Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that claiming weaponization of antisemitism may itself be antisemitism? Source: Hirsh, David (2010). "Accusations of malicious intent in debates about the Palestine-Israel conflict and about antisemitism The Livingstone Formulation, 'playing the antisemitism card' and contesting the boundaries of antiracist discourse". Transversal: 44–77.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Languages of Lebanon

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 09:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Weaponization of antisemitism; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment: I don't think this article is ready for DYK as the page history indicates it is entirely unstable. Further, the talk page shows that it is heavily contested and discussion is ongoing. I would recommend withdrawing at this time and submitting later after things have cooled down. Of course, that might not be possible due to the time constraints, so consider bringing it up to GA standards and then submitting it, as that process will tend to weed out any outstanding issues. I won't personally reject this nomination, as I think the process for doing so will benefit from multi-editorial consilience towards that conclusion, instead of one editor making that determination. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree. I've marked it as rejected; if the article cools down over the next weeks, ping me. I suspect it won't, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• I will also offer my rationale:

• Article title is disputed: A move and rename proposal was initiated at on 31 January. Discussion is ongoing.
• Disputed content: Russia-Belarus content is disputed on talk as of 31 January. Discussion is ongoing; Lead section disputed as of 14 January. Discussion ongoing as of 28 January with an outstanding request for sources; Ostrovsky's description disputed as of 8 January. Discussion appears to have concluded.
• Stability: Since the article was nominated on 3 January there has been no semblance of stability. There have been around ~130 intervening edits, with edit warring and reverts occurring daily throughout that time. In the last 48 hours, there have been at least four reverts (likely many more, but just noting the explicit reverts), and the placement of at least one inline maintenance tag for synthesis.

Based on the above, I move to reject the nomination per WP:DYKCOMPLETE ("The article should not be subject to unresolved edit-warring or the presence of stub or dispute tags"). Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The reasoning is solid, so I've gone ahead and rejected the nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography

Extended content

Abraham, Matthew (2014). Out of Bounds: Academic Freedom and the Question of Palestine. EBL-Schweitzer. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4411-9802-0. Adalah; et al. (2023-04-04), "Human Rights and other Civil Society Groups Urge United Nations to Respect Human Rights in the Fight Against Antisemitism", Human Rights Watch Amor, Meir; et al. (2022-11-03). "Scholars to UN: Don't adopt 'weaponised' antisemitism definition" (PDF). EUobserver. Retrieved 2024-01-01. Ball, George W.; Ball, D.B. (1992). The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present. W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-02933-8. Beinin, Joel (2004). "The New American McCarthyism: Policing Thought about the Middle East". Race & Class. 46 (1): 101–115. doi:10.1177/0306396804045517. ISSN 0306-3968. S2CID 143636285. Brownfeld, Allan (1987). "Anti-Semitism: Its Changing Meaning". Journal of Palestine Studies. 16 (3). Institute for Palestine Studies, University of California Press: 53–67. doi:10.2307/2536789. ISSN 1533-8614. JSTOR 2536789. Chomsky, Noam (1983). The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. Politics/Mideast. South End Press. ISBN 978-0-89608-187-1. Chomsky, Noam (2002). "Anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the Palestinians" (PDF). Variant. 2 (16). Findley, Paul (1987). They Dare to Speak Out (2 ed.). Lawrence Hill & Company. ISBN 978-0-88208-180-9. Finkelstein, Norman (2008). Beyond Chutzpah. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24989-9. Hirsh, David (2010). "Accusations of malicious intent in debates about the Palestine-Israel conflict and about antisemitism The Livingstone Formulation, 'playing the antisemitism card' and contesting the boundaries of antiracist discourse". Transversal. 11: 44–77. Retrieved 2024-01-01. Landy, David; Lentin, Ronit; McCarthy, Conor (15 May 2020). Enforcing Silence: Academic Freedom, Palestine and the Criticism of Israel. Zed Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1-78699-653-4. Marcus, Kenneth L. (2010). "Anti-Semitism Denial and Minimisation". Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America. Cambridge University Press. pp. 67–69. ISBN 978-1-139-49119-8. Retrieved 2024-01-01. Mearsheimer, John; Walt, Stephen (2008). "The Great Silencer". The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Penguin Books Limited. pp. 191–196. ISBN 978-0-14-192066-5. Quigley, John (2021). The Legality of a Jewish State: A Century of Debate over Rights in Palestine. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-51924-0. Piety, Harold R. (Nov 13, 1975), "Who Speaks for Judaism?", The Journal Herald (Dayton, Ohio) Plitnick, Mitchell; Aziz, Sahar F. (2023-11-23). Presumptively Antisemitic: Islamophobic Tropes in the Palestine Israel Discourse (PDF). Rutgers University Law School Center for Security, Race, and Rights. Riemer, Nick [in German] (2022). Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine: Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation. Off the Fence: Morality, Politics and Society. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-5381-7588-0. Rubenberg, Cheryl (1989). Israel and the American National Interest: A Critical Examination. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-06074-8. Steinberg, Bernie (2023-12-29). "For the Safety of Jews and Palestinians, Stop Weaponizing Antisemitism". The Harvard Crimson. Thompson, Jon (2012). No Debate: The Israel Lobby and Free Speech at Canadian Universities. Canadian Association of University Teachers. Lorimer. ISBN 978-1-55277-657-5. Retrieved 2024-01-09. Waxman, Dov; Schraub, David; Hosein, Adam (2022-07-04). "Arguing about antisemitism: why we disagree about antisemitism, and what we can do about it". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 45 (9): 1803–1824. doi:10.1080/01419870.2021.1960407. ISSN 0141-9870. S2CID 238721730. White, Ben (2020-02-01). "Delegitimizing Solidarity: Israel Smears Palestine Advocacy as Anti-Semitic" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies. 49 (2): 65–79. doi:10.1525/jps.2020.49.2.65. ISSN 0377-919X. S2CID 218853797.

Returning to OR issue

In our current lead, we have the following sentence:

Suggestions of such exploitation have been raised during phases of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, in various organizations' adoptions of the controversial working definitions of antisemitism, during the 2014–20 allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, at the 2023 US Congress hearing on antisemitism, during the 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses, and in discussions of Israeli apartheid.

The footnotes here are examples of such suggestions, i.e. they are primary sources for the suggestions. For instance, "during phases of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" cites a suggestion by Norman Finkelstein in (surely unreliable?)Campus Watch and an opinion piece by Chomsky; "during the 2014–20 allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party" cites a suggestion by Dave Graeber in a Double Down News video (I am not sure if he uses the word "weaponise" or if it's just in the headline); "at the 2023 US Congress hearing on antisemitism" cites a suggestion by an ex-student in the Harvard Crimson. These seem really arbitrary to me, and not apt for a lead. Can we instead use reliable secondary sources which describe this happening, rather than give primary source examples only? Because just giving primary source is original research. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Both Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are perfectly acceptable sources. Wikipèdia is not a venue exclusively for what mainstream newspapers contain, and both are very influential historians of the conflict.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Bob, is there really anything written in the paragraph you quote above that is remotely questionable? Anyone who followed the news in the last decade witnessed such claims very regularly with their own eyes and ears. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Neither Noam Chomsky nor Norman Finkelstein write that "Suggestions of such exploitation have been raised during..." Rather, they raise the suggestions themselves, and Wikipedia then inappropriately reports secondarily on their suggestions. It's original research. We need to cite to someone actually saying that suggestions of weaponization of antisemitism have been raised in [list of contexts] if those assertions are to remain in the article. Alternatively, Wikipedia could report attributively on the words of Chomsky et al.‚ but it would look different from "Suggestions of such exploitation have been raised during..." and it would be hard to argue for their inclusion in the lead without a secondary overview source lending their similar foundational significance for the article topic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Attribution would help solve the problem. Andre🚐 04:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary is exactly right. I'm not sure attribution would help solve the problem in the lead, as their views aren't noteworthy enough in the lead. We'd need to find totally new wording. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm all for improving this article (once all the sniping is dealt with). Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Nishidani, I am not saying that Chomsky and Finkelstein are in general not acceptable sources. I'm saying that in this case they are sources for their own opinions, i.e. primary sources, as examples of what our text claims, i.e. it's original research. We can include their views in the body, but we need a secondary source to say what we say in our voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that whenever a scholar with expertise in the IP conflict makes a judgment, that this becomes a 'primary source'? You must be joking.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Following secondary and tertiary best sources would be a good improvement to the sentence. Also, sources considered notable that have a strong POV could be attributed more clearly, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in the NPOV policy. Llll5032 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think one such best secondary/tertiary source is the Waxman et al. paper specifically about the rhetorical formations making up disputes about weaponized antisemitism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I have revised the section in question to cite only secondary sources. There may be other sources to cite to support more contexts, but maybe it doesn't need to be very long (since the introductory context of "criticism of Israel" covers a few of the previously listed disputes). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been reverted; the OR is still there and now untagged. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, why did you restore the OR citations in the lead's second paragraph and remove the citations to secondary sources? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I restored the material about apartheid, because it was well sourced, I didn't remove any sources afaik. Which ones? Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources you restored cite primary examples of the accusation being raised in those contexts (including one tweet)—not secondary sources which say that the accusation is raised in that context. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No conclusions have been drawn from those sources, other than "raised in context", which is self evidently true, and there is no prohibition on the use of primary sources, so there is no OR. See WP:PRIMARY. Selfstudier (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

For it to be in the lead that the accusation is raised in these contexts, primary examples of its self-evidence don’t suffice. It’s arbitrary. @Bobfrombrockley explained it when he initiated this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please point me to the policy that says primary sources cannot be used in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The lead prose “the accusation has been raised in context X” cannot be cited to a mere example of the accusation being raised in that context. The gap between the accusation itself and the characterization on Wikipedia is original research. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It was you who inserted the wording "The charge of weaponization has been raised in context..." here just recently, it was fine the way it was before, "Suggestions of such exploitation have been raised during phases of..." Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That wording is not the issue. See Bob’s opening comment in this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have dealt with that already. If you are just supporting what he says, then just say that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

In what way have you dealt with it? You just restored the arbitrary examples. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I will be talking with Bob since you have pointed me there. Also, I see that you have restored your own confusing wording even though Nishidani put it back the way it was originally, along with yet another tag, I am coming to believe that you have absolutely no intention of improving this article. Convince me otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Also please see Wikipedia talk:No original research#New articles based on primary sources. Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, back to this again. Well, how about Settler Antisemitism, Israeli Mass Violence, and the Crisis of Holocaust and Genocide Studies by Raz Segal, for example: "Collapsing this distinction became a central element in the Israeli-led weaponization of the discourse about antisemitism starting in the 1990s. This political and diplomatic effort shifted the focus of the struggle against antisemitism from protecting Jews around the world, a people who historically faced discriminatory and violent states, to protecting Israel from criticism of its policies and violence against Palestinians." and same author, "The weaponization of antisemitism by Israel and its allies, including the U.S. government, draws on the deeply problematic “working definition of antisemitism” adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)." Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This might help, but not sure which claims we make this would support, and I don't know if Raz Segal is authoritative enough to say this in our voice without attribution, but might be. (I think he probably is.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This could be used (IMO attributed), but it would have to support new prose in the lead as opposed to the pile of contexts currently supported by direct examples. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, scholarly sourcing doesn't need attribution, nor does Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah, also dealing with the subject matter. Have to check about Chomsky... Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Uncontested scholarly sourcing of facts doesn't need attribution, but scholars' opinions, especially on contentious topics, should always be attributed. I'm not sure which Segal is in the case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Without in-text attribution to scholars, this article would state simultaneously in wikivoice that the accusation of antisemitism is a weapon used by defenders of Israel and that accusing those who raise antisemitism of weaponizing it to defend Israel is antisemitic and illogical. For matters of uncontroversial historical fact, in-text attribution can be skipped, but for an article whose every source takes a position on a controversial discursive issue, we need to preserve the article’s current standard of attributing every view it cites. If you want to discuss this further in the abstract, I’d recommend starting a new section, but if you are only referring to the lead, then no need IMO—when new prose is proposed, it can be discussed here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No we don't need to do that and if you try to push that, I will open another RFC on the issue. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Please also see Criticism of Israel#Criticism stifled by accusations of antisemitism, this is a legitimate subject and the sooner you stop with your continuing efforts to delegitimize it the better. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Please dial back your tone. The status quo of this article is that views are attributed in text. I didn’t establish that, but I support it. If you want to change it, seek consensus. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The controversial aspect of the IHRA definition is that although it does not say so explicitly, it functions to affirm that antizionist antisemitism exists and is significant. The definition offers examples of the ways in which it typically appears and it insists that any judgment about what is antisemitic should be made according to context. It also explicitly protects critics of Israeli policies, culture, and society, saying, "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." Unsurprisingly, antizionists who say that antizionism is completely distinct from antisemitism, or that antizionist antisemitism is not significant, or that it is exaggerated or weaponized by Zionists for political reasons often militantly oppose the IHRA working definition.

There's a both sides, The Routledge history of antisemitism, p 47.

Can keep this up as long as you like, tone permitting. Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything you say here seems true to me, but I don’t understand the relevance to the matter of the original research in the lead. If you’re proposing this as prose or a source for the lead, I’d oppose, since it seems to only be about disputes relating to the IHRA definition, which is narrower than this article’s scope. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything, I am waiting for you to edit the article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain the above paragraph about the IHRA disputes in the context of this discussion on the lead? Do you want that integrated into the lead? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I may do that, I don't see a need to explain anything tho. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am asking you to explain because I am confused by your comments. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Just ignore them then. Maybe we're both confused. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The status quo of this article is that views are attributed in text. I didn’t establish that, but I support it See Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 2#In-line attribution of every sentence? Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course, you may bring sources saying that identified weaponization is not weaponization at all, nothing wrong with that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

128 scholars warn: ‘Don’t trap the United Nations in a vague and weaponized definition of antisemitism "Ample evidence shows that these examples are being weaponized to discredit and silence legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies as antisemitism." I can go on and on like this, anyone wants to work on a lead that satisfies everyone, they are welcome. Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't seem very relevant to the lede content in question. Maybe you can propose some different lede content with more extensive coverage in secondary sources. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You too, feel free to edit the article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, a tag, the usual thing then. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Two major techniques facilitate such allegations. The first relates one’s claim very illusively to some antisemitic imagery. The fact that 2,000 years of hostility and hatred toward Jews have created a storehouse of anti-Jewish imagery so rich – and at times contradictory – means that nearly any claim can be linked to at least one of those images.Through manipulation of these images, along with a little imagination, one could identify any form of criticism as antisemitic. This kind of logic is deployed by supporters of Israel’s occupation and nationalistic government in order to delegitimize anyone who dares criticize Israeli policies.

The second technique draws on the definition of antisemitism formulated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Founded in 1998 (under a different name), the IHRA is a political body with considerable political power, uniting government representatives and Holocaust scholars from 33 countries, nearly all of them in the West. The IHRA aims to spread and institutionalize teaching and research on the Holocaust, commemorate the Holocaust, and struggle against antisemitism. The IHRA agreed on a definition of antisemitism in 2016, along with a list of examples, based on previous definitions. It has since become a kind of “soft law” that is binding in many institutions and even states across the world. The problem is that the IHRA definition deals obsessively — more than with any other topic — with the degree of antisemitism in criticism of Israel, making it far more difficult to identify real instances of antisemitism, while casting a cloud of suspicion over nearly all criticism of Israel. Meanwhile, the burden of proof lies with critics of Israel, who are constantly asked to prove that they are not anti-Semites.Amos Goldberg and Raz Segal, Distorting the definition of antisemitism to shield Israel from all criticism +972 Magazine 5 August 5 2019

These equivocating objections are, I assume, done in the face of editors actually doing their homework and reading the abundant sources which underline the view that it is extremely commonplace for any criticism of Israel to be countered as 'antisemitic'. I've been seeing that for half a century, and I cannot believe that editors are unaware of this obvious fact. That they don't remember the way the apartheid charge has been consistently met with dismissive hints that this is just antisemitism, etc. That nonsense is all over the place in the last 2 decades, and has been consistently challenged as a manipulation of the term. Perhaps they don't care to read the scholarship on these 'techniques', as they have been called, for cutting off criticism of Israel at the root by the insinuation they must be antisemitic, from Chomsky onwards down to Raz Segal and Amos Goldberg. Anyone can clutter a page with noise, but the objections drop the moment one googles, and then reads .Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Awkward wording

Zanahary's recent edits added the very long-winded "Accusations of antisemitism often spark disputes over whether the charges are being used politically, particularly to stifle anti-Zionist views or smear[1] critics of Israel,[2][3]" before getting to the article subject itself. By implicitly questioning whether this phenomenon even exists at all, the wording conflicts with the sources in this article as well as common sense.

In the next paragraph, the wording "The charge of weaponization has been raised in discourses" is unnecessarily academic in tone.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

On the first wording, the wording mirrors the best tertiary sources, in Routledge’s History of Antisemitism and Waxman et al.’s 2022(?) paper, both of which situate the weaponization phenomenon as an emergent accusation in the context of disputes relating to antisemitism. If it’s too long, maybe Accusations of antisemitism often spark disputes over whether the charges are being used to stifle or smear[1] critics of Israel,

The next paragraph doesn’t seem too academic to me, but in any case you’ve reverted the resolution of an original research problem as explained above; you could restore the old phrasing (which I think is pretty unclear) without reintroducing the original research. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Your revised version again questions whether the phenomenon exists. That is not consistent with the sources, even if you have cherrypicked some quotes which situate it only as an accusation. Murder is often an accusation, but it also exists as a real phenomenon, just as weaponization of antisemitism does.

We could use that same technique for any article: Deaths of people often spark disputes over whether the events result from the deliberate actions of one person against another, a practice described as murder. This type of long-windedness and uncertainty is known as MOS:LEADCLUTTER.

On the other sentence, the issue is "raised in discourses", which can be stated in much simpler English. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Not really comparable - labeling deaths as murders is often uncontentious, labeling claims of antisemitism as weaponization is normally (almost inherently) contentious. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the way to handle this is to do a review of the best sources, which provide overviews of this topic or examine it in general, and see how they introduce it. In my experience (as in the two sources I cited—Routledge and Waxman 2022), it's treated as a discursive dispute.
Waxman et al. (2022):

Nowadays, charges of antisemitism are hotly disputed, often accompanied by accusations of bad faith, particularly when they concern criticisms of Israel or anti-Zionism.

Antisemitism has also become increasingly politicized in recent years because it has become enmeshed in debates about the ongoing conflict over Israel/Palestine, with the Israeli government and its supporters often charging that Israel’s opponents are guilty of engaging in a “new antisemitism” that takes the form of anti-Zionism, while individuals and groups supporting the Palestinians often claiming that charges of antisemitism are being used to silence and suppress them.

But while the politicization, and, no doubt, occasional “weaponization” of antisemitism charges have fuelled many of the controversies concerning antisemitism in recent years, these controversies have also arisen because in many instances antisemitism is not obvious or incontrovertible.

In short, people can disagree in good faith over whether or not something is antisemitic. While this may seem tritely obvious, it is an important observation to make precisely because large swaths of the discourse about antisemitism are suffused in allegations of bad faith: the beliefs that antisemitism allegations are, alternatively, maliciously weaponized in service of ulterior agendas or cavalierly dismissed in order to shield favoured political programmes.

Note that it's framed as a dispute in the context of discussions about antisemitism, and "weaponization" is in quotes.

@Onceinawhile, can you raise some good overview sources we can look at to see how they define and discuss this? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This is wrong. The Routledge book does not discuss the topic in any meaningful way; Hirsh's paper in there is focused on New antisemitism. The Waxman paper is entitled "Arguing about antisemitism: why we disagree about antisemitism, and what we can do about it". When you write In my experience it's treated as a discursive dispute that's because you picked one source focused on a different topic and a second source focused specifically on treating it as a discursive dispute!

Either way, with respect to this article, the most important words in the quotes above are no doubt. Your chosen favorite source – despite being focused elsewhere – explicitly confirms the existence of this phenomenon.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

There is not actually any doubt that some allegations of antisemitism are baseless and politically motivated. I would reiterate that I for one would like to actually get the article body in better shape, I guess we will get around to that at some point, right? There is a bunch of stuff in the archives about this but we keep getting sidetracked, like now. That would also make the lead content more obvious imo. Selfstudier (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

See race card for an article that treats a phenomenon that certainly exists in a way that aligns with sources which mostly consider it in the context of discourse. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

We say that in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Then what is the problem with my lead sentence that was reverted? Onceinawhile argues that it violates common sense. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This article is not the race card article? Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please explain the issue with my reverted lead sentence. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is not about "disputes". Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I give you the case of David Miller who was the subject of antisemitism accusations by Jewish students, the CST, the Bristol University Jewish Society, various UK politicians and sundry others.

Employment tribunal found that Miller "was unfairly dismissed and subjected to discrimination because his "anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic pursuant to section 10 Equality Act 2010" and that “What [Miller said was accepted as lawful, was not antisemitic and did not incite violence and did not pose any threat to any person’s health or safety.”]

There's more to the story that's not in the article, a good example of the harm spurious allegations cause. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

An employment tribunal isn't necessarily an objective moral authority, and many have argued that some of Miller's comments (such as The enemy we face is trying to impose its will all over the world) were in fact antisemitic. These things aren't black and white. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

They did argue that and they lost, after two separate in depth investigations. Miller is an AZ (protected characteristic), lots of people going around saying AZ = AS, do the math. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Many argue that most or all anti-Zionism is indeed antisemitism. Some would also say that replacing Jews with Israel in classic antisemitic tropes doesn't necessarily remove the antisemitism. "Lost" doesn't mean much since there's no objective arbiter of antisemitism claims. Ultimately these are contentious topics which we can't take a side on. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not taking a side, I am reporting what occurred according to reliable sources, which I notice that you are not doing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the consequence of this particular case for this article’s lead? Do you think it should be included in the lead? If you are just trying to prove that spurious accusations of antisemitism have ever been raised before, then that’s really not on-topic, since that’s not how we determine how to cover a subject. Please list a few good sources on the topic so we can base our lead on their treatments. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you not know how to do that? Or is this just another tilt at the "this subject does not exist/has no definition", the subject of umpteen discussions already? Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m asking you for what are, in your view, the best sources in this article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll ask you the same question. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please raise some good tertiary sources we can use to examine the treatment of this topic, @Onceinawhile. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Tertiary? You mean secondary? Even primary will do. as long as there is no editor interpretation of them. Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

For the lead, primary certainly won’t do. There’s ambiguity between what is secondary and what is tertiary in the context of this topic, which is about an accusation raised in response to accusations. What I mean is a source that covers the article topic in general. Basically, what are our best, general sources? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting there should be books or journal articles devoted solely to ill motivated charges of antisemitism? What would they cover exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously there are sources covering this subject, though not necessarily solely. We’ve found a number to cite here. If there weren’t, this article would not exist. Which do you think are best? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Since this is not a history article or a topic with a pedigree, we can't expect to find sourcing littering the internet. I need to review some antisemitism material of the less polemical variety, one would have thought they would devote some material at least to this topic.

More to the point, some months ago, Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 5#Anti-Zionism, I wrote that there was a need to integrate the subject matter here with other articles in WP and we still need to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder if the article title should include Israel as it (or its government) seems to be the prime mover behind weaponization according to Raz Segal (he is a top source on this, multiple sourcing for him talking about this). Collapsing the distinction between Israel and Jews, IHRA and so on. He also dates the start of it, to the 90s.

I am sure there are false antisemitism allegations just as there are false rape allegations but perhaps not so many in a non Israel related sense so a title like Weaponization of antisemitism by Israel might well make sense. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Not a good idea. The more shambolic our articles, the more splits occur, and the result is that we just have a jumble of opinions. Let's face it. If we can't get one article drafted with an orderly exposition of the topic, history, usage, nothing is resolved by doing the same in a sister page. Bob's comments have some cogency, but it is difficult to muster editors who can collaborate to clean up the messes on most of these pages, as long as we approach them in terms of a POV-elbowing in-and-out of fav talking point quotes. Ahimé Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

A problem is that relevant material has been scattered higgledy-piggledy across various articles, I put them in as see alsos for the contexts, namely

See also: Anti-Zionism § Allegations of antisemitism, Zionism § Anti-Zionism or antisemitism, New antisemitism § Accusations of misuse of the term to stifle criticism of Israel, and Criticism of Israel § Criticism of Israel and antisemitism

. Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

So much opinion

I don't understand why every article on WP about Zionism or antisemitism (or especially their nexus) ends up being a long arbitrary compendium of some notable and some non-notable people giving their opinions. This article is not even vaguely encyclopedic. Surely we need some standard about what is worth including, like secondary sources to establish noteworthiness? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Problems with other articles can be raised at those articles, as far as this article, this point has been raised ad nauseum since this article was first put up, at AFD and multiple times since, usually by the same set of editors. And....? Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Opinions of notable and or subject matter experts are actually OK, they do establish noteworthiness. Non notables need attribution and may or not be helpful depending, whose did you have in mind? Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-systematic list of some examples:

"Further reading" includes a HuffPost blog post by Shai Hoffman, who I can't see any information on, and a Middle East Eye opinion piece by Jonathan Cook, who is definitely not a serious commentator on this matter, alongside solid scholarly sources.

The bibliography includes three articles from the Journal of Palestine Studies, but no articles from any of the main journals of antisemitism studies. It includes this offline source not cited in the body: Piety, Harold R. (Nov 13, 1975), "Who Speaks for Judaism?", The Journal Herald (Dayton, Ohio)

The references include a Ken Roth tweet, something from Campus Watch, and an opinion piece from Palestine Chronicle.

There just doesn't seem to be any logic to what's here BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Further reading ...That's Shai Franklin not Hoffman, idk who they are, removed, the Jonathon Cook piece is actually quite good, on point and confirms several other RS, so looks reliable as well, however I still removed it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography...The bibliography includes three articles from the Journal of Palestine Studies Why is that a problem?

but no articles from any of the main journals of antisemitism studies Add some.

I removed the 1975 article, too old. Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Refs...Ken Roth is fine, even in a tweet. Campus Watch and Norman Finkelstein are both notable, as is the latter's book, Beyond Chutzpah and ur objection to this is entirely unreasonable. I can't find a ref for Palestine Chronicle, point me to it? Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There just doesn't seem to be any logic to what's here No idea what this is referring to, was there anything else? Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The topic mostly exists across the opinions of various notables and non-notables. There are very few overview sources. This article’s content would be better as part of an article with a topic that has a good body of high-quality secondary and tertiary sources, like Anti-Zionism or Criticism of Israel. I’d support a good merge proposal to either. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The article topic is neither of those two things. No objection to deleting non notables although iirc we already did that a while ago. Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

This article has had 12,000 pageviews in the last month – I believe that makes it about the 600th most-viewed article on WikiProject Israel. It would be great if editors’ energy could be used to further improve the article – readers are clearly very interested in the topic and therefore it is our responsibility to make the information they are seeking easily available, easily digestible, and well sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

For any conceptual article, identifying and summarizing high-quality overview sources should be the most important task. Llll5032 (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me know when you have done that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Harrison/"As accusation" section

Re this: yes, three mentions is too much (hadn't realised there were already two). But this quote seems like a particularly concise and clear formulation of the response. I wonder if we can find a way to keep it, maybe in a note. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I still do not understand the purpose of the section "As accusation" or what it even means. It seems like an artificial division of material. As for what Harrison says in his unreferenced research polemic against the media (apart from four cites to the Teklegraph), it is not at all new, it says similar in a couple other places in the article (Livingstone, blah). According to it, no-one is supposed to accuse some one of making a false charge because that's antisemitic, we get it, that's what the article is about, after all. Selfstudier (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

“As accusation” is a header to organize content from sources that react to/analyze/study the accusation of weaponization, as opposed to sources that react to/analyze/study the phenomenon of weaponization. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m sympathetic to merging the “accusation” section into the context sections so that each one is more balanced.

I disagree with the “nothing new” summary, but if that’s a reason to remove material we can remove a lot of the repetitive opinions about weaponisation, especially the ones that make the assertion with less evidence than Harrison summons up. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing tautology would really shorten the article. I'm open to the idea but not yet on board. How would you merge As accusation to Contexts? I feel the content of each is quite meaningfully different, as Contexts examines a rhetorical mechanism/trick, while As accusation examines the examination exemplified in Contexts as a rhetorical mechanism itself. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The way I had it before you reverted it. The thing to do is find the distinct contexts and go from there. Straight up duplication should go, using the same source more than once is OK if its for a different context, IHRA, IP, etcetera. I'm undecided whether the UK Labour party is a valid context, why I did not include it when I reorganized the material, I don't mind doing that, I have a lot of material to add if it is going to be a valid context eg Lerman 2022

"In August 2018, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) accused him [Corbyn] of 'declaring war on the Jews', a hyperbolic claim, typical of many, and part of a sustained campaign that played a significant role in the Labour Party losing the 2019 general election. The only person called to mind by such an extreme statement is Hitler. This sets up a patently irrational and absurd comparison, one that was not only a gross insult to the Labour leader but also trivialised the mass murder of Jews for which the Nazi dictator was responsible. Nevertheless, saying it is absurd does not explain why apparently rational individuals can play fast and loose with antisemitism, politicising it in this fashion and draining the word of any useful meaning." Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Zanahary has a strong point: the "as accusation" section is not context-specific, but is about the weaponisation accusation as rhetorical device in general. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Well call it that then? Atm, it is meaningless. Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What would you name the section? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What Bob said "weaponisation accusation as rhetorical device" Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems overlong and no clearer nor more precise than "As accusation" ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No comment. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m on mobile and it’s not immediately obvious what the other Harrison quotes are—could you please reproduce them for me Bobfrombrockley? Thanks ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Dorothy Thompson

The prose about Dorothy Thompson doesn't quite follow the framing of the cited secondary source, which states that There can be no doubt that anti-Semitism was a theme in Thompson’s later writing. Pathologizing Jewishness, in particular, became habitual for her in the 1950s. By May 25, 1950, she is writing to Maury M. Travis, darkly, of the “tragic psychosis of the Jew”... Thompson wrote to Winston Churchill in 1951: “I have become convinced that the Jews, phenomenally brilliant individually and especially in the realm of abstract thought, are collectively the stupidest people on earth. I think it must come from cultural inbreeding—perhaps physical inbreeding also—in a desire to retain a homogenous, in-group society in the midst of ‘aliens.’

The article, by contrast, states that American journalist Dorothy Thompson, who had been an advocate of Zionism, was called antisemitic after she began to write against Zionism, having witnessed Jewish terrorism against the British and the Nakba against the Palestinian Arabs. She wrote a critique of American Zionism in Commentary in 1950, accusing Zionists of dual loyalty;[14][15] in response, "Amid accusations of anti-Semitism, she lost friends, work, and political influence", which is also supported by a source citing Thompson as evidence that The tactic of using the term anti-Semitism as a weapon against dissenters from Israeli policy is not new.

That one author identifies Thompson as a example of a target of the weaponized term of antisemitism for her criticism of Israel, and another author finds her to have been without a doubt antisemitic, is not clear from the article's prose. How should we fix it? Is this even a prominent enough example that it needs to be included? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Judging from her BLP, she does seem to be a notable figure in the history of journalism. But the BLP mentions criticism of her for statements that are clearly antisemitic (and also mentions a blatantly racist comment of hers about African American voters). She doesn't seem to me to be a good example of weaponization of the antisemitism charge and so is probably not relevant for this article. NightHeron (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that every single noteworthy allegation of racism (in this case antisemitism) can and probably does have somebody, including often somebody reputable or notable, calling it a false or weaponised allegation - and conversely the falseness of every noteworthy allegation would be contested by somebody.

Consequently, we have either non-specific general statements that antisemitism is weaponised. which kind of beg examples, or we have specific examples, which could all plausibly be contested. So, for instance, I don't think Desmond Tutu was an antisemite (and I can't stand Alan Dershowitz) but sadly Deshowitz was correct in identifying some things Tutu said that would be very widely regarded as antisemitic but any scholar of antisemitism.

So if we remove all the Thompson-like examples, we'll have an article based on vague generalisations... BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t checked recently but my recollection of the sources is different to the picture Zanahary gives above. The sources as I recall them were clear that Thompson was philo-Semitic. Having strange views about the Jewish collective isn’t the same as being “anti” them. If it was, then Donald Trump - for example - would fall into the same camp. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I just took direct quotes from the pulled quotes in the citations. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Then perhaps short of pulling it (I still think a less-prominent example like hers could be removed without implicating every example in the article) we can also reflect the source that calls her unambiguously antisemitic? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Where was she called "without a doubt antisemitic"? I can find you many examples of authors describing Trump in a similar way. Does that mean it is true? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

More precisely: There can be no doubt that anti-Semitism was a theme in Thompson’s later writing. We do follow sources, and if you were writing a passage on accusations that Trump was antisemitic, it would be odd to include in the prose only rebukes of the accusations and not the accusations themselves. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

"More precisely" = an admission that you had misrepresented the source entirely... "without a doubt antisemitic" and "unambiguously antisemitic" are an unacceptable twisting of the written words.

Quality and detailed sources on this topic are below. I suggest you read them both in detail before making further accusations against her.

• Stonebridge, Lyndsey (2018-11-22). "Humanitarianism Was Never Enough: Dorothy Thompson, Sands of Sorrow, and the Arabs of Palestine". Oxford Scholarship Online (PDF). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198797005.003.0007.
• Robins, Walker (2022). ""Weizmann to her was God": Dorothy Thompson's Journey to and from Zionism". American Jewish History. 106 (1). Project MUSE: 55–80. doi:10.1353/ajh.2022.0003. ISSN 1086-3141.

This is one of the highest profile relevant situations, particularly of the era concerned, and clearly belongs in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I’m sure you can find a way to disagree with me without accusing me of engaging in the worst faith. The quote is there; I reproduced it when I initiated the discussion. Is it reflected in the prose? If you argue that it is, it’s a novel position that you haven’t yet articulated. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Is what reflected in what prose? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Not sure where or how to bring up simple edit requests, but just a note that Lerman is misquoted (under International Organizations, last paragraph). The actual wording--"the Hamas 7/10 attacks"--is incorrectly rendered as "the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel," which is seemingly a truncated version of the title of the linked page. The result is (a) not faithful to the source and (b) very grammatically confusing.

For reference, the quote should read: "deployment of weaponised antisemitism to deflect criticism of Israel’s responses to the Hamas 7/10 attacks on Jewish settlements and Israeli army units beyond the security fence on the eastern side of the Gaza strip was evident even as news of the atrocities was still emerging." Walker Elliott (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, the hamas attack is not the point of the quote, the weaponization is. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Desmond Tutu

"International Israeli advocacy groups have charged prominent individuals expressing pro-Palestinian sentiment with antisemitism, including Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu. (For example, Alan Dershowitz and David Bernstein called Tutu antisemitic for his comments about "the Jewish lobby", calling Jews a "peculiar people", and accusing "'the Jews' of causing many of the world’s problems".)"

Those comments would be recognized as antisemitic by anyone who isn't already an antisemite, so it contradicts the claim that Tutu was called antisemitic for "pro-Palestinian sentiment".

Qualiesin (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Qualiesin (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The bracketed commentary was added recently here. Not sure whether it was intended as counterpoint or what, I will look at it a bit later. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

References

My edit

Greetings and felicitations. I just performed a major edit on the article, mostly to eliminate double quotation marks within quotations, and wound up also performing other cleanup on those quotations' references, as well as other references. Plus curly quotation marks and apostrophes. Lastly, I deleted a book from the "Further reading" section that was already being used as a reference. I hope I caught all of my mistakes before I saved, but I apologize if I did not. Please keep an eye out for any other quotation marks within quotations that I might have missed. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)