by pro-Israel forces who have caused it to be adopted by the State Dept. (How it ended up with Natan Shcharansky, I don't know, but it isn't original with him)

There are extremely serious First Amendment issue at stake here; this pernicious definition is a tool in the hands of those trying to shut down BDS on college campuses. That link goes to First Amendment expert, Glenn Greenwald's scathing critique of this definition when Zionists were trying to get it pushed on the UC system:

The specific UC controversy is two-fold: whether, in combating “anti-semitism,” the university should adopt the State Department’s controversial 2010 definition of that term, and separately, whether students who express ideas that fall within that definition should be formally punished up to and including permanent expulsion. What makes the State Department definition so controversial — particularly for an academic setting — is that alongside uncontroversial and obvious examples of classic bigotry (e.g., expressing hateful or derogatory sentiments toward Jews generally), that definition includes a discussion of what it calls “Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel.”

The ironies of this definition are overwhelming. First, it warns against advocating a “double standard for Israel” — at exactly the same time that it promulgates a standard that applies only to Israel. Would the State Department ever formally condemn what it regards as excessive or one-sided criticism of any other government, such as Russia or Iran? Why isn’t the State Department also accusing people of bigotry who create “double standards” for Iran by obsessing over the anti-gay behavior of Iran while ignoring the same or worse abuses in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Uganda? The State Department is purporting to regulate the discourse surrounding just one country — Israel — while at the same time condemning “double standards.”

Worse, this State Department definition explicitly equates certain forms of criticism of Israel or activism against Israeli government policies with “anti-Semitism.” In other words, the State Department embraces the twisted premise that a defining attribute of “Jews” everywhere is the actions of the Israeli government, which is itself a longstanding anti-Semitic trope.

Hence, Jewish Voice for Peace succeeded in preventing adoption of this definition in the UC system after launching a petition that stated:

As students, faculty, alumni and community members of the University of California, we urge UCOP and the UC Regents to stand for academic freedom and to reject the “State Department definition" of anti-Semitism. The “State Department definition” of anti-Semitism is a dangerous and un-enforceable definition that includes clauses about “demonizing,” “delegitimizing,” and “applying a double-standard to the state of Israel,” prohibitions that are so vague that they could be, and have been, construed to silence any criticism of Israeli policies. As members of the UC community, we believe that incidents of racism and anti-Semitism mar the reputation of the University of California system. We are committed to fighting all forms of bigotry wherever we encounter them. But this proposed definition does not protect students, and in fact endangers the capacity of students and faculty to be critical thinkers and speakers.

This is a politicized definition, through and through. It cannot and should not be cited as the definition. At best, it could be cited as a definition, with extensive discussion of all that is wrong with it.

This site should not adopt as THE definition of antisemitism a deeply controversial one that has been the source of vigorous and angry debate from Europe to California. ---Mona- (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law

He opposes the proposed test:

Along with principles of intolerance, activists on UC campuses are urging the Board of Regents to adopt the State Department definition of anti-Semitism, which includes trying to "demonize Israel," "delegitimize Israel" or applying a "double-standard to Israel." But who is fit to judge when criticism of Israel's policies and actions veers into demonization? If a student states that Palestinians should have a right of return, is she seeking to delegitimize Israel or just airing a controversial opinion? What if she says the country's founding was a mistake?

And I'd ask: If a student states that Palestinians should have a right of return, is she an antisemite? What if she says the country's founding was a mistake -- does that make her an antisemite? Should either statement be considered antisemitism? ---Mona- (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

To be clear

I don't like the 3D Test of Antisemitism one bit. All I'm saying is that we're not free to add or take away "D"'s and so on. We document it as it exists, because it pertains to the topic of anti-semitism, and then we analyze it critically. So, don't conflate this into me thinking that those three D's are some kind of intelligent "test". I never said that, nor do I think it is. I was merely reacting to editors here who were screwing with the established "3D Test" by making it read "2D" and so on. We don't critique it by making it into something it's not. It's the 3D Test of Antisemitism. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at Rev. I agree the test itself should be left verbatim, not changed to what it is not. But that definition is fraught with controversy -- not to mention with legal implications in nations that criminalize hate speech -- so it's more than justified to examine how the definition of antisemtism is critically important and why the pro-Israel sector pushes that particular definition.---Mona- (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wowzers

Using the antisemitism article as a rather extensive anti-Israel hit-piece. Congrats, you sank to a new low.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 12:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Naah. It was inevitable since Israeli apologists sought to co-opt the idea of antisemitism and redefine it in ways that have nothing to do with Jewishness per se. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

More like recognizing the use of dog-whistles.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 18:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly SoT. Their preferred definition of "antisemtism" has been deployed by the Israel Lobby as a weapon. It's a politically driven definition that has resulted in, among other things, criminalizing BDS activism in France -- where "hate speech" is illegal. A similar push is going on in Canada.

Further, the Israel Lobby has for so long promiscuously hurled that accusation of "antisemtism" at people who criticize the policies of a country -- Israel -- and its supporters, that the term has lost a lot of power to shame or sting. Greenwald put it well:

But smearing those with policy disagreements as anti-Semites has become a leading tactic in these precincts. And the prime purveyors are those who have anointed themselves as the guardians and arbiters of the term, and have thus done more to dilute and trivialize it than any actual anti-Semites could ever dream of achieving. It’s the classic Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome: if you scream “anti-Semite” in order to prohibit perfectly valid ideas from being expressed, then nobody will listen or care when you scream it in order to highlight its genuine manifestations.

Yes, and this is dangerous. I've been accused-- yes, me! -- by actually antisemitic anti-Zionists of abusing the term when I denounce their vile statements as what they are: antisemitic. People like me retain some moral authority to make the accusation and have it hold some power. But the potency of the charge is declining from misuse and abuse by Zionists.---Mona- (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You are antisemitic, and should be called out for it.^{— Unsigned, by: 79.179.0.66 / talk / contribs}

States and their right to exist

So... we're pretty big on enlightenment era bullshit here. I'd like to suggest that there are philosophical arguments for the right of states to exist: notably Hobbesian(for the good of the people, whatever they may think) and neo-democratic(at the will of the people), ignoring terrible ones like divine right. Simply dismissing the "right" of a state to exist outright misses the opportunity to highlight how Israel isn't necessarily earning that right. 2 cents stuff there. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well ikanread, for one thing, rights are not "earned." Not those that are inherent in human beings. Moreover, I am not "dismissing" that states have a right to exist; I'm stating the fact that there is no such right at international law. I also linked to an excerpt from a book that examines the questions that would have to be answered to coherently maintain that it should.---Mona- (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Rights inherent in human beings? Any kinda rights are a human invention. A very good one, BTW.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 18:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I contest your assertion that rights are not earned. Certainly inviolable human rights are deserved just through sentience, but complex aggregate rights can be a systemic construction. Property rights are an obvious example, you earn your property, not gain it implicitly through life. There indeed isn't a right under international law, but there is the related concept of "sovereignty" that dictates that other governments can't (they do though) meddle in the purely internal affairs of other nations.

Gross simplification does us no favors. (e.c. yeah, rights are derived) ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

ikanred, yes, "rights" have different" contexts and meanings, as you properly note. Property rights accrue, they don't inhere. But I submit -- and tho it isn't the crux of the problem -- those promoting the the 3D test mean the inherent kind of right. You say: "There indeed isn't a right [for a state to exist] under international law." And that's my point. The 3D definition includes a non-existent "right." Those arguing that it ought to have to address the incoherence such a right would entail.---Mona- (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, and I'd say it's a good idea to contest that in the context of people who have seriously argued for a state's right to exist, rather than through those who simply assert there is none. If I'm going to argue against a fetus' right to life(at least with precedence over the freedom of the mother), I'm going to start with the philosophical arguments that suggest that all people deserve a right to life, and how that's derived, and how, it turn, differs for a fetus. Just my two cents though. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You keep ignoring a fact: I do not merely "assert" there exists no tight for a state to exist. There. Is. None. The burden is on those arguing that this non-existent thing exists, or that it ought to. And they must do so by answering, among other things, the problems with such an asserted right for states as detailed in the article I have repeatedly linked.---Mona- (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Does the state "United States of America" Have a right to exist? Pizzameister (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We certainly have not proceeded as if we believe in such a thing:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

...

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved....

---Mona- (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for slapping people with a red herring, Mona.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 19:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

People may or may not have inherent rights; but the right to form a government and rule a territory seems a stretch in any case. As to whether any government is 'legitimate' or not, I'd say that's something akin to having the Mandate of Heaven. A government is legitimate if it is acceptable to, and enjoys the reasonable support of, the people it governs; which is somewhat broader than the Declaration of Independence's 'consent of the governed'. If your world accepts that a watery tart lobbing swords at people makes a ruler legitimate, consent is irrelevant. The United States government is legitimate by most measures, but its claim to the mandate of heaven may be slipping after several generations of neoliberal attacks on its institutions. It isn't a binary thing, IOW. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

SoT, that's all cogent thinking, but nevertheless, for those who do use rights talk, they should have to show where this right is codified and upheld at law. In this case, international law.---Mona- (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So rights don't exist unless it's codified and upheld in international law? When the US rebelled (against Britain and itself) there was no right codified in international law against slavery or the right to self rule. There was no real international law either. So far the justification seems to be might makes right. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Emerald, your histroy of rights language and law is essentially true. However, in our era, the people of the world have subscribed to an evolving body of international law. Perhaps there should be a nation's "right to exist." But there is not now, and if there is to be, the burden is on those arguing for it. And they have to address some serious problems with the concept, such as those raised here. Certainly, to make a definition of antisemitism hinge on this non-existent, not defended, alleged right is a very far reach, which in itself merits a defense.---Mona- (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Do states have rights? Well, no, they are a concept...a thing. They are on the other hand ideological representations of groups of people with a mostly common purpose which self govern (in an ideal world) and can hopefully can function self sufficiently. Saying an individual person has inalienable rights but a group of people doesn't seems odd. Rights can differ, like right to life for a person is different in comparison to a right to life for a country, but rights can't be without doubt for a unit where it's certainly not for the group of those units. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

"Saying an individual person has inalienable rights but a group of people doesn't seems odd." Ah, but I did not make that claim. The UN has recognized "people's rights" such as these. And these collective rights are generally held as against nation-states. But there has been no recognized right for a "state to exist," and there are myriad problematic issues if such a "right" were to be recognized.---Mona- (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to quote SG Collins: "When we speak of rights, we're really expressing feelings about what we, and each other, "deserve". In essence we're interpreting our moralities, telling each other what we think is right. But it's wishful thinking. The observable truth is that people don't get what they deserve. They get what they get. Because we're trying to get along, and may even feel an affinity for each other, we often grant each other benefits that we may or may not have the power to ensure. As moral creatures, we may even become righteously angry over insults to the rights of people we'll never meet, in lands we'll never visit. When we give thought to the fate of others in the world, we may wish rights for our fellows that they do not in fact enjoy. We begin to conceive of human rights that transcend those of polities. We put forth ideas about what rights everyone everywhere should have. But none of these assertions has any palpable substance, beyond our agreement to observe them. I can show you a sheet of paper saying I have a right to something, and you can light a match to the paper. There is simply no such thing as a freestanding right we have, apart from our mutual will to grant it to each other. It's that intricate web of mutual will that keeps us afloat — not the paper. All we really have is each other, and the possibility of good will. Once we realize that, we can begin to act like grownups."

This is a pretty good approximation of my view on the whole subject. It's important to distinguish my personal morality from what I actually think should happen, as they're 2 different things. I can say we should all just be happy and love each other, but that's not gonna happen. Not here, and not in Israel/Palestine. Which is why my actual view on the subject must borrow the concept of national rights to bolster my argument. A nation is built by its people, united in a common cause. A common language can unify us, ethnicity might bolster us, and religion may temper us into a single mold not easily broken. This is the case with Israel, and it can be the case for Palestine. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing issue

Arisboch/Kugel just added a huge "History" section. The problem is, it is replete with fact claims that are: 1. Unsourced, or, 2. in he least few paragraphs, simply refer to the reader to "see" various WP entries. That's not really proper. Specific claims should not generally, through-out an article, simply refer to another wiki. Arisboch has always refused to "do sourcing," but if that is how he wishes to operate, then he shouldn't be drafting significant amounts of text.

Some if not most of this material is, as far as I know, accurate and relevant. I'm not arguing it's all necessarily something that needs to go. Just that it really does need sourcing, as well as proper sourcing.---Mona- (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't write resp author it, I re-inserted it after you or PB (too lazy to look at the page history) deleted it. You give me credit for things I didn't do, again (but now, strangely, for something positive instead for the deeds of some morons vandalizing the RW).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 02:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right, a BoN edited it in, Pb3 reverted for lack of sourcing, and u reverted Pb3. Sorry for the misstatement. SoT: yeah, as I say, this all seems familiar and echoes my general understanding. It's just very poor form not to source any of it, and/or to rely so extensively on WP.---Mona- (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I never understood the prejudice against linking to Wikipedia. It's usually the easy way to provide context for subjects that will never be missional here. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of the section seems reasonably accurate to me and free of obvious fanaticisms. I had not heard of the blood libel existing before the Middle Ages, though. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK the Christian blood libel has it's precursors among similar nasty shit thrown around by the Ancient Greek (Joseph wrote in Against Apion about it).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 02:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A notice to this page's antisemitic editors

You are welcome to continue to post your appalling and racist whitewash of Muslim and Arab antisemitism. I will continue to erase it, as any decent person would do. That is all.^{— Unsigned, by: 79.179.0.66 / talk / contribs}