Talk:Antisemitism in the Arab world/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Arab 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?

In the section itself it says that the same theories are held outside of the Arab world, so why is it specifically "Arab 9/11 Conspiracy Theories"? - NinedenLtD 20:05, 13 January 2006.

All Muslim Prophets ARE Semites, as are many Muslims

What is meant is that Muslims can be Anti-Jewish or better Anti-Zionist ... So simply say they are Anti-Zionist instead of using the ridiculous phrase Anti-Semites for the biggest Semite group ...

Please read the Anti-Semitism article and then the Anti-Zionism article. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Antisemit: Is not who doesn't like Jews, is who Jews don't like.

Antisemite: SYLLABICATION: an·ti-Sem·ite PRONUNCIATION: nt-smt, nt- NOUN: One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews. OTHER FORMS: anti-Se·mitic (-s-mtk) —ADJECTIVE

Damn, the jews and americans are so alike. Jews monopolized the term anti-semite just as the americans monopolized the terms "americans" and "united states" - when one says "the united states" - chances are one would think about USA, not the United States of Mexico

Waah, the Greedy Jews are hogging all the Antisemitism for themselves and won't let anybody else have any. So, anyway, what would you call pogroms in Russia in the 1900s, expressions of antiZionist sentiment? Or did the Russians also massacre Arabs, but the Jews are covering it up? Gzuckier 16:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What everyone forgets is that Jews (in the ethnic sense) and Arabs are both of Semitic ancestry. The Jews are descened from the Hebrews and the Arabs are Arabs, both ethnic groups originate from the same place (the Arabian Peninsula). Arabs can't be anti-semitic, but they can be anti-jewish, it's all in the wording. Anti-semitic has to do with being against semites (or ethnic jews), anti-jewish has to do with being against the jewish religion, and then there's anti-zionist which has to do with being against the (existence of the) State of Israel.

Nobody's forgotten anything, as detailed in the article the word was coined specifically by Antisemites who thought it declassè to be bigoted on the basis of religion, but scientifically up to date to be biased on the basis of heredity. I don't know whether they would have been equally biased against those of Arabic nationality, given the relative paucity of Arab-Germans at the time, but there is no indication in their writings that they intended antisemitism to refer to anyone other than Jews. Such is the way languages work. When I ask the clerk in the store if they have a rest room, it's not because I'm looking for a place to nap. Ironically, the saucepan is not the ideal vessel to use for making sauces. My inflammable pajamas are liable to catch on fire. Etc. Gzuckier 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the Khazar Jews? AFAIK they aren't Semitic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.198.112 (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Accusation that this article is silly

I don't think we need all this kinds of silly talks; alot of dumb things are written any day.

How can you have an article on anti-Semitism, and then remove examples of anti-Semitism? These actions that you call "silly" have raised a generation of suicide bombers that believe it is Allah's will to mass-murder Jews. How can you imply that such an signiciant sociological development be removed? RK

• Syrian has claimed in the UN that Jews murder and eat Christian babies for Passover
• Egyptian newspapers claims that Jews lace bubble gum with aphrodisiacs to cause Muslim girls to lose sexual inhibitions
• Egyptian and Palestinian newspaper claim that Jews invented HIV (the virus that causes AIDS)

The article needs to be shortened and needs references a well.-- Di Stroppo

No, this article does not need to be shortened. In fact, like most Wikipedia entries, it needs people well schooled in this area to expand on it. Wikipedia intends on becoming a full fledged encyclopaedia; its not a mere dictionary. People come to this project to contribute scholarship. RK

Constructive does not mean just to dump various bits and pieces of information in a text box. We need a well written article that is focused using verified material not just copying gossip and hate. -- Di Stoppo

I agree, but what does that have to with the well-reseached and indisputable facts here? You seem desperate to hide the beliefs of hundreds of thousands of Muslim Arabs, especially those influenced by the Islamist movement. Quoting the Arab;s own pointof view, in their own words, and giving further references to show how accurate and representative this is is not gossip. In fact, this is precise opposite of gossip. Have you read any texts on this subject? RK

True that people should be neutral in their writing, but although the Wikipedia writier may be neutral, it doesn't mean the source he is getting his information is at all factual or neutral.--Tommajor 04:46, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, it's completely unbalanced. Perhaps if you re-named the article "Mutual Hostility Between Arabs and Jews, Yet Another Example of Outdated, Unwinnable, and Extremely Tiresome Tribalism" and actually attempted to understand the situation from both sides, instead of just pointing the finger and playing victim. The Wiki shouldn't tolerate anti-Arabism anymore than anti-Semitism. My father, upon hearing the phrase "Artificial Intelligence", used to say, "I want to know when someone's going to start doing research into Artificial Stupidity..." Should I point him to this article? Fishanthrope

The content of this article may seem to fill your criticisms thereof, however the existence of the phenomenon is still worthy of study, if not necessarily of a Wikipedia article. My main criticism of the article remains not with the content, but rather with its name, since it is very easy to get the immediate impression from the name that "all Arabs hate Jews", which is simply not the case. There is, in fact, no really good way to determine the extent to which this sentiment is prevalent in Arab societies, except in Israel and the (fill in your POV-preferred description) territories, where nazi-style Jew-hatred seems to be a favored outlook by 30-80% (depending on the locale) of the Arab population. (This is the most-polled population in the middle-east.) If you sincerely believe that this is a tribalistic conflict, then perhaps you can sufficiently demonstrate that Jews entertain similar views wrt Arabs/Muslims/Islam/whatever-your-contention-is. As for where to direct your dad in his search for Artificial Stupidity, the article is not the place to point him, although this talk page might be. Tomer ^TALK 01:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

By means of example, here's a news story from April 4, 2005:

According to a poll taken by the prestigious Dahaf institute, headed by veteran Israeli pollster Mina Tzemach, an overwhelming majority of Israelis believe that the State should encourage Arab citizens of Israel to emigrate.

The poll taken for Madar, the Palestinian Center for Israeli Studies, located in Ramallah, found that of 501 Jewish Israelis surveyed, 42% agreed that the State should be encouraging Arabs to emigrate. An additional 17% said they tended to agree with this.

Forty percent of those surveyed said they disagreed or tended to disagree with having the State promote the emigration of Arabs.

This is a far cry from advocating the killing of the Arabs, or even of demonizing Arabs in any way, but this is the kind of thing that you might be able to use to build up your case for what you appear to be claiming. That said, a lot of what you're going to find and compile will most likely end up being original research... Tomer ^TALK 01:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • If I look up and say "The sky is blue," you'd shoot me down for 'original research.' Anyway, whatever the Israelis claim now does little to change the fact that Palestinians are still second-class citizens in what used to be their own sovereign country.

The second class citizens part may be correct but their own sovereign country????? When was that, and what was the name of that country? Gzuckier 18:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical context

I think it would also be valuable to historicize this discussion (as the article on Christian anti-semitism is). I was taught that Muslim Spain was a great time/place for Jews -- quite different from the situation today. I wonder how much Arab anti-semitism was aroused or even created by the rise of modern nationalism (both Arab nationalism and Zionism)? In any event, I think the aticle would be stronger if it could document changing Arab attitudes, as well as differences between official and popular attitudes towards Jews, and the changing contexts for these activities, SR

As SR had pointed out, the terms "Arab" and "Muslim" are not interchangeably. Many Arabs are Christians (maybe 2%, 5%, more?) , a tiny percent are are of the druze faith (though they rarely refer to themselves as Arabs). In the western world a small number of Arabs are likely Unitarians, deists, humanists and atheists. Similarly, a large number of Muslims are not Arab. Perhaps the current title of the entry should be re-titled "Islamic anti-Semitism"? I will not change the name of the entry today, to see if any other useful name suggestions come up. RK

"of the druze faith (though they rarely refer to themselves as Arabs)" That's simply not true. I'm not aware of any significant element of the Lebanese or Syrian Druze populations who don't think of themselves as Arabs.Palmiro 18:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the first time I've edited a talk page - sorry if I mess it up. I totally agree with the above comments, the article isn't on arabs and anti-semitism, it's on arabs and anti-semitism in the 20th century. There is a long history of (generally) peaceful relations between the two, it's a shame to focus purely on recent history.

I must agree, we need more material on anti-arabism as well... also, we need some data on the part about how prior to the last century or so, Muslims generally treated Jews better thn just about everybody else--the contrast with modern events is staggering. Sweetfreek 14:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is silly. What if I were to create an article "Whites And Anti-Black Racism", or "The Chinese and Anti-Japanese Racism." This article is not relevant information, but a political opinion supported by facts. Yes, there are Arabs that are anti-semitic. But writing an article characterizing ALL or even a MAJORITY of Arabs as anti-semitic is racist. This article is an advertisement for someone's political opinion, therefore should not constitute as an article for an encyclopedia. I'd support renaming the article, revising it, or outright removing it. 69.138.24.96 19:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Emotionally driven and slightly off-topic, but you do have a point. Given that racism is not a monolithic concept, it stands perfectly to reason that individual subjects of racism should be discussed individually. Sweetfreek 02:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Compelling and important as this subject may be, I have a hard time seeing a place for "reports" like these in Wikipedia's main entries. Encyclopedias aim to be objective and definitive, which this article cannot be. There is still plenty of cataloging (of things, concepts, events) before we begin generating controversial topics AS SEPARATE ENTRIES. This article must be merged under Antisemitism and severely edited.

Islam and conquering

I have completely no expertise in this area, but this passage struck me as odd:

Unlike Christianity, Muslims sought to conquer the world through force of arms, rather than through conversion. As such, when Muslim armies conquered nations, they felt no special need to force Jews (or Christians) to convert to Islam. Members of other religions, however, were forced to convert, or they were killed.

There was never a Christian program to conquer the world. There is one in Islam, but if memory serves the original idea in the Koran was more like conversion than anything else; certainly "world conquering" is a lousy description for the idea.

Right, I was trying to show a contrast between Christianity and Islam. Christianity never officially sent armies over the planet to convert the world to Christianity. (although individual Kings and Queens effectively did this; but they did so as part of a nationalist agenda, and not a theological one.) In contrast, the Quran commands Muslims to conquer the world for Islam; during Mohammed's life and in the centuries after, that is what they actually did. They succeeded in militarily conquering over a third of the known world at the time. Muslim armies swept over nation after nation. Only massive amount of military force from Christian nations stopped the expansion of Islam. To this day Islamic law requires that Muslims reconquer the lands that they lost (including Spain and Israel.) RK

Also, I think the claim that members of other religions were forced to convert or killed is plain wrong, so I'm removing it. Under Muslim rule in India during the Middle Ages, "dhimmi" status was extended to Hindus; similarly Buddhists elsewhere. -- CYD

Jews had it better under nuslims that under Christians - well, from that article it seems that it have more or less the same rights (authonomy, right to practicise its religion) as in Poland (and i guess in few other christian countries the same). What were differences? I would either remove that sentence, or add "with exception of... and here listed few (right now i am thinking about one B-) ) countries". Or what were that rights compared to Jewish authonomy in Poland-Lithuania? Had Jews some authonomy in Hungary too?

For a detailed analysis of this subject, please see "Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages", by Mark R. Cohen, Princeton Univ. Press, 1994. The intro to the book says "Did Muslims and Jews in the Middle Ages cohabit in a peaceful "interfaith utopia?" Or were Jews under Muslim rule persecuted, much as they were in Christian lands? Rejecting both polemically charged "myths," Mark Cohen offers a systematic comparison of Jewish life in medieval Islam and Christendom--the first in-depth explanation of why medieval Islamic-Jewish relations, though not utopic, were less confrontational and violent than those between Christians and Jews in the West."

Website for this book

Title of the article

Why is this article titled "Arab anti-Semitism" and seems to only include information about "Islamic anti-Semitism"? Not all Arabs are Muslims and to suggest so would not be very NPOV. This doesn't seem to follow the logic of the more aptly named, "Christian anti-Semitism". I suggest a change in title to Islamic anti-semitism --maveric149

The choice of name for this article is just plain "bad". Even changing it to "Islamic anti-semitism" is a bad idea. What this article deals with is a very specific manifestation of anti-Semimitism, specifically as promoted by a (predominantly) Sunni Arab-world media and religious establishment dominated by Wahhabis or others who use Wahhabiya to promote their agenda (or in the case of certain governments, to help divert attention from their oligarchist or dictatorial régimes). In that light, it should be renamed "Wahhabi anti-Semitism" or included in a "Modern Manifestations" section in the already extant "Islamic anti-Semitism" article. I agree that this article is crap, not because it's a made up phenomenon, but because it's poorly done. TShilo12 07:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "s" in anti-semitism be capitalized? I thought it always was in English and my searches on Google tend to support this. --maveric149

Arab peoples speak Semitic languages

First of all, MANY ARABIC PEOPLE ARE SAMITES! Samites is a common description for the people living or lived around the Palestine/Israel area, Jews, Palestinians, Samarians, Philistees and so on. Israel has tried with bacteriological warfare against their enemies, they have failed because genetically speaking Jews and Arabs are very similar.

Second of all, taking quotes, from a book written about 1300 years ago, and not mentioning their historical context is stupid.

Third of all, the only thing this shows is a deep ignorance towards Arab culture, yes keep the content rename the article to "Jewish racism against Arabs" it would fit.

Isn't Samite a type of cloth? And if you will read other areas of the Wikipedia, you will see that Arabs are not being singled out -- there are other cases around of articles about anti-Arabism. -- Zoe

Arabs are not Semites. They are a people whose langauge is Semitic, which is a big difference. Please see the article on anti-Semitism for a discussion of the etymology of the word. It doesn't mean what you imagine it does. RK 12:46, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

(1) There is no such thing as "Arabic People". Arabic is a language, spoken by many peoples, most of whom are Semites or relatives of Semites. "Arab" describes several of those peoples, primarily those who live on the Arabian peninsula. Not all Arabs, however, speak Arabic. Your claim that "Semite" describes peoples who live/d in or around the Palestine/Israel area is patently wrong. Ancient Jews were predominantly Semitic, descending directly from Noach's son Shem. Palestinians is a nationality that was made up in 1964 to describe the Arabic-speaking residents of (and refugees (real or claimed) from) living in the Levant in what is presently the nation-state of Israel including the disputed territories, not-including the Golan. Palestinians take their name from Palestine, the name the Romans gave the province of Iudæa following the quashing of the Jewish revolt against Rome in 72 AD. Why did they name it Palestina? In honor of the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Jews, who had been long since conquered in succession by the Jews, Egyptians and Assyrians...in other words, they named the province in honor of a people who no longer existed, in order to give that people a posthumous "victory" over the Jews. (Jerusalem was at the same time renamed Ælia Capitolina, but this really is not a history lesson...) The Samarians were Jewish residents of the Shomron, who were exiled 'en masse' by the Assyrians approximately 3600 years ago. I assume, however that what you meant were the Samaritans, who were a people brought in by the Assyrians to displace the Samarians who had been exiled 1000 km to the east. These people were (and in Hebrew, to this day, are) called Kuthim, because they came from the region of Kuth, somewhere in Mesopotamia. I assume this is the modern city we know as Al Kut in modern-day Iraq. It is possible that these people were also Semites. The last group, "Philistees" (an erstwhile spelling of Philistines) is an almost laughable inclusion, since of the little that is known about them, the one thing upon which every historian agrees is that they were definitely not Semites. In fact, it quite clearly says in the only text from the time that says anything about their origin, that they came from Kaftor: Cyprus.

(2) The claim that Israel has engaged in bacteriological warfare against their enemies is incomprehensible nonsense. That quote would make a good inclusion into what the article discusses. What really makes it all-the-more ridiculous is that the same people who make these claims, in other contexts, claim that Jews today are not really Jews, claiming instead that Ashkenazim especially are descendants of Khazars (who were legitimately Jewish, but by conversion...which apparently doesn't mean anything to the anti-Jewish promulgators of this nonsense, since they cite conversion as a reason to say that someone isn't really Jewish...), and therefore not only not Jewish, but also not even Semites. Genetically speaking, Jews (with the exception of Temanim, Bene Israel, and a few other important groups) are overwhelmingly more closely related to Arabic- and Aramaic-speaking populations from Syria, Jordan and Iraq than they are to populations from Arabia or north Africa. In fact, genetically speaking, the vast majority of Jews, including Ashkenazim, are closer to these populations than Egyptian "Arabs" are to Arabian-peninsula Arabs. This is a fact well known to the Israelis (20+% of whom are "Arabs"). I won't continue to discuss (right now at least) how ridiculous this assertion is, but it'd be nice if you'd provide a single shred of evidence to back it up when you spout such drivel. (No, that was not meant to sound diplomatic. Don't watch for an apology.)

(3) I couldn't agree more about the stupidity of quoting things without context from 1300 year old texts. This does not stop the same people about whom this article was written from quoting 3300 year old texts out of context.

(4) Renaming the article is a great idea, one which I fully support. Renaming it "Jewish racism against Arabs" is not the answer. Such a recommendation is nonsensical, and it certainly would not fit, and not only because Arabs aren't a "race" (indeed, no moreso than Jews are). In any case, while I recognize that you might find the article (or its name) personally offensive, lashing out in this way, especially anonymously, does nothing to serve your cause.

(5) Finally, the term "antisemitism", no matter how it's hyphenated or capitalized, was specifically invented by a professed hater of Jews for the express purpose of meaning "hatred of Jews", to replace the earlier term "Judenhaß", because he thought it sounded more scientific rather than emotional or religious. TShilo12 08:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(1) - (a) I think you meant "Samarians ... exiled ... 2600 years ago" (or is it 2700?). (b) The renaming of Judea I think was done by Romans in 132 AD after the final crushing of the second Jewish revolt. 217.132.143.144 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(3) - "out of context" - the referenced quote in support of "mass murder and enslavement" claim is talking specifically of the three Jewish tribes of Medina - Bani Quraiza, Bani Nadir and Bani Qainuqa, so it can not possibly be more "in context" than that, it seems. 217.132.143.144 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits and reversions (2002)

RK, about your recent mass reversion - why did you do it? I agree there are questions to be asked about several of the changes, but many of the changes were putting the Qur'an verses in better context (how can that be less NPOV?) and (the editor claimed) correcting the quotes from the Qur'an - can you explain why you reverted these changes as well as all the others? --Camembert 02:08 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

There was no effort at all to represent the situation in a historical light, nor any attempt at all to do anything less than present a full-fledged Islamic apologetic. The person made very clear, in a number of places, that Islam really was the one true religion, and every change he made reflected this viewpoint. Very little of what he or she wrote was NPOV. It would be a huge waste of time to through every single change one sentence at a time. If someone wants to make a good faith effort in adding to or improving this entry, they need to at least try to be NPOV. My user-history shows that I am perfectly willing to do the same kind of revert with regards to articles on other faiths; in recent months I (among others) have done precisely the same thing when presented with Orthodox Jewish apologetical rewrites of articles, or Jehovah Witness Christian apologetical rewrites of articles. It doesn't matter if the person is a member of my faith or not. Even when changes are made that make my preferred faith out to be "the one truth" I have removed such claims, simply because I am trying (the best I can) to be NPOV. RK

I understand that my actions make it look like I am unwilling to accept any changes, but that is not so. We can look through the history of this article, and at our leisure incorporate one change at a time, as long as there some historical scholarship to back it up, or as long as opinions are presented as such. I just would hope that when new changes are made, they don't concern every single paragraph at the same time, and that when changes of major importance are made (as they were) there is something offered in the Talk section to back some of them up. RK

Personal Comment

As a muslim I've always been told to respect all humans and never go against a Jew or Christian since they are also followers of the same God. I'd have to definetely say this is fabricated material written by a ignorant individual, and should not be featured as one of the pages in this site. Prophet Mohammad always tells us to love and respect those of other faiths who worship the same God. These quotes are ridiculous fabrications written by misguided people. The Quran has never been interpreted as such or translated in such a manner. Quran verses have always been written in a beautiful poetic manner.

Dear Mr. Anonymous: You may find this page insulting or uncomplimentary to the Prophet, pbuh. That fact however, does not negate the fact that the material presented in this article is an accurate portrayal of the daily pronouncements coming from the MEDIA and (especially Allawite and Wahhabi) RELIGIOUS establishment both in the modern Arab world and in those enclaves of the rest of the world where their influence is felt. I have already registered my distaste with the name of the article as a whole, but the fact remains that the phenomenon exists, and to a much greater extent than many people, especially Muslims living in "the West" are comfortable admitting. I have shown examples of the subject matter of this article to Muslim friends of mine, and their invariable instant reaction is "That's not Islam!" While I'm happy to hear that "that's not Islam", their voices are not heard, or if they are, have no impact on the vehemently anti-Israel, and anti-Jewish rhetoric that is now commonplace on "the Arab Street". This is unfortunate, but denying it doesn't make it go away, nor does an unwillingness to admit to its existence or pervasiveness make it misguided fabrication. TShilo12 08:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Change of title

I changed the title of the article. The title is undoubtedly neutral now, whether or not it was before. --Ed Poor

Some suggestions for completing the article would be:

• charges of anti-Semitism, i.e., claims by Jews and others that some Arabs are, do, or say anti-Semitic things.
• Koran statements
• newspaper statements
• 9/11 responses

I'm not taking sides, and I'm not going to write this. You guys are: RK, elian, DanKeshet, et al. -- while I sit back and watch. --Ed Poor

sorry, I don't have the knowledge for writing about Arab anti-semitism, all I know is that MEMRI is not the place to do research about it (and maybe also not the appropriate site to link to). --Elian

Elian, you are right about not having knowledge - MEMRI is considered 100% accurate and has never been accused of mistranslating any arab source - by translating the the anti semitic ravings of many muslims it has revealed the true beliefs they hold that they won't speak in English. Incorrect 13:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Did someone just change the article back? I'm getting dizzy. Maybe I should just log off for the weekend. Whee! Time off from Wikipedia!! --Ed Poor

Yes, me (explanation on my talk page), so it's not you getting dizzy ;-) Have a nice weekend! --Elian

---

Having followed the edit history of this article and reread it, I don't think I will change any jota of this article. If people want to use Wikipedia as a propaganda platform for slandering Arabs, I don't want to stop them, lost in their hatred as they seem. --Elian

Need for critical analysis

I find the changes I made reasonable, I think the article sounds a bit more neutral now.

The quotation from the Qur'an? Not really, sorry. What this article is missing is a thorough analysis of the development of anti-semitism (how much effect had the creation of Israel?), a critical debate of how much is anti-Israelism and how and if the terms are seperable, a description of the practical institutionalization of anti-semitism (are there any laws in the arab countries which discriminate against Jews, i.e. especially Jews, not just adherents of other religions?). A mere collection of anti-semitic statements of arab jounalists and politicians does not make it an encyclopedia entry. And this is something I can't do, because i don't have the knowledge. I don't want to use ad hominem arguments, but ideally all this should not be written by a Jew, who lacks the necessary distance to discriminate between Anti-Israelism and Anti-Semitism (this is not directed to Jews in general). --Elian

---

The quotations written before I excluded them from the original article seemed inexplicit, by replaceing it with a more accurate verse I wanted to show that anti-semitism is a inaccurate interpretation of the Qur'an. The original, inaccurate verses written in the current article led up to these misinterpretations by which the author tried to prove his point. However you certainly seem to make a point. Should we exclude the quotation? --Alireza Hashemi

---

Responding both to Elian and to Alireza Hashemi:

Everything relating to Jews in the Middle East is so tangled up that even when people are earnestly looking for common ground they often cannot find it. There is too much hostility, both open and disguised.

There are arguments for against so many large and small points, and many of these are intricately inter-related, too.

We can't even agree on what a "Palestinian" is, or whether a Palestinian state exists! These latter two difficulties alone make it just about impossible to write any neutral articles, even when a writer is determined not to take sides.

I don't know how to achieve Wikipedia:NPOV in this article. I just know that it's good to try, and that I will keep trying. Please help me, everyone. --Ed Poor

Hello Alireza, nice that you adopted a user name, it is a lot easier to communicate. Now I understand :-) In fact, I split the article in two and moved everything about Islam to Anti-Semitism in Islam since: first) not all Arabs are Muslims and second) not all Muslims are Arabs. I would suggest to exclude the quotation. If you like, have a look at the article on Anti-Semitism in Islam and try to neutralize it (I inserted some quotes of Ibn Hisham, but there is a lot more to be done). Be careful and prepare for edit wars, though! --Elian

I've attempted to create something that addresses why anti-semitism in the arab newspapers. I've attached it as a link instead of putting it in the article. What is really needed are for people from arab countries to write this.

'Please' specify for the sake of NPOV. It's absolutely trivial to claim that there are anti-Semitic newspapers (a lot of countries do), and specify which newspapers, what governments, etc. I've tried to do begin this in the article, but I implore you to add more.

Removed nonsense

I removed : "Thanks to the efforts of American pro-Israeli organizations, the world is kept well informed about what this tiny minorty thinks. Their views should correctly be compared to the hate mongering of religious extremist settlers in the West Bank, Gaza and in other places." I have no thanks to write or say. A lot of not-american and not pro-Israeli peoples and organisations are vigilant about anti-semitism, as they are for any other form of racism. Ericd 21:28 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

---

RK I reverted the previous edit by Quasar. But why do you revert this one ? What is anti-semitic.

Ericd 00:01 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism versus threats to kill Israeli Jews

Some of the examples on the page can be reasonably be classified as anti-semitism, but some cannot. The long section about children on Palestinian TV doesn't contain anything that should be here. It is just the normal propaganda bullshit that occurs in most societies that are at war. So the Palestinians hold as heros people who did violence to their enemies in the past; so what is new? Israel does that too (including people who were terrorists by all reasonable definitions). All countries do that. What we are seeing here is just the standard propaganda device of demonising the enemy so that their legitimate concerns don't need to be listened to. The sentence I just wrote applies both to the Palestinian TV segments reported here and to the person who thought they belong on this page. -- zero

Agreed, that section should be removed. Not only for the reasons you point out, but also because they would appear to be an attact on the state of Israel - not Jews in general. -- stewacide

Agreed too. Many Palestinians wiew the Israelis as an illegitimate occupying power and terror attacks as a legitimate way to drive them out, yet that does not imply any notion that they are necessarily against Jews per se. David.Monniaux 08:44, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree with Stewacide and David Monniaux. Their claims are divorced from reality. The uncontested fact is that in the Arab Middle East, the terms "Israeli", "Zionist" and "Jew" are used interchangeably, indicating a conjoining of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The vast majority of Arabs make no difference between opposing Judaism and opposing the Israeli government. Since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, Arabs have interchangeably used the term "Zionists" (Sahyûniyyûn), with "Jews", "Children of Israel" (Banû Isrâîl) or "Israelis". (Stillman, 1986) "The mounting scale and sheer extent of this vehemently anti-Semitic literature and commentary in the newspapers, journals, magazines, radio, television, and in the everyday life of the Middle East have swamped that minority of Arabs who did try to separate their attitudes to Jews from their rejection of Zionism." (Wistrich, Antisemitism, p. 253) RK 16:21, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Even assuming the truth of everything you wrote, your logic is broken. Just because someone does not verbally distinguish "Jew" and "Israeli" that does not mean that an attack they make on Israel is actually an attack on Jews. The four paragraphs in question do not even contain the words "Jew" or "Israeli" in Palestinian quotation. What we have in those paragraphs is an account of Palestinians railing against the people they see as their oppressors. I don't see the slightest anti-Semistism in it and I don't think it belongs in this article. --zero 08:29, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you don't see this Palestinian incitement to murder Jews as anti-Semitic, then you are blind and self-deceiving, at best. Suffice it to say that all mainstream Jewish groups clearly recognize this as anti-Semitism. RK 12:22, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pardon me for thinking for myself, I tell things as I see them and don't look to other people for my opinions. Apparently for you any antipathy towards people who happen to be Jews is antisemitism, but for me the Jewishness has to be a root cause of the antipathy. The fact is that Palestinians would want to kill Eskimos if the Eskimos treated them as Zionism and Israel have. It has nothing to do with the Jewishness of the Israelis. The position you espouse is simply a convenient way to avoid engaging the real issues. They are evil so their cause has no merits. Furthermore, in your paragraph above, as in many things you have written in Wikipedia, you make no attempt to distinguish between the Palestinians (the subject of the paragraphs in question) and "the Arab Middle East" (the subject of your quotations). That is exactly the same sin you are accusing others of.-- zero 13:41, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What Zero0000 said makes perfect sense, and isn't bigoted in the least. If you can't comprehend the difference between someone hateing Israel and hating Jews (the topic of this article) then just go away.

For example, the Palestinian Authority inciting their citizens to kill Jews from Israel is completely different from the PA inciting their citizens to kill any Jew worldwide. The first is likely modivated by their understandable hatred of Israel and the occupation. The second, if it can be shown, would infact be an example of anti-semitism as defined here. -- stewacide 01:53, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely false. The PLO does kill random Jews worldwide. They have never restricted themselves to Israeli soldiers, or even to random Israeli civilians. (For that matter, they also have machine gunned Jewish babies int their cribs in recent years. This made newspapers in the West; did you miss all those stories> This by you is political and not anti-Semitic? What nonsense. In any case, the PA and PLO often makes no distinction between "the Jews" and the "the Zionists". Unless you are accusing them of lying about their own beliefs in their own newspapers, PA funed mosques, and radio stations, you have nothing to back your position up with. Their own words and actions are clear, and it is intellectually dishonest to twist them around to make them into something quite the opposite. RK 02:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

When was the last time a mainstream branch PLO killed random Jews worldwide outside Israel? When was the last time there was a serious act of terrorism worldwide which a mainstream group of the PLO claimed to have carried out ? The world and the PLO have changed since the 1970s. The PLO does not gun down babies in the crib. Maybe an extremist group did it, but that does not represent the PLO. I see this section has descended into a shouting match between the moderates and hardline pro-Israelis. This place is not the place for such biased 'facts' and pursuing your political agenda RK. Hauser

Questions about fairness of the article

Hi,

I don't think this is a completely fair and accurate description of anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world (which I take is the topic). Even though the article starts by warning against frequent confusion between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, it soon loses itself in that very confusion. I don't deny the existence of anti-Jewish sentiment in the world and in particular in the Arab world, but I think the facts highlighted here, notably in the section about the PA, demonstrate more anti-Zionist lines of thought than anti-Semitism. I spent a summer in Palestine, and it's true that people there call Israelis "Jews", but not in a racist/intolerant sense. They have their share of racist people, like every one else, but they say "the Jews" because that's what they always said, before the creation of Israel. Habits are slow to fade, especially this one because some people still would rather not accept Israel as a reality.

Anyway, I really think the section about the PA is mostly inappropriate and misleading if not altogether irrelevant. I don't think the PA would be acting any differently if the Israelis were Christian or even Buddhist for that matter. It shows an apology of violent armed struggle, and foolish propaganda, but against Israel, not against Jews.

All this goes to underscore the self identification of the Jewish people with Israel as one entity, which most non-Jewish people in the world don't make or at least don't understand.

GJ

---

This article is crap, and I don't even need to look at the history to tell who wrote most of it. Examples of what I mean:

Genuine anti-Semitism is extremely prevalent in the Arab world

The Arab world includes three hundred million people, distributed from Morocco to Oman (so sayeth our article; is this statement is based on polls conducted throughout the entire region? Or is it just a subjective opinion from someone who can probably neither read nor speak Arabic?

Many Arab newspapers . . . either deny that the Holocaust ever took place, or state that it was massively exaggerated"

How many? 10%? 30%? 50%? 99%? Do any systematic, quantitative studies exist?

Educated Arabs and Muslims do not accept such views, and like Americans, they correctly saw these claims to be yet another conspiracy theory.

The POV should be obvious—even if you think, as I do, that this belief is a nutty conspiracy theory.

However, a great many within the Arab world viewed this terrorist act as a conspiracy to make the world hate all Arabs, and therefore people perceived to be enemies of the Arabs must really be to blame.

How many? There are polls to back up this statement, I assume.

This is despite the fact that an actual Mossad conspiracy to carry out major terrorist attacks against the United States in the hope that Arab terrorists would be blamed would be an insanely risky course of action for Israel.

POV by omission: we could also mention the fact that a war between the US and certain Arab countries could be of immense benefit to Israel—but this isn't the place to debate conspiracy theories.

Then there's the debate over the PA's war propaganda (see above), but I doubt that will be resolved any time soon. . . Anyway, I'll see what I can do for this article, but I am not sanguine about its prospects. —No-One Jones 20:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good points - in particular, the polls... If a statement about a population's views can't be backed up numerically, it's unlikely to belong here. I've fixed no. 3 already, but much remains to be done. - Mustafaa 20:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anti-semitism, or Miso-Judaism?

"Arab anti-Semitism" is not really an accurate term since Arabs are themselves Semites. A more appropriate term would be "Arab miso-Judaism". -- Spleeman 04:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. We will not play these word games. In the English language the word "anti-Semitism" was invented to mean the htared of Jews, and of Jews alone. It has always held this meaning, and the only people who dispute this today are those who try to hide the existence of anti-Semitism. Further, there is no such word as "misoJudaism". Please see the Talk archives on this specific subject in the Anti-Semitism article; this issue has been talked to death a dozen times, and a firm consensus already exists on useage. RK

That's fine with me -- I don't really care very much either way to be honest. I was simply trying to point out that "miso-Judaism" might be considered more accurate in a technical, linguistic sense. Please do not insinuate that by bringing up the topic I am playing "word games" or trying "to hide the existence of anti-Semitism". If the issue has already been discussed, then that's that. It's settled. There's no need to be rude or to brow-beat me about it just for mentioning it. -- Spleeman 23:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are right it would be more proper and its not a word game like that brain-dead slug RK seems to think it is. Many Arabs are semitic bottom line. Its e like saying "African anti-africanism".

I think it would be a good idea to note in the anti-semitism "etymology and usage" the basis of the word. Semitism is an article, but I don't believe semite is (looked, semetic people is). Semetic doesn't refer to a group of people speaking a language it refers to a group of people from the north coast of Africa to Iran (i believe, that is why i'm on a discussion page) Not trying to complain, it just seems that this needs to be sorted out by people in "the know". Also, it seems that you need to research to find this info, it doesn't pop out at you. Anti-Semitism is a misnomer, maybe putting that in the article would clear things up. JoeHenzi 09:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This precise issue is discussed in the article on anti-Semitism, but maybe it needs to be expanded. RK 12:46, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

The muddying of language is easily revealed here. Just because an author in the 1800s used the word, Anti-semitic, to refer to Jews only, doesn't mean that the word fails to exist when used amoung two groups in the Semetic lingual group. As one author here, miso-Judaism is more accurate and allows us to see how non-Arabs discriminate against Arabs and Arabic in a broad sweep. Therefore, would we be correct in starting a new term for Arabs, anti-Arabic, even though they are semites?

The author above who says inter-African hatred would never be called African anti-Africanism. The limited confines of some who have already variated the actual words meaning reveals their confusion about the terms meaning at its root. Further the Stop sign at the top that states "we know" should force the original page on Anti-Semitism to be refined to include all anti-Semitic hatred. If not, we can slide that slippery slope where the word Rabbit will mean hippopotimus because they have four limbs and 2 ears. "Call things as they are" is what Confucious said about bring about peace on any issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.123.104.99 (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Totally Disputed

Please list the issues and lets address them. Lance6Wins 17:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See my post above, beginning with "This article is crap". Also see Elian's post above, under #Need for critical analysis. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arab != Muslim

Certainly we can agree that not all Muslims are Arabs. However what percentage of Arabs are non-Muslim? While the two catagories are not equal, there may be a one-way equivalence to within 10% or less. Anyone have any data? Lance6Wins 17:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Most Arabs are Muslims, yes, but Islam and anti-Semitism is addressed in a separate article. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Naturei Karta

I like the part about the "UltraOrthodox Jews that the wider Jewish community considers anti-Semitic"! It appears that everyone, even Orthodox Jews, are guilty of anti-semitism. Are these Jews considered anti-semitic simply because they are anti-Zionist? If so, this must be one of the most glaring examples of misuse of the phrase "anti-semitism" for political purposes and it calls into question whether the allegations of anti-semitism made against Arabs are due to the same blind spot. Alberuni 05:25, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems to me that the similar accusations that some Jews are "self-hating Jew" are often themselves anti-Semitic, because they deny the Jewishness of their targets. I find it really shameful how some Zionists have exploited anti-Semitism and the Holocaust in a chauvinistic way to drum up support for their political projects. - pir 14:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's easy to fix these problems. Political speeches on Talk: pages are not required to do so. Jayjg 00:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pir, stop your rants against the Jews (shamefully disguised as "the Zionists". This kind of anti-Jewish rhetoric is (literally) straight from the Jewwatch website, and a total violation of Wikipieda etiquette. If you want to rant against the Jews, go elsewhere. This Talk Page is specifically for discussion of how to improve this article. RK 01:06, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Pir has a right to discuss this issue which is within the purview of improving the article. It is a legitimate question. Why are Jews who oppose Zionism considered anti-Semitic? You have added nothing to the discussion. Please stop trying to censor discussions just because it doesn't appeal to your POV. Alberuni 01:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, please stop your off-topic rants against the Jews of Israel. In any case, no one here claimed that a non-Zionist Jew must be considered an anti-Semited. You are thus creating strawman arguments, on a topic that has nothing to do with this article. Please desist. If you want to go on-and-on about the Jews of Israel, go elsewhere. This Talk Page is speficially for discussion of how to improve this article. Restricting a Talk page to the topic of the article, by definition, is not censorship. RK 01:57, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Pir's comments were relevant to improving the article. You were just offended by them. And you still haven't addressed the question. Why are Jews who oppose Zionism considered anti-Semitic? Alberuni 02:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Other Side

There are two articles here on Arab_Anti-Semitism and Islam and anti-Semitism. Are there any article here on Israeli racism against Arabs and Judaism negative views on Gentiles? Why not? That's not uncommon either, and I can easily write articles on that topic. Israel Shahak actually wrote a book on it, didn't he?

Try Anti-Arabism, Islamophobia, Zionism and racism Jayjg 16:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Haha, Zionism and racism is a joke. When will Arabs and anti-Semitism quote Hamas or al-Azhar or even CAIR in defense of the opposing proposition the way Zionism and racism quotes the ADL as the authoritative source dismissing the accusation that Zioonism is racist? What a biased encyclopedia! --Alberuni 05:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you know the views of these organizations, please feel free to add them; I think they'd be worthy additions to the page. —No-One Jones ^(m) 05:44, 15 Nov 2004

(UTC)

Alberuni,

I have watched your comments for over half a year now, I've been patient, but all I have read is disgusting,propaganda and narrow minded polemic from your side, never anything constructive has come out of your mouth. You are just a Jihadist, and I put Jihadists like you in the same catagory as Neo nazis. Stop trying to defame Judaism, stop making anti semitic, false claims about Judaism's non existant "negative" views on gentiles, stop quoting discredited defamers and anti semites like Israel Shahak, or equate Islamist terrorist apologist fronts like CAIR to human right organizations like the ADL. If you continue your politicized crusade and continue to vandalize these boards instead of offering constructive criticism instead of idealogical diatribes, I will make a petition to ban you from this site.

Guy Montag

Wow. The above paragraph actually astounds me. "Israel's non existant negative views on gentiles"? Yo, have you been living under a rock? Are you that much in denial of current events? I can only begin to imagine what your definiton of Jihadist is, but let me warn you of something. Here in the USA we have a certain level of freedom of speech, so as long as its not vicious volleys of curses that you see on this board, then deal with it. In my opinion, you strike me as a potentially dangerous extremist, but hey thats just my opinion.

I'm not entirely sure on Alberuni's positions, but calling CAIR a "terrorist apologist front" in that light is the pot calling the kettle black. Both the ADL and CAIR (And while we're at it, the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee) are fine civil rights organizations, dedicated to fighting racism against their own peoples. It's just a shame they aren't working with each other more often. Don't criticize others' biases without being aware of your own.

Don't worry, I suspect "Guy Montag" is a possible extremist, who advocates the destruction of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He is not to be taken seriously.

Drifted into the style and level of detail of original research

While I agree that the article is quite problematic, it seems that much of the problem stems from the violation of the policy against original research. It is the detailed -- but inherently uneven -- citing of examples that seems to drive the article toward polemic and away from a practical, neutral description of the political, religious, and racial tensions in the region.

For example, imagine an article on racism in the 21st century in the United States referring to a set of examples like this. It would be informative, but a bit bizarre, since it would not include some of the major trends and debates that this topic should cover, such as a discussion of affirmative action, access to education, racial profiling, diversity in the workplace, etc.

Put another way, if you have to go to source documents to prove the trend ourselves, then we are engaged in original research. If the trend can be discussed as a force observable in many different events, then we are talking about the kind of theme that belongs in an encyclopedia. I don't think that this trend is so obscure or difficult to discern that original research is needed. This is a case where the wrong examples weaken the case.

Moreover, I agree that the article fails to examine and objectively handle the problem of discerning anti-Israeli and anti-Semetic views. It would probably help to note that in virtually all violent conflicts where these issues arise, they become quick intertwined. Look at U.S. World War II propaganda poster images of the Japanese to see some examples. Not that it is excusable, just that it makes it difficult to distinguish these themes with precision.

The article currently contains the following qualification: "Some people claim that the Palestinian Authority's hostility to Israel constitutes anti-Semitism in itself; others regard this claim as absurd, noting that hostility to an enemy nation need not imply hostility to the associated ethnicity . . ." It seems like this should lead off the article. Slvsirhc 16:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You make an interesting and valid point. I don't think the article is itself an example of original research, but it certainly appears that way, primarily bcz Wikipedia is the cutting-edge encyclopedia. What might appear in the 2016 Enyclopœdia Brittanica in a 4 paragraph section is appearing here in a 204 section article. I have full confidence that by 2016, not only will this article be 178 billion times better than the EBrittanica article, but will have been pared and expanded appropriately. That's part of what's so great (IMHO) about this whole project. All of that to say, I don't think it's "original research" as defined in the rules, that being done by many other organizations, I just see it as being distilled seriously here into an encyclopedic article for the first time. Like I said: cutting-edge. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be cutting-edge, with caution, than over-cautious and dull-edged. On the subject of the sentence you say you think should lead off the article, I would vote "absolutely not", since that sounds more appropriate for the Opinion page of the National Enquirer than for any serious encyclopedia. The subject of this article, while it may involve an analysis of the PA's media, textbooks, policies, etc., is not Palistinian Authority antisemitism...although specific mention of the fact that the PA legally forbids sale of land to Jews, punishable by death, does fall within the purview of this article. It is noteworthy, in that regard, that that PA law is based on an extant (and enforced) Jordanian law that says the same thing. This is a real phenomenon, and in many ways it's getting worse, rather than better. TShilo12 08:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vfd

On 31 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Arabs and anti-Semitism for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 05:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

I believe that the Wikipedia:VFD vote was not nearly long enough. Aren't they supposed to be up for two weeks? In any case there seemed to be a strong consensus to keep with a strong push to improve the article Wikipedia:NPOV and some wanting a total rewrite. I can't say I blame them. I have formally requested comment on this very topic and hope the totally disputed nature of this article can finally be resolved after more than a year! Sirkumsize 12:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding is completely baseless and without comprehension or comprehensibility. VfD's require one-week terms, not two-weeks. There was no consensus, especially not "strong" to "npov"ize the article. The possibility that the article is not entirely unbiassed remains as a flag, and has nothing to do with your personally instigated and promoted push to have the article deleted. Your behavior with regard to this VfD, including your not having contributed to its Talk page prior to your request for deletion, and your disingenuous "compliments" to those who voted in favor of your stated position, are indicative of a sad inability on your part to be an objective contributor to the Wikipedia project. I am sorry to have to say it, but while I hold much greater leniency with respect to the posts of even demonstrably idiotic "contributors" to this project, if it were up to a vote to deny you further editing ability to Wikipedia, and if I had a vote in such a question, I would have to, without hesitation, vote to prevent you from further sabotaging the respectability of wikipedia. Chill out, calm down, and learn. Stop feeding your hatreds with ridiculous information. Those are my words of advice, although because I disagree with you, I am sure my words of advice will fall on your fore-deafened ears. The fact that I'm a Jew will almost certainly remove any remaining chance that you might hear my admonition. I pity you, and unfortunately, I have little doubt but that my pity will be used by you as further excuse to fuel your pathetic diatribes. God have mercy on your pitiful soul, and on the day of final Judgment, may you at least then finally realize how ridiculously miniscule your mind is. Tomer ^TALK 12:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

User talk:TShilo12 I do not care if you are a Jew. I do however care about whether or not you are involved with, endorse or otherwise the practice of sexual abuse to which I am a victim. This is however irrelevant to this article which is an entirely different issue: Charges the arabs with anti-semitism without considering the context in which the Arab world has been effected by the mostly Jewish state of Israel. And censorship is what this is all about. You were never interested in understanding my view or having a meaningful debate on the circumcision issue and therefore you extend that to mean that I can't have anything meaningful to say about this issue either. Its silly. You remind me of those people that shout anti-semitism whenever a doctor has a meaningful finding against circumcision and yet pump the papers full of the smallest hint that circumcision may have a benefit. No wonder the public has such a skewed view on the subject. Do you realize that the I have only recently discovered that I was too co-dependent to critize circumcision because I was afraid it would label me as anti-semitic. As a result I am sick and unable to work despite a University degree. It is people like you that want to censor people's ability to talk not to the point of reason, but to the point where they actually become ill. That is not acceptible. You have no idea if my mind is miniscule or not, you don't know me. As for your religious views, you have no right to push them on me anymore than you have the right to deny your son his foreskin! Sirkumsize 03:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I discussed your "understanding", it had nothing to do with circumcision, it had to do with rules for VfD. I'm sorry to hear you have emotional or social problems. If we were to discuss the "emotional trauma of childhood circumcision", perhaps your experience might be relevant, but we're not, and for the purposes of the Wikipedia project, we shouldn't be anyways, since such a discussion would fall very clearly into the realm of "original research". Your misinformed and misdirected diatribe against me and Israel has nothing to do with the subject at hand. If you suffer the problems you say you do, I hope you can get help for them, but Wikipedia is not the place for healing emotional problems. There are therapy groups for that purpose. I have no desire to push my religious views on you or anyone else, but at the same time I refuse to sit idly by while people who hold thinly veiled baseless hatred for my religious view spew their views publically. You have the right to say your piece, and I have a right to counter it. That said, however, Wikipedia is NOT the place for airing your political or religious views, and certainly not the place to lecture me about your perceived infraction on my part of your right to hold your views, while simultaneously telling me that I have no right to hold mine. Tomer ^TALK 07:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda Article?

I really don't like how this article is written, and it seems heavily biased. You can at least put the warning the neutrallity of this article in its page. I know many arab people, and know they are prone to believe in conspiracy theories, but much of what they say is true, and this article doesn't give an insight on the situation, nor a counterpart. It looks like a 100% jewish propaganda article.

I think this kind of topics should be specially controlled, because they should clearly who is behind wikipedia.

The article has several instances of poor writing and poor formatting, of which some of the latter I have attempted to clean up. Additional work certainly is needed, but to call this a propaganda peice is outrageous. Also, anyone can be "behind" Wikipedia, so your tactic of automatically assuming a Wikipedia conspiracy to promote Judaism is nonsensical. Riobranden 21:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Arabs

Arabs are a Semitic people. Include that in the article somehow. --Striver 09:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"Arabs" are not a single people in the mind's eye of the vast majority of people, in fact, hardly beyond those who are proponents of Pan-Arabism. They are, instead, a loose collection of peoples whose native language is Arabic, not because they chose it, but because of the Islamic wars of conquest of the 7th and 8th centuries. Arabic is certainly a Semitic language, but to say that everyone identified as "Arab" is a Semite is intellectually, linguistically, and historically dishonest. Tomer^TALK 08:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In that case calling Jews semites is simply retarded.

Given this, I wonder if a better title for this article would be "Arabic Anti-Semitism". This would make it clear that we are discussing Arabic-speaking cultures and societies, rather than "the 'Arabic' people" - a slippery construct if ever there was one.

Arab View of Anti-Semitism

I've removed this section to the talk page because it needs to be completely rewritten. It is extremely POV, completely uncited, largely irrelevant and poorly written. For one thing, surely there is no single "Arab view of anti-semitism" but rather many divergent opinions, yet this section is written to indicate that all Arabs think alike. Surely if we're going to say what hundreds of millions of people think than we need to cite it to something! The first paragraph needs to be much more readable, who is the "they" in the entence "they still indeed use thee terms interchangeably..." for example? The second paragraph needs to be eliminated entirely, its tone is unacceptable and the text is largely irrelevant (what does Israel being located in between Africa and Asia have to do with anti-semitism?) The sentence in the third paragraph talking about the remaining Jewish communities in the Arab world should be greatly expanded, but the comparison to Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews of Arab descent should be eliminated as it is irrelevant to this article and hopelessly POV. Finally, I'm not entirely sure what the fourth paragraph means and I'd recommend it be eliminated. GabrielF 20:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Arabs view anti-Semitism as a historical racial discrimination against the Jews and Semitic-like people by the Europeans. Nowadays they see it as an oxymoron political term that has been extended to include the arabs as anti-semitic. Although the arabs try to point to the difference between terms such as Israelis, Jews, zionists, and semites, they still indeed use those terms interchangeably and inaccurately in many instances. The Arabs argue that they do not hate Jews. For them the historical relationships between Jews and arab rulers is a good testimony of no hate towards Jews. The Arabs, however fear that the zionism project and its outcome of Israel. For them Israel and the zionist movement erected or tried to erect settlements not only on what the United Nations gave them in 1947 but also on the occupied territories of Palestine, Sinai of Egypt, South Lebanon, and Golan Heights of Syria. The most contentious issues are Jerusalem and the Israeli borders. Arabs are reportedly scared that Israel would keep the occupied Jerusalem and extend their borders from Niles to Euphrate.

They also see that Israel has cut off the land links between the Arab countries of North Africa and those of the western Asia that is the bridge at heart of the Arab world.Moreover the treatment of Arabs both Christians and Muslims in Israel itself is quite discriminatory with their Jews couterparts. Even the Arab Jews are ill-treated in Israel, they contend. They see Israel policies very racist in terms of citizenship. Most Jews around the world can easily claim and get Israeli citizenship, while Israeli-Arab citizenship is withdrawn if they marry a non-Israeli.

In the contrary, many Jewish communities still live in Yemen, Iran, Morocco, Tunisia and other Arab countries and it is rare that they are persecuted like the Israeli-Arabs in Israel who are often linked to Hamas and Islamic Jihad by many zionist organizations if not by the racial profiling of the Israeli government itself. Yasser Arafat of even have a chief rabbi in his adminstration for the Palestinian territories.

Finally, the term "Arab anti-Semitism" for Arabs is not an accurate description of the Arab feelings towards the Jews. Arabs appear to alien themselves from the accused practices against Jews.

Links

All the links you put at the end the article are militantly zionist and/or right-wing I don't see a equivalent article on israeli or zionist anti-arab racism.

This article is pure pro-Zionist propaganda and doesn't belong in the Wikipedia. The evil Arabs versus the virtuous and innocent Jews - POV rubbish.

Well said, I couldn't agree more. Unfortuantley POV hard line Zionists always get the last word here at wikipedia.

Hi, you didn't sign your comments above, but don't you think that sometimes asking for a tit-for-tat "zionist anti arab racisism" article to counter a "anti semetic arab article" is oversimplifying the issue? Quite honestly, there is a lot of anti-semitism in the arab world and a lot of it is based on deliberately made up stuff like the protocols of the elders of zion and blood libels. The stuff is still used to make prime time television shows. YOu can't really say that this is not true, all you can say in defense of this stuff is that the Arab world has a right to say whatever it wants about Jews by freedome of speech. Freedom of speech is fine, sure, but what they are saying is not true. Jews don't use blood of non-jews to make their matzah, and in point of fact are not allowed to eat blood at all. Jews don't have domination over the world by any means, and certainly not by an international plot; actually they suffer quite a bit due to antisemitism. Jews don't descend from monkeys and pigs, and actually Jews and Muslims are closer than Jews and Christian in their origins and beliefs. In the Jewish world, there really isn't the equivalent any absurdly false and deliberately hate inspiring depiction of Arabs. There is anti-arab feeling sure, and distrust, sure, based on the history of how Jews have historically been treated (had to wear special clothes, pay special taxes, had many freedoms restricted) and agressed against in Israel. Nevertheless, Jews aren't going around making up and promulgating theories about Arab world domination or stuff like blood libels and showing it on their national TV! Actually, most Jews I know are NOT right wing, and bend over backwards to give Muslims and Arabs the benefit of the doubt. YOu can't have tit for tat here, because there is no "tat". This stuff is ugly, sure, but it is real and saying it is pOV and should be on Wiki or similar doesn't make it go away. elizmr 16:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A few corrections

It's incorrect to say that Jews lived in Arab lands since the Babylonian Captivity because those lands weren't Arabic until the Muslim conquest of the 7th century CE (unless you mean the Arabian Peninsula itself). Even earlier Arab migrations like the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids didn't happen until the first centuries CE, and these mainly settled the desert regions of Transjordan and the Mesopotamian frontier. So in fact, Jewish settlement in these lands, particularly in Egypt and Iraq, actually predates Arab settlement there by many centuries.

Also, this article fails to mention the 1840 Damascus Blood Libel, which, IMO at least, was a defining moment of Arab antisemitism, committed under Arab rule before the excuse of Zionism was around, and the 1929 pogrom in Hebron.

Hi, you didn't sign the above, but this is an open article. Anyone can add anything they want to the article. If this stuff seems key to you, you should add it! elizmr 16:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed a broken link to [1] for the claim that a former Saudi King had given Mein Kampf and the 'Protocols' as a gift to guests. I couldn't find any reference to this on the internet, but anyone who knows one, please post it.

Saudi antisemitism: for those of you who may have any doubts that the official Saudi government position reeks of antisemitims, read today's (May 21, 2006) Washington Post (on line, front page): their textbooks are vile, I've only quoted a small portion of their bilge in my edit to the article.Incorrect 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical Muslim anti semitism

NOTE: This paragraph was originally in the body of the article, probably by mistake, I am moving it here GabrielF 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical Muslim anti semitism: I've been doing a little research in this area for this article, discovered an article in May 20, 2006 issue of The American Thinker (part of which I've just edited into the main article here) - I didn't know that the origin of Jews being forced to wear a distinctive badge was not from the Nazis but from the Persians, the treatment of Jews (and Christians) by the Persians was horrendous - the history of Muslim anti semitism goes back for centuries.Incorrect 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a mistake, thanks, for moving.Incorrect 21:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

antisemitism

As a hebrew israeli it seems to me that arab hatred of jews is due to political and religious reasons, and not racial distinctions. anti-semitism is a doctrine that discriminates against hebrews due to their "racial" origins. The nazis are anti-semites since their hatred of hebrews is largely independent of political or religious reasons, it is based on their non-aryan status. Arabs are themselves defined linguisticaly as semites. Arab anti judaism is criminal and unjust, but it should not be compared to the horrendous oppression and genocide commited by nazis. The title of the article should be, in my opinion, Arabs and anti-Judaism. 212.201.79.15 11:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mirror article

Do we have Jews and anti-Arabism? if not, why not? --Striver 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Because nobody's written the Protocols of the Elders of Arabia, let alone put it on TV? Gzuckier 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think the point is why is this article's title basically a placeholder for one point of view. A title that links huge and varing group of people with a negative attribute. Isn't that called being prejudiced? --SirYoda 05:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• We don't have such article because Wikipedia is biased toward the Zionists. Robin Hood 1212 13:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Section "Quotes"

I noticed this section is a collection of allegedly anti-Semitic remarks made by Palestinian figures, and I'm wondering whether such collections violate Wikipedia original research and POV policies. Obviously, the descision to include these quotes is based on the interpretation of the contributor(s) and thus is POV. As Wikipedians, it is not our place to interpret the statements and derive a conclusion ourselves. The best practice is to cite, within context, notable historians, writers, organizations etc. making the accusation of anti-Semitism. Readers then can decide whether the statements are anti-Semitic or not.

Also the only quote relevant to the subject is the Lewis quote, which could probably be incorporated somewhere else in the article. Are there any objections to the removal of this section? --Inahet 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am against wholesale blanking of the entire section, but I think the article would benefit if we move some specific quotes to their corresponding sections.

Inahet, it seems that your idea of NPOV is to add "fact" after every sentence. Don't you really know about the restrictions on dhimmis? Don't you really know about the proliferation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the Arab world? Please do a little research before proceeding. Right know it looks like you are trying to whitewash. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter what I know about the subject? This is not about what I know, this is about sourcing and verifying claims made in this article. Also, a few months back one editor bombarded the Anti-Arabism article with fact templates and this action was supported by another user. The same thing should be done about this article which is a complete mess and most of it is unreferenced.

Also refrain from making accusations as you did, comment on the content not the user, Mr. Administrator. I could easily accuse of you the exact opposite. --Inahet 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your lessons. If you want to be taken seriously, please do not remove cited and referenced information. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you learn anything? No, you still didn't address my concern about the quotes section, and you haven't done anything at all, even after removing the anti-Saudi cartoon from the Anti-Arabism article citing "original research". I know you did this to prove a point and as retaliation but at least have the decency to follow through with my concern for this article. Also, please don't worry of any double standard, Anti-Arabism has been under much more scrutiny than this article.

And for adding fact templates, I'm "whitewashing", and making "bad faith" edits. I'm afraid any further NPOVing would bring about accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazism!

At least be in support of referencing the claims in the article! --Inahet 06:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This [2] and this [3] is surprising and dissapointing, you opposed the inclusion of a quote section in anti-Arabism, and you could not have been any more clear, but support leaving quotes in this article. I can't figure what your reasoning is? --Inahet 06:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Arabs are semites

Arabs can't be anti-semitic

Arabs are semites but in the article it refers to them as anti semitics. That would make them self hating semites. Jews and Arabs both come from Shem

Well, that's a relief to us who thought that some Arabs were being antisemitic, but now learn they only hate Jews. Gzuckier 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a surprise, someone removed the whole article. Who could have seen that coming.

I removed it. Although the term anti-Semitic is a misnomer since it technically would include Arabs, in common usage it is used only to refer to Jews. I would personally preffer to use the term 'anti-Jewish' since it is less ambigious. However that does not justify imposing poorly written personal opinions on this article.

68.174.157.28 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Moises (a Syrian Jew)

Isn't that a mistake?

"A Saudi government website initially stated that Jews would not be granted tourist visas to enter the country [5][6] It has since removed this statement, and apologized for posting "erroneous information"."

The Saudi govt. clearly said that the info posted was a mistake. How is it then an example of anti-Semitism??? Mistakes generally occur on the internet, it is not like a Saudi Minister made an official comment regarding this or anything.70.50.198.95 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In the section Arabs_and_antisemitism#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories, it is alleged that saying that 9/11 was carried out by Jews is an example of anti-Semitism. Is saying that 9/11 was carried out by Arabs an example of anti-Arabism? 70.50.198.95 05:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"We know" template

Someone put it on the Anti-Semitism talk page- thought it would be useful here. Acornwithwings 07:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point

I'd love to help, but I think I'm too emotionally involved. I'm too pro-Jewish and anti-Islamic to contribute neutrally to this article.

My take on it, since the bot "asked" for my help, is that Arabs resent Jewish success and also resent their own lack of freedom. This jealousy, added to a "long memory of wrongdoing", makes it hard for them to tolerate any Jewish presence other than "hat in hand and very humble, if you please, sir".

This attitude is reflected in their treatment of woman (see honor killing). I've been reading Phyllis Chesler's The Death of Feminism, a recent book which describes Islamic abuse of women in comprehensive detail. It's not pleasant reading.

Another reason I won't be much help is that I think I know of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This solution is so much on my mind, that I can't concentrate on describing what is: I'm to caught up in "what ought to be".

But I'll check in from time time, anyway. :-) Good luck! --Uncle Ed 03:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Saladin who saved Jews from the Crusaders?

And Spain Muslims? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robin Hood 1212 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

This Article is ridiculously biased

Insert non-formatted text here this article needs to be worked on by level headed and factually obsessive people. if it is about anti judaism, gentilism or any other kind of psuedo judo semitic racism and hate on the part of muslims in the arab world it needs to be clear precise and definitive in its source and citation. we could have someone contribute some of the earliest instances in the middleeast before the rise of Islam and though in to the 20th century. There will be things whihc will be hard to stomach for people on both sides of the fence but you need to remeber this is supposed to be a neutral and fair article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.47.132.242 (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I also have a problem with the following quote: "The aim of these restrictions was to humiliate them making conversion to Islam more appealing". Says who? What is this based on? I find this highly objectionable. This article is biased and its author has liberally dispersed his uneducated opinions all over it. Whistleblower1881 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging paragraphs

The second paragraph and the fourth paragraph are pretty much the same content, it should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.67.144 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The quotes section

The article Anti-Arabism removed quotes quite some time ago. Shouldn't this article follow suit?Bless sins 17:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the quotations section per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Quotations that says "Note: This header is largely deprecated. "Bless sins 15:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotes need to be incorporated into the text, not simply deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But the setion needs to go. Also, only the quotes sourced relaible sources need to be incorporated into text.Bless sins 12:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis as a source

I don't see what's worng with Lewis. He's a reliable source.Bless sins 23:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Lewis, but his POV doesn't belong in the lead, and certainly not your misquoting his views. Lewis talks about Jews under Muslim rule, and the issues they did or did not face - that's not the same thing as saying Arabs weren't antisemitic. Also, you are inserting your POV take on Lewis into the lead, but removing a direct quote from Lewis from the quotations sections. Oddly enough, the material you are inserting says Arabs weren't antisemitic, but the material you are deleting says that antisemitism is as much a part of modern Arab culture as it was of the culture of Nazi Germany. Go figure. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things. Lewis does say that Arabs were mostly not antisemitic. Does he not?

My other removal of material in the quotes section is because it was in the quoes section, as I've explained elsewhere. Now that you've brought my attention, I'll incorporate Lewis' views elsewhere.Bless sins 12:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis may or may not say that, but he certainly didn't say it in the quote you provided. As for the Lewis material, I think we'll incorporate it into the lead, since you like to have Lewis in the lead, and this quote is specifically about Arabs and antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you saying that I have misquoted Lewis? About the lead, sure we can summarise Lewis' position.Bless sins 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis talked about Muslims in the quote you provided, not Arabs. As I have explained to you before, they are not the same thing. Regarding the rest, I think we'll need a long quote from Lewis. I've put it in the lead now. Please don't edit till I'm done, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Check Lewis again. He says "Arabs". A-r-a-b-s.Bless sins 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

Hadith literature are primary sources. Please see WP:RS --Aminz 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources pertain only to the life of the Prophet Muhammad (only 23 years), and thus it is ridiculous to use them for the 1,400 years of Arab history after that. Needless to say that using the sources is an inappropriate use of primary sources, and consitutes a violation of OR.Bless sins 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Lewis is an excellent and scholarly source on the issue. Why he is bieng removed?

Can someone show how "Abdelwahab Meddeb" is a reliable source? A quick google search doesn't give too much information.Bless sins 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You've said that Ibn Warraq is not a RS. Can you prove that Lewis is a RS? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, to what are your comments about hadith relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is an explantion for a removal some time ago. Some users (e.g Humus sapiens) tried inserting those hadith. But that seems to be resolved now.Bless sins 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Arab Anti Semitism is an oxymoron

Arab Anti Semitism is an oxymoron doesnt make sense, arabs are semites, an actual anti semite is someone who is against a person who dessended from Abraham. this is stupid, and Al manar is not anti semitic, they dont hate them selves? i am so confused.

What part of

is not clear to you? Gzuckier 15:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

no its not clear, and we dont care about the nonsense and bullshit you wrote against arabs because IT IS REAL ANTI-SEMITISM not the other fake zionist one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Batexyawns (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

The real irony here is the fact that you just used the phrase "Zionist" to describe Anti-Semitism. In this case, Anti-Semitism means :hatred of Jews, nevermind the ethnic terminology of Semites, no one uses "Anti-Semitism" to refer to a hatred of Semites in general. "Islamophobia" is a fear of Muslims/Arabs, so there you go. Don't get caught up in Semitic semantics. And no, the article is not against Arabs. It shows where Arabs have been anti-Semitic, as the article's title suggests (Arab Anti-Semitism). Contributing to an article about "Christian Anti-Semitism" wouldn't be anti-Christian, it would just document certain pogroms and expulsions and inquisitions and Holocausts which have happened at the hands of Christians and Christian nations. If al-Manar wants to not be anti-Semitic (excluding Arab Semites), it may not want to say Jews are infesting Arabs with AIDS - Probably not a true statement. Also, if Saudi Arabia doesn't want to be seen as anti-Semitic (again excluding Arabs), it might not want to teach the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as truth, since those have been proven false by everyone whose ever learned to read. They've even found the Christian European that wrote them; go look it up.

Okay. Enough said. Zionists don't promote anti-Semitism, that's stupid. Zionists just want a nation for the Jewish people; strange that Croatians were never called racists and Arab nationalists were never accused of attempting to control the world. Just pointing it out, guys. Stop your foolishness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.185.139 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Arabs are Hamites, the sons of noahs son Ham, not the sons of noahs son shem. The delusion that arabs are semites is anti semitism itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.187.128 (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify for the person above, It seems as though wikipedia has already established that arabs are semites. It is not a personal attack on anyone to accept this fact. You may not know but the main definition of semites are those who speak semite languages of which hebrew and arabic are examples (and are seperated by ONLY two centries). Arabs make up the largest group of semites at approx 207 million, followed by Amharic, aprrox 27 million, then tigrinya (6.7 million) and then Hebrew at 5 million, bear in mind that these are first language speakers. You argue that arabs are the son of ham not shem however, if you argue such then you are disputing whether Abraham is the son of shem.As one son, Isaac, is considered the father of the jews and the other son, Ismael, is considered the father of the arabs.Is it being suggested that each had a different father as that is the only way that if you accept that Abraham was a semite then one son was not. All the above, however, is irrelevant as this whole anti-semitic definition "discussion" is just a way of distracting people from the main issue,which is the lack of tolerance between these two groups which needs what needs to addressed in this day and age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.164.44 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

While it may be acceptable (not by me) for an article listed under antisemitism to discuss anti-Judaism, it is ridiculous to use the term on Semitic peoples unless they hate themselves. It does not matter that a writer of the article is aware of the fact that Arabs are Semites. We must retain integrity on Wikipedia by being very specific and clear on this article. If the article is discussing Arabs who dislike Jews, call it anti-Jewish or anti-Judaism. Is it a requirement for informed people to "dumb down" our vocabulary because it is not mainstream? If we wish to discuss people who hate all Semitic people including Arabs, what would we say? Or is that the hyphenated version? It's ludicrous. Is there even a disadvantage of using anti-Judaism or anti-Jewish instead? I think it is much clearer, more accurate, and allows people to understand the shared heritage of Jews and Arabs. Maybe when people realize they come from the same place, their attitudes will change. And even if WE know, I assure you that the average person has no idea Arabs are Semites. --Shaddyz (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Shaddyz,

I don't see how it's "dumbing down" to use the word anti-Semitic in this sense. The word 'anti-Semitic' means anti-Jewish. The word 'Semitic' does not mean Jewish. That's not dumbing-down, it's just a fact that the words are used like that by the vast majority of English speakers. I don't recall ever hearing 'anti-Semite' used to mean 'hater of all Semitic peoples', and none of the dictionaries I've looked it up under (OED, Webster, Dictionary.com) list it as a meaning.

"If we wish to discuss people who hate all Semitic people including Arabs, what would we say?" I think we'd have to say something like "Hatred of Semitic peoples". Yes it's a more clumsy phrase, but it comes up less often than "hatred of Jews" (I mean the phrase does, I'm not saying Jews are more persecuted than other Semitic peoples) so it doesn't matter that it's unwieldy. "Hatred of people with brown eyes" is more unwieldy than "sexism", because people seldom say the former so there's no single word for it. I think this is analogous.

"Is there even a disadvantage of using anti-Judaism or anti-Jewish instead?" Only that spelling something out like that is generally less desirable than using a single word which already describes it. If we had an article on "Discrimination based on race", people would rightly wonder why we hadn't just used the word "racism" since it's shorter and means the same. Similarly if I came across an article about "anti-Jewish feeling" I'd wonder why not just use the word "antisemitism".

Do you think it would be helpful to include something similar to this, the first paragraph of the antisemitism article? This would then allow people to understand the shared heritage of Jews and Arabs as you say, without compromising what I think is by far the dominant meaning of the phrase.

"Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism, also known as judeophobia) is prejudice and hostility toward Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group. While the term's etymology indicates that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, since its creation it has been used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews." Olaf Davis | Talk 09:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"The word 'anti-Semitic' means anti-Jewish." The meaning of the word is what it is due to people's misuse of it. If we use it another way, or we use another word for it, meanings can change. It is our responsibility as speakers of the English language, as custodians of the English language, to shape its future. It is to the benefit of the English language to have a more clear an specific word to identify hatred of Jews as opposed to hatred of Semites.

I don't understand. Those sentences you included are already the first sentences of the antisemitism article. I think what we should do is try and identify sources discussing the problems with using antisemitism as strictly for Jews in present times. With the "war on terror", there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of hatred toward Arabs, so there will be more talk about this discrimination and the need to use words to describe it. Also, there are many non-Semitic Jews since not all Jewish people are descendants of the original Hebrew people. Antisemitism refers to people who practice Judaism (or claim to be Jewish even if they do not practice) regardless of their ethnicity. Also, many people have a hatred toward people who look Arab, Jews who look similar to Arabs and especially Arab Jews will face different and multiple types of discrimination. What I am trying to convey is that we do not have a suitable vocabulary which can address the complexity of this issue, and preserving or encouraging the preservation of its current meaning is a disservice to society. :D

As for "dumbing down", I was referring to the perpetuation of a term that was originally misused. I don't think I can justify to you, or the majority of people, that we should exclusively use anti-Judaism and/or anti-Jewish instead of antisemitism and antisemitic in an encyclopedic article, but we can take the steps necessary to allow proper consideration of the issues. We need to include adequate discussion of the issues related to use of antisemitism. If people begin to use other terms, we should embrace them. It may even be justified to add an article discussing the word. I think that would satisfy my concerns as well as many others. --Shaddyz (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"It is our responsibility as speakers of the English language, as custodians of the English language, to shape its future." That's certainly a reasonable stance to take as an English speaker. However, it's not our responsibility as Wikipedians to shape the future of the English language. Wikipedia is meant to be entirely descriptive, not prescriptive - and whatever opinions we have about what words people ought to use, I don't think this is the venue to advance them.

"The meaning of the word is what it is due to people's misuse of it." That may have been the case centuries ago, but I think now the meaning is pretty firmly established. We could say that the word Knight really means boy, and its use today to mean a titled person or soldier is due to a misuse. People misusing words is how language changes. Obviously I'm not saying we should reproduce all common mistakes here, but once the 'mistake' has become the most common meaning for hundreds of years it's not really Wikipedia's place to try and set it back. What do you think?

When I said "include some sentences similar to this..." I meant include them in this article, so people coming here will be made aware of exactly what we're using antisemitism to mean without having to go look it up in its own article. Do you think that would help?

"It may even be justified to add an article discussing the word." That might be useful, yes. What would you like to have it say? Olaf Davis | Talk 08:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is not the place to shape the future of the English language; I did mention that I felt that way too. I do, however, think that Wikipedia does shape the future based on the biases of the articles. As much as we'd like to believe they are neutral, I think everyone would agree that neutrality is not possible because even what one considers to be neutral is biased in someone else's eyes. I think we should provide the right environment for the possibility of the word to be redefined because there is some controversy surrounding it, and we should not take sides on Wikipedia. As firmly as the word is established at this moment in time, it can still change.

I think the most important issue with antisemitism being strictly for Jews is that it distracts people from understanding who are Semites. I have heard people misuse Semite thinking that it means Jewish people. That is an example of one of the issues. Therefore, in an article discussing the word, I believe it should discuss Semites, the etymology of antisemitism, arguments for and against the continued use of the word for only Jews, and any other relevant topics for which there are sources. I have not done research to see what has been written about this topic, so depending on what is available, I would suggest other topics. This would also be beneficial because we can transfer the information from other articles such as antisemitism and link to it from there. Then we could also add links to related articles such as this one without having to duplicate information. What are your thoughts? --Shaddyz (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"even what one considers to be neutral is biased in someone else's eyes" That's certainly true!

It probably would be useful to discuss "Semites, the etymology of antisemitism..." as you suggest. How about adding a section called "Meaning of Antisemitism", "Arabs as Semites" or something similar and putting a little bit there to explain the usage of the word. Then we can do a 'Main article' link to the Etymology and usage section of the Antisemitism article for more detail (and possibly add to that, but I too have not done research on this topic). That way people coming to this article get an idea of exactly what the word means and an obvious pointer to where they can read more about the history of the term, etc., but we avoid duplication as you say. Do you think that's consistent with what you're suggesting? Olaf Davis | Talk 09:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would serve the same purpose. I will need to do some searching and see what has been written so that I could have a better idea of what should be discussed. I will try and do this soon. --96.247.95.153 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good, I'll be interested to see what you come up with. I'd give a hand but I'm quite busy on some other things right now. Let me know if you'd like comment on anything. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add articles that I think are well written and relevant so that we can review them. I think this is a good collection that shows many different angles on the issue. I did not find an article discussing why the use of the term antisemitism is fine just the way it is, I am not sure if that view exists in anyone who is knowledgeable about the subject who isn't interested in using it for political gain. I would like to see your comments on the articles as well. I put a row where you can add them: "OD Comments". It seems to me that Antisemitism revolves primarily around Zionism. --Shaddyz (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Semites and anti-Semites, that is the question" written by Joseph Massad, published on Al-Ahram Weekly

About the author: "Joseph Massad teaches modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University in New York." (confirmed as associate professor on Columbia's website)

About the publication: "Al-Ahram Weekly is an independent English-language newspaper issued by Al-Ahram Organisation."

Highlights: Term "Semitic" created by Europeans to describe languages. Later transformed into a racial classification in Europe and term anti-semitism was used to explain hatred toward Jews not based on religion. Later use of the term antisemitism was used to describe a hatred with different bases. This hatred was then extended to Arabs, who looked similar. Term Semite used as a racial identifier was invented by Jews. Briefly discusses anti-semitism in Arabs. Discusses that sources of antisemitism toward Jews would lead to identical feelings about Arabs, but in the present time, Arabs receive more negative attention and therefore suffer more from antisemitism.

SZ Comments: The author explains the sources of antisemitic feelings and shows that they are not connected to the religion. He shows that Arabs are as much a victim of Antisemitism in recent times as Jews have been in the past. He shows that Arabs today are affected more by these feelings than Jews.

OD Comments:

• "Semite and Anti-Semite: A Confusion Stifling American Freedom" written by Alfred M. Lilienthal, published on www.alfredlilienthal.com

About the author: Jewish American, graduated from Cornell University and Columbia Law school. "historian, journalist, and lecturer" and author. (unconfirmed credentials)

About the publication: Personal website discussing Middle East issues

Highlights: talks about the use of term antisemitic used incorrectly to attack anti-zionistic remarks. talks about confusion between Jews as people who practice Judaism and people of the state of Israel. says that most Jews are not semites, but descendants of converts. discusses the use of antisemitism as a political weapon. mentions possible future repercussions for grouping jews with Israelis.

SZ Comments: The author sees great importance of distinguishing antisemitism from anti-zionism as it lumps two very different groups of people together which is used intentionally as a weapon because of the confusion.

OD Comments:

• "Zionism and Anti-Semitism: A Strange Alliance Through History" written by Allan C. Brownfeld, published on the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

About the author: "Allan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and associate editor of the Lincoln Review, a journal published by the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and editor of Issues , the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism."

About the publication: "The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a 100-page magazine published 9 times per year in Washington, DC, that focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in that region."

Highlights: have not read the article yet

SZ Comments: see above

OD Comments:

• "'Antisemitism and Racism - series of reports" written by unknown, published on The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism

About the author: not known

About the publication:

Highlights:

SZ Comments: In the reports, anti-zionism is considered to be a subset of Antisemtism. Zionism is not part of the Judaism (at least not to my knowledge), and not all Jews are Zionists. Even some Jews are Anti-zionist.

OD Comments:

• "Exploiting religious divisions for political gain" written by Glenn Greenwald, published on Salon.com: War Room

About the author:

About the publication:

Highlights:

SZ Comments:

OD Comments:

• "Sharon’s Best Weapon: The left must confront anti-Semitism head-on." written by Naomi Klein, published on In These Times

About the author:

About the publication:

Highlights:

SZ Comments:

OD Comments: