Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 12)

Sheesh, Simonides has had the article censored again

Well, here's the censored material:

Straw-man anti-Semitism

Some hold that one of the new forms of anti-Semitism is the claim that Zionists view all criticisms of Israel or of Zionism as anti-Semitic. Supporters of Israel are then branded as being excessively sensitive, or dishonest, or as attempting to stifle reasonable criticism and debate. In this view, Zionist groups (presumably mainly Jewish) are crying wolf. According to many Jewish groups, this argument is anti-Semitic.

This section was not removed; you're lying again. -- Simonides 02:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonidea, please try to avoid ad hominems. This isn't personal with me, I'm just trying to have the article approximate reality. Jayjg 04:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm, I wonder what is more of an ad hominem, stating you are lying when you are, or creating a section with your name in the title, devoted to maligning something you did, or being called a censor, or on your perceived anti-Semitism etc etc whenever you make a regulatory edit to an article. What I do is speak my mind, and if I have a low opinion of someone's actions, that gets included; what I don't do is confer with my pals on someone or create sections with headers like "Sheesh, X is being a Y again!" and then ask for the personal to be kept out. -- Simonides 06:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, stating that you have censored the article is simply a fact. I'm sure you feel you have very good reasons for doing so, but that's not really the point. As for your usual ad hominems, I don't have an "pals" on Wikipedia to confer with; I've only been on Wikipedia for a short period of time, and I don't know anyone here. Please try to keep on track here, you should be trying to improve the article, not just fight with contributors. Thx. Jayjg 15:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above was not just in reference to you, but others who have slandered me on this page as well. However, stating that you are lying is simply a fact too. Why call it an ad hominem and take it personally? -- Simonides 16:40, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, your belief that I have lied, as sincerely held as it may be, does not jibe with the actual facts; the fact that you have already retracted some of your "lying" claims only emphasizes that. In contrast, we both agree that you have persistently removed material from the main article, so there is no question about the fact that you have censored the text. However, as I have said earlier, I am moving on from the word "censor", because I understand that it is contentious for you. Regarding your persistent use of the word "lying" and other synonyms, these are emotion laden words intended to evoke an emotional response; as I have made clear in many of my responses, that kind of interaction holds no interest for me, as my intent is simply to improve the current anti-Semitism article. I always remain hopeful that you will be able to do the same. Jayjg 17:12, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What claims have been retracted? I added one above, I didn't retract any. It doesn't bother me that you may find the word lying "emotion laden" - you have lied, and not only above - but I think it's funny you can say that with a straight face because while this is a Talk page, and emotions don't matter much here, your contributions to the article are practically nothing but emotion laden; paying attention to that will help you towards a better article. -- Simonides 18:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding retractions, as a simple example you made claims about removing nothing, and then said, in effect, "oh, you moved it, I didn't see that". As for the rest, I see no content worthy of a response. I'll move on to the next section of the debate. Jayjg 18:10, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is not a retraction of any lies I attributed to you; it is only a retraction of what I said based on a fortunate (for you) coincidence. -- Simonides 20:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To be candid, I haven't kept track of all the different things you've accused me of lying about or falsifying; the accusations were flying so thick and fast at one point that it was impossible to keep them all straight. Jayjg 21:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism

In his article Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12191), Irwin Cotler, the new Minister of Justice for Canada, defines thirteen indices of discrimination against Jews that characterizes the "new anti-Jewishness". Cotler states:

In a word, classical or traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, or denial of, the right of Jews to live as equal members of a free society; the new anti-Semitism-incompletely, or incorrectly, [referred to] as "anti-Zionism"... -involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is intrinsic to each form of anti-Semitism-and common to both-is discrimination. All that has happened is that it has moved from discrimination against Jews as individuals-a classical anti-Semitism for which there are indices of measurement (e.g., discrimination against Jews in education, housing, or employment)-to discrimination against Jews as people-a new anti-Semitism - for which one has yet to develop indices of measurement.

This was previously in the article, I didn't realise I removed it. Looking at the edits now I see you moved it from its original position. -- Simonides 02:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe you'll be a little less quick with the revert finger in the future, and spend more time reading what is actually there. Jayjg 04:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and one can similarly hope you will look at the discussion and explain yourself before screeching about reverts. -- Simonides 06:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. "Screeching". I will suggest that that is difficult to do in type, and leave it at that. Jayjg 15:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has recently spoken on this subject as well, stating "We oppose anti-Semitism in any way and form, including anti-Zionism that has become of late a manifestation of anti-Semitism." http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=449338

I didn't notice this either, but - so what? The Catholic Church bans works of art yearly, speaks out against abortion and contraception (and is followed and admired for it), was against the Iraq War (and was ignored for it), believes only Catholics will find salvation, and did little about sexual abuse among its clergy - I could go on. It is a religious body among others without recognizable legislative, political or economic power - what more validity does an opinion from the Church have than one from a sectarian Buddhist temple, and why should it be in the article? -- Simonides 02:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, the point here is the widespread nature of this viewpoint; seeing as the Catholic Church has approximately 1 billion members, it is a viewpoint with relevance to at least 1/6th of the world's population, and I suspect many more. Jayjg 04:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, Muslim bodies already or soon will account for an even larger portion of the world's population, so why not quote an Islamic POV on the matter? But I don't want to play your silly diversionary tactics that keep ignoring the point (made above, repeated): the Catholic church has a variety of opinions on a variety of subjects and claiming that their official views also represent the views of each of its followers, or even the majority of followers, at all times and for each issue, without any basis for this claim, is unreliable to say the least - particularly when such opinions have been openly disregarded, and do not have any legislative etc power. To repeat myself repeating myself, one might as well quote any body, and quoting alone does not account for or explain a view. -- Simonides 06:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you the person claiming that the Catholic Church's official views represent the views of each of its followers? You must be, as no-one else here has done so. As I said before, the Catholic Church's statements are representative of a widely held view of anti-Zionism, and are relevant to billions of people. Thus quoting the Church's position on this issue would have far more relevance to the article than, for example, quoting Simonides' viewpoint. Jayjg 15:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's see, first you claim the point here is the widespread nature of this viewpoint; seeing as the Catholic Church has approximately 1 billion members, it is a viewpoint with relevance to at least 1/6th of the world's population - so if you're not saying the views of the Catholic church represents at least a substantial portion of the "1 billion members", just what are you saying? Next: the Catholic Church's statements are representative of a widely held view of anti-Zionism, and are relevant to billions of people Is it billions or 1 billion? There are only about 6 billion to go around, so make up your mind and try respecting fact. You say the views are "representative"; you deny they are representative of each of its members, though you quote wild numbers, and then you don't point out whom they are representative of. And according to whom is it a widely held view? What's your proof? Another quote? And if their views are "widely accepted" and "relevant" on the basis on population quotients, how about the equal or larger number of Muslim views, which I asked of earlier? All of this being, of course, beside the point because as I wrote before 1) quotes don't amount to explaining or accounting for a POV; 2) the Church is one of the worst examples you could pick because their pronouncements are usually unscientific, frequently controversial, and often disregarded according to expedience. -- Simonides 16:40, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the difference between a view that is relevant to 1 billion people and one that is held by 1 billion people should be clear, but I can bring dictionary definitions of the terms if you like. As for the members of the Catholic Church, it seems reasonable to believe that the views of the members of the Church would often concur with those of its leaders; otherwise, they could simply join a faith whose views were more in accord with their own. Regarding the use of billions, the Church has approximately 1 billion members, but as the largest and arguably oldest church in the world, the views of its leadership are relevant to a far larger group than just its members; I was guessing that 2 billion people might at least take note of what the Church says, but you're free to dispute that. Re: "try respecting fact", sigh again. I'm hoping for less pugnacious and more productive discourse. Regarding the widely held view, the quotes come from a number of leaders in both Jewish and non-Jewish communities, indicating their widely held nature. Re: Muslims, if you have a number of their leaders speaking on the topic of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, I'd be quite interested in seeing what they have to say as well. Re: quotes, I've already mentioned my intention of working on that, though I seem to have spent most of my time so far today attempting to reason with you. Re: the Church, thanks for sharing your view of it. Jayjg 17:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But you did not say simply say "relevant to" - you quoted a large number, and then added "representative of a widely held view." The views can only be both "relevant to" 1 billion and "widely representative" if the views represent a substantial number of them, isn't that so? And what proof do you have that 1/3 of the world sits up and takes notice when the Church passes a comment, especially when the comment does not even have anything to do with Christianity? 2 billion is a lot of people. It includes infants, the desperately poor, the illiterate, ie people either without much access to communications or without much use for them. Again, as proof, you rely on quotes. "They come from leaders, so they must be widely held." What basis in reality does that comment have? And which leaders - which sects, with what degree of conservatism, etc? Do you even stop to consider what you're saying before typing a string of hot air remarks you can't even back up? -- Simonides 18:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you insist on conflating two different points in order to make a third point which I have not made. The statements of Catholic leaders are relevant to 1 billion people, and the view that some anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is widely held. Those statements are both true. Regarding the 2 billion number, it seems un-controversial to me, but as I said before you're free to dispute the figure; I see it as just another diversion from the real issues. As for the rest (what does widely held mean, who are the leaders, etc.) I'm not really going to head down that semantic rabbit-hole; instead I'll be working on quoting or referring to a number of Jewish and non-Jewish leaders who have made that claim. Finally, regarding your continuing use of highly emotive and tendentious language, I maintain my belief that you can do better. Jayjg 18:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How and why are they relevant? I have mentioned several instances where their "relevant" statements are blithely dismissed; yet you tenuously claim the quoted statements, not even related to Christianity, are somehow relevant to an unimaginably large and diverse group of people, and representative of a comparable number. Of course 1 billion or even 2 billion seems like an uncontroversial number when a hold on reality is slipping. And when you cannot qualify your statements. I mean, you can make just any sort of claim and pretend you don't want to get into semantics when you can't offer anything more than wild guesses and estimates - so why should any of it be tolerated? -- Simonides 20:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The quotations and their relevance will become apparent once I have a chance to work on the section, which you have succeeded in keeping me from doing today. Other than that, I can't really find any content worth responding to above. Jayjg 21:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They are prima facie irrelevant; you can do your best to work them in but I cannot foresee any cogent grounds on which you'll be able to include them, seeing that you haven't even backed up any of the claims you made. -- Simonides 23:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Natan Sharansky has suggested that anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism can be distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel if it fails the "3D" test, as follows:

The first D is the test of demonization. Whether it came in the theological form of a collective accusation of deicide or in the literary depiction of Shakespeare's Shylock, Jews were demonized for centuries as the embodiment of evil. Therefore, today we must be wary of whether the Jewish state is being demonized by having its actions blown out of all sensible proportion. For example, the comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of the Palestinian refugee camps to Auschwitz -- comparisons heard practically every day within the "enlightened" quarters of Europe -- can only be considered anti-Semitic. Those who draw such analogies either do not know anything about Nazi Germany or, more plausibly, are deliberately trying to paint modern-day Israel as the embodiment of evil.

The second D is the test of double standards. For thousands of years a clear sign of anti-Semitism was treating Jews differently than other peoples, from the discriminatory laws many nations enacted against them to the tendency to judge their behavior by a different yardstick. Similarly, today we must ask whether criticism of Israel is being applied selectively. In other words, do similar policies by other governments engender the same criticism, or is there a double standard at work? It is anti-Semitism, for instance, when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while tried and true abusers like China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria are ignored. Likewise, it is anti-Semitism when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross.

The third D is the test of deligitimation. In the past, anti-Semites tried to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish religion, the Jewish people, or both. Today, they are trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state, presenting it, among other things, as the last vestige of colonialism. While criticism of an Israeli policy may not be anti-Semitic, the denial of Israel's right to exist is always anti-Semitic. If other peoples have a right to live securely in their homelands, then the Jewish people have a right to live securely in their homeland.

Simonides, I do hope we can find a NPOV solution for this, and that you accept that your view of what is anti-Semitism is not the only view. Jayjg 23:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, you don't even know what my views on anti-Semitism are, and I have barely discussed them. What I am against is the inclusion of irrelevant, illogical, poorly worded, excessively POV or nonsensical material in an encyclopedia, so stop trying to distort the issue to suit your personal ends like your fellow conspiracy theorists. -- Simonides 02:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, from what I can see you have consistently attempted over a period of weeks (and perhaps months) to keep any statements linking anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism out of the article, without (as far as I can tell) suggesting any wording of this concept which would be acceptable to you. More importantly, after you censor the view, your talk discussions on it tend to debate the merits of the viewpoint itself (indicating that in your view it is completely wrong), rather than the merits of including this commonly held position in the article. That suggests to the objective reader that you strongly disagree with this viewpoint. As well, statements like "stop trying to distort the issue to suit your personal ends" and "your fellow conspiracy theorists" are highly ad-hominem, and I'm not interested in focussing on personalities or personal agendas here; please do your best to refrain from this kind of verbiage, it just bogs down the discussion. Jayjg 04:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contrary to your and RK's lies, the only consistent attempt I have made has been at keeping propaganda out of the article, which is what the general direction of the edits I have corrected amount to. Secondly, I am not bogging down the discussion any more than people who slander me, or attribute my edits to "political views" (effectively slandering) or claim to see a history of personal motivation at work without any objective understanding of this history. If I bring up personal agendas it is because they are fairly transparent here and account for the attacks made on me. -- Simonides 06:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, you are quite persistent in your use of the terms "lies", "fabrications", etc. I don't find them helpful in these kinds of debates; they are usually highly POV, particularly as people get heated. As for personal agendas, it doesn't seem consistent for you to attribute them to other posters while simultaneously complaining that they are being attributed to you. In any event, I am again appealing to you to just get back to the article and avoid all the personal stuff. Jayjg 15:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lies and fabrications are actually a generous explanation, because they don't necessarily assume ulterior motives. If it is really about the article for you, why continue to ignore what I have said about the article, namely your logical inconsistences, your factual inaccuracies, and your way of filling up articles with excess quotes and redundant material that is a far from desirable approach to writing encyclopaedia entries? -- Simonides 16:40, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is hard to reason with someone who claims that accusations of "lies" and "fabrications" are "actually a generous explanation", and that they "don't necessarily assume ulterior motives"; I'm not sure I can find common ground with someone whose understanding of words and concepts differs so greatly from conventional understandings. Regarding your beliefs about "logical inconsistencies" and "factual inaccuracies", they have already been refuted, and you have failed (and often not even attempted) to overturn their refutations. Regarding "excess quotes" and "redundant material", aside from these claims being highly POV, I have already stated on numerous occasions that I will attempt to work on the article contents; however, as I have also stated earlier, I find I am getting caught up in spending most of my time defending myself against your personal attacks. Perhaps some people relish "slugging it out" in Talk: debates, but my purpose here is not to get bogged down in this kind of pettiness, as I find it quite tiresome. I'm not sure if it is your intent to divert me from improving the content of the article by constantly attacking me personally, but that has surely been the outcome so far. Jayjg 17:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do tell us where you have refuted a single objection of mine to your flatulent quotations! I'm sorry you find this so tiresome, because your fantastic comments have just begun to tickle me. But since it's all invective and you've refuted everything so clearly why continue to strain yourself - it's not like you're missing the forest for the trees, eh? -- Simonides 20:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Flatulent". LOL! Very inventive. You're right, I'm not going to "strain" myself with you any more. On to more productive endeavours, but congratulations on diverting me from that goal for at least one day. Jayjg 21:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)