<User talk:Mel Etitis/New anti-Semitism mediation

We judge reliable sources by the extent to which people stand between the author and the act of publication. The larger the number of people involved in peer-review, fact-checking, libel-checking, copy-editing, and so on, the more reliable the publication is likely to be. When Tariq Ali is writing in Counterpunch, it is almost certain that no one is editing him, and that they would publish whatever he wrote; and it's the same with Frontpage Magazine. These are extreme publications, which commission articles from people with extreme views, and allow them to express those views with scant regard, if any, for accuracy. I didn't say Tariq Ali would be okay if published, for example, in a reputable journal. I don't think he'd ever be okay. But at least if a reputable journal published his work, we would know that it had been carefully checked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

"I don't think he'd ever by ok" Ali is certainly more credible than Chesler, Kinsella et al. He's a widely respected author, scholar and filmmaker and has been a producer for that extremist media outlet, the British Broadcasting Corporation but I guess that's just not good enough if you don't like his views. Given that Noam Chomsky is widely quoted in academic works (the most quoted living author in acadmic works as far as I recall) I expect you'll concede his credibility, or will you? Homey 16:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not aware of any expertise Tariq Ali has in the area. Could you please produce an article or book that best sums up your views on the new anti-Semitism (or best sums up the argument that there's no such thing), so that we can read it, and Mel too if he wants to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Please don't change your comments after I've answered them. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I didn't see a response from you until just now. Homey 16:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

But now that you've seen the Noam Chomsky comment, perhaps you can address it. Given Chomsky's prominence are we allowed to quote him? Homey 16:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Tariq Ali has written extensively on the Middle East, the Arab World and the west. See for example his best-selling book Clash of Fundamentalisms See [2] for an example of an article on the NAS. BTW, you have yet to defend the inclusion of Chesler or the other writers CJCurrie cites above. Homey 16:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Is the Ali book the one that best sums up your views about the new Anti-Semitism? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm waiting for your defence of Chesler, Kinsella et al. Homey 16:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The Ali article you've linked to is the one that was in Counterpunch. Could you please produce an article or book that gives a good overview of the position you most agree with and want to add to the article? I have added one in my section. Could you please do the same so that we can read it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

My views are generally in line with those expressed by Brian Klug in this essay in the Nation [3]. Now, can you please address Chesler, Kinsella et al? Homey 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

"Brian Klug is associate professor of philosophy at Saint Xavier University, Chicago, and senior research fellow in philosophy at St. Benet's Hall, Oxford. He is US consulting editor of Patterns of Prejudice, published by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in London" Homey 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

See also [4] where Klug takes on the contention that "binationalism" (ie the notion of a secular, binational state which is neither a Jewish state nor a Palestinian state per se) is anti-Semitic... the logical implication of NAS is that it is as binationalism denies the right to a Jewish state per se. Homey 16:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• More by Klug: No, Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism,
• The collective Jew: Israel and the new antisemitism, Brian Klug, Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 37, No. 2,

• See also Sense on Anti-Semitism by Antony Lerman (executive director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research from 1991 to 1999) originally published in Prospect

• Letter from London on NAS by DD Guttenplan, author of Holocaust on Trial (on the David Irving trial)

• No its not anti-Semitic by Judith Butler in the London Review of Books

• Uri Avenery]'s speech on anti-Semitism in which he says "'...the curse of anti-Semitism must not be abused in order to choke every criticism of my state. We Israelis want to be a people like any other people, a state like every other state, to be measured by the same moral standards as others.'"

Homey 17:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• Incidentally, on the question of whether the Isreali government has equated general criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism see this 2003 interview with Ariel Sharon

Question: Mr prime minister, in Europe there is an attempt to distinguish between an anti-Semitism that should be condemned and a legitimate criticism toward Israel's policies. Furthermore there are those who think that Israel utilises anti-Semitism as a shield from criticism directed at her.

Ariel Sharon: Today there is no separation. We are talking about collective anti-Semitism. (my emphasis) The state of Israel is the Jewish state and the attitude towards Israel runs accordingly. This anti-Semitism is fundamental, and today, in order to incite it and to undermine the Jews' rights for self-defence, it is re-aroused. These days to conduct an anti-Semite policy is not a popular thing, so the anti-Semites bundle their policies in with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anti-Semitism needs to be fought against. This is a very dangerous thing. However, certainly the right answers could be found in order to fight it. Our demand from the European countries is to fight anti-Semitism in every possible way and vigorously. Of course the sheer fact that there are a huge amount of Muslims, approximately 17 million in the EU, this issue has also turned into a political matter. I would say, in my opinion, EU governments are not doing enough to tackle anti-Semitism. However, there are some countries that incorporate this subject in their educational curriculum, and that is exactly what needs to be done. There is a need to teach, there is a need to explain, there is a need to remind what anti-Semitism caused in the past, and one must know that the damage caused by anti-Semitism ultimately does not affect only the Jews, but also affects those countries where anti-Semitism is rife. They must fight this anti-Semitism. You cannot separate here; Israel is treated as a Jewish state.

Homey 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

See also Israel, Anti-Semitism and the left by Klug Homey 17:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Two editors don't acknowledge that the new anti-Semitism (NAS) exists.

Tautological. Obviously there is a debate on the term in the literature. Wikipedia should not pretend otherwise. There is no debate on whether or not there is anti-Semitism or whether or not there was a spike of anti-Semitic incidents in the early part of this decade, the debate is on whether this is a new form of anti-Semitism and on whether the definition put forward for the "new anti-Semitism" by its proponents and the underlying arguments are NPOV and uncontestable among scholars and experts.

One editor suggests that NAS is a term of the same type as "Islamophobia," which he also appears to believe isn't a real phenomenon. That is, he believes we should be writing an article about "New anti-Semitism (term)," as we did at one point with "Islamofasicm (term)".

That is a complete misrepresentation of my position. A) I've never asserted that Islamophobia is "not a real phenomenon" (please point out where I have). B) I did not say NAS is "a term of the same type" or that the article should be written in the same form as Islamofascism. I was simply pointing out that there are documented alternate meanings of the term NAS and these merit mention in the article. Please do not distort what I've said or engage in other straw dog arguments. Homey 02:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps the editors on the other side could find something that summarizes their position.

I have identified several writings by Klug along with other scholars and experts. Awaiting your response. Homey 03:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The lack of (as I see it) reliable sources from the editors who believe there is no NAS effectively means they want to insert their own opinions, then do Google searches in the hope of finding texts to support them, even if they're written by unknown people with no expertise.

See above. Is Klug reliable? If you look at the NAS talk page you'll see he's been cited before. What about the others mentioned in my list above? And you've yet to respond to CJCurrie on the question of Chesler et al. Do you find them "reliable"? Homey 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

My main issue is that User:HOTR seems to disagree with any proposed changes that are brought up simply on the basis of who has proposed them.

Ad hominem. In fact, if you look at my editing history outside of this article I have, if anything, been more likely to accept suggestions from SV and Jay than not. That this has not been the case in this article should suggest to you that it is for reasons of principle and content rather than the personalities involved. I am disappointed that you would put forward such a specious claim and I would appreciate it if you would remove it.

This seriously slows down any progress that might be made with the article. He seems unable to compromise, and comes across as either dogmatic or extremely stubborn.

More ad hominem. I have, in fact, suggested and accepted compromises on several occasions. Homey 03:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if you understand what the phrase "ad hominem" actually means. It doesn't mean that someone even mentioned your name, it means they are arguing by bringing up irrelevant personal details which I clearly did not do. Everything I brought up about you relates to the conflict at hand.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You don't have to mention personal details to engage in an ad hominem argument, you just have to attack the person rather than their argument eg "He seems unable to compromise and comes across as either dogmatic or extermely stubborn" or "seems to disagree with any proposed changes that are brought up simply on the basis of who has proposed them."

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy (see Validity below). Homey 01:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The editors who disagree with "NAS" as it seen by everyone else have tried to remove any reference to the "normal" view on the basis of a few articles of questionable reliability and quality.

As opposed to "reliable" sources like Taguieff, Chesler and Kinsella? CJCurrie 23:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Even if their sources were acceptable it doesn't make any sense to remove obviously relavent information that has been adaquately sourced.

What are you referring to? CJCurrie 23:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I might as well pose these questions to you:

(i) What sources do you consider majority-reliable, significant minority-reliable, and tiny-minority (respectively)?

(ii) What process did you use to reach your conclusions? CJCurrie 23:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Responding to SV's comments:

Two editors don't acknowledge that the new anti-Semitism (NAS) exists. One editor suggests that NAS is a term of the same type as " Islamophobia," which he also appears to believe isn't a real phenomenon. That is, he believes we should be writing an article about "New anti-Semitism (term)," as we did at one point with "Islamofasicm (term)".

I've already responded to this elsewhere, though I suppose there's no reason not to repeat myself here:

I believe that "NAS" is a problematic term, and that some of the principles on which the term is premised are questionable. This is not the same as saying "NAS" does or doesn't exist; it simply means that we should we clear as to the controversies surrounding it.

Based on past experience, you'll probably respond by asking for sources. My response: I've already provided sources in the main article, and Homey has referenced others in this discussion. It should be evident by now that there is a real and credible debate surrounding the term. CJCurrie 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

In particular, those editors do not acknowledge that there is a new form of anti-Semitism that emanates from the left.

I'm quite aware that there is anti-Semitism on the left, though I would dispute that it is necessarily or inherently "a new form". CJCurrie 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

They appear to be unfamiliar with the main sources who have written about NAS.

(i) As I've argued elsewhere, familiarizing oneself with "sources who have written about NAS" will not necessarily provide a clear or neutral assessment of the larger issues. The term itself is disputed. Therefore, works that purport to "expose" or "explain" the NAS will likely convey only one side of the issue.

(ii) In any event, I've been reading through the texts you've cited. Should I really believe that Taguieff is a neutral or objective source? CJCurrie 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

This lack of familiarity has led to disagreements about the quality of sources we should be using.

Those editors have spent several weeks putting forward their own views on the talk page. Several others have tried to explain that the personal views and arguments of WP editors are of no consequence, but this doesn't seem to get through.

In other words: Homey and I must be ignorant and uninformed to have made the arguments we've made.

A certain amount of good will would go a long way at this stage, Slim. CJCurrie 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

For example, those who agree that the NAS exists have used as sources in the lead section Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Todd Endelman, Professor of Modern Jewish History at the University of Michigan.

... and we should convey their views accordingly. CJCurrie 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The editors who argue there is no such thing as NAS, on the other hand, have used a Tariq Ali article in Counterpunch, and a Guardian article by someone called David Clark, who used to work as an advisor to Robin Cook, but whose current position is unknown. (The latter is not in the version now on the page, but is in a previous version. [5])

(i) Tariq Ali is a respected writer on Middle Eastern affairs. Why should his views not be included?

(ii) David Clark is a former official in the British Foreign Office. Why his views aren't important enough to merit mention has never been clear to me. (And I'm still puzzled as to why you found it "laughable" to include his views.)

(iii) As you must surely know by now, there are several other authors who have written on this subject from the same general position as Ali and Clark. In addition to Brian Klug, one could list Noam Chomsky, Tony Judt, Norman Finkelstein and others from the same school. You may not regard these sources as credible; others do. CJCurrie 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The lack of (as I see it) reliable sources from the editors who believe there is no NAS effectively means they want to insert their own opinions, then do Google searches in the hope of finding texts to support them, even if they're written by unknown people with no expertise.

I would like to proceed by establishing parameters about sources. I propose we use professional scholars in relevant fields writing in serious publications. Relevant fields will be mostly history, Jewish studies, Holocaust studies, political science. I have no objection to using serious journalists, but I would like us to prioritize academics, other professional researchers, and writers with an acknowledged expertise in the area, particularly in the introduction. I would like us to agree not to use any article in Counterpunch or its right-wing equivalent Frontpagemag, no matter who the author is, because both are extreme and polemical, and appear to function with no, or very little, editorial oversight. We could probably find any opinion in there about NAS that we looked for, no matter how silly. It is particularly inappropriate to use an article from Counterpunch in the introduction, in my view.

Homey has already responded to this in detail. For my part, there's something I've been thinking about lately ...

I don't believe any Wikipedia editor disputes that it would violate NPOV to write "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism". Everyone knows the debate on this issue has been going on for decades, and that it's still a source of extreme controversy.

Yet, if we do as SlimVirgin suggests and take the "pro-NAS" sources as objective and accurate, we will in effect be endorsing the view that "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism". For all intents and purposes, we will be doing an end-run around NPOV to present a highly contentious POV as fact.

If we (collectively) end up endorsing the view that "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism", this means that we've made an procedural misstep somewhere along the way. CJCurrie 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I would also like the article to be edited in accordance with the three content policies, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. These jointly state that Wikipedia includes only the published majority- and significant-minority views of reliable sources, giving space to those views in rough proportion to their dominance among those sources. Tiny-minority views should not be included. Editors must not add their own opinions, arguments, definitions, or analyses.

(i) What sources do you consider majority-reliable, significant minority-reliable, and tiny-minority (respectively)?

(ii) What process did you use to reach your conclusions? CJCurrie 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

As we have no separate talk page, I'm adding here a paper that gives a pretty good overview of the subject in case Mel is interested. It is Todd M. Endelman. "Antisemitism in Western Europe Today," in Contemporary Antisemitism: Canada and the World, Derek J. Penslar, Michael R. Marrus, and Janice Gross Stein (eds), University of Toronto Press, 2005, pp. 64-79. ISBN 0802039316 He argues that the new anti-Semitism emanates from "a post-Holocaust political culture, an anti-American and pro-Third World orientation of the left, demographic changes in European society, and the heightened level of conflict in the Middle East" (p. 64).

As it happens, I have this book. Readers may be interested to know that Endelman's essay is preceded by a piece from Steven J. Zipperstein, entitled "Historical reflections on contemporary Antisemitism".

Here is an excerpt:

"It is a mistake, in this respect, not to distinguish, as has the respected social analyst Earl Raab (long head of the Jewish Community Relations Commission of San Francisco) in a soon-to-be-published essay, between what he calls anti-Israelism and antisemitism. There manifestations are not, he argues, necessarily the same. What Raab means by anti-Israelism is the increasing role that a concerted, vigorous prejudice against Israel -- and he does see such sentiments as born of prejudice -- has played in much of the political left, visibly in the antiglobalist campaign, but where there is no discernible hatred of Jews. Often, in this context, belief in Israel's mendacity is shaped, above all, by simple, crude, linear notions of the casual relationship between politics, oppression, and liberation, by transparent beliefs in a world with clear-cut oppressors and oppressed -- in other words, by a much distorted, simplistic, but this-worldly political analysis devoid of anti-Jewish bias."

"Such prejudice against Israel is not the same as antisemitism, although undoubtedly the two can and at times do coexist. [...] Still, however unsettling and wrong-headed this sort of anti-Israeli sentiment may be, it is predicated on real, concrete perceptions, typically with little if any connection to an antagonism towards Jews." (p. 61)

My question for SlimVirgin: Why should we accept Endelman's article, but not Zipperstein's? CJCurrie 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

A good collection of articles, though of varying quality (written by academics, journalists, novelists, activists), can be found in Ron Rosenbaum. (ed) Those who forget the past, Random House, 2004. ISBN 0812972031

Indeed. I was especially taken with the essayist who described "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a *Bolshevik* forgery. (Harold Evans, "The View from Ground Zero", p. 50.)

More seriously: this collection of essays isn't without merit, but neither is it fully neutral.

Consider this snippet from Rosenbaum's introduction:

"Another, deeper connection of the Left to anti-Semitism is to be found in Marxism itself. I'm not the first to point out that much Marxist imagery is a kind of universalized version of anti-Semitic imagery. The greedy capitalist is substituted for the greedy Jew, the suffering proletariat for the suffering Jesus scourged by Jews. The promised Marxist future dissolution of the state and universal peace, once the exploiter (read, Jewish) class is eliminated, is substituted for the promise of Heaven for the Elect."

I would suggest that someone who believes Marxism = anti-Semitism may not be the best possible source for neutral or objective views about the Left.

(And I've already provided other criticisms in my general statement.) CJCurrie 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I continue hoping that you'll respond to this:

The current introduction defines "NAS" as both "a new type of anti-Semitism" and "a contemporary international resurgence in anti-Semitism". I do not believe that these definitions are identical, or even necessarily compatible. If the "NAS" is a new type of anti-Semitism, then it cannot be held responsible for all aspects of the contemporary resurgence. If it is the contemporary resurgence, then it cannot be narrowly defined as a new type of anti-Semitism. I have submitted a 2002 EU report as evidence that the contemporary resurgence is emanating from more than one source.

Comments? CJCurrie 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC) (minor adjustments: 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)) reply

Copied from the mediation page:

The "New anti-Semitism" article had a significantly different introduction on 16 June 2005. This prior version distinguished the general phenomenon of "new anti-Semitism" from the specific theory of "New anti-Semitism", and noted the latter's controversial linkage of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.

Significant changes followed. I would draw the attention of readers to an edit from 09:01, 18 June 2005, which (i) seems to undermine the distinction between "new" and "New" anti-Semitism, and (ii) removes the phrase "This view presupposes a connection between the New anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism". Another editor later attempted to restore the distinction between "new" and "New", at which time the first editor reverted the page back to her version.

The introduction was then altered again on 25 December 2005 by an editor with a very limited posting history. This edit defines "NAS" more narrowly, though also noting that the term may be used in different ways to mean different things.

A subsequent edit on 3 January 2006 marks another significant change, including the first insertion of the phrase, "The new anti-Semitism is closely associated with the Left and its opposition to Zionism, and to the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland." This is stated as a matter of fact, although the previous sentence indicates that this "new form" is only "alleged".

This edit from 5 March 2006 removes all reference to the general meaning of the term, and in so doing removes the distinction between "new" and "New" anti-Semitism. It also elevates the "NAS" from "a theory" to "a fact".

I am not certain that any of these changes were for the better -- the intro of 16 June 2005 seems far more lucid and balanced than that of 10 April 2006. I will also observe that the edit summaries (apart from that of 25 December) give little indication of the definitional changes. CJCurrie 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Would you care to comment on these changes? CJCurrie 22:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I think that Yehuda Bauer ( Problems of Contemporary Antisemitism), Irwin Cotler ( Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness), Bernard Lewis ( The New Anti-Semitism) and Natan Sharansky ( Anti-Semitism in 3D) define and classify the phenomenon quite well. They are among definitive and reputable authorities on the subject.

For those who maintain that the phenomenon is poorly (or mis-) defined or deny its existence altogether, I believe WP has sound policies to deal with such controversies: WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I have no problem citing the views of Bauer, Cotler and Sharansky in a clear, fair and neutral manner. I simply oppose an endorsement of their views as factual or accurate. CJCurrie 05:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

What we endorse or oppose matters little. Our presentation of encyclopedic material should be systematized according to WP:RS and let's beware of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

So do you agree then that the article shouldn't appear to favour the views of one side of the debate over others or appear as if there is no debate or as if the debate is marginal or fringe? Homey 03:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

If you think that the weight of the "sides" is comparable, please explain how did you come to this conclusion. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I suspect that more has been written "about" the "NAS" than has been written specifically refuting it, but (i) the latter texts are not marginal, (ii) not all texts written "about" the "NAS" are credible, and none are irrefutable, and (iii) the "NAS" debate is part of a much larger debate, with several credible sources on both sides.

Even if the "anti-NAS" texts were marginal (an assertion which is not granted), this would still not be enough to elevate the "pro-NAS" texts to the status of "accuracy" or "truth". To put it another way: even if Ali, Finkelstein, Chomsky et al were to be banished from the article, it still would not be appropriate for Wikipedia to endorse the views expressed by Cotler, Bauer et al as "correct". This is the difference between "the New anti-Semitism is" and "the New anti-Semitism is said to be".

I noticed that you picked some of the less reputable sources to discredit, such as Taguieff and Kinsella. Why not the most reputable, such as Bauer or Lewis? Should we select such "experts" as David Duke and publications by Interregional Academy of Personnel Management (that granted him Ph.D for thesis "Zionism as a Form of Ethnic Supremacism") as representatives of the "anti-NAS" camp? ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Some people seem to believe Taguieff is a credible source, though I'm at a loss to understand why. In any event, I also criticized Rosenbaum's "Those who forget the past" -- which SV has been promoting in her interventions.

• I've already given you my answer as to the more credible sources: I believe the views of Cotler, Bauer, Dershowitz et al should be accurately and fairly summarized, though I object to a wording that endorses their POV. CJCurrie 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Now, please answer my questions. CJCurrie 23:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

What we endorse or oppose matters little.

What we endorse, collectively as Wikipedians, is quite important. If we endorse a final wording which states or implies "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism", then we've made a serious mistake.

On the latter point, I'll pose the same questions to you as I posed to SlimVirgin:

(i) What sources do you consider majority-reliable, significant minority-reliable, and tiny-minority (respectively)?

(ii) What process did you use to reach your conclusions? CJCurrie 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

We should use WP:RS for both. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Is that your complete answer? CJCurrie 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

A couple more notes. While not mentioning the term NAS per se, the US Commission on Civil Rights stated on April 3, 2006 that "anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propaganda ... that includes traditional anti-Semitic elements, including age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes and defamation ... for example, anti-Israel literature that perpetuates the medieval anti-Semitic blood libel of Jews slaughtering children for ritual purpose, as well as anti-Zionist propaganda that exploits ancient stereotypes of Jews as greedy, aggressive, overly powerful, or conspiratorial ... should be distinguished from legitimate discourse regarding foreign policy. Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism."'

A concern that legitimate criticism of Israel gets suppressed because it gets designated as anti-Semitism is indeed a recurring theme in the texts presented by my opponents. Let's pick a country, say France. Legitimate criticism of France would concern a certain government, political party, policy, politician, etc. Denying the French people the right to nationhood and self-determination would strike me as unfair. Unforunately, this line gets crossed too often in the case of the Jewish state. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

That's interesting, but ...

(i) This isn't really about the "NAS".

This dispute is not about terminology. Would you deny that the US CCR describes the same exact subject? ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The US CCR addresses a recent increase in anti-Semitic events. It's not about the "NAS" as such, and it was obviously written in a careful manner to avoid some the more questionable assertions put forward by the NAS-proponents. CJCurrie 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The explicitly mentioned "anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propaganda" ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

(ii) The excerpts you've provided do not condemn all anti-Zionism -- they (rightly) condemn those forms of anti-Zionism that camoflage anti-Semitism.

First, nobody talks about "all anti-Zionism": you again repeat this already exposed strawman. Fair criticism is not only allowed, it is welcomed. Second, "anti-Zionism" is a conveniently fuzzy term, and indeed too often it has been and still is used as a camouflage for anti-Semitism. In every age, anti-Semites found "rationale" and typically the Jews themselves were blamed for hatred against them. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, some NAS-proponents believe that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same. It's not a strawman technique for me to raise the issue.

I agree that anti-Zionism is sometimes (too often) used to conceal anti-Semitism. On some occasions, though, it's not. CJCurrie 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

As I said, "anti-Zionism" is a conveniently fuzzy term. "Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic. That's just something made up by Israel's enemies." ( Making the Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. June 1, 2004) "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." (The New York Times: "Campus Hypocrisy" by Tom Friedman. October 16, 2002) ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Homey has already responded to AD's rhetorical question. For my part, I'll observe that anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are not quite the same thing -- and neither is inherently anti-Semitic. CJCurrie 02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

(iii) Phrases like "the right to nationhood and self-determination" are sometimes more dubious than they appear at first glance. Consider the following:

• Some French organizations regard immigration and multiculturalism as violations to "the right of a people to govern themselves". The view that "France should be ruled by the French" is emphatically not NPOV, when considered in this light.
• Someday, the voters of France may choose to join a federated European superstate. Would this be "unfair" in an abstract sense? I doubt it.
• French Guiana, New Caledonia, French Polynesia and Mayotte are all overseas departments of France. They are legally "part of the nation", and are represented in the French parliament. Are they "denied the right to nationhood and self-determination"? CJCurrie 23:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply

IMHO, what you propose is closer to "France should be ruled by the Germans". Self-determination is their own choice by definition.

• Your definition makes it seem as though the French (+ the other European nations) are not at liberty to create a super-state at some point in the future. From my vantage point, this seems a bit strange (leaving aside the fact that France and Germany are allies, and that no one currently-existing nation could possibly dominate such a super-state).

• Let's choose another example: You're probably aware that "Currie" is a Scottish name. Do you think it's inherently unjust that my parental grandfather's countrymen are a permanent minority within a federated state?

I am not sure you understand the "self" part in "self-determination". ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what you mean. CJCurrie 02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Israel was created 58 years ago as a safe haven for Jewish refugees and their descendents. Given ongoing history of anti-Semitism, those who call to deprive the Jews of their nation-state and condemn them to statelessness have a lot of explaining to do to earn good faith. Imagine how many innocent lives could have been saved if the Peel partition plan of 1937 was accepted. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Most proponents of the Binational Solution favour some autonomy for Jewish and Arab groups within Israel and Palestine. Israeli Jews (and Arabs) wouldn't be "condemned to statelessness" under such a model, any more than are the Scots of the United Kingdom.

• That said, it may interest you to know that I'm not personally wedded to the idea of a binational solution. I suspect that a two-state solution may be the only viable outcome for the Israeli-Palestine conflict in the short term, though a binational solution may be more desireable in 20-40 years if both sides are willing to accept it. For now, I believe that reasonable people should be able to debate and disagree on the binational solution without insinuations of anti-Semitism being spread around. (I also think an independent Palestine needs to be economically viable for the two-state solution to work, but that's another matter.) CJCurrie 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Your people make their democratic choice. Why don't you let other peoples to make theirs? It doesn't have to be the same choice but it it for them to make. At this point "binational solution" means abolishing Israel. Jews don't want Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Palestine, thank you. Why don't they deserve their own sovereign state? ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Your people make their democratic choice. Why don't you let other peoples to make theirs?

You're assuming too much. I said my paternal grandfather was Scottish; I didn't say anything about the other branches of my family.

To your other point: I don't see this as a question of deserving or not deserving a sovereign state. There are currently several peoples in the world who don't have sovereign states, including (for instance) the Scots, Kurds, Sikhs, Roma, and Iroquois. There may be circumstances in which sovereign nation-states for each of these groups would be desireable ... but it would be a serious mistake to frame the question in existential terms, along the lines of "Does [group x] deserve a state?" A better question would be, "Is a sovereign state for [group x] the best possible outcome for all concerned, or is some other arrangement more appropriate?"

Beyond which, the entire idea of "a people governing themselves" is more than a bit questionable in this day and age. "England for the English" may have been a progressive slogan when the broad masses were wresting power from the aristocracy, but I think you'd agree that it's not terribly progressive now.

I've already indicated that a two-state solution is probably the only viable resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict in the short term. Under such a framework, I believe that Israel should define itself as a state based on the equality of all citizens. Why this should even be a point of contention is something of a mystery. CJCurrie 02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Citizens is the keyword here. It is for the citizens to decide. The Palestinians are not the citizens of Israel. Let's not make it personal: yours or mine families don't matter here. Actually I am fine if someone says that all nation-states are to be abolished. But why start with the Jewish state? ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd have no problem with other states taking similar steps. For what it's worth, I also think it's anachronistic for Germany to define itself in national terms.

So why is there so much focus on Israel? The short answer is that we wouldn't be having this discussion if Israel still accepted its legal, pre-1967 boundaries. CJCurrie 22:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It seems that in this new stance you are blaming the victim by implying that it is squarely Israel's fault for being demonized. This is nothing new. People always find "good reasons" to justify their feelings and actions. Jews didn't accept (or killed) Jesus, or they were of the wrong race, or not patriotic enough, or too Communist, etc.

The "1967 boundaries" are 1949 Armistice Agreements#Cease-fire line vs. permanent border: are not internationally recognized borders. As a matter of fact, border disputes and military occupations are not something extraordinary. BTW, the same territories were occupied by Egypt and Jordan in period 1948-1967 (that did not create a Palestinian state) and there was not much outcry. In any case, this unfortunate stance still does not explain: 1) Why double standard? 2) Why so much hatred? 3) Why such persistent preoccupation with the Jews? ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I believe you've misinterpreted my meaning yet again. The 1967 borders may not be internationally recognized boundaries according to a strict legal definition, but Israel's right to hold such lands pending a final resolution is not in dispute. The post-1967 settlements were/are another matter entirely. Such settlements undermine the viability of any future Palestinian state, and unquestionably played a major role in scuttling the peace negotiations of the 1990s. (They may have also made the binational solution more credible after the collapse of the Oslo Accords. I believe Tony Judt had something to say about this in 2003, although to be fair the situation in Israel has improved since then.)

The sustained international focus on Israel may not be the result of a "persistent preoccupation with the Jews" (as you suggest), but rather on the simple fact that the border issue has yet to be resolved and there are competing theories as to the most appropriate means of resolution, both within Israel and in the international community. CJCurrie 23:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This was added after I started writing my response; I didn't see it until later:

It seems that in this new stance you are blaming the victim by implying that it is squarely Israel's fault for being demonized. This is nothing new. People always find "good reasons" to justify their feelings and actions. Jews didn't accept (or killed) Jesus, or they were of the wrong race, or not patriotic enough, or too Communist, etc.

I could respond to this in any number of ways. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll go with "polite".

I think, HS, that you may be operating under certain flawed assumptions. Let's review recent events: You asked why Israel and Zionism are so often at the forefront of international debates concerning "national self-determination" and the nation-state. I responded by drawing attention to an existing boundary dispute. You responded by suggesting that I was demonizing Israel and "blaming the victim".

I'm not certain what mechanism you used to identify my comments as "demonization". A large percentage of Israelis have always deplored the post-1967 occupation, and the current government has moved to scale it back significantly. I doubt that drawing attention to the occupation can be said to constitute "demonization". Similarly, I can't see how it "demonizes" Israel to suggest that the occupation and the corresponding boundary dispute might be a valid cause for the preponderance of international discussion on the issue. I also don't see that it "demonizes" Israel to have an open discussion of the binational solution in relation to the two-state plan. To put it another way, I think this "demonization" might only exist in HS's mind. (I'm not going to comment on the rest.)

If you haven't already, HS, please read this article. CJCurrie 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

"Israel's right to hold such lands pending a final resolution is not in dispute." - sorry, you are totally wrong here. Hello: right of return, Hamas, Iran, etc. But I understand how this + Judt make someone feel better. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This gets a little too personal and pointless to my taste. Please show me where I was "suggesting that" you were "demonizing Israel". Our topic here is New anti-Semitism, a concept that includes demonization of Israel (not by you, I am trying to AGF). If it is Israel's borders disputes that can explain the level of hatred and indeed demonization, where is even a shade of similar righteous anger towards India/Pakistan, Greece/Turkey, Russia/Japan, China/Tibet, Morocco/W.Sahara? ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello: right of return, Hamas, Iran, etc. Interesting that you'd include the right of return in the same category as Hamas and Iran. In any event, I hope you realize that I meant "not in dispute by the international community as a whole". The "wiped off the map" people are obviously in a different category.

Guess who is the only refugee group on the planet that pass their refugee status to their descendents? The threat of flooding Israel (within 1949 lines) with millions of Palestinian refugees is kept alive & sacred. According to the UNRWA, they numbered 711,000 in 1949, and over 4 million in 2004. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I think HOTR had something to say about this a while ago. Suffice it to say that Jews and Palestinians may have more in common than some would care to admit. CJCurrie 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This gets a little too personal and pointless to my taste. I deliberately held off from engaging in a discussion like this until MelEtitis brought forward his recommendations. I recognize that it was always more than a bit off-topic, but it seemed like a decent cathartic release for both sides. You're right, through -- it is becoming too personal.

To your last point, I'll repost something I wrote to you on 20 February 2005:

In the first place, Israel isn't always singled out on this front. A decade ago, there was much discussion (to say nothing of warfare) as to whether or not the former Yugoslavian republics constituted legitimate independent states. I've met people from the former Yugoslavia who were sickened by the country's decent into nationalism and warfare, and who opposed the creation of an independent Croatian state and a de facto independent Serbia. Many people on the left and right also criticize the legitimacy of Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states. The legitimacy of the new Iraq is questioned by many. The legitimacy of the PR China is also questioned in some circles, especially as regards its actions in Tibet (similarly Indonesia in Aceh, Sri Lanka in the Tamil regions, India AND Pakistan in Kashmir, Turkey in the Kurdish regions and so forth [note that I'm not making any statements as to the specific controversies in any of these disputed territories]).

Somehow I miss info on boycotts [6], divestment campaigns and revolting propaganda targeting other countries. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I'm not certain that the product boycotts are serving any useful purpose at present (and I disagree with the academic boycotts.) Israel has been moving in the right direction since 2003, and this should be acknowledged by the international community. CJCurrie 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

IMO, proponents of the term "new anti-Semitism" have done a useful service by pointing out that Israel is sometimes unfairly singled out for criticism. But let's not pretend there isn't similar opposition to other states.

Thanks for finally admitting this. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Er ... I wrote it over a year ago. CJCurrie 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I stand by these comments now, and I could probably add Darfur to the list. Turning back to why Israel gets the attention it does, I believe I should amend my previous statement: in addition to the occupation, the rather obvious fact of increased violence after 2000 even though a final resolution was within reach only a year earlier might be a valid reason for increased scrutiny and a desire for creative solutions among the international community. CJCurrie 03:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Even if this was somehow correct, in itself it would be an evidence of horrible double standard. I already wrote about finding "good reasons". And again, it seems that hatemongers and their cheerleaders get excused. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't see this as necessarily a double standard. Several people focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in and after 2000 because it was a significant contemporary event, and because there were competing approaches to its resolution (see also Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, and Northern Ireland in the late 1990s). I agree that it was sometimes unfairly categorized as "the most important conflict anywhere in the world", and I agree that there was often a blind spot toward other conflicts. (When I described India's BJP government as a serious threat to world stability in the early 2000s, not many people knew what I was talking about. That was depressing.) I do not, however, believe that the international community was wrong to focus on the conflict more intently than before.

To get back to my earlier point ... When you asked why Israel was often singled out for discussion concerning one specific controversy (the question of "national self-determination"), I said the short answer was the occupation. The longer answer is that Israel's occupation policy (and especially its settlement policy) has long undermined the possibility of a viable two-state solution, and in the process has undermined Israel's continued identity as a Jewish state. In this limited sense, the Israel-Palestine conflict is/was qualitatively different from most other comparable situations across the globe. Tony Judt's article more-or-less summarizes my position on this matter -- there was a very real danger, a few years ago, that Israel would become a failed state according to its own terms (I believe that notorious anti-Semite Avraham Burg also wrote a piece about this).

I realize this wasn't always a popular view to express, but the recent policy shifts by Sharon, Olmert, Peres et al might suggest there was some truth to it. You might think of this as "looking for an excuse"; I disagree quite strongly. CJCurrie 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Again, Judt &Co. choose to conveniently ignore some vital components of the conflict, such as millions of Palestinian refugees and the amount of hatred/indoctrination/propaganda/double standard towards Israel. Note that all of the above are not specifically Jewish problems, e.g. antisemitism in Russia or Japan is not caused by Jews. But by some magic, it is supposed to disappear - only if those stubborn Jews give up this or that. I can show a long, sad list of similar hopes, promises and demands that go centuries back. Here's a recent little piece by Dennis Prager. This is my last post here, I hope. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm surprised you can't see the qualitative difference between Medieval Christians requiring Jews to give up their distinctiveness and modern commentators calling for Israel to end its occupation policy. In any event, this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. CJCurrie 02:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

"Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic"

Here's one:

Question: Mr prime minister, in Europe there is an attempt to distinguish between an anti-Semitism that should be condemned and a legitimate criticism toward Israel's policies. Furthermore there are those who think that Israel utilises anti-Semitism as a shield from criticism directed at her.

Ariel Sharon: Today there is no separation. We are talking about collective anti-Semitism.

Homey 01:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I am sure this is either out of context [mis]quote or mistranslation. Take a look at Israel's fiercely free press. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The link is on the main mediation page. Check it out for yourself, Humus.

"At this point "binational solution" means abolishing Israel."

I'm not sure a binational solution is viable at this point but I think it's erroneous to argue that anyone who is a binationalist is anti-Semitic (you haven't said this explicitly, but others have). Saying Jews and the Palestinians should have equal rights and some sort of powersharing agreement in a joint state is quite different from saying "throw all the Jews into the sea" or Jews have no right to live in the state. Homey 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

You know, I used to be an anti-apartheid activist and I can't help noticing that the Afrikaaners (ie white Afrikaans speaking South Africans) used to make the exact same argument that ending apartheid would end their right to self-determination, would end their dream of an Afrikaner homeland etc. 15 or so years after apartheid has been abolished and the Afrikaners remain in South Africa, albeit in a multi-racial state, one in which they no longer have a monopoly of power. But they haven't been driven into the sea or destroyed. Far from it. Homey 02:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

"used to be"? LOL. Homey, you never stopped it and you use WP as another platform for your activism. Your ill-conceived comparisons are duly noted. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Apartheid in South Africa ended in the early 1990s. It's hard to be an activist against something that no longer exists. Homey 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

So you picked next target and WP as a platform for you activism. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

"Citizens is the keyword here. It is for the citizens to decide. The Palestinians are not the citizens of Israel. "

Do you consider Israeli Arabs citizens of Israel? Homey 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

What kind of question is that? Sure they are citizens. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Why is it then that they are completely excluded from political power? There are no Israeli Arab cabinet ministers, there have been maybe two or three very junior ministers ever (I believe ministers without portfolio), Arab parties are de facto excluded from any governing coalition even though all parties recognise the Israeli state. You say citizens have a right to decide but Israeli Arabs are excluded from government (yes, they are represented in the Knesset but not in government) Homey 00:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Your argument reminds me a Soviet expression " and you are lynching Negroes". You are being totally unfair, Homey. Compare Israel's free democratic society with its neighbors and adversaries. Sure, it is imperfect and sure Israelis make mistakes. But you intentionally employ a double standard and logical fallacies in your accusatory fervor. For shame. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

From my perspective, the issue here is three-fold.

First, the article itself is not very well written. At one time it was almost completely unsourced, though SlimVirgin and I managed to clean that up, but the structure itself was problematic. A re-organization and re-write had been intended, but that became impossible once other editors got involved.

I'm not going to comment on this -- my current concerns are only with the introduction and general definition. CJCurrie 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The second issue mirrors the real-life reaction to the term. Specifically, left-wing commentators are offended that a sub-set of the phenomenon - a monomaniacal focus on criticizing Israel and its actions and anyone who supports it - is described as "Anti-semitism". They, instead, describe this as "legitimate criticism of Zionists or Israel", and object to it being classed as "anti-Semitism" of some sort or another. In this they differ little from the monomaniacal focus of far-right commentators (e.g. David Duke), who also object to what they describe as "legitimate criticism of Zionists or Israel" being classed as "anti-Semitism".

Unfortunately, some editors here (well, mostly one), have identified strongly with this left-wing position, and are attempting to turn the article from a discussion of the phenomenon itself into a battleground for debating the legitimacy of the term. Of course, the article itself should (and does) discuss those who object to the term, (as does, for example, the Anti-Semitism article), but that cannot be the very focus of the article.

This is coming close to an ad hominem attack, Jayjg (although it may not have been directed against me). Let's try to keep this civil.

Responses:

(i) Some anti-Zionism is grounded in anti-Semitism, while some is not. Do you really think that Brian Klug and David Duke are singing from the same book?

(ii) The term "NAS" is, as Homey says, hotly contested. Many consider it to be a political slur. The parallel with "anti-Semitism" doesn't really hold up: everyone accepts the legitimacy of the term, even if there are varying views on "what anti-Semitism is".

(iii) I would direct your attention to the Zipperfield article above. CJCurrie 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The third issue is that while there is a great deal of literature on the subject itself, there is little information disputing its accuracy from reliable sources. Thus the editors who feel offended by the term have scoured the internet looking for anyone who says anything negative about it. Unfortunately this often leaves them with people who have no expertise in the field, or who give extreme minority opinions. Even worse, they insist on inserting these minority opinions from non-notables into the introduction, in some sort of attempt to "balance" the information which offends them. This, in effect, would be like insisting that the introduction to the "Anti-Semitism" article include a "balancing" view by Joseph Sobran that the definition of an anti-Semite is "a man who is hated by Jews." Yes, Joseph Sobran did say this, but that doesn't mean the introduction of the Anti-Semitism article must quote him for "balance".

I think I've responded to these objections in my comments to SV. And again, the "anti-Semitism" parallel doesn't really hold up. CJCurrie 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

You are quite incorrect when you claim "everyone accepts the legitimacy of the term [anti-Semitism]". As the article itself points out, there are many who dispute its legitimacy as a term, or as a term applied exclusively to Jews. In addition, those who dispute its legitimacy almost inevitably do so because they do not want it applied to them. So, the analogy works perfectly. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, you're correct -- some people believe "Judeophobia" is the more accurate term. That said, the parallel still doesn't hold. Everyone acknowledges that "the phenomenon most people identify as 'anti-Semitism'" is real. The same cannot be said of "New Anti-Semitism". CJCurrie 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Again, incorrect, and this time on two counts. There are people who do not agree that "anti-Semitism" is real; David Duke would be one, and those of his ilk. Also, pretty much everyone agrees that the various phenomena being described as "New anti-Semitism" are occuring; they just don't think it should be described as anti-Semitism, and insist that it is perfectly justified. The parallels are quite good. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Wait ... are you acknowledging that "NAS" is a disputed phrase to identity a real phenomenon? CJCurrie 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) reply

From what I've seen, this is an issue of one group of editors wanting to describe a phenomenon and another group wanting to debate the phenomenon. Whether or not the phenomenon "exists", it is sufficiently considered to exist. There's too much personal opinion driving the work of some editors.

Two responses:

(i) I don't think the first sentence accurately conveys my position. I'm not interested in debating the phenomenon, so much as conveying that there is debate about the phenomenon.

(ii) I am not convinced there is a consensus opinion as to the existence of the "NAS".

I apologize if I've misinterpreted your meaning. CJCurrie 19:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• You probably did if you think (ii) is relevant to anything. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply

? It's certainly relevant as to whether we should present "NAS" as a fact or a theory. CJCurrie 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC) reply