Talk:Anti-Semitism (archive 11)

Started to flesh out Modern anti-Semitism

I've started to flesh out some of the issues that impinge on modern anti-Semitism, particularly the whole question of anti-Zionism vs. anti-Semitism. I've also cleaned up some NPOV stuff. Jayjg 18:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why is there a need for "Anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism" when there already is a section titled "Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism"? Not only is it redundant but the title is inherently POV, as was the 3D test quoted from some Natan character, which only repeat the POV cliches on anti-Semitism parading as anti-Zionism. -- Simonides 20:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism section is a stub which points to the actual sections in question. As for inherently POV, the article spends a great deal of time trying to define what it is and isn't, which is one of the points of the article. Many people feel that modern anti-Zionism is often a manifestation of anti-Semitism; others see describing anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism as a way of stifling criticism of Israel. These POV need to be discussed and explored in the article; this, arguably is the most controversial issue regarding anti-Semitism today. As for that "Natan" character, he is extremely famous man, the most famous Russian Prisoner of Conscience, currently an Israeli legislator. More importantly, he provides a framework for distinguishing between anti-Zionism that is not anti-Semitic, and anti-Semitism that is. It's not particularly reasonable to try to censor views of anti-Semitism that don't jibe with your own paradigm; rather, for NPOV purposes, they need to be explained and examined. As for links to and discussions about Islamophobia, they belong in an article about Islamophobia; it is a profound misunderstanding of NPOV to think that discussions of anti-Semitism need to be "balanced" by discussions of Islamophobia, or even implications that "well, it's not as bad the Muslims have it."

Now, are there wording changes you prefer, or structural changes you think appropriate? Or are there better sources to discuss this issue? Here's the place to work it out. Jayjg 21:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Did you read the points I made below? The issue is already being discussed: you're making circles around it. It doesn't matter how "famous" Natan is - none of the points he makes are legitimate, and the "framework" is a canard, as I said above - just a rewording of the same cliches. Next, if it has been moved to Talk it has not necessarily been "censored" - if you can argue that it belongs in the article, or that the content needs to be retained while balanced out by valid objections, which I am fine with, then it will return to the article after the wording is agreed on. Also, you fail to understand why the report on Islamophobia has been included - its inclusion suggests there may a rise in xenophobia in general, and that it may have nothing to do with Jews per se. So it is not an attempt to equate kinds of racism, but that racism itself may be the phenomenon on the rise, rather than specific racisms. And last, but not least, when an issue has already been taken to Talk (as the timestamps will show), and you make reverts after a note has been posted, it is rather impudent to suggest the edit be "taken to Talk" - particularly since you have not begun engaging in the discussion. -- Simonides 21:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't read the points before I wrote that, but I responded to your later points anyway. The issue is being discussed here. I understand that you disagree with Sharansky's points, but that's not particularly relevant. Sharansky spells out a widely held view which strongly links anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism; the fact that you disagree with him is neither here nor there. If you feel a need to balance this view of anti-Semitism with views that disagree, I think that would be a great idea, and I encourage you to find those other points of view. However, please remember that saying "Some people believe this, but they're completely wrong because of these facts" is not NPOV either; you need to present both positions as the proponents do, and not present the position you agree with as factual, and the other as idiotic. I've already had to NPOV a couple of other sections in here which did that. Regarding the Islamophobia link, if that was the point you intended to make, then that's what the article should have said; if you examine the article as it was, it said something quite different. As for the previous debates, through multiple edits they have gotten rather confused, and you seem to have battered your opponents into submission, not out of agreement with your position, but simply out of sheer exhaustion. I'm clearing the air here, and pulling this article back to what it is intended to be; an exploration of anti-Semitism, and not just what Simonides agrees is anti-Semitism. Finally, saying that you haven't censored something because you moved it to the Talk: page (which, by the way, you did not do, at least not my additions), well, that's mere sophistry. You censored it from the article; whether or not it can be found somewhere else is irrelevant. Jayjg 23:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure whether it's worth the time replying to straw-man arguments and reversals of truth. I don't just disagree with Sharansky's thoughts (they are false and cliche), but they do not have a place in the article because one can simply counterpoint them with contrary quotations and even uncollected diary notes made by prominent persons. Like many editors before you, you do not see the difference between an Op-Ed piece in a paper and an article in an encyclopaedia. The former contains all the opinion you can ask for. The second doesn't simply provide opinions, it selects and accounts for widely differing perspectives where they exist, and offers established facts. Secondly, I am the one encouraging you to find other points of view - you are intent on providing or defending only one, and it has been removed until we can agree on how to word it better. I have not yet suggested a wording, and to pass off my criticism of the article as a possible wording is dumb and/or disingenuous (I won't decide). Next, show me where this article has discounted other opinions as "idiotic". I really doubt you can. Also, anyone who reads the article will see Islamophobia is mentioned only to ask the reader to make a comparison - we don't decide for them. It doesn't have to say exactly what I said - that is my conclusion and it is more neutral to leave the reader to decide. Finally, let me add something about "censorship": no edit is ever lost here. Crying "censorship" is just a way of grabbing attention and the more you do it, the fewer people will pay attention. -- Simonides 02:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: the ad hominem stuff ("Like many editors before you, you do not see the difference between...") I've told you before I'm not biting, I'm here to work on the article. Re: your encouragement of me to find other points of view, I know there is one point of view, you seem to believe there is another. I'm not sure what that view is, and who espouses it, but it's hardly reasonable to keep deleting a common point of view we both know exists on the grounds that I have failed to research a POV that you appear to be highly knowledgeable in, and which I am not aware exists aside from your own personal POV. Re: Discounting other opinions as "idiotic", of course not in so many words. But when a section presents a claim, and then follows it up with "This claim ignores both the fact that..." rather than my own NPOV wording of "Critics of this claim argue that...", one can easily see that the author of the first wording was attempting to present the "refuted" claim as idiotic for ignoring plain facts. Similarly, when a section says "A number of polemical book-length treatments about a possible, recent rise in anti-Semitism have been published of late. However, none of these books can claim to be objective and reviewers have noted factual distortion and rhetoric masking political agendas,", (my emphasis), the POV is also quite obvious, that the authors and their supporters are idiots. Re: Islamophobia, again the point is quite simple, this is an article about anti-Semitism, not Islamophobia, and the inclusion did not make the point you claim it was intended to. Finally, regarding "cencorship", again, your argument is mere sophistry. That a person searching through Wikipedia history may or may not be able to find all sorts of things is irrelevant; the fact remains that you have consistently censored this information in the article itself, so that the vast majority of Wikipedia readers will neither know about it, nor have any inkling of its existence; moreover, your comments regarding your censorship make it clear that you refuse to include it because you don't agree with it even though it is a widely held position. Jayjg 04:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I have written below, quoting is not the same thing as stating or even accounting for a point of view; I am not deleting the POV, as you claim, but quotes which do not even amount to a POV except as a hyperbolic claim or an endorsement of one side of the issue. Re: idiotic, that is fairly subjective and what you cited doesn't look like proof; but it's not important here, and your edits were not challenged. As for the inclusion of Islamophobia, the article is as clear as it needs to be: it says Islamophobia is also on the rise and virulent manifestations of both racisms come from fringe elements, and asks the reader to draw his or her conclusion; in fact, when there WAS explicit wording making the claim I made, it was removed by RK, your colleague in misrepresentation and disingenuousness. As for censorship, what I said on the matter (repeated below) stands. -- Simonides 06:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: quoting, as I have said, I will be working on that, hopefully today. Re: deleting the POV, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Re: idiotic, yes, you did not challenge the edits, and yes, it is fairly subjective. Re: Islamophobia, it may well be on the rise, and I know that some have the POV that it is restricted to "fringe" elements; I say this in the full awareness of the events in Paris on Fridayy, when a gang of 6 African/Arab youth assaulted and robbed a young mother with her 13 month old child on a train, chopped off her hair, and drew swastikas on her stomach in full view of other train passengers, on the mistaken belief that she was a Jew. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/12/1089484300320.html?oneclick=true Nevertheless, I still insist that the claims and discussion of Islamophobia belong in an article on Islamophobia, or if you want to create an article which discusses the rise of xenophobia in Europe in general, then you can put both articles in there. Re: "your colleague in misrepresentation and disingenuousness", another sigh. Moving on, regarding the term censorship, since it is so contentious I will drop the use of the term, but I point out that it is, in fact, "disingenuous" to suggest that because text always remains in Wikipedia history, it is therefore comparable to text which is in the main article. Jayjg 16:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

More anecdotalism; further minimizing of error; sheer incapacity to understand a simple point - why do I bother? The person who added the EUMC report claimed there was a "rise in anti-Semitism" without any qualification. You cannot simply claim "trends" - there have to be studies, background, etc; if there is an upward 'trend' in some entity X is not necessarily because there is more of X, it may be because there is more of Y or Z or Q which influences both X and other things, and in that regard it is fully relevant to quote any data which will qualify the trend, particularly when the 'trend' is contradicted by other data. Hopefully that is simple enough. It has nothing to do with whether Islamophobia does or does belong in a separate article, it has to do with its relevance to the context and data, and it is fully relevant. -- Simonides 17:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, why do you bother continuing with this seemingly endless stream of insult and invective? Clearly it is not to improve the content of the article. As for the Islamophobia study, if you want to prove or disprove an increase in anti-Semitism, then you need to discuss anti-Semitism. Similar or contrasting trends in Islamophobia, or even whether or not the acts are done by (using your highly POV word) "fringe" elements, are not relevant to anti-Semitic trends. Jayjg 17:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You don't understand a very basic point that is part and parcel of statistical claims and any self-respecting study that claims to show a trend: any indication of a trend needs to be qualified as much as possible. You cannot deduce "the number of people named Sylvie has increased over the years, hence the popularity of the name Sylvie has increased". This is rather poor logic and completely worthless as science/ research etc. Has the ratio of people named Sylvie increased in relation to its previous ratios? Has it increased in relation to the total population, or to other names? Is the increase in numbers simply because of an increase in population? And so on. Hence there is not point in claiming "anti-Semitism" is on the increase by trying to drum incidents into people's ears. There needs to be some proof; the proof should show some evidence of objectivity; if it is contradicted by other proofs, the conditions under which it may be true needs to be qualified. The rise in Islamophobia which indicates a rise in xenophobia is the qualification here. So, objectively speaking, the only grounds for removing mention of the rise in Islamophobia would be the removal of mention of the rise in anti-Semitism, because the latter is not a proven fact but contigent on other factors. Secondly, it is very relevant whether the elements are "fringe" or not - saying anti-Semitism was on the rise in 1930s Germany and that it is on the rise in the first decade of the 21st century, including in Germany, are two very different things - in the first case it was mainstream, institutionalised and reflected a daily reality for most Jewish people; in the second case it is not a mainstream, institutionalised, daily reality, and may reflect an anomaly that may pass, and that makes a world of difference. These are very simple and self-evident points. The reason I have debated this for so long does not reflect on me as much as on your abilities to grasp something elementary. -- Simonides 20:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To be specific: 1) "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" This is rubbish - the comparisons may be exaggerated but it hardly means they are promoted by anti-Semitism; what the author is doing is countering one exaggeration with another. And what the are "the "enlightened" quarters", if not straw men and polemical nonsense? 2) "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." - who says they are ignored? Another straw man. 3) "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. " - Confused rubbish. That people want to deny Israel legitimacy, a contentious issue, does not disqualify the fact Israel is a vestige of colonialism. Where is the proof that denial of Israel's right to exist is always anti-Semitic? Hyperbole. And how is it "their homeland"? It is the homeland of the Arabs as much as that of Jews, and anyone else who has lived there long enough. Deleted.

Regarding your examples 1) the comparisons are so outlandish as to indeed reflect something unusual, either a profound ignorance (and that seems unlikely), or something else. 2) the record of the U.N. is quite clear on this; if you look for resolutions condemning these abuses you will find none, vs. many many resolutions on Israel. 3) Israel is as much a "vestige of colonialism" as every other state in the world, and in particular the many Arab states surrounding Israel, and all the African, South, and North American states, none of which are have movements suggesting they be done away with. And if a state is a homeland for two peoples, that doesn't mean it is not a homeland for one people.

More importantly, this article present the widely held POV that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are inextricably linked. Of course, it is a POV; but it is not the POV of the article, but rather the article presents the POV of those who hold this position. If you strongly disagree with this position, then the NPOV response is to present the counter-arguments, not delete the POV. It is impossible to present the one true correct definition of anti-Semitism; all we can do here is present the different commonly held positions on what people think it is.

I haven't really been following the controversy people have been having with you up until now, Simonides, but you're going to have to restrain your revert finger this time till the issues are hashed out. You can't really abuse the NPOV process to ensure that only definitions which fit your own POV are included. Jayjg 21:29, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Uh, "restrain the revert finger"? Would someone please look at the timestamp of my first objection above, then at when the revert by Jayjg was made, and tell me which comes sooner?Foot in mouth complications, Jayjg?

I haven't been involved in your earlier discussions, Simonides. I have inserted new material into the article; in fact, one of the things was an article which discussed something which happened today, so it's hard to see how you believe you can have "objected" to it at some time in the past, unless you have some sort of precognitive powers. Regarding the ad hominem stuff, I'm not biting; this is not personal, let's just work on improving the article, ok? As it was, it was missing perhaps the most important and controversial manifestation of anti-Semitism today, at least according to many people. Jayjg 23:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now, your response. 1) The comparisons are outlandish, but the conclusion made by the author doesn't necessarily follow, as I said. 2) Firstly, the issues of human or civil rights abuses are not ignored in other countries, which is what the author states and which is patently false. To his falsehood you add an outright lie - whether out of ignorance, insularity, bigotry, or something else, I will not guess: that there have been no resolutions on other countries. There are in fact several resolutions passed on many countries every year. Not only that, but some of them have to do with human rights abuses against Israelis. Surprised? Or do you think the UN is "anti-Semitic", like some of our other Wiki contributors? Secondly, he is comparing apples and oranges. If there are many resolutions on Israel it is partly because the issue is between Israel and neighbouring populations - ie human rights abuse outside Israel's well-defined boundaries, effectively making it a continual conflict between more than one state, and not just an abuse within one state. 3) You misunderstood - yet again - the point on the vestige of colonialism. The author is trying to disqualify the fact it is so by stating it as a (IMO valid) cause of the contentious (IMO not necessarily valid) denial of legitimacy, so you effectively disagree with him and are liable to be called "an anti-Semite". If this still doesn't make sense to you let me know. You say "if a state is a homeland for two peoples, that doesn't mean it is not a homeland for one people" - yes, but then you are agreeing with me when I say (in different words above) "if a state is a homeland for one people, that doesn't mean it is not a homeland for two people" - which the author tries to obfuscate. You are doing far more than presenting "commonly held positions" on anti-Semitism - you are presenting views from the positions of one side without exploring the other. If you were genuinely interested in writing in a disengaged article on Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism, then you would see the above quotes critically - you have failed to, and yet you defend them. A genuine desire to write from an NPOV (as far as possible) would not mean quoting gobs of text, but summarising the points made and revealing that they are not always or necessarily true, which you failed to do as well. Finally, just yesterday or day before, I wrote something on the misuse of language here - if you were careful with it, you would realise a section titled "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism" is far, far less POV and more desirable than a section which begins by assuming one of the "commonly held positions" as true, namely "Anti-Zionism as Anti-Semitism." Just a postscript, if I may - someone who is uninterested in previous controversies does not bring them up. -- Simonides 21:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1) If you think the authors conclusions "do not necessarily follow", then you need to follow up with alternative explanations. 2) Again, if you think the author is incorrect, then you need to follow up with some factual information which outlines the number of General Assembly or Security Council resolutions regarding other countries, or compare the treatment in the UN Human Rights Commission of these various countries (the author doesn't make it clear which he is specifically referring to). If you do, I'm sure you'll note the disparity which leads to the conclusion, even if you do not agree with the word "none". 3) Your point is unclear, please elaborate or word differently.

Regarding quoting "gobs of text", if you think the author's points can be made more succinctly, I welcome your efforts in that area as well. If you don't have the time, I'll try to take some time over the next couple of days to do so.

Regarding changing the title of the sub-section, I don't really care which title is used, feel free to change it.

Regarding previous controversies, I am uninterested in them in that I am uninterested in re-hashing them, or even referring to them. I stated that in order to avoid you spending much of your time referring back to them, but was unsuccessful in this regard. Jayjg 23:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1) Actually, I don't. When an established opinion on a subject doesn't exist, we don't add original research - we simply cite the different views. But remember that practice doesn't automatically validate every opinion. 2) The author writes that other countries are "IGNORED". He does not make any subtle distinctions between proportional attention paid to each country, he flat out says other countries are "IGNORED". That's a falsehood and I said as much, and I don't need to research the facts - they are available online with seconds. Look them up. You added the record of the U.N. is quite clear on this; if you look for resolutions condemning these abuses you will find none, vs. many many resolutions on Israel. That is also an utterly ignorant statement and a flat out falsehood. You try to minimize it by it calling it disagreement over wording. Is it me, or is there something patently absurd about saying the difference between "no resolutions ever" and "yearly resolutions" is just a difference of wording? 3) Let me create an analogy. Suppose an author was writing "today they say the Holy Father did not create life on Earth, presenting it, among other things, as the result of evolution. While criticism of Christianity is not unchristian, the denial of the Lord's hand in creating life on Earth is certainly unchristian." Wouldn't it sound to you like the author was trying to deny modern life forms were a result of evolution, and effectively conclude that belief in evolution was proof of a lack of faith? Whether or not modern life forms were initiated by the Holy Father would be an issue with its numerous partisans, but it would still have nothing to do with the fact evolution was, in fact, responsible for life forms in their current state. It is not a very strong analogy, but I hope it explains my point - the author above was trying to deny or minimize the fact Israel was a vestige of colonialism, suggesting instead that it had some kind of natural, innate right to existence.

Re: rewording, I think the quotes are redundant and are 1) either already summarized within the article, or 2) in a whole article on anti-Zionism, linked in the relevant section, which contains all you have been trying to say and more. If you are still intent to include them, you must propose something concise, and we can modify it from there, though I see no reason why we should dwell on Natan rather than Ezra or Sasha; as Danny has pointed out below there is a lot of history that needs attention, rather than excessive quotations which merely repeat content already in the article or on Wikipedia. -- Simonides 02:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding point 1) actually, you kinda do, at least if you want to stay within the Wikipedia paradigm. The different views are pretty much cited, but you seem to want to delete one of the two "sides", because you don't agree with it. Regarding point 2), I welcome you to find the Resolutions regarding Chechnya, for example. Regarding point 3) I vaguely understand your analogy, but don't see how it applies. Stating the author of a viewpoint, and quoting his POV, is not the same as stating a position as an author of the Wikipedia article. Re: re-wording, there are several quotes (or summaries of positions) I will be including, each outlining an important characteristic of this widely held viewpoint; Sharansky's will be one, Cotler's another, the Catholic Church's a third, and probably Harvard President Lawrences Summers as a fourth. I'll try to flesh it out some tomorrow, for eventual inclusion in the article. I'll post it here first so you can react to it before it goes in. Re: Natan, Ezra, and Sasha, I don't know who they are. Regarding a lot of history needing attention, Danny is right about that, but I can't work on all the history that needs to be put into Wikipedia, so I'm going to work a little bit on anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Perhaps you and Danny can do all the rest. Jayjg 03:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1) You either don't understand the Wikipedia paradigm or the case in point or both. The different views have not been cited - you pasted a couple of quotes that say the same thing and have been noted before in the article. It does not oblige one to come up with alternatives. 2) It does not matter how many resolutions there are or aren't on Chechnya - you can keep trying to divert attention from the fact both the author and you were caught peddling falsehoods, but it remains true that the UN does not "ignore" rights abuses in other countries and that it does not single out Israel. 3) It doesn't matter if you understand the analogy or not, at this point; but it has nothing to do with "Stating the author" etc. - I was merely pointing out that the author tries to discredit a known view by portraying it as a defense for a contentious view. When you agree on the known view, you are effectively disagreeing with him and are an anti-Semite by his definition (which you seem to endorse).

Addressing your points in order: 1) Regarding your statements that I don't understand the Wikipedia paradigm etc., it's just more ad hominem stuff, so I'll move on. Regarding the different views, people do indeed have different views on the nature of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, and some of those views were quoted. Again, you keep claiming there are other views I am missing somewhere, and need to include, but I am not ware of these views, and you have provided no evidence for them, so as of now they are simply your own. 2) I find it remarkable that you would state that the evidence regarding the U.N.'s failure to note human rights abuses "does not matter", and yet still insist that others (and I) are "trying to divert attention" and "peddling falsehoods", and that the U.N. is not ignoring the human rights abuses occuring in these conflicts. In effect you are saying "it does not matter that there is evidence for what you are saying, the important point is that it is a lie". 3) I understand the analogy, which you yourself admitted was weak, but as I said earlier it didn't really apply. As for the last part of your statement, it is confused and confusing, and unclear what point you are trying to make. Jayjg 16:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

More patent nonsense. Is it really so hard to figure out that the contrary view of believing anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism? Are you seriously telling me you are not aware of a single instance of the latter? How do you explain the existence of non-Zionist or even anti-Zionist Jews, who exist in large numbers? Are they anti-Semitic? How do you explain the criticism of Zionist principles by fellow Zionists, which also exists? Is that anti-Semitic? Or have you never in your life ever come across such a thing? As for 2) - but you don't have any evidence at all to back up your claims! Because your claims are not about Chechnya being paid scant attention, but about Israel being the only country under criticism and no resolutions ever being passed on other countries. Why should I look at the evidence you produce for proposition Z when you're asked to prove proposition P, and when it has been proven proposition P is false? Is this so hard to follow? 3) I have already stated the point more than once. If you still do not follow it, don't trouble yourself too much. -- Simonides 17:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, I believe this point has been made before, but perhaps you didn't see it or misunderstood it. No-one is making the claim that all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism; yet that is the premise upon which your argument is based. Rather, many people are saying that certain modern-day manifestations of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitism. The sections of the article which you removed then went on to explain which forms of modern anti-Zionism are seen as anti-Semitic (and by implication, which are not). That is the "redundant" verbiage and "excess quotes" that you removed; it is thus no surprise that in the article's current expurgated form, one can make the kind of argument you have made. The claim that "some anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism" in no way contradicts the claim that "some anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism"; thus presenting views to the former is not a counter-balance to the latter. Rather, the counterbalance to the latter would be an argument that even those forms of anti-Zionism which many view as anti-Semitism are not really anti-Semitism either. And indeed, that is how you yourself argued in this talk page earlier; however, I am not familiar with any views (besides yours) that state this. I am not saying they don't exist, just that I'm not aware of them. You, on the other hand, seem sure they exist, so I have many times suggested that you find them and present them as said counter-balance. However, you instead have focussed on insults and accusations, leading us ever further from the goal of actually improving the article. I keep hoping that will change.

The points made by Natan effectively render most criticism that can be classified as anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism. That's pretty obvious and they are all cliches that anyone who has been exposed to right-wing propaganda is familiar with, which is why I had no trouble exposing them, and why my argument still stands. As for the distinction you make, well that is essentially the same as what I am making, with the important qualification I have just stated -ie if you agree to what Natan says then a bulk of valid criticism of Israel can be filed away as anti-Zionism that is anti-Semitic. He makes it black and white. That's why I used somewhat black and white terms too. Secondly, you have to be extremely ignorant or quite bigoted (if like Natan, you automatically consider important criticisms of Israel as anti-Zionist, consequently anti-Semitic) not to know of forms of (alleged) anti-Zionism that are portrayed as anti-Semitism, and yet are not so. The charade goes on almost everyday in newspapers, magazines, web sites and so on. Chomsky (who grew up in a Zionist household) is "anti-Semitic". Finkelstein, Hilberg, Zinn etc are also self-haters or anti-Semitic. Other very vocal people, even with a Jewish background, are the same. If the person does not have a Jewish background then it's inevitably the latter - in fact even when people who have served in the Israeli army criticise Israeli occupation or some Israeli operations, they are smeared as anti-Zionist and/or anti-Semitic. The counterbalance simply exists in stating that your author's views on anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are themselves lopsided. -- Simonides 20:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure which Natan you mean; do you mean Sharansky? If so, regarding Sharansky's viewpoint, I see it as actually excluding many forms of anti-Zionist and/or anti-Israel rhetoric from being anti-Semitic. As for "the bulk of anti-Zionism" being "filed away" as anti-Semitic, I don't know how you measure "bulk" in this case. If you mean millions of shouts of "Israel = Nazis" and similar rhetoric, or various graffiti equating the Star of David with the swastika, and consider that to be "the bulk" of anti-Zionist/anti-Israel rhetoric, then I am completely comfortable with consigning "the bulk" to the anti-Semitic trash-heap. If you're talking about more serious and intelligent criticism of Israel, then the vast majority of it would not qualify as anti-Semitic, at least under Sharansky's classification scheme. Regarding Chomsky, as a linguist he has done a little inventive wordplay, and re-defined "Zionism" to mean the opposite of what it has traditionally meant, and what the vast majority of Zionists believe it to mean; it is only through this NewSpeak that he can claim to have been a Zionist. Finkelstein is another classic example, though there is neither room nor time here to get into his particular pathology. I haven't heard claims that Hilberg was an anti-Semite, if you mean Raoul Hilberg, nor have I seen any of his writings that I personally would classify as such; maybe I just don't get out enough. As for the "smears" of the critics of Israeli operations as being "anti-Semitic", you'd have to provide evidence of that. And, indeed, you need to provide counter-balance to Sharansky as well; as before, I still only see your own opinion being expressed here, and assertions are not the same as counterbalance.

By the way, the tenor of this paragraph was much more condusive to rational discussion; although you used the provocative phrase "you have to be extremely ignorant or quite bigoted" in this post, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and simply understood you to mean "one must be extremely ignorant etc." With that slight emendation, I have to say I've seen a marked improvement in this round! Jayjg 21:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

At first it seems you clearly do not understand Natan's scheme or are trying to mitigate it somehow. But then you prove my point when you start your conventional nonsense about Chomsky and others. You say Finkelstein has a pathology - a typically foolish and base remark, conjuring a perceived illness to discredit sound and researched opinions. And you want evidence of smears, after engaging in them! But I only need to wave at every other source of news and information for the past decade and further back: go to counterpunch.org or zmag.org and do a search for "anti-Semitism" for starters; there is sufficient documentation or commentary on smear campaigns and direct quotes that go back years. There are also numerous books which document the same. I'm sorry I was ambiguous in my last post; you are bigoted. -- Simonides 23:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As for Chechnya, I don't know how much more clearly I can say it; there have been no U.N. Resolutions on the flagrant human rights abuses going on in the Occupied Chechnya; that is really all I need to prove my claim that there have been no resolutions on "other countries" like Chechnya. The fact that there may have been a small number of resolutions on some human rights abuses in no way refutes the fact that there have been no resolutions on many others, many of them far more serious and abusive, nor does it refute the fact that the U.N. disproportionately focuses its human rights attention and efforts on Israel, to a vast degree. Jayjg 18:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Look, it's a bit irritating to read the same stupidity repeated over and over in the hope it will eventually become true. The UN Council on Human Rights website is online, as records of some of their resolutions and the issues they look at every session - why don't you try informing yourself first before you blather on about a subject you don't seem to have much knowledge of; I haven't checked their record on Chechnya, but the UN considers applications for resolutions from every corner of the globe and for both flagrant and not so flagrant violations. It is true that at least a few countries have not received the due inspection, but that is neither what you wrote earlier on nor what the author stated, both of the latter being hyperbole, and you cannot twist the two ends to meet no matter how hard you try. -- Simonides 20:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I spoke to soon. Something is not "stupidity" simply because it disproves your claims. In deference to this sudden degradation in the tone, I'm only going to respond briefly by pointing out that, as I have stated many times already, there have been no U.N. Resolutions on the many human rights violations in Chechnya. That's a point you simply can't talk your way around. Jayjg 21:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You did not disprove anything except any assumption you have logical prowess. Your author claimed that countries other than Israel were ignored - false - and you added that no resolutions ever on any country beside Israel were passed - false - what does it matter if you keep repeating that no resolutions have been passed yet on Chechnya? How does it prove those two remarks if you argue a tangential point that's not even contended, providing evidence for the wrong argument? Do you understand what a logical fallacy is? If so, look at ignoratio elenchi - you may get an education yet. -- Simonides 23:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: rewording, you still do not understand Wikipedia, or what an encyclopedia article is about, etc etc though you keep quoting "policy" - selecting and pasting quotes which all say the same thing is not the same as explaining or accounting for a viewpoint, or being neutral, or presenting both sides of the issue. If you want to participate in the latter, what you need is a summary of one position, and a summary of its detractors, or account for why it is still a controversial claim, and so on; but as I have said, this has already been done ad nauseam before you came along and there is a whole article devoted to it - Anti-Zionism which is linked in the already existing section called "Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism", which already summarizes your view, rendering pile-ons superfluous. Quotes are only produced to emphasize or illustrate a point, not to substitute for the explanation of a POV. I don't understand why you keep misrepresenting the issue (actually I do, but I probably shouldn't go into it) but once again, if there is a biographical article on a famous person which consists exclusively of quotations on how famous he is or even why, removing those quotes would not constitute "censorship", or POV disagreement, or anti-whateverism; it would in fact be keeping with Wiki policy to remove those quotes until a substantial explanatory passage was written, retaining perhaps a single relevant quote for emphasis/ illustration. -- Simonides 06:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

More "you do not understand Wikipedia" stuff. Sigh. Moving on, I will be working on a summary of the positions today, and hope you are able to contribute as well. Regarding the anti-Zionism article, it does not say the same thing as this article, nor should it. The anti-Zionism article is about anti-Zionism; thus when it discusses the issue, it discusses it from the point of view as anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism (not, as in this article, anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism). The former, in its simplest form, talks about anti-Semites who mask their activities by using the word "Zionist" instead of "Jew". The latter, in its simplest form, discusses the claim that anti-Zionism is a new form of anti-Semitism. These are quite different points, and one is not a "summary" of the other; I can explain further if you need. Regarding, your "understanding" of why I keep "misrepresenting the issue", another sigh, and I move on. Finally, regarding the quotes, as I've said several times, I'll try to work on that today; again, I look forward to any positive contribuation you are capable of making. Jayjg 16:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But there is no objective proof that anti-Semitism parades as anti-Zionism; we merely assume it is true in the case of people and countries who may have been indoctrinated with anti-Semitism. However, it is a generalization and there is no way of telling whether individual anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, especially since what constitutes anti-Zionism is itself widely open to debate. Anything past that point is conjecture. The quotes are pure conjecture. Defense of those quotes would be based on conjecture, as you have amply proven. That is why a general summary is best, simply stating that such things probably happen, countered by a caveat which explains why this is an unreliable point of view, much less an objective statement. -- Simonides 17:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When people use the term "Jew" and "Zionist" interchangeably, and make highly inflammatory and anti-Semitic statements about said "Zionists", then the unbiased observer needs no further evidence. It would be a generalization (and indeed a false one) to claim that all anti-Zionism "parades as" anti-Semitism, but it a truism to state that some anti-Zionism is simply a mask for anti-Semitism. There is nothing un-reliable about this. Jayjg 18:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a silly tautology: if someone is making inflammatory and anti-Semitic statements, that person is inflammatory and anti-Semitic. Gee whiz. If you remove the conditions, it is a subjective conclusion and it is easy to think of contexts where Jews and Zionists may be used interchangeably in a non-inflammatory manner, even if it is an erroneous usage and reflects ignorance more than anything else. No argument there. Some anti-Zionism probably is a mask for anti-Semitism but there is no way to provide evidence for this, except, as above, by pointing to self-evident cases which are not in fact "masked" by anything. As I wrote, you have nothing but conjecture to fall back on and yet you have no qualms about calling it unreliable. -- Simonides 20:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What differentiates a "silly tautology" from a "non-silly tautology"? Your zeal for invective has caused you to invent your own tautology, which is rather amusing. As for proof that some anti-Zionism is a mask for anti-Semitism, there is sufficient literature which uses the term "Zionist" instead of "Jew" regarding Jews about whom the author has no inkling of their political beliefs to make this self-evident. Here is a simple example: http://aztlan.net/beware_paypal.htm Jayjg 21:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tautologies, like everything else, come in various forms - they can be subtle, for instance, but yours wasn't. Your inane example only proved my point: there is no evidence on that page of a critique of Zionism which could in turn be imputed to anti-Semitism - the author of that page is a nutjob, the page is no better than a toilet scrawl, and nothing at all is "masked" - is that the best you could do, root your bluster in insignificant ravings? -- Simonides 23:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see that not only have you been long aware of the Anti-Zionism article, you and others have turned it into a minor propaganda fest, and I can only surmise that you want to duplicate your efforts here. How silly I was to assume you did not have an agenda and were genuinely looking for a spot to air one view of anti-Zionism that you had not noticed elsewhere; and how clever of you to ignore mention of the article when I brought it up. I apologise deeply for impeding your sustained efforts, but as a contributor I feel responsible for extreme bias in an article and will continue to correct it when I see it - it's nothing personal, of course. -- Simonides 08:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If by "long aware" of the Anti-Zionism article you mean "aware of for almost a month", you would be correct, though I'm not sure of the relevance. Regarding the "minor propaganda fest", if you mean I have removed the Catholic Church quote from the article in spite of persistent attempts on the part of others to insert it, you are correct. As for your "assumption" that I did not have an agenda, I think your many comments to me are clear indications that you have always assumed I had an agenda. Re: your apologies, while they are long overdue, I understand that in this case they are merely sarcasm. And when you say "as a contributor I feel responsible for extreme bias in an article", I agree with your statement that you, as a contributor, are responsible for bias (I'm not sure I would go as far as "extreme"), but I cannot agree that you correct it when you see it, as you have typically done the opposite. Jayjg 16:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, you've just given me one more reason to call you a liar, seeing that you've reversed the story yet again. Since it is a fact, don't take it too personally. -- Simonides 17:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simonides, you need no reason to call me a liar, it seems to be some sort of reflexive response to people who disagree with you, or perhaps some sort of verbal tic. As for my having "reversed the story", your statement is highly tendentious and unsupported by any evidence. Jayjg 17:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The evidence is in the edits. Your edits were decidedly not NPOV, and I'll leave that to others to judge. -- Simonides 20:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to view my edits, so they will understand how much your own understanding of NPOV differs from the Wikipedia norm. Jayjg 21:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)