Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 20

While I agree that some members of the Jewish community have labelled Neturei Karta antisemitic, in many instances it was part of the highly charged rhetoric that often infuses internal Jewish debate. Furthermore, even Neturei Karta recognizes that Jews have a right to statehood. The debate is when and how such a state should come into being and the precise nature of the state once it does (see Va-Yoel Moshe for instance, which clarified the Satmar hasidic position on Zionism). Furthermore, they do not deny that other Jews are not Jews: they claim that their behavior is heretical. Satmar and Neturei Karta would certainly respond differently to a Reform Jew and a Christian--one is a heretic and the other is a Gentile, so one must keep kosher, not work on Shabbat, etc., while the other has no such obligation. I would keep Neturei Karta out of the discussion of anti-Semitism. Danny

The Neturei Karta teach hateful things about all Jews other than themselves. They teach that all Jews are literally releasing demonic forces within the land of Israel, and are therefore on the side of evil incarnate, and that they thus deserved the be slaughtered by the Nazis. If we do not call this hatespeech "antisemitic", then we must say that the Nazis and Neo-Nazis are also not antisemitic. RK

I would certaintly class Nazis, Neo-Nazis, and the KKK as anti-Semitic. (I do not know enough about Hamas to judge if they are anti-Semitic or not.) But they are very different from Neturei Karta. You say Neturei Karta "do teach other equally hateful things about all Jews". Since they are Jews, does it follow they teach these things about themselves? If they are saying these things about themselves also, it follows the things they say aren't hateful. But if they are not saying these things about themselves, it follows that they are not saying these things about all Jews, only some. Either way, they are not saying anything anti-Semitic; of course they aren't, because they are Jews, and a Jewish anti-Semite is an oxymoron. -- Simon J Kissane

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

They don't teach hatred of Jews. They (according to you -- as I said I don't exactly know) teach hatred of other Jews; but they can't be antisemites because they are Jews. To take a different example: suppose some guy, let's call him Jack, is a Protestant and he hates Catholics. Now it is true that he is anti-Catholic, but he isn't anti-Christian because he is a Christian. Or another example: Ahmed is a Sunni and he hates Shi'a. Now it is true he is anti-Shi'a, but he is not anti-Muslim because he is a Muslim. In the same way, Neturei Karta may well be anti-Reform Judaism, anti-Masorti, anti-Modern Orthodox, and anti heaps of other Jewish groups as well, but that doesn't make them antisemitic any more than Jack hating Catholics makes him anti-Christian or Ahmed hating Shi'a makes him anti-Muslim. -- SJK

Do they publish cartoons showing Jews with long noses? Do they say Hitler was a hero and the Holocaust never happened? They don't. They do none of these things. Therefore they are not anti-Semitic. "Jewish anti-Semtitism" is an invention of intra-Jewish propaganda, plain and simple. -- SJK.

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

I disagree. Fringe groups exist in all communities, after all. There are some Christian extremist groups that promote virulent hatred against most Christians, except (of course) themselves. Same thing happens in other religions as well. Even mainstream Orthodox Jews from the rabbinical Council of America have now denounced the Neturei Karta as antisemitic. RK

Orthodox rabbi denounces Neturei Karta as anti-Semitic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, you have missed the point entirely...

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

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

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

Third...

Where was the second point :-)?

..., you totally misunderstand the psychology of the people who do such things

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as I understand the issue, basing on the Quran the Islamic faith generally divides the world into 2 parts: (1) dar al-Islam (dwelling of Islam) and (2) dar al-harb (dwelling of the sword, war). This vision is common, as far as I understand, to all branches of Islam, although for natural reasons, it is endorsed more thoroughly among the militant Islamists, in particular the Wahhabi division of Islam, which is predominant in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States (Bin-Laden belongs to this school), and the Shi'ite islam practiced in Iran (and endorsed by its proxy Hizballah). Naturally, this view is also shared by the fundamentalist organizations (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) in the Palestinian Authority (and indeed to an extent, by any Muslim close enough to the religion). It takes only to attend to Arafat's own words comparing his Oslo Accords with the peace Muhammad made (and unilaterally broke) with the Kuraish tribe to understand the deep religious motives in the Arab hate towards Jews and Israel. --Uriyan

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it will help to have a specific entry on Neturei Karta to complement the general one on Anti-Semitism.

I prefer to use the term Arab in preference to the term Palestinian wherever possible. Everyone knows who the Arabs are. It's not as easy to determine who a "Palestinian" is. Sometimes there has arisen controversy over this, and the 'pedia is better off not taking sides in any controversy. One way to sidestep the issue, using neutral terminology, is to refer to "Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza say X", or "supporters of the Islamic ideal of a Palestinian state say Y". Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, or anti-Semitism, who is confused about the word "Palestinian"? When people see this word on TV, the radio, the Internet or in print media, everyone knows who it refers to: Palestinian Arabs. Who else do people think it now refers to? Sure, in the past the word "palestinian" had a different meaning, but in modern every day conversation it now carries a specific meaning: Palestinian Arabs. In any case, Arabs don't all have the same government, beliefs, or tactics, and it frequently is necessary to use the terms Palestinian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, etc, in order to describe who is holding a iven position. However, I totally agree with you that sometimes people use the term "Palestinian" when "Arab" should be used, and vice-versa, and that we should all be careful about using the word most fitting for the context. RK

Thanks to Uriyan and RK for clearing up the definition of "Palestinian". I might take a crack at refactoring the new info I got thereby, into the beginnings of an article like Palestine, Palestinian or Palestinian homeland. Ed Poor

I would be careful with that, Ed. Once again, the problem seems to be that you want definitions with sharp boundaries: i.e., this falls within the definition; this does not. The problem is, especially with such a contentious issue as what defines a Palestinian, is that the boundaries are not so clear at all. In fact, that is what all the contention is about. Danny

Thanks for the warning; I will heed it. As a software engineer, I spend the bulk of my professional life devising tests that distinguish between various categories: there IS or IS NOT enough money in the account, etc. Perhaps it is a vain hope that such thinking might apply to politics. Ed Poor, Monday, June 24, 2002

---

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

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

"Anti-Semitism is hostility or violence toward people of Jewish ancestry. Although sometimes confused for hatred of all Semites?, The word "anti-Semitism" means specifically the hatred of Jews, and has never been used otherwise. "

I'm changing this for two reasons,

1) It is logically unneccassary, if it "has never been used otherwise" then there is no need for that statement as no one would think otherwise. However if it is used differently (even in peoples' heads) the statement is wrong.

I think you are confused. Jewish people and most Christians never use the term "anti-semite" to mean anything other than hatred of Jews. The Germans who invented and popularized this word also never used this word to mean anything different. However - and this is the point you have missed - anti-semitic people themselves deliberately mis-use this word, to try and confuse the issue. That deliberate misuse is what the entry is trying to clarify. The attempt at change confuses the issue further. RK

It has been used, I agree that 95% percent of the time that it is used to indicate anti-jewish activity, but there are a minority of users who do legitimately use it to represent opposition to semetic culture as a whole.

The changes you have made are signifcantly not NPOV

2) It is used to mean people who are against speakers of semitic languages (including arabic), for instance in Gary Geddes book Flying Blind (1998). Imran

No, the term anti-semite does not, and has never meant, hatred of those people who speak semitic-derived languages. That's just silly. People just don't use the word to mean this! Just because one lone author mistakenly uses this word does not constitute rewriting an encyclopaedia entry. If that were any measure of anything, we'd have to say that no words have any set meaning, because just about every word is used by a tiny number of people in a sense that it was never meant to be used. RK

That was just the first example that came to hand, another to hand is the in the letters section of "The Independent" (July 26th) (London) , the "Culture" section of the "Sunday Times" (June 30th) (London) , page 15 of The Guardian (June 19th) (London), page 8 of the "Morning Star" (June 1st).

The fact that some people (perhaps mistakingly) used the term for something else, does not make you egligible to change its meaning. That's a coverup, and coverups are definitely not NPOV. --Uri

How many people have to "mistakenly" use it for it to become legitimate, those four articles I've mentioned come from a wide spread of British newspapers, all from the last two months. To deny the words existance (note that the article specifically says the word is never used in that sense) isn't NPOV.

I've never even heard that the issue is a coverup, and searching the internet I can't find any sources to indicate it. So could you point some out ?

In recent years some anti-Semites within the Arab world have tried to confuse the issue by rewriting the dictionary; they claim that since they themselves speak a Semitic language, they by definition cannot be anti-Semitic. Jewish, Christian and moderate Muslim groups (as well as English usage dictionaries) respond by saying that this is a just a word game. Anti-Semitism means solely hatred of Jews.

Can some provide evidence for this primarily,

1) Early sources for the use of "anti-semitism" as being inclusive of "anti-arab" by known anti-semitic arabs.

2) Evidence that it was for the purpose of confusion, and not for any of the reasons suggested in Joseph Telushkin "Why the Jews?: The Reasons for Antisemitism", Moshe David's "World Jewry and the State of Israel" or the article "Antisemitism is Anti-Jewish" by Lorne Shipman and Dr. Karen Mock.

Also note that in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) the definition is inclusive of anti-arab behaviour. Note that it is the _1913_ edition.

In the modern Webster (Online Edition), however, there's absolutely no ambiguity. This is particularly suspicious, considering the fact that the examples you bring are all very new. --Uri

Given that the version online is the Collegiate edition it is likely to give only the most common definition. The examples I chose are just the ones I could find from the internet, which by the nature of the internet are recent (last ten years) and are in electronic databases or are old enough to be out of copyright (i.e Webster 1913).

The last sentence is obviously inaccurate, see the cites I have given above.

You bring usage in 4 (related!) letters during the last couple of years, as opposed to world-wide usage for decades? Of course, language change, but that particular change is nothing more than a jargon pecularity that's most likely to disappear (if it hasn't already). Mentioning it as something significant is misleading, hence it's against NPOV. --Uri

I'm not sure what you mean "letters" only one was a cite of a letter, the others are all newspaper articles. More over as I said they are all in the last two months(chosen to indicate the word is in current use). The fact that this arguement exists makes it significant, I'm not opposed to saying that it isn't normally used in that sense, but to deny its existance in legitimate usage ins't NPOV.

You want some more cites, well here are some,

* The Sun (London), July 5, 2002 , Letters section, letter from Ambassador Ali Muhsen Hamid

*BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, November 1, 1997, (admitedly the use was in a quote from Qadhafi)

*Daily Post (Liverpool), September 25, 2001, page 6.

*The Times (London), September 2, 1992, interview with Bobby Fischer.

*The Times Higher Education Supplement, June 2, 1995 , page 22.

*M2 PRESSWIRE , March 24, 1997, "UN Human Rights Commission concludes general debate on racism and racial discrimination"

How many cites do you need before you'll consider the term "legitimate" ?

The question is which usage. Claiming that some people have at one period used this term to signify something else than what dictionaries mention, does not mean that their usage is acceptable. They could just as well be not educated enough in the subject and inventing their own words for different concepts. For example, a lot of people use *virii as plural of virus. Now there isn't such a word *virii, the correct English plural being viruses (see here for a discussion). The fact that some people use *virii does nothing to even make it a word in general usage (as opposed to their own dialect of English); similarily, the fact that some people use anti-Semitism in a certain way does not mean that this way is acceptible for general usage. --Uri

Also, one more thing: it's curious that many of the sources you said originate in non-English speakers, and in particular Arabs. The fact that they've been prefering this usage or other may be interpreted not just as casual misuse, but intentional propaganda (see Newspeak). So I wouldn't treat their statements as any example of normative English usage. --Uri

Three possibly four are from Arab, one from Bobby Fischer ( who I assume isn't arab as one of his parents is jewish) and the rest are from British journalists. --Imran

How about a compromise here. Something along the lines of: "Anti-Semitism is a term coined in 18?? to describe hatred of the Jewish people. While this is the meaning most associated with the term, it is also used occasionally/with increasing frequency to refer to other Semitic peoples, notably Arabs." Just a suggestion. Danny

No, that would be simply untrue. In the vast majority of English contexts, anti-Semitism refers solely to the hatred of Jews, all other usages so far being either unsuccessful (unadopted) propaganda or inadquate understanding of the real meaning of the word (folk etymology). --Uri

I agree with you here --Imran

That doesn't make it untrue. The fact is that no matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks about it, the term seems to be undergoing some kind of evolution. That happens in language and in this case is worth noting. Danny

When studying language, one should distinguish between (1) random/deliberate changes for whatever reasons that were introduced by an individual or individuals and (2) changes, such as above, that persist, and propagate into common usage. I do not deny that (1) takes case (in this case, as a propaganda effort on behalf of the Arabs); I merely point out that it hasn't (and chances are that it won't) become (2). Until it does, I don't think it deserves to be incorporated, as it represent a piece of information of too little importance (exactly as I wooudln't be writing, for example, what sorts of associations people have when they hear the word "anti-Semitism"). --Uri

Danny, I have to disagre on this point. Among the majority of English speakers, the the use of the word "Anti-Semitism" is not undergoing any significant form of evolution. Rather, the changes we see usually come from anti-Semitic people who deliberately mis-use this word in order to confuse the issue. That is certainly not NPOV (neutral point of view). The secondary fact that some innocent, non-anti-Semites on occasion mis-use this word is meaningless; after all, all English words are occasionally mis-used like this. But do we rewrite encyclopaedia entries on hundreds of other topics because of such varying useage? No - it is only in the entry on anti-Semitism that we do so, and that is precisely what some anti-Semites are trying to accomplish. Their entire goal is Nespeak, a deliberate project to rewrite parts of the dictionary in order to further their political goals. RK

I haven't seen any quotable sources saying the word was being used purposefully to confuse, I list some source earlier which give several possible reasons, the most common being that the term anti-semitism is already popular and has strong negative conatation associated with it so it can be more easily adopted by other persecuted semites rather then them trying to coin a new word. Another source I've seen also attributes the use due to the majority of usage outside of Israel/USA being related to far right groups who do oppose semitic people as a group. --Imran

I'm very much a non-expert on this, but I don't see any need to "rewrite" the entry - all you need is a short note somewhere as Danny suggests saying that some people use the term to mean something other than the generally accepted definition. Of course you don't have to add such a comment to entries on other "misused" words, but some of the misuse here has been from quite prominent figures (the reason for their usage is irrelevant). Apart from anything else, I should think that somebody going to a dictionary and finding "Semite" to mean "a descendant of Shem or speaking a Semitic language such as Hebrew or Arabic" might logically conclude that an anti-semite is one against people speaking Hebrew or Arabic. Even if such a misuse is "wrong" and "deliberate" I don't see how ignoring it does anybody any favours. --camembert

It is simply false - in general English usage, "anti-Semitism" means only the hatred of Jews. The possible misinterpretations are already well-represented in the article. --Uri

I don't know what you're saying is false, but I admit my last entry was somewhat incoherent, and having reread the article, I largely agree with you - I think there's little chance of people being left unclear as to the meaning of the phrase. But if it is demonstrably true that certain people are trying to change the meaning of the phrase (as RK suggests), shouldn't this be mentioned? Not as an evolution in the meaning of the phrase, but as an attempt by certain parties to change it. --camembert

I have a house full of dictionaries and not a one contains a hint that anti-Semitism is anything but anti-Jewish. In fact, the unabridged Webster's III, which is strongly oriented towards definitions based on actual usage, gives not only "anti-Jewish", but "anti-Zionist" and "opposed to the state of Israel" as definitions. In the Oxford English Dictionary, perhaps lagging a little, virtually all the citations refer to German anti-Semitism.

A quick Google search on "anti-Semitic anti-Arab" reveals a few instances of the "we're/they're Semites too" argument, usually stated pretty naively. It strikes me that this is not only sophistry, but actually harmful to the Arabs. Most of the Google hits refer to "anti-Semitic" and "anti-Arab" as two different kinds of prejudice against two kinds of people. It is unquestionably true that there is anti-Arab feeling, stereotypes in the media, hatred directed at "towelheads" and "camel jockeys", and worse. It greatly diminishes public discourse if these manifestations are not called what they are, anti-Arab, without any confusing talk about ancient languages. Ortolan88 08:25 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

I'm not disputing the meaning of the phrase "anti-Semite" but I am saying that if people (some of them prominent) are using it to mean something different, as has been suggested, and that use is part of a deliberate attempt to confuse or mislead people, then that is something worth observing. I'm not saying such an incorrect use of the phrase should be presented as an acceptable or widely used alternative, any more than I'd suggest an article on xenophobia should say it's a jolly good idea, but it is something worth noting, I feel. But as I said, I'm far from an expert on this, and I'll let others argue about it from now on. --Camembert

--- That's a reasonable position, but I think that that's exactly what the article says now :-) If I misunderstood you, could you say what changes do you propose? --Uri

Another attempt at compromise here: ""Anti-Semitism is a term coined in 18?? to describe hatred of the Jewish people. While this is the meaning most associated with the term, it has occasionally been coopted by some to refer to other Semitic peoples, notably Arabs." At some point, this can be explained in no more than a sentence (which is really no more than it is worth). Danny

Here's how I think we should rephrase in order to remove opinion and just leave factually provable statements (things in brackets are just comments anf not intended to be part of the article),

Anti-Semitism is hostility or violence toward people of Jewish ancestry. Although sometimes used for hatred of all Semites?, The word "anti-Semitism" was coined specifically to refer to hatred of Jews. There are numerous forms of anti-Semitism, originating in different trends in human society, but usually having the common ground of xenophobia.

(It is obvious that in a lot of these cases people aren't confused and are using it deliberatly so I've dropped the word confuse)

(Next replacements for the last two paragraphs of etymology)

In recent decades some people have argued that the the term Anti-Semetism should be extended to cover all Semetic people and not just Jews, this arguement has failed to make any significant impact on popular usage, although proponents of the idea (including politician Bobby Fischer and famous chess player Qadhafi) continue to use the word in this sense. Because of this debate many scholars now favour the unhyphenated term antisemetism to represent anti-jewish behaviour.

(I've removed any statement indicating the reasons why they want widen the definition of the term, after all you and I are not mind readers and can't tell their motivation, however I doubt that all the users are anti-semetic after all two of those quotes I gave came from journalists of Rupert Murdoch papers.)

Clearly we must explain the usage of the term, as well as describing instances of the practice. The current etymology section looks pretty good. How about adding a usage section, pointing out that some people use anti-semitism one way and some people use it another? I think if we go pointing the finger of "co-opted", et al., we wind up adding more fuel to the POV fire. I think Uri is on the right track. Ed Poor

I'm still opposed to seriously treating a "usage" with a political base, several dozen big (I saw Fischer's opinions described as "anti-Semitic" somewhere, and I don't think he meant the Arabs), as something deserving this sort of a review. --Uri

Yes, Fischer is very much anti-Jew, but I've seen nothing by him to suggest he is anti-arab as well (although I certainly wouldn't put it past him) - I doubt in any case that that's the meaning he'd give to "anti-semetic". Since the paragraph at the end of the etymology section was added, I don't really have any objections to the article. (I didn't have many before, really; I think I misunderstood the argument, because it seemed to me that some were arguing for the removal of any reference to these "alternative" uses.) It could still do with a bit of tidying, I suppose (the last two paras of the etymology section seem to duplicate one another - I prefer the second to the first myself) and I think naming one or two people who have used "anti-semite" to include arabs would not go amiss. I'm for dropping "confused" in the opening para as well. And that really is the last I'm saying about it (probably) :-) --Camembert

Reasons for removal:

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

We are not talking about proposals to a Palestinian states; we're talking about the reason why most Muslim Arabs (non-Palestinians) find Israel to be religiously inacceptible. I feel the sentence above was off-topic, although the subject could probably be discussed (consequences of the arab-Israeli conflict as opposed to the inherent hostility towards Jews). --Uri

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

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

I have re-written it as:

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

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

If the term anti-Semitism was originally a euphemism, why not say,

Some advocates insist that the term anti-Semitism should be taken literally, thus interpreting anti-Semitism as hostility toward everyone who is "Semitic" or speaks a Semitic language. Given this interpretation, they reason that to call Arab hatred of Jews and Israel "anti-Semitism" is a misnomer and conclude that there is no such thing as "Arab anti-Semitism". This usage is genarally considered non-standard.

--Ed Poor 07:18 Aug 20, 2002 (PDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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