Talk:Antisemitism in the Arab world/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Clear False

Saudi Arabia in fact does not call christians swine, I challenge anyone for evidence. Saudi does not, ever, no where, claim that Jews worship the devil.... in fact, this is against Islam, as Muslims believe that both Christians and Jews are People of the book, or people who have been given books by the same God as the muslim God. Furthermore, muslims believe in all Jewish and Christian prophets. people please beware of false, nonsense statements that only create unneeded hate and ignorance. (67.171.224.169 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Then how do you explain the Iranian president wanting to wipe out Israel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.207.252 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Then how do you explain the Iranian president wanting to wipe out Israel?"... Iranians are not Arabs. This article is talking about Arabs. Does that explain? (67.171.224.169 (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Anti-Christian bias

"Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the "true Israel", they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews." It seems as if the article is implying that Christians feel threatened by the survival of the Jews. There's no citation to back that up, and there are Christians who sheltered Jews in World War II. In addition, the Brit-Am say that the Western Christian nations are the least anti-Semitic, and that's why they consider them the Lost Tribes of Israel. --69.234.192.234 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is sourced to Bernard Lewis, a very reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of him, and I've known Christian Jews, and have been to the website of Jews Jews who support Southern Baptist Christian Mike Huccabee for US President. (http://jews4huckabee.blogspot.com/) In addition Iran's president wants to destroy Israel, and I don't know any Christians who want to do so today. There was a point when they wanted it to be returned to Byzantine control and did things they shouldn't have there, and should apologize for, but Antisemitism appears to be dead among Christians today, whereas it is alive in the Islamic world. In addition the article says "Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise." The Old Testament came from the Jewish faith, and is considered part of the Christian Bible, meaning that it's part of our faith too. --69.234.207.252 (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

JTF complains about Muslims being antisemites, but not Christians. Why? Because Christians do not have an innate prejudice in this area, whereas Muslims do. While it is true that some Christians refer to Jews as "Christ-killers", this is not true of all Christians. For example, there are Jews who are Christian, and consider themselves fulfilled Jews because Christ is the Jewish Messiah.

• Koran Sura 5:51 commands Muslims not to take Jews and Christians (infidels) as friends
• Koran Sura 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against Jews and Christians until they either submit to Allah or die by the sword.
• Koran Sura 2:65-66 and Sura 5:60 contain references to Jews as “apes and swine to be despised and rejected.” To not site my source would be plagiarism. http://jtf.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.207.252 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know ahead of time jtf is an unreliable source. If you can find some sources, I incourage you to add them. Texts related to Islam belong at Islam and antisemitism. Yahel Guhan 03:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Then what are they doing citing Bernard Lewis? Christianity is not as anti-Semitic as everything else, that's why Brit-Am regards Christian nations as Lost Tribes of Israel.--69.234.226.128 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, if you actually check the Quranic verses cited, some are interpreted quite tendentiously. 9:29 says to fight against Jews and Christians until they pay a poll tax, not until they "submit to Allah or die by the sword." 2:65 describes Sabbath-breakers as despised apes, not Jews generally. 5:60 and the surrounding discussion does not say that Jews and Christians are apes and swine, it says that Jews and Christians who fail to live up to their own religion, and who serve false idols, are apes and swine. 5:66: "If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct." Compared to what you find in the Gospel of John that's downright ecumenical. <eleland/talkedits> 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You have no sources from the actual Gospel of John to say that Christians are Anti-Semitic. While it's true that there were Jews who said "Let his blood be on us and our descendants" Jesus died because of everyone's sins, not because of the Jews' sins. That explains Jewish involvement in Jesus' crucifiction, also it was only the involvement of some Jews, not all Jews. While it's true that there were Jews that didn't believe, I'm sure that there are Jews who aren't Muslims either. Also, how do you explain Jesus' friendliness with the Samaritans, who were part Jewish? (John 4:9) Also, nothing surrounding KOran 5:51 moderates the Anti-Semitic feeling of that verse.--69.234.183.208 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I read part of the Koran for myself, and how do you explain Koran [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! source: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.190.241 (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That verse says that non-Muslims will be "destroyed" by God; they'll burn in Hell, or at least not make it to Paradise. Uhm... that's a premise of all the Abrahamic religions. It's contemptible, of course, but it's not precisely "antisemitic."

As for there being no sources to support the claim that the Gospel of John is related to Christian antisemitism, that's preposterous. Whole books have been written about John in relation to Christian antisemitism. All of this is anyway offtopic, since what we need are reliable secondary sources discussing these issues, not disputed personal readings. <eleland/talkedits> 08:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I suppose that those calling the Gospel of John anti-Semitic could be called disputed personal readings. I looked up the word Jew in the book of John and all I found was Jewish involvement in the death of Christ, Judas being Jewish, and Jews who disbelieved and Gentiles who believed, and disciples being afraid of the Jews. The truth is, Jesus died for everyone's sins, not the Jews' sins. (John 3:16: God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believed in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.) Jesus' other disciples were Jews, and they did not betray. I'm pretty sure that there are Jews who don't believe Islam, and there are Gentiles who don't believe Christianity. While it is true that there are verses about the disciples fearing the Jews would kill them, Jesus never commanded Christians to do anything wrong to the Jews, even though that has happened. Jesus said things like "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" and "Father forgive them, for they know not what they are doing." Contrast that to the Koran, which calls for the killing of Jews and Christians. Also, notice that the Jews are being helped by the Christians (missionaries, pastors, and [well, not really] Christian nations), the Brit-Am say that the European Christian nations are less anti-semitic than all the others, and JTF condemns Islam but not Christianity. --69.234.210.7 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, explain why Muslims make television shows preaching hatred of Jews while Christians do not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWIFhKYiMqU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2EisVqKZ4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbHVEGnYD8&feature=related

I am under the impression that some of these shows are meant for kids. --69.234.210.7 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if the person claiming the Koran is anti-Semitic and John is not is wrong, the fact that he cites references is to his favor. No one here quoted verses in John that were anti-Semitic.--69.234.186.24 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary

The addition of the seperation is both necessary and a good idea, and the addition was a good edit. Yahel Guhan 19:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see such a precedent in other articles. Even if we have a summary it doesn't change the fact that we still need a lead that summarizes the article per WP:LEAD. The "summary"/lead is something you agreed to a while back and we had agreement on this issue. Why do you want to bring edit conflicts over and over again to this article?Bless sins (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribution

Why do we need to attribute Bernard Lewis? Isn't he the most reliable source on this topic? If we are attributing, Lewis then we should attribute everyone else too.Bless sins (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We attribute him because it is his perspective. Why do you have such a problem with it here, but not at Talk:Mecca? Yahel Guhan 22:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For obvious reasons. Lewis is a specialist on the topic, he is an academic. His books are published by university presses. On Mecca, you are bringing in fringe editorials. Regarding CNN, you are bringing in unnamed "scholars", who may not even have a PhD for all I know.Bless sins (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

palestinian "no real estate to jews" laws debate

it would seem that said laws are prima facie examples of antisemitism without need for a reference to state it explicitly Though the general definition of antisemitism is hostility or prejudice against Jews. In the interests of fairness, i think what you might want to do in this case is point out that this in the nature of a rational response in the political/land control struggle rather than a random act of irrational bias. the challenge is to avoid being labelled as original research, but that's the fun of wikipedia. Gzuckier (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It does seem antisemitic. Aren't there a couple of Jewish citizens in the PA? Telaviv1 (talk) 07:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it's anti-Semitic, it's just a response to the fact that Israel doesn't give building permits to Arabs in East Jerusalem therefore Arab housing is precious and needs to remain in Arab ownership. Not to mention all the demolitions of Arab housing by the government.

It's not racist it's a common sense reaction against a racist situation. It's less negative discrimination against Jews so much as positive discrimination for Arabs.

here is a good description of how racist the Israeli housing authorities are against Arabs and how there has been an ongoing campaign to get rid of Arabs from Jerusalem. Factsontheground (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not Israeli racsim we are discussing, so your points are irrlevant. Israelis could also claim they were repsonding to Arab or Christian racism. If the law specified Israelis it would not be or at least be less racist but it specifies Jews and therefore qualifies as antisemitic. Racist actions always have rational explanataions: the existence of such an explnatioan does not disqualify them from being racist. I suggest adding a sentence saying that this law arises from a particular political situation and leaving it to the reader to make the value judgement about whether it is justified or not. Telaviv1 (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem is we don't even know that the law arises from a particular political situation. My common sense tells me it does, but we would need an RS saying so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I reduced the text to remove pov content and make it less controversial. Telaviv1 (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the sources offered for this material make a claim of anti-semitism, and even if they did it would have to be offered as the opinion of a named significant source. Simple putting it here as if its anti-semitism is obvious is unacceptable Original Research. Zero^talk 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources describing a person killing himself would not need to use the word "suicide" in order for the person to be included in List of people who committed suicide, because killing oneself is the definition of suicide. Similarly, discrimination against Jews is included in the definition of antisemitism; thus the sources need not explicitly use the word "antisemitism". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. You are not allowed to put your opinion into the article but only to report the opinions of named others. It can also be argued that these laws are necessary measures to defend against the extensive project to eliminate Arabs from targeted neighborhoods by legal and illegal means. These means include bribery of officials, use of secret intermediaries, fradulent documents etc etc. All well documented. And we can add that misrepresenting these measures as motivated by anti-semitism is part of this process. Zero^talk 12:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't read what I said very carefully. It is not my opinion that discrimination against Jews is included in the definition of antisemitism. It is a fact, just like it is a fact that killing oneself is included in the definition of suicide. I find it very interesting that you are jumping to find possible justifications for discrimination against Jews, but discrimination against Jews is antisemitism regardless of whether it is justified or not, so the "extensive project" you mention simply has no bearing on this discussion whether or not it exists.

I'm don't think this piece is worth the controversy it generates. There is enough evidence of antisemitism elsewhere and there is no point in using an example which leads people to say that antisemitism is justifiable. Telaviv1 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be an extremely bad idea to censor material from Wikipedia because it creates controversy. That would allow anyone who doesn't like something at any time, for whatever reason, to cause its removal by creating a controversy. Additionally, the section in this article on Palestinians is actually embarrassingly sparse. There are entire chapters dealing with Palestinian antisemitism in books by academicians such as Yehoshafat Harkabi, Barry Rubin and Raphael Israeli. Hopefully someone will eventually write this section properly, but in the meantime such material as we have should remain. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

too much sugar coating pre-19th century

there needs to be more about anti-semitism from before the 19th century. To act like it wasn't big until then is a massive lie and sugar coatTallicfan20 (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific ideas for how that section of the article could be improved? Olaf Davis (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The section on Medieval times could be vastly expanded.Tallicfan20 (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.il/books?id=MziRd4ddZz4C&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=1834+1841+jews+palestine+attacks&source=bl&ots=Y58Mkbx8wF&sig=2kDYadkQLWiQjIyrHLQcgjTjr_k&hl=en&ei=vqdPSvDhKZL0nQOH8IG6BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

Telaviv1 (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon Heading

The following violates the neutral point of view policy in the article "Antisemitism in the Arab World", under the heading for Lebanon:

"In the discourse of Lebanese street politics, "Jew" is a common insult, often used to tar those suspected of collaborating with America and Israel.[47]"

The reference is an opinion from a Time magazine blurb on the Jews in Lebanon. Most of the blurb discusses how a MUSLIM Lebanese man is helping to restore Jewish heritage in Lebanon. The author of the Time blurb is stating an unverified anecdote, (perhaps, based on his experience?), that in no way is representative of how Lebanese view Jewish people. In fact, I know many Lebanese people that would never use the word Jew as an insult. If this statement is to remain, then I will add a statement saying that, "Most Lebanese would never use the word Jew as an insult." It's my word against the author's. The Time piece is an absolute paradox. The author is saying how a Muslim man is helping restore Jewish symbols in Lebanon, while painting Lebanese as racists against Jews, since they, supposedly, use the word Jew as a "common insult". This is absolute slander against a people and I will not let it stand. Therefore, this statement is deleted. Corrector555 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Arabs are Hamites not Semites

Please show me the evidence that Arabs are semites....Ishmael the half brother of Isaac's mother was hagar , hagar was an egyptian hamite...Hamite, because she is the progeny of the son of noah named ham...Jews are the prograny of Sarah and Sarah was a Semite....the progeny of Shem , a son of noah........so please let me know what your evidence is that arabs are semites?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.130.56 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the word in the same way as the majority of English speakers, and specifically the way that authors writing on linguistics or race do. That definition is different from "people descended from Shem", and includes Arabs. The fact that the word is named after Shem doesn't mean it can't develop in meaning.

Also, it's usual to start new discussions at the bottom of a talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Arabs are not Semites, despite often being credited as such. Though geneologies are largely patrillineal today, originally the ethinicity of the mother determined the child's identity. Ishmael, who Arabs are believed to be descended from, had a Hamite mother. So, technically, he was a Hamite. He also married an Egyptian, making all of his children Hamites. They continued to intermarry as such and by the tenth generation they would have had less than one percent of Semitic blood.

Nowadays, they often claim to be Semites, and people frequently use this to fight the accusations of them being anti-semitic. My dictionary even classifies them under the term of "Semitic." However, regardless being the descendents of Abraham, who was in fact the tenth generation of Shem, Arabs are technically Hamites. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't give me this religious nonsense.

What determines descendants, is the father. It's in the Y-chromosome, it can only be transferred by a man. Arabs are just as Semites as Jews, DNA testing proves it. But if you don't believe in DNA there isn't much I can do. 24.213.71.158 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is simply religious mumbo-jumbo. There was no Noah, no Sam or Ham or any (X)am. And while we are at it, there was no Abraham, no Ishmael, Isaac or anyone you can add in between either. All of these are fairy tales with no basis in reality, at least not among sane people. Or do you propose that the world was created in 6 days and God slept on the seventh as a matter of fact?Biraqleet (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Arab persecution of indigenous Jews

The newly created article at Arab persecution of indigenous Jews appears to have some usable sources but closely duplicates the subject of this article. Are there any objections to a merge? VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe also merge: Pogroms carried out by Arabs against Jews Joe407 (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The persecution is not automatically antisemitic - we need to follow the wording of the sources.Marokwitz (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - these are brief articles which could easily be included as part of this one, and I don't think either subject needs a separate article. As for Marokwitz's comment above, surely 'persecution of Jews' is antisemitic by definition? Robofish (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment The page has been deleted as an "attack page". 17:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran and the hudson institute

there seems to be a question, by some, regarding the use of Mudar Zahran and a question regarding the use of the Hudson Institute. the hudson institute meets all standards for RS including editorial board, etc. (do i need to review all of the points?).

in addition, it is accepted throughout wikipedia, so not sure why it is a question here. three examples of past discussions: [1], and [2], and [3]

in addition, kenneth hanner (former nat'l editor of the washington times), writing for human events says they are pretty good, too. (do you want exact quotes?) see [4] http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42256

and, they themselves say: Hudson Institute is a nonpartisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis. Founded in 1961, Hudson is celebrating a half century of forging ideas that promote security, prosperity, and freedom.

any comments as to why they should not be acceptable? thanks. Soosim (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you're trying to use a WashTime/Human Events endorsement to say that they are reliable? (Your links don't substantiate your claim that it has been accepted as a source: one is an RSN post with no replies, one is a list of assessed articles which means nothing, and one is a passing mention that actually questions its reliability.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism

There have been some back and forth edits over my initial removal of the following passage from the section on Israeli Arabs:

"In Israel, a country with a Jewish majority, and which defines itself as a Jewish nation-state in its Basic Laws, many Arab citizens of Israel are unwilling to accept it as a Jewish state. Most Israeli-Arabs are exempt from conscription into the Israel Defense Forces, or any other form of national service. A major exception is the Druze Arab community in Israel. Most Druze serve in the Army, and Druze politicians are generally supportive of the Jewish state. Arab-Israeli parliamentarians are often notorious for openly supporting Israel's enemies, harsh criticism of Israeli actions, and de-legitimization of the Jewish state."

First of all, this statement does not cite any sources. Secondly, I would like to point out that Anti-Semitism is not the same thing as Anti-Zionism. Somebody can disagree with a government without advocating racial or religious hatred towards its citizens. For example, I don't recognize the Chinese annexation of Tibet. It doesn't imply hatred of Chinese people. Regardless of wether the political positions in the above text are warranted, they do not belong in an article on anti-Semitism. An article on zionism or anti-zionism would be a more adequate forum for this debate. 85.154.169.140 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you but doubt that your logic would change anything since what you are asking for goes against the propagated Israeli narrative of victimhood and the means by which they silence any opposition to their atrocities in Palestine and surrounding states. This article seriously confuses opposition to Israel and its appalling actions with racism towards Jews per se. This equation between Israel and Jews or between Zionism and Judaism is false and is harmful to Jews themselves, as we see from the objections to such equation by many intellectual and/or religious Jews who do not feel that Zionism or Israel represent them or their religion. Among Israel’s so called enemies, it is the Zionist usurpation of Palestine from its native people and Israel’s actions as a state afterwards which make Israel an enemy, not the coincidence that they are Jews. If they were Martians the Palestinians and the Arabs would oppose them equally. When the English and the French occupied Arab lands, the Arabs fought them too but no sane person would claim Arab Anti-Arianism or Anti-Christianism based on that confrontation. It was simply a national resistance against a foreign power which wanted to control their land and resources against their will, and did not matter the identity of the occupier/colonizer. However, if the foreign power came with a self-proclaimed identity as the drive behind their aggression, then they have only themselves to blame for any rise in antagonism against this identity. Thus, if Jews do have a real concern about the rise of anti-Jewish feelings, as opposed to anti-Zionist feeling, then they should disassociate themselves from Zionist circles and publically oppose the atrocities of the Zionist state, Israel. Otherwise, and to be the devil's advocate, if you tell group X that because of your IDENTITY you are justified in taking their land and property, expelling them from their homeland and ethnically cleansing their cities, towns and villages, subjecting them to apartheid and humiliation, etc., then you should not be surprised if members of this group would say that they hate your IDENTITY, no matter what it is.Biraqleet (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is quite openly a political rant, not a valid Wikipedia comment. It presents a justification for hate-incitement and even excuses Palestinian terrorism. It is also altogether mythological in substance. E.g., where in the real world is the alleged silencing by Israel of "any opposition to their atrocities in Palestine and surrounding states"? Obviously, the terminology is highly prejudicial ("atrocities," "appalling actions," "Zionist usurpation," etc.), but in any case anyone wishing to make such statements in Israel is perfectly free to do so, since it is in fact a liberal democracy that accepts the rule of law and freedom of speech, press, etc. Arab Israeli politicians can say such things in the Knesset anytime they like. Some Arab Knesset members openly call for the defeat of Israel and appear on Lebanese TV on the same platform as Hezbollah, something treasonous in any understanding of the term, and nevertheless take up their Knesset seats upon return with no repercussions. The newspapers are similarly open to vigorous debate and as in all democracies attacks on government policy are taken for granted as a right for all. I might also point out that nothing like such freedoms to criticise and even to slander government leaders and policies exists even now in the "Arab Spring" anywhere else in the Middle East, including in the Palestinian Authority territories, whether on the West Bank or Gaza.

As for the substance of the issue itself, while anti-Zionism is not antisemitism per se, it often expresses itself in such terms, and in fact in Muslim countries it generally does. There is plenty of evidence on this provided by MEMRI (see especially their Lantos Archive on antisemitism at http://www.thememriblog.org/antisemitism), including TV video-clips and translated newspaper articles. Quite a few sermons by the religious leaders in the West Bank and Gaza exhibit strongly antisemitic sentiments. But it is not restricted to Palestinians. Iranian Holocaust Denial is only the most globally publicised instance of a widespread phenomenon. On this, it is relevant to cite in this Wikipedia article the Pew Global Attitudes Project Survey 2011 that surveyed Muslims world-wide to determine their attitudes to non-Muslims (at: http://pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/muslim-western-tensions-persist). It indicates that almost all Muslims in the Middle East and even beyond have antisemitic attitudes, not just anti-Zionist ones: this reflects the way Jews and Israel are presented in the Muslim world through the pulpit, the media and the schools. In most Middle Eastern states 98% of their population do not have favorable views of Jews as such, radically contrasting with almost all Western countries where most people have favorable views. It is also relevant to mention in this connection that antisemitism is the only possible explanation for the official Palestinian policy not to allow any Jews to live in their proposed "Palestine," once it is established, so ethnic cleansing will be necessary from all "occupied Palestine" territories, and, just as blatant is the official P.A. policy, enunciated by Yasser Arafat in the futile Camp David peace talks of 2000, that there are no Jewish holy sites anywhere in Jerusalem, including on the Temple Mount, nor in Hebron, nor anywhere else in the Holy Land. This obviously goes beyond anti-Zionism: it rewrites the Bible itself as part of an explicit and official campaign to erase Judaism as such from the Jewish Holy Land and the entire Middle East. It suggests that the real problem is actually not with the actual Jews -- as the above anti-Zionist commentator put it, it would even apply to Martians -- but the problem is due, as the Hamas Covenant frankly states, to the fact that Israel is the only non-Muslim state in the Middle East (the Palestinian way of phrasing this is to speak of a "dagger" in the heart of the Muslim and Arab world, playing on tiny Israel's shape), and is therefore as such an offense and reproach to Muslim and Arab honor and God-ordained rule. It is therefore the frontline of jihad. Secularists insist they feel the same offense but as a stain on Arab honor as such. See Wistrich's books cited in the bibliography for details on this. Another extensive discussion of this is Bernard Lewis, Semites and Antisemites, also in the bibliography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.228.214 (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It saddens me to see that Wikipedia, while such a boon to my studies in biological science and medicine, clearly has no checks and balances against heavily biased political propaganda. Make no mistake: Arabs, among others, are Semites. "Anti-Semitism" is a word that, by its etymology, may in fact be applied to those peoples. The article written here is in large part a fiction, incorporating an overwhelming extent of pro-Zionist propaganda without citation of credible sources, drafted with the seeming purpose to suggest that racism against Jews is far more widespread than can be substantiated by factual sources. Where the article does include historical fact, the presentation is overwhelmingly incomplete, a half-truth with aims to create bias in support of policies of the 1948 state. For one, the article references its definition of "Anti-Semitism" to another Wikipedia article written in much the same style as this one. The author(s) of this piece have clearly established multiple pages under different headings from which to "cite" to create the illusion of authority. One cannot reference his own works as objective citation. Furthermore, the use of hateful language against Arabs even within this Talk page is an excellent demonstration of Anti-Semitism as it describes racial hatred toward peoples of Arab descent, most notably toward the Palestinians. (GG2014MD (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC))

It is true that a literal use of the word "anti-Semite" suggests that hatred of Arabs and other racial Semites is included in the term. This is misleading (see the notice at the top of the Talk page linking readers to a discussion of this term, explaining why actual Semites are not implicated in it). The term was not understood to extend to Arabs from the very beginning of the usage, back in the nineteenth century. That is why, according to many scholars of the subject (e.g., Robert Wistrich, Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred, London: Methuen, 1991, p. xvi), the better usage is "antisemite" as an adherent to "antisemitism," an ideology like "Communism" or "fascism" or "Nazism," because what is involved was actually from the start and is still today not a racial term at all but a "pseudo-scientific" ideology of unfocussed hatred. Hitler obviously was antisemitic and so was Nazism as such, his program. But he was very friendly with and funded authoritarian and fascist-tending Arab leaders of all sorts, such as Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the leaders of the Ba'athist parties of Syria and Iraq, and even Anwar Sadat and other anti-British Egyptian radicals. He warmly hosted the Grand Mufti Haji Amin el-Husayni in Berlin throughout the Second World War. el-Husayni was just as deeply antisemitic as was Hitler, cooperated and furthered the genocide against the Jews and even issued fatwas and radio broadcasts urging Muslims to join the Nazi army (he created two Muslim SS units). Hitler promised him rule of a Jew-free Iraq-Syria-Jordan-Palestine after the war, that is, an Arab dictatorship allied with the Nazis. So Arab Semites were no problem. Jews, besides, are of all races, not just the Semitic one, as Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf: he damned them there as the archetypal "mischling" people, mixed racial types who were therefore presumably hostile to all "pure racial blood." So antisemitism is the more appropriate term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.228.214 (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

One group versus another group?

What is the difference between a gentile middle eastern group fighting another gentile middle eastern group and a gentile middle eastern group fighting a jewish group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.156.62 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Changes to archive settings

The settings on this page governing the activities of the archival bot previously read:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Antisemitism in the Arab world/Archive %(counter)d
}}

I have changed them to:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Antisemitism in the Arab world/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 16 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained 11.9 KB The time setting remain at a very healthy 90 days. Gregkaye (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to add that I appreciate that some admin type Wikipedia pages have low level settings in "minthreadsleft" and, in this context, I can understand how a low level setting might have been installed here.
  

In my pov, talk pages like this connect to subjects to which a wide variety of views may be ascribed. It seems to me that adequate space should be given for the address of relevant issues and by a variety of editors. Gregkaye (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Blog

Jonney2000, rather than edit warring, please explain how on earth a blog under a pseudonym can be WP:RS. Not to mention one that includes such absurd statements such as:

• "mostly by Arabs but also by some anti-Israel and anti-Zionist intellectuals in the West" => obvious well-poisoning
• "close to 1 million Jews who lived in Arab lands prior to the establishment of Israel, after which they left or were expelled" => scholarly sources do not focus on expulsion given there was only one known case, it was small scale, and it was not focused on Jews
• "But it’s also true that, in the course of these centuries, no Middle Eastern Jew, if asked whether he was an Arab, would have said yes, no matter how at home he felt in his environment." => A patently false statement that he disproves without acknowledgement later in the same paragraph. And the reference to "course of the centuries" is absurd given the paucity of research on this subject prior to the 20th century, a point which he acknowledges in the laziest possible fashion in the next paragraph.

These are obvious red flags of low quality pseudo-journalism.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Hillel Halkin is fine he is well known and of some stature. Much of the literature on this topic is very one-sided and not really about what happened after 1948 especially on the lunatic anti-Zionist side. Why do you want to force this one-sided polemic? Ella Shohat is a very good polemicist but it’s just too much.

• • It boggles the mind and insults the intelligence to imply that practically 100% of this population suddenly emigrated willingly. Arabs stole everything from many Mizrahi Jews many of whom had never hear of Zionism and not all immigrated to Israel. Shifting the blame the way Ella Shohat does is disgusting I want to throw up.

• • If you knew anything thing about this population you would know that Mizrahi do not like Arab nationalist and its not a Zionist conspiracy linked to the one million plan! You want Mizrahi to say ok now we will be “honorary Arabs” not going to happen.

• • Mizrahi wrote the Talmud and more, I hope you realize what that means as far as identifying as Arab and the clear distinctions which are made between Jews and non-Jews. They are not some foreign other. Jonney2000 (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

1) What are Halkin's credentials on this topic? From the above, he appears to be an amateur

2) Of course they didn't "emigrate willingly". That is a straw man. Each country's emigration was complex but related to many things including decolonization and Zionist agitation. The expropriation of property came in most (if not all) cases after emigration deals were made between the original country and the Israeli government. These countries' governments did not want to lose the human capital, but with enough pressure they each unlocked their doors. Read Fischbach, who is a very balanced and reasoned scholar.

3) Yes I agree, but propaganda has a lot to do with this to. Most Mizrahi Jews of the younger generation have a poor understanding of their own history, and focused on the "neo lachrymose" version.

4) Too many people have no idea what an Arab is (and is not). Understand the history of Arab nationalism, and what being Arab means (and doesn't mean) today, and you will understand this.

Either way, your article is not WP:RS. Find a better source or remove it. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Oncenawhile. Hillel Halkin and his blog are not wp:rs. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, Oncenawhile, it's true that many factors, including poverty, political instability, and the desire to live in the newly created Jewish state, helped led to the exodus of Jews from Arab countries, However, you seem to almost completely dismisses the persecution and anti-Semitism that occurred at the time (while seemingly placing most of the blame on "Zionist agitation"). I suggest you read the article Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.

But getting back on topic, Hillel Halkin is (according to Wikipedia) an American-born Israeli translator, biographer, literary critic, and novelist, who has lived in Israel since 1970. He certainly is Pro-Israel, but his articles have been published in Commentary, The New Republic, The Jerusalem Post, Mosaic Magazine and is on the editorial board of the Jewish Review of Books. I'd say that qualifies him as a reliable source. Of course, there's no doubt that his perspective is skewed heavily in favor of Israel, but that doesn't automatically mean that his views/opinions are inadmissible here. Finally, this particular article was not published in a blog but rather in the The Forward. In summary, Halkin's views should be considered RS as far as Wikipedia is concerned, although citing him as the source of the criticism of Ella Shohat (as I have done in a recent edit) is a necessity.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

@Hyperionsteel: you are wrong to say "almost completely dismisses" and "most of the blame". My view on this (and, I hope, most things) is much more evenly balanced than that. There is an issue here though, which Michael Fischbach summarizes well:

"there is no doubt that Arab hostility toward Jews in the Middle East and North Africa left them feeling increasingly uneasy about their futures by the 1930s and 1940s. This uneasiness certainly affected their decisions on whether or not to emigrate. But the very political post-1948 debate over the origins and nature of Arab anti-Semitism, and the degree to which it alone was responsible for the Jewish exodus from the Arab world, can potentially obfuscate more than enlighten."[5]

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Halkin is widely published as a literary critic and political commentator. For matters of historical fact we should cite historians. It's not like there aren't many to choose from. Zero^talk 08:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Antisemitism in the Arab world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220000104/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il:80/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/a_s_170408e.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/a_s_170408e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120132211/http://www.jimena.org/faq/memmi.htm to http://www.jimena.org/faq/memmi.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629170055/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fighthatred.com/recent-events/national-political-hate/416-jews-flee-yemen-due-to-rising-anti-semitism
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021126072641/http://www.tau.ac.il:80/Anti-Semitism/asw98-9/arab.html to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw98-9/arab.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antisemitism in the Arab world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061113061841/http://www.pmw.org.il/holocaust.htm to http://www.pmw.org.il/holocaust.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw98-9/arab.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antisemitism in the Arab world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701060206/http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/dukedamascus6.WMV to http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/dukedamascus6.WMV
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627211412/http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1979/anti-semitism-20 to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1979/anti-semitism-20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I find there is some ill-conceived language going on in this paragraph, let me quote it and explain:

By medieval standards, conditions for Jews under Islam were generally more formalized and better than those of Jews in Christian lands, in part due to the sharing of minority status with Christians in these lands. There is evidence for this claim in that the status of Jews in lands with no Christian minority was usually worse than their status in lands with one. For example, there were numerous incidents of massacres and ethnic cleansing of Jews in North Africa,[11] especially in Morocco, Libya and Algeria where eventually Jews were forced to live in ghettos.[12] Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in the Middle Ages in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.[13] At certain times in Yemen, Morocco and Baghdad, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death.[14]

The first two sentences speak of two distinct subjects, but the second one syntactically references the sub-sentence added by comma to the first, regarding the following examples as evidence for its thesis. Maybe it's just because I'm not a native speaker, but I was very much inclined to assume the second sentence, beginning with "there is evidence for this claim in that [...]", would refer to the thesis of the primary sentence, not to the proposed explanatory idea. Mainly because the first sentence raises the comparison of christian and muslim countries, but the further paragraph deals exclusively with the situation in muslim countries.

So here is what I would do: the first sentence lacks a citation, and should be ended before the comma. I'd then go on something like this: "A possible reason for this might be the sharing of minority status with Christians in predominantly muslim countries. There is evindence for this claim in that [...]" Then one might argue that this rewrite should have a citation for this claim not to be suspected original research, while the examples of course still hold. In case this was original research, I would just make it a paragraph about the atrocities and try to build one up for the comparative situation thingy of Jews in christian vs. Jews in muslim countries and the academic discourse on that.

I'd go ahead, but obviously the article is closed. Best wishes

 --2A02:8108:8580:7736:C382:3BBC:1441:EC52 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)