Jump to content

Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

I removed " In America the term "Anti-Semetic" is increacingly seen as hate speach against non jews because of the principles of religious and ethnic equality supported in the U.S. Constitution. It sugests an "us and them" form of thinking which it's self promugates the memetics of group resentment.

There is no similarly inflamatory term for anti -Irish or anti-white because the term it's self is so uniquly devicive.

A proper semantic representation is simply ""racist"" rather than "anti-semetic". Anti-Semetic also sugests hatred of those disagreeing on valid points with Israeli policy of ethnic opression of non-jews --a policy which is inconsistant with the Torah and which appears to cause violence in the region."

Those paragraphs lack proper spelling, grammar and NPOV. Their author should rephrase them and add them back. David.Monniaux 06:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is a mainstream Jewish view, and it exists despite the claims of Danny's left-wing academics. RK 03:46, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

How many times have you heard "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm just anti-Zionist?" But to be anti-Zionist is, by definition, to be anti-Semitic. Zionism is nothing more than a belief that Israel has the right to exist as a homeland for Jews. It says nothing about the policies or programs of the state, merely that it has a right to exist. There are left-wing Zionists and right-wing Zionists-and many in between. Some Zionists are harsh critics of Israeli policies; others are supportive. But the term "Zionist" connotes nothing more than the right of Israel to exist; anti-Zionist means that Israel, regardless of its leaders, policies, or other aspects of how its society is run, has no right to exist.
To say that Jews alone don't have a right to self-determination in a part of their historic homeland is clearly anti-Semitic, despite the effort to hide the bigotry behind a supposed political term....It is a sign of bigotry when people try to use code words to "explain" away their defamation of a group. Whites opposed to the civil rights movement knew it was "politically incorrect" to say they were anti-black, so they used code words such as "anti-busing." Right-wing anti-Semites who want to maintain the fiction that they are not bigoted use code words such as "international bankers" to defame Jews. The word "anti-Zionist" is of the same mold in the lexicon of the left, and it should fool no one. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
Further evidence of this anti-Semitism is the penchant among self-proclaimed anti-Zionists to take language associated with the Holocaust and twist it around to label Israelis as Nazis and Israeli leaders as Hitler. No unbiased person could use terminology associated with the mass murder of nearly six million Jews and countless others (including Communists, gays, anti-Nazis, Roma, and Jehovah's Witnesses), many in purposely-built execution chambers, and suggest that the Israelis were engaged in a similar enterprise. And even if some anti-Zionists refuse to recognize either the history or the complexities of the conflict, why do they use the "Nazi" nomenclature to complain only about Israel? Why not use it to describe Rwanda, for example? The answer is simple: Jews are in the equation, so a different standard applies. Likewise no one on the left would have the temerity to claim that the worst excesses of corporate America are comparable to the horrors of the Middle Passage. Such a comparison would be understood to be both gross overstatement and an immoral diminishing of the terror of genocide-especially so if a targeted corporation were run by an African American. So why the almost gleeful comparison of Israelis to Nazis? Don't know? See Bigotry 101.
These are probably valid points. So why not have a section which says "The views of most Jewish denominations is such and such; the view of non-denominational Jewish groups is such and such." This formulation would preserve neutral point of view, while avoiding stating these views as objective facts. JeMa 20:01, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
The reason Israelis are treated to a double-standard in this regard is because Rwandan mass murderers don't go around exploiting a claim to victimhood to finance their genocidal campaigns and to silence all criticism thereof.
To me, personally, in my own biased and bigoted opinion, this article by AJC is totally CENSORED!. If Jews do care about their victimhood, what should they do? As a truly blood-blood racist, I would say that Jews have to care about others as well. Last time I checked, Nazis are no longer the largest party in Germany. In fact, they are gone. So the Jewish Holocaust will probably not of a problem in the near future. I don't see 6 million Jewish naked dead bodies on my back yard to be incinerated today.
But I still see other people being discriminated around the world. Arabians, Kurds, Sudanese, Rwandans, Native Americans ... And how much did the Israeli government and Jews in the US do to them? Almost nothing. Did Ariel Sharon ever ask the UN to send Israeli peace keepers to elsewhere to help other peoples? No. They only care about their own Holocaust. They want us to remember their own private Holocaust, not the Holocaust shared by Gypsies, Poles, gays and many others as well. Do they know Poland also had lost 6 million during the war (3 million Poles and 3 million Polish Jews)?
I think Jews have every right to settle in any part of the world. They just have to pay for the land. I am a Chinese living in Taiwan. I don't mind if they have sort of a Taipeism. I mean they can buy lands in Taipei City and build their homes and synagogues with as many sets of kitchens as possible. They just could not send troops to my crazy little town and force us to migrate into the Pacific Ocean. This is not the Old West. We are not American Indians. I think so are the Arabs.
No wonder Jews are being hated all around the world during the past two thousand years. Bad attitudes! How many Jews were saved by others during the WW2? I know the State of Israel did issue many of them medals. But that's not enough. Maybe Ariel Sharon should put down his butcher knife and to start each day for the rest of his bloody life with a thank you. As a Chinese whose family had been screwed up badly during that same world war, I'd rather see someone to stop monopolizing their victimhood and to say thank you loudly and openly to those who ever helped them in the past. -- Toytoy
Um, that's all very interesting, but perhaps you've lost sight of the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political discussion forum? We're just here to document anti-semitism (among many, many other potential article topics), not to fix the problem or appraise its importance relative to other issues. Jdavidb 16:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, while fascinating, is better located at anti-Zionism, because anti-Zionism (with a ~100 year history) is a smaller, more focused topic than anti-Semitism. The subject is already covered in the article on anti-Zionism:

JeMa - please note that the content you wish to re-add to this article has been preserved in full at anti-Zionism. I ask that you consider where it is best located. Martin 20:41, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this. JeMa 20:01, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following, because it is a strawman attack on Jews: "many anti-globalization people consider themselves anti-Isreali state, which doesn't necessarily make them anti-Semite." RK 01:32, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

It is a common trend among anti-Semites to claim that "The Jews brand all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic." The problem is that the claim is a total fiction. No mainstream Jewish group hold such a position. In fact, on numerous occasions many Jewish groups themselves have publicly criticised the policies of different Israeli governments. Public statements by leaders of many Jewish groups have been made which clearly state that disagreement with Israel is not, of itself anti-Semitic. The only people making such claims are those who have a hatred of Israel and or Jews. Even the Anti-Defamation League, a vigorously pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist organization, has publicly stated that criticism of Israel is not, if of itself, anti-Semitism. RK 01:27, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

"Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Certainly the sovereign State of Israel can be legitimately criticized just like any other country in the world. However, it is undeniable that there are those whose criticism of Israel or of "Zionism" is used to mask anti-Semitism." (Anti-Defamation League website.)

In fact, the ADL itself publicly and strongly criticised the Knesset (Parliament) of the State of Israel for one its bills vis-a-vis the crisis with the Palestinians. So let's stop the strawman claims.

"A recent survey in Europe revealed that a very large proportion of Europeans believed that the Jewish state was the largest threat to world peace; Jewish groups expressed shock and regret at these results, likening them to the same statements that were made by Nazi Germany before the Holocaust."
  1. How can you liken something to something else that is the same?
  2. Irrespective of argument #1: isn't likening the statement that Israel is a threat to peace with the Nazi statements fallacious? IIRC Nazis weren't persecuting Jews because they thought that Jews were a threat to peace. But rather because they thought that Jews were a threat to their aspirations for Power and their braindead ideas of Aryanism, etc. --snoyes 01:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The 'mainstream Jewish view' above strikes me as a great example of Zionism masquerading as a struggle against bias. Antisemitism is despicable; questioning the premises of a racially and religiously biased state is overdue. David K 10:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Arabs as semite?

Arabs are semites too http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semite JackLynch

There is no such thing as a semitic people. It is now understood to be a 19th century misconception; see the article Semite on this subject. Most Arabs speak a semitic language, but this is a different issue. Using the term "anti-Semitism" to refer to Arabs is misleading as the word was coined as a refined word for "Scientifically justified dislike of Jews." It also seems that this issue was already discussed here; see the archive link. JeMa 17:30, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
Talk:Anti-Semitism_(etymology_complete)

Yes, but the term anti-Semite, in common usage, does not actually mean opposed to Semites. It instead means opposed to Jews. Its etymology is from Semite, but that is not its current meaning. Since you were already at that site, why not look just a step further [1]? --Delirium 05:41, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)


do you mean this, for example? "Anti-Semitism \An`ti-Sem"i*tism\, n. Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews" Whilst it may say "esp." Jews, it certainly doesn't leave out all other semites, which includes Arabs. I think the modern meaning of anti-semite is simply a matter of ethnocentrism. Jews are in the position of power (relative to other semites in the anglosphere) and therefore hatred or oppression of them is seemingly more important and relevant, than oppression and hatred of other semites. My point is not based on lack of information, but rather an abundance of it. And my complaint is that this entry completely ignores the vast majority of semites, while giving intense attention to one group, arguably NOT the group (of semites) which is currently receiving the brunt of modern anti-semitism. JackLynch

Remember that Wikipedia articles are about things, not words. The topic of this article is hostility to Jews. Anti-Arab sentiment is dealt with at anti-Arab. Martin 22:21, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I renew my objection, which I do not feel has been sufficiently addressed. Understanding that this is a controversial topic, I am discussing things here first, but assuming I hear nothing more persuasive to the contrary, I will edit for accuracy. Arabs are semites and I find it anti-semitic to fail to mention so. Jack 11:20, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack, please stop accusing of bigotry. Your claims are proven wrong, and accepted by the Wikipedia community as such. Since you refuse to read the relevant articles, such as Talk:Anti-Semitism_(etymology_complete), we can only conclude that you are here to push an emotion-laden agenda. We are willing to work with you, but we are not going to be intimidated by a pseudo-Arabist agenda. JeMa
I read that. It was nowhere near conclusive, and IMO was incredibly poorly discussed. My facts are not, have not, and cannot be proven wrong. Look here [2] and see what webster has to say. Look here [3] and see what the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has to say. I am here to push a fact-laden agenda, and none other. To be honest, I find your insinuation that I am "pseudo-arabist" (what the heck does that mean?) to be bizarre, and most likely emotion-laden. I find your attitude on this subject, and that of a great many people in this talk, to be profoundly POV. Of course this is perhaps the most controvercial of subjects, and that is to be expected. But that in no way means that POV cannot be overcome, and the facts (such as Arabs being semites!) can't be included. Jack 03:11, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction doesn't seem NPOV. If there were a legitimate cause, wouldn't it be called anti-Semitism? The implication here seems to be that there couldn't possibly be any such cause. --Wik 22:38, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

If there were a legitimate cause, and the hostility did not "greatly exceeds any reasonable, ethical response to genuine provocation", and it was not "a pejorative perception of Jewish physical or moral traits which is either utterly groundless or a result of irrational generalization and exaggeration", then, by the definition given in the introduction, it would not be anti-Semitism.
However, I should apologise and retract my revert, as I failed to spot other changes to related sections of the article, which render it potentially incorrect.. Martin 23:01, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the use of the term "irrational". Sometimes ethnic stereotyping is not particularly irrational (in cases where a lot of the group do in fact share similar traits), but is still considered bigoted and offensive. So I think anti-Semitism would be considered offensive whether or not the generalizations were irrational. --Delirium 00:49, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

A prior version had both an alternative definition, and an "essentially" statement, which I think made it more stable to these kinds of issues. I may consider reinstating it. Martin 01:12, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I reverted the change from linking the "Wiesental centre" intra-wikipedia to an external link. Justifications:

  1. External linking such things dissuades people from writing articles on that entity
  2. There shouldn't be any external links in the main body of the article text.

It could be added to the external links section, though. But that is already pretty populated, I'd prefer to just wait for someone to create an article on the centre.--snoyes 15:56, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What could we here at Wikipedia say about the "Wiesental centre" that they can not say better themselves on their website? Should everything have an internal link in Wikipedia? Anything we write about them, could be out of date at some time in the future without Wikipedia receiving any warning of the change. (Think Berkshire-Hathaway the men's shirt company that is now a very different beast of the same name...i dont know if they every re-incorporated, could be the same legal entity.) Why not link to the Center "about us" page or whatever they call it. that way its always as up to date as it can be.
Your thoughts please. OneVoice 22:22, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This coin has the second side: external links may be surprisigly and unexpectedly volatile, up to migration across domains, not to say about webmaster's whims. Therefore they may serve only a supplementary role. Mikkalai 06:17, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Two simple reasons: 1) We are in the process of creating an encyclopedia. The "about us" page of an organisation may or may not be encyclopedic. Example: Microsoft's "about us" page: [4] [5] 2) NPOV. An organisation is not neutral about itself. We want information that is as neutral as possible about organisations (or individuals). Is Microsoft going to publish on their "about us" page that they have been convicted of abuses of monopoly? Are the ADL going to mentions that the recipient of their "distinguished statesman" award has made anti-semitic comments? --snoyes 06:33, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. For site that do not have Wikipedia pages, it seems better to link to the site/organization than to have a dead/empty link in Wikipedia. Perhaps a solution is to create a Wikipedia page for the site/organization that has the external link to the site/organization's own website and over time the page will be fleshed out with material. Your thoughts? OneVoice 10:41, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sure, one could make a stub with an external link to the website of the organisation. Speaking from experience, though: Articles which contain nothing but an external link are usually deleted immediately. It must at least have one introductory sentence (eg: Organisation XYZ was founded in 19xx in order to fight ZYX). --snoyes 15:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
AH, thank you for that warning. so point in creating a page that will be deleted immediately. I will put in a starter sentence. OneVoice 16:00, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I removed part of the definition of Anti-Semitism that said "based on alleged racial differences....". The historic anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church was not based upon racial differences

therefore it should be called anti-Judaism rather then Anti-Semitism Cautious 15:06, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

...that would be an untenable position given the racial background of Jesus...it would also deny the possibility of conversation and salvation through Jesus. Indeed, one Catholic objection to National-Socialist doctrine was the racial basis of anti-Semitism which would them place at risk Catholic converts.

Anti-Semites have cited a number of bases for their position, at times religious, at times racial, at time economic. The definition should not limit it to any one of these.

Changed the sentence on anti-Semitism vs anti-Zionism in light of the EU report on substantial adoption of anti-Semitic slogans, symbols, language, etc. by the anti-Zionist efforts in Europe. No report available for the same in the various Muslim countries. Sites such as IslamOnline and Khilafah provide examples.

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism both are being adopted by some groups and individuals. There are non-anti-semitic anti-Zionists, but their position and statements have been drowned out by the vociferous anti-Semitic anti-Zionists. OneVoice 14:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The topmost definition must be in most general and simple form. Explanations, opinions, detalizations have plenty of room to come later. Not to say that what I edited was it part plain false (I mean the "ideologically motivated" words). Mikkalai 17:26, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ideologically motivated is the must. If somebodys hate is motivated by different reasons, it cannot be named anti-Semitism. People don't have to love each other. Miki
Motivation is a must in every "move of will", it is a truism. But when you say "ideological" you stretch the truth. Every serious book on history of Jews lists several motivations. So both words do not belong to the definition. The last, but not the least, xenophoby doesn't require any motivation. Some people hate garlic, after all.
One more thing. "The neutrality of this article is disputed" So we better stick to a simpler "headline" definition and list opinions and detailed explanations in the body of the article. Mikkalai 09:05, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A Jew can be an anti-Semite

Moving this to talk: (about criticism of Israel): Support for this view can be found in the fact that there exist Jewish critics of Israel, who can hardly be accused of anti-Semitism.

An American is free to be anti-American, and a Jew is free to hold anti-Semitic views. Saying otherwise is to allege Jews of some kind of world conspiracy, and we don't want that, do we? Humus sapiens 06:01, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That's overreacting, I don't see the supposed 'conspiracy' there. If anti-Semitism is defined as a hatred of all Jews, a Jewish anti-Semite would hate himself! I doubt that is what you want to say, certainly, those Israel-critical Jews I know don't seem to be suffering from self-hatred. No-one is denying anti-Semites probably hate Israel as well, but being critical about Israel does not make one an anti-Semite. Leaving it out implies no jews are opposed to the Israeli government's actions. If I criticize the Bush Regime's actions, does that make me an anti-Japhethite because I dare have critique about a predominantly western society? — Jor 12:52, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)
  1. I find these args illogical, sorry. Let me repeat: a Jew (as anyone else) is free to hold anti-Semitic views. It is unfortunate, but there is no one to prohibit it. Try to research the subj. As a start, search the web for "Jew self hate".
  2. The BIG question is, would such text appear in an article about Americans, Italians or Swedes? Quoting the article in the beginning of this talk page: "Consider "Bigotry-finder rule 101": Take a situation, change the race, religion, sexual orientation, or other aspect of the players' identities, and see if the same results apply... Listen to the criticism of any other country: It is always a political party, a program, a policy, or a person that is criticized, never the legitimacy of a society. Except for Israel."
  3. I very much appreciate gentle concerns about "overreacting to" and "diluting" the AS. Let's keep it undiluted. "The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." (Disraeli, 1804-1881). Humus sapiens 07:12, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The page is labelled for both non-neutrality and factual accuracy. The non-neutrality issue will be the harder one one which to reach agreement.

Lets work on the factual accuracy label. What is factually inaccurate? Please provide text from the page that you believe to be factually inaccurate. OneVoice 19:24, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • "Anti-Semitism is ideologically motivated hostility" the part "ideologically motivated" is inaccurate, because it restricts to a particular class of "ideological antisemitism". See article Ideology. There is enough reasons to hate Jews: they are smarter, they have more money, they stick to each other, they hate us and call us "goyim".... Of course, you may call all this "ideology". But the ideology is the RESULT, not motivation. (NOTE: I don't say that the above is true. I knew dumb, poor, hard-working Jews that were ashamed of their Jewishness, etc.) So I vote do remove these two words from the main definition, otherwise lots of antisemites will claim they are not :-). Mikkalai 22:26, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This definition of anti-semitism confuses me deeply

"Essentially, anti-Semitism means either of the following: (1) hostility to Jews as a group which results from no legitimate cause or greatly exceeds any reasonable, ethical response to genuine provocation; or (2) a pejorative perception of Jewish physical or moral traits which is either utterly groundless or a result of irrational generalization and exaggeration"

By this definition, a great many people I had always thought to be anti-semites arn't. What about a palistinian who wants to kill Jews? Lets say his house has been bulldozed, and his father shot by Israeli soldiers. He equates all things Jewish as bad, and enthusiastically agrees with what is taught to him at his mosque, and madrassa. Wouldn't this say he isn't an anti-semite? Jack 00:37, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If sombody hates, because of the legitimate reason, i.e mother was killed or his house was demolished, he cannot be called anti-Semit. Only if he believes in ideology of hate and his hatry is motivated by ideas of anti-Semitism, he is anti-Semit. The individual have the right to dislike Americans, Jews, Gypsies, Germans or whoever and this doesn't make him anti-Semitic. Only if the hostility is motivated by the ideology. WolfgangPeters 20:05, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You seem to be speaking in terms of the israeli-palestinian conflict. (Nowhere/nowhen else in modern history Jews were not accused of such; just the opposite). In the war/occupation/etc situation the mutual hatred is a separate issue, so your example is not applicable IMO. I'd put it differently. If a particular Mendel lended a poor widow money and then took her last cow for debts, then she has a reson to hate him. It is not anti-Semitism yet. But if she draws a conclusion and based on her case begins to hate all Jews, then it is anti-Semitism. Not "motivated by", but "turned into", ideology. Mikkalai 21:11, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not exactly. If 2 countries are at war, there is common that people hate each other as the nations. Let say, 1915 most of Germans hated French and vice versa. The war mativated hate to all Jews is not enough. It must be either ideology or obsession. Most of anti-Semites are obsessed with their hate. Cautious 00:40, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Didn't Hitler think he had "genuine provocation"? Jack 00:38, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Read Mein Kampf, mein lieber Herr. Hitler describes in greater detail (truly or not, doesn't matter) how his initial indifference to Jews turned into hate and *formed into ideology*. Mikkalai 21:14, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is it reasonable, or groundless to kill someone because your family always taught you they were evil? Or to believe horrible things about them (Blood libel, for example) if your family and friends have always thought so? This definition appears to me to remove the appropriate use of the word from those who most sincerely believe in "anti-semetic" or anti-Jewish thought. Jack 01:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Formally, wikipedia bears no responsibility for this definition: it is a quote. IMO a hate is a hate is a hate. Why split a hair? Anti-Semitism is exactly what the very word says: hostility, prejudice, discrimination, reason or no reason. Just like racism, hate towards a whole nation, even if justified by actions of their representatives can be explained, but is hardly a civilized emotion. Didn't we hate Germans during WWII? We didn't hate "nazists" separately, we did hate Germans. (disclaimer: "we" is to denote those whom it may concern :-)

One might explore and discuss roots and reasons for anti-S; some of them could be "ideological", some "groundless", but to to put artificial "qualifiers", like "ideologically" or "groundless" or else in the DEFINITION is non-scientific, because you are pre-limiting yourself. Mikkalai 01:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

For the record, and without necessarily supporting them, here are the two definitions of anti-Semitism highlighted by the officially unpublished EU report on anti-Semitism.

(attributed to Helen Fein: Anti-Semitism is) a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions – social or legal discrimination, political mobilisation against the Jews, and collective or state violence – which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews.
(attributed to Dietz Bering: a summary of anti-Semitic belief is:) Jews are not only partially but totally bad by nature, that is, their bad traits are incorrigible. Because of this bad nature
- Jews have to be seen not as individuals but as a collective.
- Jews remain essentially alien in the surrounding societies.
- Jews bring disaster on their “host societies” or on the whole world, they are doing it secretly, therefore the anti-Semites feel obliged to unmask the conspiratorial, bad Jewish character.
--Zero 01:34, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
These definitions show that this article must draw a distinct line between "ideological Antisemitism" and "vulgar antisemitism". Mikkalai 04:22, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, Jack, Mikkalai, the first issue seems to revolve around the definition. Do we need the words " ideologically motivated " in the definition. Is the motivation critical? Is it anti-semitic to hate all Jews? By way of contrast, is it racist to hate all African Americans? OneVoice 15:56, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

First of all I'd suggest to re-read the Ideology article (as well as racism). Wikipedia should be coherent, shouldn't it? Anti-Semitism perfectly fits the definition of "ideology", both in "theoretical" and in "common" sense. Hence "ideologically motivated" in the definition creates tautology. Mikkalai 19:03, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'd also suggest to look at Anti-Americanism, which gives room for a fairly wide spectrum of antiamericanisms. Mikkalai 19:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, just above you said: "Anti-Semitism perfectly fits the definition of 'ideology'". Above, we find Mikkalai (22:26, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)) said: "the part 'ideologically motivated' is inaccurate, because it restricts to a particular class of 'ideological antisemitism'" I am confused. Are you saying should contain "ideologically motivated" or should not contain "ideologically motivated"? OneVoice 21:05, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Answering two people at once:

due the local authorities and the Catholic Church closing many occupations to the Jews, leaving them to be local tax collectors and lenders which provided a basis for the Catholic Church's claims that the Jews engaged in usury.
--This is confusing because "usury" often just means "lending money at interest" which was indeed a common occupation for Jews in the European Middle-Ages. So it is not a claim but a fact. Usually the rate of interest was regulated (at least officially) but could be very high [6].
The basis for moral contempt were also the participation of Jews in slave trade (especially between Slavic countries and the Muslim empire).
--Regardless of the facts about the slave trade, this could not have been a significant reason for moral contempt because the slave trade was not considered immoral.

Zero 10:32, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • It was considered immoral, if traded slaves were Christians and traders were Jewish and final recipients were Muslims. Cautious 12:07, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It seems that I'm beginning to understand the roots of the confusion: the confusion between idea and its manifestation: idea of antisemitism and acts of antisemitism. Having this in mind, of course, *manifestations* of antisemitism, such as hatred, desecrations, etc., are *motivated* by antisemite Weltanschauung. That's why the basic definition of the article is poorly worded: it reflects only the "manifestation" part: hostility. I propose to rephrase it somehow along the lines:

A-S is a system of views (ideology, if you wish) based on <...views...> and manifested by <...hatred, discrimination, etc...>....

Mikkalai 19:30, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Am I being simpleminded? I would think "a belief that Jews in general are morally or physically undesirable" is a good enough definition of antisemitism. Isn't the rationality or ideological content of a prejudice a very subordinate consideration to the fact of a blanket negative bias? David K 10:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

About "Abusing the term Anti-Semitism" section

Moved to new page. See: [[Talk:Anti-Semitism (abuse)

--LeFlyman 11:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

  • Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others.

The undue attention the European survey gets leads me to the only possible conclusion that this is (yet another) attempt at smear by innuendo (with "thanks" to the Simon Wiesenthal Center). As a result, I'm very much inclined to just delete the entire section Disputes over modern manifestations of anti-Semitism, unless, by a miracle, someone can somehow fix this mess. I'm not holding my breath. -- Dissident 00:24, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The EU survey was commissioned by the EU. The survey is available from an EU official website. Why do you attribute the survey to The Wiesenthal Center? Have you read the report or at least the conclusions therein? The report is a focus of attention due to the contents. Rather than face the message (the challenges to the current path of EU nations), people prefer to attack the messenger (the report). OneVoice 01:31, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dissident, it is the same old problem: conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. -- Viajero 01:41, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I did not attribute the survey to The Wiesenthal Center. I'm objecting against the use of the report as any supposed "evidence" of any European anti-Semitism and the undue attention and thus the subsequent implied legitimacy Wikipedia lends to this view. -- Dissident 02:01, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He makes a tremendously valid point. As an american, I can easily blame 9/11 on the combination of Israeli foreign policy, and the USA's foreign policy towards Israel. Every nation on earth with the sole exception of the USA thinks the US policy towards Israel is biased [7] in Israels favor. The fact that so many view the Jews of Israel as being unfairly assisted in contrast to their neighboring muslims constitutes a profound and legitimate concern about Israel's effect on world security when the proclivity towards terrorism in that part of the world is taken into account. Calling such documentation "anti-semitic" constitutes a perversely ethnocentric POV bordering on racial supremacism. The audacity of such innapropriate usage of this loaded term would deserve mention, even if this were an isolated example of such misuse. Sam Spade 12:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You write -- "Every nation on earth with the sole exception of the USA thinks the US policy towards Israel is biased [8] in Israels favor."
This statement speaks of Earth's ingorance of the roots of American policy towards Israel. there is nothing to "think" about. It *is* biased. After the establishment of Israel, the USA pledged to be a warrant for the existence of Israel. But for American help, hardly a miniscule Israel would withstand the planned assault of the whole arab world against it. I don't remember Europe to raise a cry when Egypt, Sirya, and the whole other lot were about to erase Israel. After big arab's ass was kicked, they went clandestine and started to instigate a small people and small kids to do their dirty anti-zionist job. All that money they pumped into terrorism could make Palestinians rich and buy half of Israel.
Further -- "The fact that so many view the jews of Israel as being unfairly assisted in contrast to their neighboring muslims constitutes a profound and legitimate"
Who are "neighboring muslims"? If you are speaking about Palestinians, IMO arabs must have been helping arabs. If they do, then what's "unfair"? Both sides are being helped. If they not, Allah akbar ir rahman ir rahim... Mikkalai 22:22, 14 Feb 2004

I basically agree with you. Things aren't fair or nice, and hence the danger. I don't see Israel as even being so very bad, in the scheme of history. The problem is the circumstances. They sit on the edge of the knife, and the entire world is paying for the troubles of that region. The point I am trying to make is that it isn't remotely anti-semitic to view Israel as "the greatest threat to world security". Right or wrong, it is clearly a valid POV. Sam Spade 06:27, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here are the parts I removed (Dissident 00:18, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)):

A recent survey in Europe entitled Iraq and Peace in the World revealed that sixty percent of Europeans most often selected Israel as the nation that “presents a threat to peace in the world”. Palestine was not listed (as one of the 14 countries together with the EU from which a selection was to be made) because, the EU says, it is not a country.[9] Jewish groups expressed shock and regret at these results, likening them to views that were held by Germans before the Holocaust. Rabbi Marvin Hier, of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, stated that these “shocking results defy logic and [are] a racist flight of fancy that only shows that anti-Semitism is deeply embedded within European society.” The poll did not provide respondents the option of selecting any nation involved in the Middle East conflict other than Israel and Syria.page 78 (pdf page 82)

The list of 15 countries that might be a threat to peace was put together by a low-level EU unit in concert with Belgian members of EOS Gallup Europe. It was not cleared by foreign policy experts working for Chris Patten, the external relations commissioner. [10]

The president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi stated that the poll results “point to the continued existence of a bias that must be condemned out of hand. To the extent that this may indicate a deeper, more general prejudice against the Jewish world, our repugnance is even more radical.” Prodi further said that the poll “ "reflected neither the ideas nor the policies of the commission,"; and discounted public opinion as a factor in the formation of European policy.” [11]

This view is at odds with the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) report on anti-Semitism in Europe commissioned by the EU. The EUMC tasked Berlin's Center for Research on Anti-Semitism (CRA) with researching and writing the report.

I still think the above should be removed based on what is said at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Unless anyone objects and is interested in an honest discussion about it here, I will remove it again. -- Dissident 16:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I object and am interested in an honest discussion of the matter. Would it be appropriate to start by indicating which section of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute supports removal? OneVoice 16:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This section:

  • While all facts might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
  • Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others.
  • The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.

In this case the viewpoint that the result of the survey is somehow "proof" of European anti-Semitism. There should only be a remark that some people think that being critical of Israel or anti-Zionist is a symptom of anti-Semitism and that's exactly what my proposed change would leave. -- Dissident 17:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand, the part that you wish to delete consists of three distinct items:

  1. three paragraphs on the poll beginning at "A recent survey in Europe entitled Iraq and Peace in the World...",
  2. one paragraph about a study carried about by a different organization ("This view is at odds..."),
  3. and thee external links.

I believe that the poll grew so large based upon the heat of the discussion that it generated at the time...surely we can reduce the amount of material which may address the issue. I dont know if you wish to say that these paragraphs (either all of them or just the three paragraphs about the poll) are NPOV due to one, more than one, or all of the three reasons cited above from the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page.

Could you clarify for me regarding each of the three sections: poll, study, external links, which of the three NPOV reasons you feel apply to each section? OneVoice 18:50, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the survey itself is too unclear to be meaningful (as I tried to show in my edit). What's interesting about it is not the result (which is ambigious), but the responses to the survey results. IMHO, it showed that certain groups are very willing to blame people for anti-Semitism, just for being critical. I don't see the added value of showing this, because this has already been explained (and I don't think it is a good example).

Other problems I had was that the counterpoint is only explained at the end, it's much more fair to counter immediately, before the survey is explained. Lastly, I don't understand "This view is at odds with the [...] EUMC report...", so I left it out. I honestly don't understand what view the report is supposed to deny, but someone else is free to put it back if he can explain what the report is supposed to show. -- [[User::Wfzelle|Wfzelle]] 14:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Core of anti-Semitism?

This article is interesting, but it reminds me of a book I read some years back called (IIRC) "Why the Jews," and I believe Dennis Prager was one of two authors. It similarly explored Jews being disliked for allegedly killing Christ, or because they are perceived to be prosperous, or because many refuse to assimilate, or (the opposite tack) they are communists, so they want to assimilate too much, and so on, and so on.

But none of this seems at all satisfying and I believe the issue is diluted by looking for all kinds of material reasons. There are many ethnicities in the world that are disliked. I have especially met a few people from Europe who seemed to have a "book" on virtually every other country (but their own): "these people are stupid, these other people are aggressive, these other people are thieves," etc.

The self vs. others argument. Yes, every group with social rules that prevents mingling with another group gets persecuted. Ronabop 09:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So what makes Jews special for almost universal distaste? Why did Shakespeare and Marlowe write about Jewish stereotypes when they likely never knowingly met one?

Er, what? No jews in england? Huh? Ronabop 09:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Why, when writing about Fagin, did Dickens refer to him over and over as "the Jew"? Why is there anti-Jewish sentiment in Japan today, where most people have probably never seen a Jew?
Whoa. I suggest you re-learn your jewish-japanese history. During the holocaust, one of the few nations that was accepting jewish refugees was japan (odd, but true). Japanese jews exist. Ronabop 09:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  1. Jews are a minority in every country in the world, except in Israel since WWII.
  2. Jews are perceived as different from almost any society they are in.
  3. Jews have customs (especially dietary laws, holidays and sometimes dress) that seem to offend traditions others value.
  4. Jews are (or were) in many countries, and seem to be "international".

These things all break down into foreignness, inviting xenophobia. Every material reason given just seems to me to be reinforcement for the preconceptions already built into society.

One other thought occurred to me. Is it possible Jews fulfill an essential social need—that of a "common enemy" or "outsider"—a group of people that binds diverse members of a majority in common disdain? I think of some movies of the 1950s is which the whole quarreling world comes together to fight a common enemy—space aliens. Maybe Jews fulfill that need universally, where others (specific minorities in specific cultures) only have a local impact.

Am I off base? Sometimes the straightforward answer is the right one (Occam's Razor?) Cecropia 04:47, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you're on base, as far as people who don't assimilate into a culture being hated. What is odd about anti-semitism is that even when, for example, a group assimilates, Jews are often still hated. Jews have adopted cultural trappings all over the world, come in every color and language that the human race does, and are still being vilified. An anti-semite, to paraphrase an old joke, is a person who treats another human as being different, but only after they discover that the other human goes to a jewish worship service. Ronabop 09:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. You can see similar anger against other 'outsider' groups. An example is hatred and violence against Chinese immigrants in Indonesia. Traditionally, Chinese also do not assimilate very well. They are also extremely succesful economically, resulting in envy. Jews have often also been quite succesful economically, but there are also relatively many Jewish Nobel prize winners. That high visibility and success, coupled with limited integration seems to be a breeding ground for anti-semitism. Wfzelle 09:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

anti-semitism is a euphemism for anti-jewish

Can anyone cite an example of discrimination toward a non-Jewish semite (e.g., Arabs) as anti-Semitism? Cecropia 14:44, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your question is not meaningful to me. I agree that "anti-semitism" means "anti-jewish" but it is not a "euphemism" for it. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word "euphemism". --Zero 03:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It is a euphemism in the sense that it was invented to separate German racial philosophy from the prior anti-Jewish-religion connotations of the prior word, which someone else pointed out translated to "Jew hating" Judenhass. When one says "anti-Semetic" they really mean "anti-Jewish" which is not really the same thing. That's why I asked the question of whether there is any example of an Arab-hater, say, being described as an "anti-Semite"?
Whether or not it was invented as a euphemism, it is certainly not a euphemism now. If anything, it is the other way around as "anti-semitic" sounds stronger than "anti-Jewish". As for your question, yes there are examples but mostly they arise in polemical contexts that IMO don't really count. I don't think that the current usage of "anti-semitic" as including "anti-Arab" is sufficiently ubiquitous that it has to be acknowledged as an alternative valid meaning. That might change in the future. --Zero 04:39, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jews rejecting converts

Toytoy's edit accuses Jews of inviting anti-semitism by discriminating against all peoples who might want to become Jews. There are two sides to this.

One side is the issue that Judiasm is not only a religion. There are black, and oriental, and other etnicities who are Jews, either born or converted. But you cannot be become ethnically Jewish (if you accept that there is such a thing as "Jewish ethnicity"--Hitler thought so) in the sense that one can convert to Buddhism, but one cannot convert to being ethnically Chinese.

The religious aspect is the more interesting part. Judaism is, at core, a proseletyzing religion, it's in the OT. But Jews learned after many years that this wasn't such a good idea; not the least because so many nations and societies made Jewish seeking of converts punishable by death. So today even many Jews do not realize that Judaism's rejection of easy conversion is not inherent in the religion. And still, anyone can convert to religious Judaism, but it is a tough road to follow. As to intermarriage, most religions deem intermarriage (at least outside the religious tradition) as negative. I personally knew a Catholic who was formally excommunicated (bell, book and candle) for marrying a Presbyterian. Some Jewish groups feel especially threatened by intermarriage out of a not unrealistic fear that Jews will intermarry the religion out of existence, as more than half the Jews who marry in the U.S. now marry out of the religion. This is a political fear, essentially, not a matter of religious bigotry. Cecropia 18:33, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The best comparison seems to be nationality (without a country to back that). Matrilineal descent determines whether someone is a Jew, just like in some countries where the nationality of your parents determines your nationality. It is not ethnic or racial, since you can convert in (just like you can change your nationality). However, the rejection of converts by some orthodox Jews does seem to be racist. When they start talking about Jewish genes (which determines priesthood according to some), I get quite uncomfortable.

Anyway, there is already something about this at Judaism and that seems sufficient to me. Unless you can prove that anti-semitic ideologes were motivated by this, of course. However, somehow I doubt that they wrote: "I wanted to be a Jew, but they didn't let me, so now I hate them."

BTW, just today, a Dutch newspaper ran a story about what they called 'fatherjews.' The orthodox interpretation of Jewish law is that the mother determines a person's Jewishness. As such, even people with a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother are considered not to be Jewish (they can be converted, but orthodox Jews will often look down on converted Jews). Many don't understand why they aren't considered Jews, even though they were raised as Jews and had a Jewish father. --Wfzelle 20:48, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To me, an exaplaination of anti-Semitism is not complete without the two parts:

  • Jews generally expell a Jew converted to other religion
  • Jews generally do not accept a non-Jew convert

I am a Chinese born in Taiwan. I have Taiwan's citizenship. Probably I will have a Chinese one in the future. Ethnically I can be a Taiwanese and Chinese. I can't become an Indian or Anglo Saxon even though, theoretically, I can obtain India's or UK's citizenship. With LOTS of efforts, I can be converted to Judaism and accepted by some but not all (usually the Orthodox who are most important) Jews.

If you have converted to Judaism, you are considered a Jew like all others. You may be confused by the fact that the Orthodox branch of Judaism does not usually accept Reform converts (that is, those who converted to Judaism with a Reformist rabbi and synagogue). But there have been converts to Judaism from many, many different nations on Earth. Cema 06:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

However, if I travel back in time, I could even lose my Chinese identity. Because the idea of ethnical Han Chinese is constantly changing. As a Chinese, we are not a bunch of men and women inbred on an island. There's a non-stop influx of foreign genes entering our Chinese gene pool. I might have more than 50% of my blood from South Asian tribes who would had been seen as babarians to a Han Chinese 2000 years ago because my family came from south China. Even though, I can't rule out the possibility that some of my ancestors were from Central Asia who used to be Huns. Probably in hundreds of years, an Arab or even Italian could be mistaken as a Han Chinese.

There is a Jewish community migrated to China and lived in China's heartland more than a thousand years ago. Without knowing it in advance, I think most of us simply take them as Chinese, or Han Chinese.

I certainly know there are Jews who are not the same old kind of Jews. I also know The Thirteenth Tribe theory. But in comparison with other peoples on Earth, I find the Jews especially good at building walls. This is from the mouth of a man whose father's fathers used to be building the Great Wall. I think there are all kinds of people reading this page daily, but please, show me a true Phonecian or Hittite.

There are no Hittites in this world any more, but many Lebanese consider themselves Phoenicians, and I think have a right to do so. :-) Cema 06:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And if you from Greece, show me a Greek who still worships Athena and lives in Athens without a single drop of Macedonian blood.

There were people who hate Spartans, Carthaginians, Visigoths, Celts, Vikings or Moors. Their targets simply are gone or no longer exist in that old form anyway. If I bring Hannibal Barca to today, he will find himself no Latin-speaking Roman to kill. But if you bring a Medieval Jew hater to today, he or she will have countless people to hate.

Jews simply did too little to blend in. Even though I don't agree with it, to me, this fact constitutes another reason of cultural anti-Semitism. --Toytoy

Query on Anti-Semitism in Poland

This para begins "Since the reign of the Casimir the Great." Was the name actually a title (like Tsar) or is the use of "the" before "Casimir" a simple error of grammar? Didn't want to change it without knowing. Cecropia 16:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Casimir is his name and 'the Great' is his nickname/title. As such, 'the' should go. Wfzelle 14:33, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Miso-Judaism"

An anonymous editor added a reference to "miso-Judaism" being another word for "anti-Semitism". I've never heard this before. A Google search finds only eight hits, none of which make its meaning entirely clear. Should we keep it in or delete it? GrahamN 04:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My search has 26 hits, and you actually have 17 (as of this writing). Either way, though, it seems like a new, or uncommon, term. It fails the google test, IMHO. Ronabop 05:07, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It has been removed. RK

Mine has 50 [12] It is a perfectly accurate alternative. Anti-Semitic refers to negativity of feeling towards anything of semitic cultural origin but most specifically semitic "race". However the much more common use of the word is actually for Miso-judaic sentiment. Why remove such a comment?

It is not accurate. This term is not used by English speakers. Even at 50 hits, that fails the Google test. For goodness sake, you can find a person's not-widely-known nickname more than 50 times with Google! That doesn't mean that the word is a part of the English langauge. In any case, your further claims are incorrect. The word "anti-Semitic" does not, and has never, referred to "negativity of feeling towards anything of semitic cultural origin". Your claim is just totally false. RK 16:03, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of deletion of a straw-man attack

I have removed the following text:

Others, however, deny that criticism of Israel (and Zionism) necessarily represents anti-Semitism. [13] According to this view, when criticism of Israel is purely political in nature, it does not condemn the Jews. According to some, the overreaction of some Jewish groups means the dilution and abuse of the term anti-Semitism, that should be attributed only to hatred of Jews and dangerous and criminal acts, not to opinions about a nation's politics. The possibility exists that by labelling any criticism on Israel as anti-Semitic, some critics may indeed develop an anti-Semitic view in response.

This text was a deliberately dishonest straw-man argument that has been debunked many times before. No mainstream Jewish group hold such a position. In fact, on numerous occasions many Jewish groups themselves have publicly criticised the policies of different Israeli governments. More to the point, public statements by leaders of many Jewish groups clearly state that disagreement with Israel is not in of itself anti-Semitic. The only people making such claims are anti-Semites. Even the Anti-Defamation League, a pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist organization, has publicly stated that criticism of Israel is not, if of itself, anti-Semitism.

"Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Certainly the sovereign State of Israel can be legitimately criticized just like any other country in the world. However, it is undeniable that there are those whose criticism of Israel or of "Zionism" is used to mask anti-Semitism." (Anti-Defamation League website.)

In fact, the ADL itself publicly and strongly criticised the Knesset (Parliament) of the State of Israel for one its bills vis-a-vis the crisis with the Palestinians. So let's stop the strawman claims.

It is hateful to fabricate positions which the Jewish community does not have, and then attack the Jews for these non-existent beliefs, and then blame the Jews for the resulting anti-Semitic feelings which may result! This kind of behaviour is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. RK 15:39, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Fact is that the argument has been made and as long as the article doesn't pass any judgement on its validity, it belongs there. -- Dissident 22:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I said before (above), the article shouldn't make the case that the European poll is "proof" of European anti-Semitism. Therefore I'm going to remove it again and ask anybody who objects to take it here instead of just reverting. -- Dissident 22:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Anti-semitism" is a misnomer and is used as a cover to allow the dispossession and murder and displacement of other Non-Jewish Semites. [14]-PV

(sigh) I taught Vogel a new word and he goes to town with it. Yes, Anti-Semitism is a misnomer, it's a misnomer coined by a racist Jew-hater in the 19th century to describe his beliefs. The word caught on and was propagated by other Jew-haters. To imply that the Jews are responsible for the misnomer is ahistorical. AndyL 18:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Sigh) Such "ilk" like AndyL are so arrogant and are such typically hypocritical liars. Jews may not be "historically responsible" for the misnomer but, to imply that Jews don't also completely and very often abuse the term, "anti-Semitism" by their falsely "slandering" all others that oppose any Jews or Zionists with it, is typical, "Gentile-Hatred", and CHUTZPAH, a Yiddish word for almost incredibly BRAZEN "LYING HYPOCRISY"!-PV

Paul, has it ever occured to you that had Carl Sagan (or his parents) been living in Europe duing World War II the Nazis would have sent him to a concentration camp to be killed?AndyL 03:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AndyL, has it ever dawned on you that if most Jews had actually thought the same way that Carl Sagan did ( or his parents ) and if they actually did what he had so often and so passionately and always had advocated, and if ALL JEWS themselves had adopted pantheism or cosmotheism, as morally and ethically opposed to "Zionism" or "Jewish supremacism" and Judaism and its inherently "false identity" of the "Mosaic Distinction", and a "Self-Chosen" people and a Personal Godhood, then there would not be any "Nazi's" or others ever wishing to expell or to kill "Jews", nor would there likely have been any WWII, nor any "concentration camps"? Think about it?-PV

Well, if Carl Sagan's parents (or Sagan himself) had still been living in Europe you wouldn't be able to make your argument. Hitler didn't care about the religious or political beliefs of the Jews he had killed, all he cared about was their bloodline. If one grandparent was Jewish, that was enough for the gas chamber regardless if whether you were a "Pantheist", a Lutheran, a Catholic what have you. How do you reconcile that with your beliefs about Hilter? Just think of it, if Hitler had had his way two of the thinkers you most admire, Freud and Sagan, would have been killed or would never have been born. AndyL 23:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Well, if Carl Sagan's parents (or Sagan himself) had still been living in Europe you wouldn't be able to make your argument."

On the contrary, AndyL.

That is only your own "false assumption and presumption", AndyL.-PV

"Hitler didn't care about the religious or political beliefs of the Jews he had killed, all he cared about was their bloodline."


That is only your own "false assumption and presumption", AndyL.-PV

"If one grandparent was Jewish, that was enough for the gas chamber regardless if whether you were a "Pantheist", a Lutheran, a Catholic what have you."

That is only your own "false assumption and presumption", AndyL.-PV

"How do you reconcile that with your beliefs about Hilter?"

That is only your own "false assumption and presumption", AndyL. Therefore, it is your only own false beliefs that need "revision".-PV

"Just think of it, if Hitler had had his way two of the thinkers you most admire, Freud and Sagan, would have been killed or would never have been born. AndyL 23:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)"

That is only your own "false assumption and presumption", AndyL.-PV


AndyL, good point, but wasted -- don't feed trolls! Even if what you just wrote weren't true, PV's statement is close to extortion: believe what I believe or I will kill you (or, if someone else kills you, it is your fault). Nazi-mentality. Slrubenstein

"AndyL, good point, but wasted -- don't feed trolls!"

Hardly! LOL! :D That is only your own "false assumption and presumption", AndyL and Steve. I am not any "troll", whatsoever. I don't have any faith in any such "strawman" arguements of yours.-PV

"Even if what you just wrote weren't true, PV's statement is close to extortion: believe what I believe or I will kill you (or, if someone else kills you, it is your fault)."

What he wrote wasn't "true", whatsoever, it was only "conjecture". You should know all about "extortion", you being such experts at it. I don't believe in "killing anyone" for their "beliefs", unlike your own historical ilk, ie. within COMMUNIST/MARXIST RUSSIA, ad nauseum. However, some false beliefs can actually sometimes cause some others to kill you, and always falsely believing yourself or your own "ilk" to be always "above the law" and enforcing moral and ethical and behavioral "double-standards" upon all others can and will sometimes create murderous "hostility" towards such "ilk". It is the Cosmic Law of Cause and Effect, and no more and no less.-PV

"Nazi-mentality. Slrubenstein"

It is a "scientific mentality", whether "Nazi" or not. It is the Cosmic Law of Cause and Effect, and no more and no less.-PV

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_8&oldid=625766836"