Talk:Chomsky and alleged anti-semitism

For older talk see Talk:Chomsky and anti-semitism

---

In his view, the neo-Nazi denial that the Holocaust took place was not anti-Semitic.

This is following the argument too far. That one particular (in Chomsky's view) incidentally anti-Semitic person denied that the Holocaust took place, without any direct anti-Semitic statements is not saying that any neo-Nazi denial of the Holocaust is not anit-Semitic. In general, I think the last update (which I in part reverted) was unnecessarily angry and emontional. Can we PLEASE try to stay NPOV here? --GayCom

No, the changes were not angry; they merely revealed facts which make you uncomfortable. Chomsky was very clear about this: In his view, Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic. In fact, a number of radical leftists and anarchists (which are not the same as liberals!) now have this view. (A view, that I believe is greatly mistaken.) The problem is that you don't understand Chomsky's viewpoint on this one issue. It seems that to me that you want to have it both ways: You imply that this view is an attack because anyone who has such a view is anti-Semitic; however you also want to defend Chomsky from the claims that he holds anti-Semitic views. Which is it? If you really think that such a position is anti-Semitic, then by your definition Chomsky is an anti-Semite. If you do not think such a position is anti-Semitic, that would be a different story. But you can't say that this position is anti-Semitic, but Chomsky alone is allowed to have it without people being worried! RK

Wow, this was an angry reply if I ever read one. What I was saying was that there is a difference between general denial of the Holocaust, and neo nazi denial. Neo nazi denial is often full of anti-semittic statements (excluding, for the sake of the argument, the pure denial) and implications. These are positions Chomsky certainly agrees are anti-semittic. However, the denial in itself would not be. What he is basically saying is that you don't have to be neo nazi in order to question the holocaust. By labeling any such denial "neo nazi" (as it appears you did, I might of course be mistaken as to the context), you effectively short circuit the argument, in that neo nazism _is_ anti-semmitic. What I personally think doesn't matter, since it's not my point of view that's supposed to go into this article - it's the neutral point of view. And in the neutral point of view, you can't label holocaust denial anti-semittic as a fact, only as an opinion (even if it is the majority opinion). --GayCom

I checked the Holocaust Denial page before writing this, just in case. Could GayCom, or someone else, please tell me what a "general denial" of the Holocaust, that is not anti-Semetic, would be? Mind you, I do not take "denial" to mean a questioning of the specific number (5,000,000; 5,999,999; 6,000,001; 7,000,000 -- for present purposes I do not see how it matters), nor do I take it to mean a questioning of the specific "causes" and mechanics (although various explanations may of course be anti-Semetic, the inquirey itself of course is not). I take "denial" to mean "it did not happen; I refuse to believe it happened" and, by implication, "people who think it happened either have been fooled or have their own political agenda." Okay, a "Holocause denier" may not be a Nazi, may not be a neo-Nazi, may even claim to hate Nazis for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, it is truly hard for me to conceive of circumstances under which such a denial is not a form of anti-Semitism.

I believe there is an underlying issue of what is "racism," and how do we recognize it. By analogy, I think there is room for some debate over the situation or history of oppressed peoples -- I think one has a right to suggest that there is no longer any widespread and formal discrimination against Blacks seeking jobs, without necessarily being a racist (as long as they are open to listening to alternative views since they may be wrong). But I think anyone who "denies" that slavery of Africans and their descendants in the New World "happened" is racist, pure and simple.

This is not a matter of "fact" versus "opinion," by the way -- a distinction that I believe is valid when discussing empirical observations. It is a fact that some people deny that the Holocaust happened. Whether they are anti-semites is neither a matter of fact nor opinion, it is a matter of interpretation.

If you dispute my interptetation, PLEASE tell me how you interpret it and why. Thanks, Slrubenstein

Okay, it's as simple as this: If I write a carefully researched book where I make the point that the Holocaust didn't take place, I might be insane and unscientific, but I an not necessarily racist or anti-Semittic.

why not?

I am only racist or anti-Semittic if I imply that the Holocaust was a hoax cooked up by Zionists to further this or that end - or some equally horrendous insinuation.

why? I do not understand the underlying criteria here. Why is "zionist hoax" a necessary condition for anti-Semitism? Or, what do you mean by "horrendous insinuation?" Why isn't the very denial of the Holocaust, in and of itself, a "horendous insinuation?" Certainoy, that is how most Jews I know (well, really, every Jew I know) understands it.

I understand that not everyone agrees with me here - but that disagreement is a VIEWPOINT, not a FACT. And so, one can't say that Chomsky is an anti-Semmite, only that a lot of people regard him as one - because they regard any holocaust-denial to be anti-semmitism. See? --GayCom

Sorry, I still do not see. Yes, you are repeating your original point more clearly, but I do not see how you are answering my query; although I understand what your position is, I still do not see the reason for it. Slrubenstein

Hi! (I find your quoting confusing, could we just indent and sum up?) I haven't read the book Chomsky was commenting on, but my assumption is that it is well written, not prone to attacks on jews (leaving the holocaust denial out, again, for the sake of the argument), well researched and documented. It is certainly wrong, but what Chomsky defends is the right of anyone reach unpopular conclusions in scientific research. He is obviously very absolutist about this, just as you are obviously very absolutist about the claim that any Holocaust denial is the same as anti-Semmitism. Those are two different viewpoints, and should be presented as such.

My problem with the initial "neo nazi holocaust denial" was by using the term in that manner, it labled all holocaust denial to be nazi/anti-semmite _prior_ to the argument or viewpoint presentation - that is, stating it as fact.

Frankly, I agree with Camembert in that this whole article is pointless. -- GayCom

Like you I do not have that much of an interest in the page -- I try to judge the work, not the author (consequently, some of Chomsky's work I think is great, some isn't; I haven't read the book either -- I believe as you suggest that NC does not deny the Holocaust, but only supports the right for people to hold such views. I too agree that people have a write to free speech and to publish such claims, although unlike you I still consider them inherantly anti-Semitic).

In any event, the title of the article has the word "alleged" in it and it is clear that "some people claim NC is anti-Semitic." As you say, it may be a fact that some people think this, and wikipedia can report and analyze this fact, but it is not wikipedia's place to pass judgement. So frankly I am not sure what your criticism of the article is -- it seems consistent with your own standards.

In any event, I really do not think that it matters whether you or I find little interest in this page; this certainly is not grounds for deletion. All encyclopdia's claim to be compendia of all knowledge, when in fact time and space concerns force them to make judgements about what is worth inclusion. The great thing about wikipedia is that this article could be 100 pages long and it still will not impinge on any other article; a few people could devote years to working on it and it will not take time away from everyone else who is working on other articles. Moreover, the article is not frivolous -- the issue of self-hating Jews, zionism, racism, the Holocaust, are controversial issues that often come up in public discourse. I see a real value for encyclopedia articles that review the controversies. Although you and I disagree over what anti-Semitism is, we both agree that wikipedia must be neutral and report accurately on different sides of a debate, making clear that there are differing views. I suppose this particular article is far from complete, but at least it makes it clear that the charge of NC's anti-Semitism is partisan. This is why I do not fully understand your objection. I do think the article should present the other argument, although as I have not read the books in question I am not qualified to do it. Hopefully someone will add to this article. Slrubenstein

Hi again! Perhaps I haven't explained my objections clearly. When I started this talk page it was to explay why I disapproved of the phrase "In his view, the neo-Nazi denial that the Holocaust took place was not anti-Semitic." because the wording "nei-Nazi denial" pre-judged the entire argument. Only later (and separately, to begin with) did I point out that I agreed with Camenbert that this page serves no purpose in itself - I am on no mission to have it deleted. And I certainly don't think my lack of interest in it would ever warrant deletion, I simply agreed with Camenberts argument that the information was probably better situated in the Chomsky article itself, ideally in a somewhat condensed form.

Anyone here feel like moving it? -- GayCom

I think i understand what he means: a person who denies holocaust would not necessarily be anti-semetic, he may instead be ignorant (stupid). Anti-semetism generally implies having negative feelings about jews, which is not necessarily a prerequisite for denying the holocaust, although the two often go together. Mir 05:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't understand what this article is here for. Of course, Chomsky has been called an anti-Semite, and he has denied it, and this is something worth mentioning in Noam Chomsky, but why we need an entire page just about his alleged anti-Semitism is beyond me. What kind of an encyclopaedia has articles about whether person X was or was not racist, anti-Semitic, whatever? It's not what encyclopaedias are for, it's what biographies and political magazines are for (or if you want to argue about it, it's what politics newsgroups are for). How is an article with this title ever going to be anything other than an argument between Chomskyites and anti-Chomskys? --Camembert

This page started as "Chomsky and anti-semitism". As far as I can tell, it's part of the general pro-Israeli tendency (on Wikipedia) to list up rather irrelevant facts that support their staindpoints. This is just a very visible example. IMO, we can just delete this article. -- GayCom

I can not say that I know a lot about this, but IMO it does seems like Chomsky and alleged anti-semitism belong in the Noam Chomsky article. pty 12:04 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)

---

So are there pages on "Woody Allen's alleged anti-semitism" or "Walt Disney's alledged secret communism"? In other words, how many other individuals are singled out for this "X's alleged Y" treatment? I see nothing here which cannot be put in the main Chomsky article - and if there should be an article on spurious and valid allegations of anti-semitism, why tie it to a particular individual?

Anyone who is so motivated ought to write an article on the issue of anti-Semitism in the works of Woody Allen -- he is a prominent cultural figure and Jews and Judaism figures prominently in his work. I suppose after some time a consensus may emerge that the article does nothing to deepen our awareness of the politics of Allen's work, and it will be deleted. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Chomsky, similarly, is an important public intellectual; given that he wrote the forward (sorry, maybe it was the preface?) to a book on the Holocaust, and has criticized Israeli policy, I think a balanced article on this topic is appropriate (as I have said, if this article lacks alternative views, it is for those well-versed in those views to include them). By the way, the issue of Disney's views towards communism and labor are interesting and given Disney's extensive cultural influence, I think such an article is a GREAT idea. Alas, I am once again unqualified to write it, but to anyone out there willing, I promise I will read it with interest. My understanding is that Disney was originally very pro-labor, until contract difficulties iduring the depression soured him. I actually think there are some very subversive (anti-capitalist) politics in Mary Poppins. On the other hand, Ariel Dorfman and a couple of other people wrote a great book called How to Read Donald Duck, which analyzed Disney cartoons for their racist and colonialist (and pro-capitalist/anti-socialist) politics. So yes, an article exploring this woulod be great! Slrubenstein

---

Problem remains: Pro-Israeli people on wiki keep adding stuff, the neutral camp discusses this but doesn't do anything about it. Consequence: Wiki remains rabidly pro-Israeli. -- J.

Well, neutrals are just that. Neutrals. And pro-Palestinians simply aren't on the net in the same strength as pro-Israelis (neither, in general, are they as fluent in English). The problems of NPOV arising from this is one of the few things that really make me depressed about Wikipedia. --GayCom

It ain't quite like that, Jennifer - it's rather worse. Whenever a piece is edited to remove any portion of pro-Israel bias, the pro-Israelis change it back or delete it (viz my minor edit in the Sabra and Chatila massacre piece and yours in the same article.

So long as this continues, there will be bias in Wiki, and the Powers That Be need to find a solution to it. I suspect that any such solution would go against the fundamental principles of Wiki (it would involve, I suspect, assigning a neutral editor to sign-off changes, and deleting and re-writing all of the Middle East articles under that editor's control).

Perhaps it's not possible to write an unbiased encyclopaedia in the face of actively propagandist pressure groups?

---

One thing we should probably be careful of is dividing the issue into two camps: pro-Israel and neutral. It seems to me that is what Jennifer unwittingly did. That in itself is not NPOV. Danny

No, there are three camps - Pro-Israel, Pro-Arab and Neutral. Of the three, only the first is represented here.

I do not think this is a useful view. Among what is left of any peace movement in Israel/Palestine right now are people -- Arabs and Jews -- who are both "pro-Israel" and "pro-Arab" (in that they accept or actively seek a two-state solution, although they may also be critical, even highly critical, of the Israeli and PA leadership). Moreover, "neutral" has two very different meanings. In terms of the current conflict in the Middle East, "neutral" would refer not only to someone who is non-partisan, but to someone who is indifferent. In the case of an encyclopedia article, "neutrality" is not achieved through indifference, but rather through an active acknowledgment of the avrious sides, and a framework that accomodates all sides. In other words, when it comes to Wikipedia, "neutral" is not and should not be a third camp, opposed to the other two. Whether people are pro-Israel, pro-Arab, or pro-both, while participating in this project they should invite and accomodate other views, and present their own views in a way that invites and accommodates other views. This does not make them neutral, but it ensures that the resulting article will be.

To Jennifer, I will only say this: I have seen a lot of articles where people went back and forth deleting and editing. I myself have been involved in a few, which actually reached a pretty high level of bullying (I leave it to others to judge on whose part). Nevertheless, in all cases I can recall, the end result was a more balanced article. I am sure that you and others can made additions and changes to this article that, in the end, will leave no one perfectly satisfied but no one more disatisfied than anyone else -- some compromise in which the article will likely include things to which you object, but which will nevertheless include the main points and facts you feel are currently missing. Slrubenstein

---

The point is: the pro-Israeli people are more assertive. They have their opinion and they express it and if they don't link content, they change it. The other camps are content to complain a bit in the talk sections. I have seen discussions like this many times over. But it needn't be this way. The thing is to take the same approach as the pro-Israelis and not give in to bullying. Only if pro-Israelis realize that their deletion and editing will be meet by an equally assertive response will they accept compromise.

I know. I just don't have the energy to do it. Iraelis and Jews, Palestinians and Arabs simply care more about this than I do. Which is frustrating, because I care enough to get really depressed by the situation here. My only way around this has been to add the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute link to some pages. I simply don't believe that there will ever be strong enough a pro-Arab / pro-Palestine camp here to solve the problem in the manner you suggest. -- GayCom

I am actually not convinced about your description. The few cases where even one person argued against there have been significant effects. The belief in one's weakness is a self fulfilling prophecy. In particuar, there are lots of people who are moderately pro-Israeli who still want balanced content. My guess is that is the silent majority here. -J.:::I know, and I'm not proud of it. But up until now, I haven't seen anyone really go for it, except for a couple of lame attempts I made early on (prompty reverted). I have generally figured that it was better to spend effort on more constructive parts of Wikipedia. Also, I simply don't have the amount of factual knowledge needed to fight back many of the claims being made. But your presence and effort gives me hope, so I'll start working on it again. -- GayCom.

---

Now I moved everything from Chomsky and alleged anti-semitism to Noam Chomsky. But must be integrated with the main Noam Chomsky article. pty 13:14 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)

I'm quite unhappy with integrating this article into Noam Chomsky. The reason it got seperated was because there was such a large dispute going on that this subject was overwhelming the rest of the article and the talk page. Isolating it into its own article allows for us to address the subject in a thorough, NPOV way without overwhelming the article on Noam Chomsky. djk

I'm happy the article has been intergrated. We can't seperate it just so the pro-Israeli elements here can slander his name. Do we have George W. Bush and Neo-Imperialism or Ariel Sharon And Alleged Murder of and Racism to Arabs ? Hauser

• Please note the *date that comments are made -- in the article(or talk) history. In this case the last entry was around a year ago -- a fairly settled issue. --豎&#30505sv 23:31 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

It is beyond me why there should be a need for an entire section on the Chomsky page to allegations of him having anti-semitic views. Anti-semitism is a higly charged word, and gives associations to pogroms, exterminations, genocide, or racism. If Chomsky could be shown to hold views giving those associations, then it would be perhaps be justified to use the term. But to suggest that Chomsky has some inherent bias against Jews is preposterous. He is himself a jew, and in all the books I read of Chomsky, not once did I come across anything that could be vaguely considered anti-semitic by the normal definition. There are people on the right who vulgarly use the word for anything critizising their particular policy preferences, and Chomsky is indeed a vehement critic of Israeli (foreign) policy. Actually, Chomsky regularly makes clear his sympathy for the Israeli jews by stressing that Israeli policy is a threat to the survival of the Israeli themselves, as well as to that of many other peoples in the region. Leftists could stoop down to the same low level by claiming that current Israeli policy is anti-semitic because it threatens the survival of all. All such uses of the word anti-semitism should be avoided, or we might as well everywhere use equally lowly and more familiar vulgar expressions in the wikipedia, like fuck, asshole, etc. It is very unhelpful to the reader who wants to understand. Let us instead explain, if relevant, what the facts are. The facts reduce to this:

- Chomsky is critic of elements of Israeli policy - The criticism gave him enemies - The enemies (named) used the following variety of vulgar words against him (anti-semite, self-hating jew, asshole, etc.)

The first is a relevant fact, at least if we explain what elements he opposes, the second and certainly the third is material for the tabloid, but not for an encyclopedia.

My proposal: scrap the section entirely, and make sure that in the main paragraph his views on Israeli policy are clear, the let the reader himself decide what names to call him, if he feels the urge.

Jens