This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Antisemitism
Since you asked a question, "what does partisan bickering in the UK have to do with whether antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism?", I'll answer it. The people referred to in the article, if you read it, refer several times to antisemitism as racism, whereas the antisemitism article - for some reason I can't quite understand - describes it as "generally considered" to be racism. Antisemitism has always been a form of racism. I just don't understand the equivocation on this??? I have an encyclopedia from 1932 called "The New Standard Encyclopedia and World Atlas" which described it as an "opposition to the Jewish race". If an opposition to a race isn't racism, what is? Rodericksilly (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- One problem with your 1932 source is that the Jewish people are not a "race" by any reasonable meaning of that word. There are large numbers of Jews living in Israel of African, Asian and European ancestry. For example, there are about 120,000 Black Jews of Ethiopian ancestry in Israel. Does the Jewish "race" include blond Jews from France and Black Jews from Ethiopia, and Arab Jews from Syria? What about the Jews of Iran and Central Asia and India? All one "race"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Most of the Jews(Sephardi and Ashkenazi) have same ethnic(genetic to Ancient Israelis) and cultural background(through religion) so yes antisemitism is form of racism--Shrike (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- If I may butt in. The Holocaust was premised on the 'racist' concept of race. The United Nations (The Race Question) In reaction to the proven genocidal potential of thinking in terms of races, proposed a very restricted sense of this dubious word, and the equally dubious historical (hysterical) concept behind it by allowing that it could only retain a residual sense in reference to rare population isolates who had never commingled with the rest of mankind, which ipso facto excludes the 'Jews'. Racists exist- they live in a hallucinated fantasy world of a private or collective myth concerning the supposed existences of races in the earlier, now rebutted, discourse of 19th century anthropology. So racists exist, but 'races' do not. The Jews, for one, are Jews by attachment to a common cultural or religious tradition. To treat this profound attachment as biological is contrafactual, since genetically Jews have, like the rest of us, mixed descent. To assert that Jews have an 'ethnogenetic' identity none of 'them' can escape from is what Nazis asserted, in notable contradiction to the facts. They chanted
- Most of the Jews(Sephardi and Ashkenazi) have same ethnic(genetic to Ancient Israelis) and cultural background(through religion) so yes antisemitism is form of racism--Shrike (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Was er glaubt ist einterlei
- in der Rasse liegt die Schweinerei.
- (Who gives a fuck for what they think.
- It's their swinish race that makes them stink.)(my rough translation)
- Was er glaubt ist einterlei
- This was not however strictly applied in the Nazi laws - attachment to the religion, if convinced, could be sufficient to have your death warrant signed and sealed. Since anyone with two of four Jewish grandparents could be gassed or mowed down, nonetheless, any person with half of his 'genetic' profile non-Jewish, i.e. anyone who was as much 'Aryan' as 'Jewish'- could also be exterminated. It is one of the profoundly disturbing ironies of history that Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish. Editors or thinkers like myself who insist on this are frequently branded as anti-Semitic racists, Nishidani (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Nishidani, for bringing this back down to earth.
I may be mistaken, of course, but I believe something significant happened in the decade and a half after that encyclopedia was published that led many, if not most, European intellectuals to rethink whether Jews constitute a race. Which is a large part of why the question of whether antisemitism is a form of racism is hardly an open-and-shut issue. And, as I wrote in my edit summary, it isn't at all clear how the petty bickering over whom Labour honors, to whom the middle finger is given, and whether a politician feels it necessary to include "and all forms of racism" every time she or he denounces antisemitism bears on whether or not antisemitism is considered a form of racism.
I hope you would agree that a newspaper article reporting a coarse public debate about whether to legalize medical marijuana wouldn't be a reliable or relevant source concerning the medicinal properties of cannabis, or its biological classification. So what makes a newspaper report of a coarse public debate about whether, and how badly, antisemitic Labor is a reliable source about whether antisemitism is considered a form of racism? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 07:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It was exactly mirrored to Nuremberg laws exactly to save those who would be prosecuted according to those laws--Shrike (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish".
[1] Are you implying that the Law of Return is racist? Bus stop (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"The Jews, for one, are Jews by attachment to a common cultural or religious tradition."
[2] And what of Jews who are not "attached" to a "common cultural or religious tradition"? Bus stop (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)- This is not, unless invited, a place to discuss the definition of Jews, which, who, like all ethnoidentities have multiple attributions. As to the law of return, like the Nuremburg laws, it has multiple elements, one of which is identity by descent. One thing one must bear in mind is that the rabbinic tradition inflecting it, though fundamentalist in one sense, always left discursive space, unlike generally say Christianity, that allowed margins for manoeuvre, so that an apostate though 'Jewish' lost his Jewishness by defection, meaning that race is not an ultimate factor, even in Israel. But generally, it is an extremely dangerous things to define one's nationality in terms of blood lines: my sister-in-law wanted to undergo aliyah, learnt Hebrew, but couldn't because she was deemed not Jewish because her dad was, her mother not so (though her mother alone ended up in a concentration camp, and only out of sheer luck didn't end up, like my wife she was carrying at the time, a victim of the Ardeatine massacre); a niece considers herself Jewish because her grandfather was; another sister-in-law is of Jewish descent, but couldn't give a fuck either way, since the mother was an Anglican, she became Catholic, and her identity is all of these things, etc.etc. Any state or government law that legislates who you are beyond stating your citizenship, is, to me, repulsive.Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Antisemitism has many manifestations one is via racism. What links all forms is a common conspiratorial mindset. You see it when Hebrew terms like Hasbara are used to shame and discredit.Jonney2000 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Racism has nothing intrinsically to do with conspiracies, though it may take that form. As to hasbara, I, for one, use it to discredit official propaganda, ergo I am an anti-Semite? When I studied Russian, my instructors, all exiles, told me that you never take seriously the first two pages or last pages even of a piece of Soviet literary criticism. They will be written to pass a censor's scrutiny and have the usual party line jargon. Since censors are basically stupid with short attention spans, they never read everything, and that awareness allowed the writer to say what he really thought in the meat of the article. The same principle applies to reading any contemporary political news: much will consist of huffing and haaing, self-censorship, or delicate crafting of words to win over or consolidate the readerly audience, but you don't, unlike wiki editors, give the standard bluster weight: you parse on, waiting for a significant verifiable factual datum to emerge. You can see the process at work by taking a few articles by Amos Harel, for instance: he will give the IDF/hasbara line at the beginning and the end, and, as often as not, unwittingly or otherwise, give you just that grain of truth midpage which, properly examined, explodes the line he is defending.
- I don't believe that anything any government or lobby or movement puts out as the official line can be taken at face value, to the contrary, it is, like hasbara, agitprop, or any other spin, prime facie misleading because it is a rhetorical defense of a perceived interest, not a cool assessment of reality, which is always messy and conceptually complex. All of these arguments risk becoming meaningless in contemporary public discourse, because they are omnium gatherum political bludgeons to compel constituencies to think apropos this or that topic exactly as a government or soi-disant representatives of an 'ethnic' group wants everybody to think. This is why Corbyn and the Labour Party are so viciously and relentlessly under attack: they still underwrite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which means that no special taboos must create exceptions that exempt one specific society, nation or people from the ethical and legal principles governing human individuals, peoples and states. This was Orwell's position, was once commonsense, and is now almost washed out by visceral twitter/facebook/istagram chitchattering.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion most Jews do not have a
"common cultural or religious tradition."
[3] You offer your pontification on this point despite saying that this is not"a place to discuss the definition of Jews"
[4]. You say[a]ny state or government law that legislates who you are beyond stating your citizenship, is, to me, repulsive.
[5] Are you saying that you find the Israeli government repulsive? Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion most Jews do not have a
- Antisemitism has many manifestations one is via racism. What links all forms is a common conspiratorial mindset. You see it when Hebrew terms like Hasbara are used to shame and discredit.Jonney2000 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is not, unless invited, a place to discuss the definition of Jews, which, who, like all ethnoidentities have multiple attributions. As to the law of return, like the Nuremburg laws, it has multiple elements, one of which is identity by descent. One thing one must bear in mind is that the rabbinic tradition inflecting it, though fundamentalist in one sense, always left discursive space, unlike generally say Christianity, that allowed margins for manoeuvre, so that an apostate though 'Jewish' lost his Jewishness by defection, meaning that race is not an ultimate factor, even in Israel. But generally, it is an extremely dangerous things to define one's nationality in terms of blood lines: my sister-in-law wanted to undergo aliyah, learnt Hebrew, but couldn't because she was deemed not Jewish because her dad was, her mother not so (though her mother alone ended up in a concentration camp, and only out of sheer luck didn't end up, like my wife she was carrying at the time, a victim of the Ardeatine massacre); a niece considers herself Jewish because her grandfather was; another sister-in-law is of Jewish descent, but couldn't give a fuck either way, since the mother was an Anglican, she became Catholic, and her identity is all of these things, etc.etc. Any state or government law that legislates who you are beyond stating your citizenship, is, to me, repulsive.Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Since I pontificate but you have a view, this is pointless. One of the men I most admire only 'became' a Jew in late retirement, with his bar mitzvah taking place in his mid-seventies. Up to that point, the only people who appear to have thought of him as a Jew were anti-Semites. In other words, it's none of my business who a Jew, or Catholic, or Muslim or anyone else, may be confessionally or otherwise: one's identity is a private matter, an act of elective self-definition, not something branded on one from birth as an ineludible fate or tragedy or piece of good fortune as the the madding crowds of opinionizers about who other people are think. When I think of Israel's foundation, I always think of what was happening elsewhere in the world in 1948 in the aftermath of WW2 and civil war, and find only one nation and figure to admire, Costa Rica under José Figueres Ferrer. A poor third-world nation riven by bloodshed that, by the pure good fortune of being led by an extraordinary man, performed a miracle I would wish were the norm for the foundation of states and human identity. But we are abusing this page's hospitality, and I have other things to do. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- You say
"It is one of the profoundly disturbing ironies of history that Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish."
[6] But of course anyone of any religion can convert to Judaism and become an Israeli citizen under the Law of Return. I'm wondering what you find so"disturbing"
. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- You say
- Who controls the conversion process, and what are their definitions of 'Jewish', to be observed by those who convert? Don't ask me, since I am a suspect interlocutor for many. Read the academic literature on the topic of how Zionism inflected what was thought to be a Jewish ethnic identity. Start with Nurit Kirsh's 'Population Genetics in Israel in the 1950s The Unconscious Internalization of Ideology,' Isis, Vol. 94, No. 4 (December 2003), pp. 631-655. All of what he says of the pressure of an ideological construct on Israeli science (the scioentists were well aware of the dangerous analogies)repeats itself in the papers emerging from the 1990s onwards on genetics, a topic that will receive book length treatment within a few years.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone can convert to Judaism and avail themselves of the Law of return to gain Israeli citizenship.[7] Alternatively anyone can not convert to Judaism and still gain Israeli citizenship by other means.[8] Can you tell me what you find
"profoundly disturbing."
[9]? Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone can convert to Judaism and avail themselves of the Law of return to gain Israeli citizenship.[7] Alternatively anyone can not convert to Judaism and still gain Israeli citizenship by other means.[8] Can you tell me what you find
- It's masochistic to persist in asking someone you dismiss as a pontificator to keep talking to you. I'm not a sadist.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I am asking you difficult questions but your posts are lengthy, gratuitous, opinionated, and inaccurate. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I.e. your queries are brief, reasoned, objective and accurate. I dropped this to avoid being baited by a fishing expedition that, ignoring the deep waters, angled for the surface gudgeon: you read past everything to try to get proof I really might be, as you will remained convinced, prejudiced about Israel. Since you appear to find anything beyong a google quick answer link 'lengthy' and 'gratuitous' (ill-reasoned) it is pointless, starting with numerous cases like Oswald Rufeisen, and then running through the literature from the doctrinal ideology re Jewish identity and Israel, to legislative changes, pseudo-science ostensibly finding proof of a 'racial' community of all Jews, particular incidents that show your hasbara snippet repeats an abstract principle that while technically correct is endlessly belied by court judgements: (the Israeli law is no guide to Israeli official practice - which denies a category like Palestinians from being naturalized Israelis like their Israeli spouses because '"Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide," etc.etc.etc.). Principle is one thing - practice another. If a theory says: 'All people are equal', and the practice is, 'but some of us are more equal than others', only someone who does not care for reality will persist in citing the principle to disprove people who find the realities 'profoundly disturbing'. This is thus childish. We are boring Malik (not to speak of myself). Closed.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nishidani—the sentence in the lead of the article reads "Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism." That sentence already has 2 citations, but a third was added. Malik Shabazz removed the newly added third citation with the edit summary "rv pointless citation -- what does partisan bickering in the UK have to do with whether antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism?"[10] So...Rodericksilly, who added that third citation, came to this Talk page to protest the removal of that citation. An attempt was made by Rodericksilly, Cullen328, and Shrike, to address the dispute over the third citation. You weighed in with
"It is one of the profoundly disturbing ironies of history that Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish."
Do you think your post is on-topic? Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC) - I am not baiting you in any kind of "fishing expedition" because you posted that before I ever weighed in. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is on topic because I gave a general opinion in response to opinions provided by Rodericksilly asensible remark by Cullen, and a silly one by Shrike and which elicited in turn opinions by Jonney and yourself. You single me out alone as off-topic? I looked at the details before making my comment, and this is the reason why I thought Malik's revert was in the best tradition of serious wikipedians.
- As anyone might observe from my editorial practice, I think wikipedia, as a global work aspiring to encyclopedic value, must be written out of the best and most recent scholarly sources wherever possible. The one exception is contemporary events, in breaking news and the like, where we can’t get past newspaper coverage. But even there, if one tries, as I did, in writing the article on Islamofascism, one can get by just using strong academic papers. In terms of category, Antisemitism is a concept article, and therefore we should be able to deal with it as those types of articles are dealt with, compare: Ideology, Prejudice, Ethnocentrism, Racism, Islamophobia (all on the right sourcing footing, if still in need of a lot of work).
- Nishidani—the sentence in the lead of the article reads "Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism." That sentence already has 2 citations, but a third was added. Malik Shabazz removed the newly added third citation with the edit summary "rv pointless citation -- what does partisan bickering in the UK have to do with whether antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism?"[10] So...Rodericksilly, who added that third citation, came to this Talk page to protest the removal of that citation. An attempt was made by Rodericksilly, Cullen328, and Shrike, to address the dispute over the third citation. You weighed in with
- I.e. your queries are brief, reasoned, objective and accurate. I dropped this to avoid being baited by a fishing expedition that, ignoring the deep waters, angled for the surface gudgeon: you read past everything to try to get proof I really might be, as you will remained convinced, prejudiced about Israel. Since you appear to find anything beyong a google quick answer link 'lengthy' and 'gratuitous' (ill-reasoned) it is pointless, starting with numerous cases like Oswald Rufeisen, and then running through the literature from the doctrinal ideology re Jewish identity and Israel, to legislative changes, pseudo-science ostensibly finding proof of a 'racial' community of all Jews, particular incidents that show your hasbara snippet repeats an abstract principle that while technically correct is endlessly belied by court judgements: (the Israeli law is no guide to Israeli official practice - which denies a category like Palestinians from being naturalized Israelis like their Israeli spouses because '"Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide," etc.etc.etc.). Principle is one thing - practice another. If a theory says: 'All people are equal', and the practice is, 'but some of us are more equal than others', only someone who does not care for reality will persist in citing the principle to disprove people who find the realities 'profoundly disturbing'. This is thus childish. We are boring Malik (not to speak of myself). Closed.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I am asking you difficult questions but your posts are lengthy, gratuitous, opinionated, and inaccurate. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Antisemitism fits this and yet, we make an exception, by trashing a crucially important concept and practice with newspaper and activist materials reflecting political spin or ephemeral incidents glossed by an even more ephemeral consortium of opinion-makers. Antisemitisms has been the object of intense scholarly - historical, philosophical –sociological-psychoanalytical- analyses for over a century. Our article has 366 sources of which 129 would qualify as useful RS material, but only about 30 as conceptually important. The rest is ephemeral newspaper junk, useful for specific incidents, but nothing more. Malik saw just one more useless bit of material dug up from a tendenjtious pseudo-crisis in UK politics, and removed it. He was acting encyclopedically. Harold Jacobson (a novelist whose works I enjoy deeply)’s remarks about Corbyn tell us nothing about antisemitism, any more than does Sir Stephen Sedley ’s view, decidedly different of the same events in Great Britain. They are individuals (coreligionists and I believe friends) speaking their views, not historical analysts.
the ubiquity of insult and calumny in the everyday vocabulary of social media plays a not insignificant part in the foul-mouthed verbal assaults described by Jewish MPs in the recent Commons debate. This said, most Jews do understand the risk of hypersensitivity. There is the story about Goldbloom, doing well in the rag trade in Stepney, . . .EU surveys unsurprisingly show correlations between increases in anti-Semitic incidents and Israeli attacks on Palestine or Palestinians – Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9, Operation Protective Edge in mid-2014. It is unsurprising not because such reactions are logical or justified, but because they reflect both the cultural confusion and the deliberate conflation of Judaism with Israel – deliberate on the part both of hardline Zionism and of hardline jihadism, It’s not difficult to see why anger at the West’s spoiled child, supplied with money and weapons while it continues to purloin its neighbours’ land and shoot down unarmed protesters, gets misdirected at Israelis’ cousins and co-religionists …There can be no doubt that among Israel’s critics and opponents are individuals and organisations willing to use all the anti-Semitic smears in the Nazi paintbox and to deny history. A proportion of them – no one can say who or how many – may hold Labour Party cards. A serious problem for honest critics of Israel in the Labour Party is the risk of finding themselves in bed with such people, and it may well be that Jeremy Corbyn has, at least until recently, been insufficiently alive to this. But it is a long way from here to the suggestion that the Labour Party is institutionally or culturally anti-Semitic, a charge to which the Chakrabarti report gave no sustenance. According to the parliamentary Home Affairs Committee, such evidence as there is locates the source of about three-quarters of all anti-Semitic incidents on the far right of the political spectrum, while a YouGov survey last year indicated a marked reduction since 2015 in the number of Labour voters prepared to endorse given anti-Semitic propositions. It also indicated that, Lib Dems apart, other parties had a markedly higher proportion of voters prepared to endorse these propositions.[1]
Among my Jewish friends, the person who saw an antisemite under every bush was a stock comic figure . . .But the atmosphere of which I speak is of a sort to which no group should be subjected. It manifests itself in habitual abuse on social media, the drowning out of any speech considered dissonant in universities, local councils and debating chambers, that cold-eyed contempt of which Jeremy Corbyn is master, and the undisguised assumption, within leftist politics, that when a Jew complains of antisemitism, he is lying. Most Jews know what antisemitism is and what it isn’t. Its history is written on the Jewish character in blood. To invent it where it is not would be a sacrilege. The incantatory repetition of the charge that Jews cry antisemitism only in order to subvert criticism of Israel or discredit Corbyn is more than fatuous and lazy, and it is more than painful to those many Jews who own an old allegiance to the Labour party and who are not strangers to criticising Israel. It is the deepest imaginable insult. I cannot speak for all Jews, but a profound depression has taken hold of those I know. For myself, I feel I am back in that lightless swamp of medieval ignorance where the Jew who is the author of all humanity’s ills lies, cheats, cringes and dissembles. And this time there is no horse to punch.[2]
- ^ Sir Stephen Sedley, 'Short Cuts,' London Review of Books vol 40 No 9, 10 May 2018.
- ^ Howard Jacobson, Howard Jacobson: ‘Jews know what antisemitism is and what it isn’t. To invent it would be a sacrilege’ The Guardian 7 April 2018-
- Satisfied? Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nishidani—this is gratuitous and unrelated to the core topic being discussed: "It is one of the profoundly disturbing ironies of history that Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish."[11] You are saying that a previous problem was "refurbished" in Israel. What does that have to do with the subject under discussion? Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- And I did not post anything to this discussion until you posted the above quote. You wish to posit that Israel refurbishes certain problematic ideologies. Why would I respond to that as I did? It is off-topic. You are entitled to your opinions. But I am also permitted to point out that the opinion expressed above is off-topic. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Satisfied? Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- You harp and frantically spin round on a dud coin. The remark I made was in response to what you would call the 'off-topic' remark by Shrike:'Most of the Jews(Sephardi and Ashkenazi) have same ethnic(genetic to Ancient Israelis)'. That's okay by you, but if on a talk page this stupid meme is rebutted, it elicits your tediously bludgeoning ire, a harping recitative that fails to follow up on the hint I gave, that my thoughts here are documentable (see Hirsch above). Since there is no evidence in your exchanges with me that you trouble yourself to read up on the topic, and think it through, I'll clarify by doing the obvious work for you.
At the turn of the century, the most vocal and influential Jewish race anthropologists were German Zionists and their arguments often sounded similar to those of the antisemites. The Zionist movement adopted the conceptual framework of European national movements, which took biological factors into consideration.. According to Kohn’s dichonomy, the State of Israel could be classified, like Germany, as a proverbially ethnic state. Common biological origin and similarities of the Jews is, ironically, a central idea both in German antisemitic movements and in the Zionist ideology, (while the values and practical conclusions attached to this idea are, needless to say, greatly different): Actually, the deep influence of German antisemitism on Jewish self-identity can be detected in many fields, a good illustration is the Israeli Law of Return. According to the 1970 reform of the Israel law, the right to immigrate to Israel is given automatically to any person who is a grandson or granddaughter of a Jew, and to anyone who is married to a Jew. In the first supplementary decree of the Nuremberg Laws (14 November 1935), Jewishness was also determined using the criteria of third generation and marriage.’ Nurit Kirsch, 'Genetic Studies of Ethnic Communities in Israel: A Case Study of Values-Related Research Work,' in Ulrich Charpa, Ute Deichmann (eds.) Jews and Sciences in German Contexts: Case Studies from the 19th and 20th Centuries Leo Baeck Institute Mohr Siebeck, 2007 pp.181-194
- That to me is profoundly disturbing. As usual in these get-at-Nishidani-for-his-outrageous-remarks game, the pursuer just doesn't know what they teach at Tel Aviv University or the Hebrew University. Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Have a nice day, but do try to read for once the sequence of comments above, and tease out what's going on. Bye.Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- The
"sequence of comments"
has nothing to do with your gratuitous observation about Jews, Israel, and Nazis. Your comment is off-base. It bears no relation to what was said before by anyone else. You are entitled to your beliefs but don't use a Talk page discussion to foist upon the participants that you believe that Israel refurbishes Nazi prejudice.[13] (You say that"It is one of the profoundly disturbing ironies of history that Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish."
) Bus stop (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)- Oh dearie me. The only thing 'gratuitous' here is your somewhat bizarre assertion I make observations about 'Jews', when I have, for decades, obstinately challenged any attempt to define them or any other peoples. In psychology this is called projection: in literary criticism it is known as a misprision. Unfortunately for Malik, whose patience is being sorely tried by both of us, I must return to note my distaste for such accusations. Not with an essay, but by simply noting that (1) 19:51, 31 May 2018 this, (2)17:25, 1 June 2018 this (3)12:51, 2 June 2018 this (4)15:03, 2 June 2018 this and (5)10:08, 3 June 2018 this, 5 edits serially citing the same content, constitute a classic exemplum of the symptom known in the profession as Wiederholungszwang. What you objected to was a statement I referred (I could cite more, i.e. most recently Raphael Falk, Zionism and the Biology of Jews, Springer, 2017) to an Israeli scholar. Now you don't appear to challenge what the Israeli scholar said,- that content is apparently fine. You object to, now, one word (('refurbish'/'freshen up, make new')) in my paraphrase of it. The documented fact is no scandal: my chutzpah in citing it is. That is all you have to say, and it is rather dull in its obtuseness to the niceties of intelligent conversation. I am deeply interested in coincidences, and the obvious one is that courtesy obliges me, writing up a page on the Sisyphus fragment,- Sisyphus being a mythic prototype of someone compelled to toil fruitlessly- to try to clarify concepts to someone who is unwilling to think about them in the first place. Good god, I must be the masochist of the piece, alluded to above, a striking volte-farce in this subcomical exchange!Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Are you not comparing Nazi Germany to the State of Israel when you say
"It is one of the profoundly disturbing ironies of history that Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish"
[14]? Bus stop (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC) - You say I don't
"challenge what the Israeli scholar said"
. Assuming the "Israeli scholar" makes the same point that you are making, the "Israeli scholar" is not posting on a Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Are you not comparing Nazi Germany to the State of Israel when you say
- Oh dearie me. The only thing 'gratuitous' here is your somewhat bizarre assertion I make observations about 'Jews', when I have, for decades, obstinately challenged any attempt to define them or any other peoples. In psychology this is called projection: in literary criticism it is known as a misprision. Unfortunately for Malik, whose patience is being sorely tried by both of us, I must return to note my distaste for such accusations. Not with an essay, but by simply noting that (1) 19:51, 31 May 2018 this, (2)17:25, 1 June 2018 this (3)12:51, 2 June 2018 this (4)15:03, 2 June 2018 this and (5)10:08, 3 June 2018 this, 5 edits serially citing the same content, constitute a classic exemplum of the symptom known in the profession as Wiederholungszwang. What you objected to was a statement I referred (I could cite more, i.e. most recently Raphael Falk, Zionism and the Biology of Jews, Springer, 2017) to an Israeli scholar. Now you don't appear to challenge what the Israeli scholar said,- that content is apparently fine. You object to, now, one word (('refurbish'/'freshen up, make new')) in my paraphrase of it. The documented fact is no scandal: my chutzpah in citing it is. That is all you have to say, and it is rather dull in its obtuseness to the niceties of intelligent conversation. I am deeply interested in coincidences, and the obvious one is that courtesy obliges me, writing up a page on the Sisyphus fragment,- Sisyphus being a mythic prototype of someone compelled to toil fruitlessly- to try to clarify concepts to someone who is unwilling to think about them in the first place. Good god, I must be the masochist of the piece, alluded to above, a striking volte-farce in this subcomical exchange!Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- The
- The sixth example of obsessive repetition. I am not talking about Israel nor Jews, as anyone can see from reading what I wrote. I am talking about the inflection of Nazi race theories on Zionism and its impact within Israeli concepts of who is a Jew, and to that end my remarks merely restate what Kirsch, Falk and any number of scholars document and know. Here's another re Arthur Ruppin's meeting the founder of Nazi race science Hans F. K. Günther in 1936:
What fired my interest in Ruppin and race was a meeting with Etan Blum in the spring of 2004 when both of us were staying at the Simon Dubnow Center in Leipzig. At the time I was working on the role of assimilated Jews in the establishment of liberal branches of the social sciences and later I turned to Nazi racial science. Blum was studying Ashkenazim and Sephardim in the history of the Yishuv. In our conversations he claimed that the Eretz Israel Office and its director, Arthur Ruppin, the architect of Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel, had established the settlement activity on a racial theory that viewed Jews from Arab countries as inferior to those from European ones. This way Ruppin fixed the racial inferiority of the Sephardim and turned their discrimination into the cornerstone of the Zionist enterprise for generations. Amos Morris-Reich,'Arthur Ruppin's Concept of Race,' Israel Studies Volume 11, Number 3, Fall 2006 pp. 1-30 p.2
- The fact that there are numerous Israelis who have analogized some things in their history with what occurred in the Third Reich, and even acted on them, does not mean Israel is like, identical to the Third Reich. Absurd. If I note that an IDF commander suggested one adopt German tactics versus the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to fix up the Gaza Strip, that does not mean I think the IDF is the Wehrmacht, or Israel Nazi Germany. It simply means that, in such specific cases, numerous Israeli policy makers are haunted by the Holocaust or antisemitism, and can't reason their way out of the trauma to make rational judgments that would vindicate the probity of their ethical traditions and buttress Israel's standing in the community of nations. But son, you're way out of your depth, and this conversation ends here. Punto e basta.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- And it has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. It may be a point that you wish others to understand but it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Under discussion is whether a recently added and then removed citation should be in the Antisemitism article. Under discussion is not whether Israel in any way is comparable to Nazi Germany. You are interjecting a gratuitous point into the discussion. It is a point that does not relate to the topic under discussion. The point that you make has no bearing on whether or not the citation under discussion belongs in the article. Erudition on myriad topics is not a substitute for a reason for adding something of that nature to the conversation. Your comment remains uncalled for. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
MLK
Yes it is, footnote 98 in The Papers of MLK says, "Documents from this period indicate that King, Sr.'s name change was achieved gradually rather than through a single legal process…" Esszet (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I apologize. I only read the text last night and missed that in the footnote. I've self-reverted. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement warning
Malik Shabazz, today Icewhiz wrote the following in an e-mail to me:
"I wanted to inform you of:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MusenInvincible&diff=840829447&oldid=840821684 - warning user of ARBPIA 1RR violation.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falafel&diff=prev&oldid=843582968 - a bit FORUMISH (but possibly not overly so) - the content reverted is clearly ARBPIA (Oddly - cultural appropriation (or denial thereof) of Hummus / Falafel / Tahini and other foods - is a conflict related thing that sometimes leads to edit wars on some of these).
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Aqsa_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=843741183 - sourcing for al-aqsa being build over the 2nd temple - inherently ARBPIA related.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=844027842 - more borderline, but the Jewish charachter in Israel is conflict related."
Because these edits are not disruptive, I am issuing a warning rather than an immediate block: please heed your WP:ARBPIA topic ban, which applies to edits such as these. If you do not, you may be blocked and the topic ban may be reset or extended. Thanks, Sandstein 18:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yo Asshole:
- You imposed a topic ban on me on 23 May. Fuck yourself if you don't like the fact that I warned somebody about a 1RR violation on 12 May.
- The existence of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem is "inherently ARBPIA related"?!? What the fuck are you smoking?
- Articles about Jewish religion in Israel are now also "borderline" ARBPIA? Fuck yourself!
- Am I making myself clear, asshole? Pull your damn head out of your ass!
- PS - Why don't you look at the fact that Icewhiz is edit-warring on every article related to Jews in Poland? That he's at WP:AE more often than you are? In other words, do your fucking job! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
For Malik Shabazz in apology
- Listening.
- Those isles remained the one myth on his map
- That teased his boredom with their storied song.
- But how to hear them? It was all a trap,
- The legend feared, to woo man’s rashness on
- And feed the sirens’ hecatombs of bone.
- The oarsmen muttered at the course he set.
- Soothing their ears with beeswax: he alone
- Stood mastbound, hearing pricked, to chance the threat.
- The azure air was still as they veered close,
- Till flocking wings bore lilts of eerie hymns.
- Intent, he probed beyond the grandiose
- Waft of enchantment choired by seraphims.
- Those isles remained the one myth on his map