Jump to content

Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Itemized POV concerns

To preface, the fundamental arguments against both the continued titling of the article under "weaponization of antisemitism" (or even the newly proposed "weaponization of antisemitism accusations"), and preserving the current (and supposedly neutral and all-inclusive) definition of "weaponization of antisemitism" as "antisemitism accusations [...] exploited for political purposes, especially to counter criticism of Israel" are plain and simple for the following reasons:

1. There are no sources presented that reliably support the currently presented definition, most crucially anywhere in the lede. Instead, an assemblage of sources of varying relevance and quality have been cobbled together in a clear instance of SYNTH to create the impression of a unified definition that does not, in fact, exist under these terms and scope.

I am asserting that the definition currently in place in the lede is pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There is no encompassing definition (either in whole or part) from any of the sources provided that make (or back) this specific claim. Furthermore, any assertion that the existing definition that "antisemitism accusations [...] exploited for political purposes, especially to counter criticism of Israel" equates to "weaponization of antisemitism" or "playing the antisemitism card" is derived from sources presented is categorically false, and has been assembled from a patchwork of disparate items arguing separate matters.

2. More than two thirds of the sources presented in the article do not - in fact - describe and elucidate specific acts of supposed instances of "weaponized" use of antisemitic accusation. The solid majority instead cast generalized and vague aspersions and charges of "weaponization" without either citing specific instances, or clearly identifying the manner in which the supposed instances may be differentiated between "weaponization" accusation as opposed to legitimate antisemitic claim or critique. The majority of these citations (especially those that fail to explore and validate specific instances) read squarely and uncritically as if the authors merely generally disagree with the invocation of antisemitic accusation under any circumstances, and generally consider its use in debate to be in bad faith.

3. Of the 45 citations in the "History" and "Description" sections, the term "weaponization" only appears in sources nine (9) times, and of those, only two stand on solid, scholarly ground (with the remainder either on shaky ground, are questionably invoked, or are from opinion pieces). A further four use variations on "antisemitism as a weapon" but we have already addressed issues of inappropriate exclusion of previous scholarly use of the phrase or similar (which would be handily resolved if this article were renamed "instrumentalization of antisemitism", as both use cases would be covered under such a generally umbrella in different, appropriate sections) Either way, less than a third of the articles cited use this language, and only half of those attempt any form of justification in invoking terms like "weapon" or "weaponization".

Equally so, there are sources included that are claimed to support the presented Israel-centered thesis, but actually cite instances of "weaponized antisemitism" entirely outside the bounds of this supposed exclusively Israel-centered discourse.

As is highlighted below, the arguments presented in this article do not currently add up to a convincing thesis that an article entitled "Weaponization of antisemitism accusations" reflects any form of neutrally positioned or established discourse. Instead, we have a collection of mostly unsupported (or speciously argued) Accusations of weaponized antisemitism (or more practically phrased: a timeline of charges of bad faith invocation of antisemitism

Breaking down and analyzing the lede, each insistence and argument has been isolated, with its citations provided scrutinized to see if they, in fact, support the asserted points.

For the "History" and "Description" sections (which make up the bulk of the article), I have created a very simple criteria to assess the viability of the sources provided on the following grounds:

  • Does make a general charge of bad faith instrumentalization of antisemitic accusation?
  • Does it invoke specific instances or level specific charges?
  • Does it describe such instances as "weaponization" or similar?

Lede

When antisemitism accusations are exploited for political purposes, especially to counter criticism of Israel,[1] it may be described variously as a weaponization of antisemitism, instrumentalization of antisemitism, or playing the antisemitism card.[2]

Sources present neither provide nor support the above definition. While separate sources mention "weaponization", "instrumentalization" and "playing the antisemitism" card, none squarely define such supposed instances (which is an accusation in of itself) as generally covering the general exploitation of antisemitism for political purposes (itself a POV assertion, as "exploitation" would have to be proven on its own merits, and its not even mentioned in the sources). Sources provided are either mere charges of "weaponization", or passing reference with no substantive argument or critique:

First source collection:

  • Landy/Lentin/McCarthy: Contains charge of "weaponization". Despite use of the word "evidenced", the charge is the opinion of its authors, not an evidentiary or critically established example.
  • Consonni: The mention of either "weaponization" or "instrumentalization" only refers to - in passing - criticism leveled by other scholars as part of a working definition argument in 2013.
  • Rothberg: This is an interview, and - in effect - an equivalent to an opinion piece, at best. It is not suitable as an anchor source for an article lede.
  • Roth-Rowland: This is an opinion piece.

Second source collection:

  • Finkelstein: Charge of "playing the antisemitism card".
  • Hirsh: Thoughtful "both sides" analysis/think piece of rhetoric around accusations of use as "weapon". It explores the issue and does not provide a definition similar to what is asserted.
  • Bronfman: Opinion piece.

Such accusations have been criticized as a form of smear tactics and an "appeal to motive".[3][4] Some writers have compared this to playing the race card.[5][6] When used against Jews, it may take the form of the pejorative claim of "self-hating Jew".[7][8][9][10]

Again: SYNTH / POV / OR:"such accusations" have not been "criticized as a form of smear tactics", they have been characterized by those arguing that such invocations of antisemitic accusation are in bad faith (therefore constituting a form of smear tactic if said weaponization accusations were found viable, which cannot be presumed based upon mere accusation).

Third source collection:

  • White: This source pertains exclusively to the BDS debate, which is covered separately
  • Mearshimer & Walt: General charge, no specific example cited
  • Amor: WP:CRYSTALBALL, portends to predict the future
  • Steinberg: Interpretive opinion on the implications "smearing" in argument.

Fourth source collection:

  • Finkelstein: General charge, no specific example cited
  • Plitnick & Aziz: General charge, no specific example cited
  • Abraham: Rhetorical speculation, no specific example cited

Fifth source collection:

  • Quigley: General charge, no specific instance cited or qualified
  • Marcus: Advice, at best. No specific instance cited.

Citations 7-10

  • Bertov (double cited) / Abraham / Chomsky / Waxman, Schraub, Hosein: General charges, no specific instances cited or analyzed

Suggestions of such actions have been raised during phases of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict,[11][12][13] in the adoption of various organizations' controversial working definitions of antisemitism,[14][15][16][17] during the 2014–20 allegations of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party,[18] at the 2023 United States Congress hearing on antisemitism,[19] and during the 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on university campuses.[20]

Citations 11-13: Mearshimer & Walt / Muzher / Chomsky: General charges with no specific instances cited

Citations 14-20:

  • Middle East Monitor - shaky partisan source, opinion piece
  • Guardian: opinion piece
  • Amor: an open letter
  • HRW: suggestion that letter is connected to "weaponization" discussion as defined is leading and OR
  • Double down news?
  • Harvard Crimson: outdated opinion piece
  • Democracy Now: hardly RS for definition sake, otherwise partisan accusation

History

Citation General charge Specific Charge or Cited Instance Use of "weaponization" Note
Chomsky (1/2)[21] Yes No No Re: Perlmutter accusation. Page cited is incorrect (it's 59, not 18)
Sykes & Sedgwick (via Chomsky) (2/2)[21] Yes Yes No Relying on Sedgwick via Sykes does not hold up. Please refer to further contemporary reporting on the incident of Ben Gurion's supposed "exaggeration" here.
Brownfield[22] Yes No Yes* *"the tactic of using the term anti-Semitism as a weapon"
Glubb[23] Yes No No
Morris[24] Yes No No
Piety[25] Yes No No
Brownfield[26] Yes No Yes* *"The accusation of "anti-Semitism" has become a weapon with which to

silence any criticism of either Israel or U.S. policy in the Middle East." Second use of "weapon" from previously cited Brownfield article

Brownfield[27] Yes Yes No Note: this citation is incorrectly attributed to Cheryl Rubenberg. Likewise, the actual inclusion of Podhoretz's actual piece is grounds to seek out a more tempered assessment than Brownfield's reductive, borderline irreflective take.
Rubenberg[28] Yes Yes Yes* *"Indeed, it may be that the weapon of greatest power possessed by the pro-Israeli lobby is its accusation of anti-Semitism." Comment: Including a source blaming "the lobby" generally for various separate incidents of supposed "weaponization" is questionable at best.
Findley[29] Yes No No
Brownfield[30] Yes No No
Ball[31] Yes No No
White[32] Yes No No
Abraham[33] Yes No No
Mearshimer & Walt[11] Yes No* No* *Present elsewhere in source, not present in citation.
Muzher[12] Yes No No
Chomsky[34] Yes No No
Abraham[8] Yes No No
Gutman[35] Yes Yes* Yes* Opinion piece. *The two examples of "weaponization" cited are from an anonymous twitter user who DM'd the writer, and a Marjorie Taylor Greene anecdote unrelated to Israel.
Riemer[36] Yes No No Uses "instrumentalized"
Steinberg[19] Yes Yes* Yes* Opinion piece. *Steinberg responds to one specific instance he considers to be "weaponization" from writers at the Crimson, and otherwise refers generally to acts by unspecified "powerful forces". This was published in response to Claudine Gay's testimony, but prior to her resignation a few days later.
Ganz[37] Yes No* Yes* Opinion piece. *While referring to a separate incident involving the Brandeis Center (in which a discrimination complaint against him was upheld by the Harvard Dean), his claim of the Brandeis Center "weaponizing" antisemitism in response to 10/7 is not specified.
Levy[38] Yes No Yes
Cole[39] Yes Yes Yes This is an opinion piece from a right-wing blog.
Yousef[40] Yes Unclear No
Attanasio[41] Yes No No Does not specify generally stated antisemitic accusations. Also cites instances of antisemitic langauge in use during protests.
Columbia Faculty[42][43] Yes Yes Yes Opinion piece / Open Letter

References

  1. ^ Illustrative examples:
    • Landy, Lentin & McCarthy 2020, p. 15: "The weaponizing of antisemitism against US critics of Israel was evidenced in 2019 when Florida's upper legislative chamber unanimously passed a bill that classifies certain criticism of Israel as antisemitic"
    • Consonni, Manuela (1 March 2023). "Memory, Memorialization, and the Shoah After 'the End of History'". In Keren Eva Fraiman, Dean Phillip Bell (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Judaism in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis. p. 170. ISBN 9781000850321. In 2013, the Committee on Antisemitism addressing the troubling resurgence of antisemitism and Holocaust denial produced two important political achievements: the "Working Definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion"...and the "Working Definition of Antisemitism"....The last motion raised much criticism by some scholars as too broad in its conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The exploitation, the instrumentalization, the weaponization of antisemitism, a concomitant of its de-historicization and de-textualization, became a metonymy for speaking of the Jewish genocide and of anti-Zionism in a way that confined its history to the court's benches and research library and its memory to a reconstruction based mostly on criteria of memorial legitimacy for and against designated social groups.
    • Medico International; Rothberg, Michael (15 February 2024). "The Interview :We need an ethics of comparison". Medico International. I do not doubt that antisemitism exists across German society, including among Muslims, but the politicization of the definition of antisemitism—for example, the way that the IHRA definition is used to stifle criticism of Israeli policies—makes it very difficult to reach consensus on what is and what is not antisemitic."&"The far-right instrumentalization of antisemitism and solidarity with Israel is one of the most disturbing developments of recent years.
    • Roth-Rowland, Natasha (July 28, 2020). "False charges of antisemitism are the vanguard of cancel culture". +972 Magazine. Increasingly, however, those canards coexist with right-wing actors — above all those in power — increasingly labeling Jews as perpetual victims who must be protected, even as these same actors invoke well-worn antisemitic tropes elsewhere. By and large, these charges of antisemitism — especially as they relate to Israel — are made in order to gain political currency, even if the controversy at hand has no bearing on actual threats to Jews. Using the antisemitism label so vaguely and liberally not only stunts free speech, but also makes actual threats to Jewish people harder to identify and combat. This weaponizing of antisemitism is not only "cancelling" Palestinian rights advocates and failing to make Jews any safer; it's also using Jews to cancel others.
  2. ^ Examples of the term "antisemitism card":
    • Finkelstein 2008, pp. 15–16
    • Hirsh 2010
    • Bronfman, Roman (2003-11-19). "Fanning the Flames of Hatred". Haaretz. ...when the waves of hatred spread and appeared on all the media networks around the world and penetrated every home, the new-old answer surfaced: anti-Semitism. After all, anti-Semitism has always been the Jews' trump card because it is easy to quote some crazy figure from history and seek cover. This time, too, the anti-Semitism card has been pulled from the sleeve of explanations by the Israeli government and its most faithful spokespeople have been sent to wave it. But the time has come for the Israeli public to wake up from the fairy tale being told by its elected government.
  3. ^ Examples of criticism as smear tactics:
    • White 2020: "Delegitimizing Solidarity: Israel Smears Palestine Advocacy as Anti-Semitic"
    • Mearsheimer & Walt 2008, pp. 9–11: "THE LOBBY'S MODUS OPERANDI… Yet because [former U.S. President Jimmy Carter] suggests that Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories resemble South Africa's apartheid regime and said publicly that pro-Israel groups make it hard for U.S. leaders to pressure Israel to make peace, a number of these same groups launched a vicious smear campaign against him. Not only was Carter publicly accused of being an anti-Semite and a "Jew-hater," some critics even charged him with being sympathetic to Nazis."
    • Amor 2022: "…if the UN were to endorse the IHRA WDA, the harm would be exponentially greater… human rights defenders and organizations challenging Israel’s violations would be fully exposed to smear campaigns based on bad-faith allegations of antisemitism"
    • Steinberg 2023: "Smearing one’s opponents is rarely a tactic employed by those confident that justice is on their side. If Israel’s case requires branding its critics antisemites, it is already conceding defeat."
  4. ^ Examples of criticism as appeal to motive:
    • Finkelstein 2008, pp. xxxiii, 33: "As I’ve demonstrated in Part 1 of this volume, the purpose of these periodic extravaganzas is not hard to find: on the one hand, the perpetrators are turned into the victims, putting the spotlight on the alleged suffering of Jews today and diverting it from the real suffering of Palestinians; on the other hand, they discredit all criticism of Israeli policy as motivated by an irrational loathing of Jews… The transparent motive behind these assertions is to taint any criticism of Israel as motivated by anti-Semitism and—inverting reality—to turn Israel (and Jews), not Palestinians, into the victim of the “current siege””
    • Plitnick & Aziz 2023: "Specifically, when Muslims and Arabs in America defend the rights of Palestinians or criticize Israeli state policy, they are often baselessly presumed to be motivated by a hatred for Jews rather than support for human rights, freedom, and consistent enforcement of international law."
    • Abraham 2014, p. 171: "This configuration becomes operable because Zionism posits that criticisms of Israel, as a Jewish state, are anti-Semitic because Israel is the state of all Jewish people, both prior to Israel’s creation and into perpetuity, and because the history of anti-Semitism is understood to have reached its zenith in the Holocaust, a culmination of centuries of gentile hatred against Jews. This positioning of Israel within Zionist ideology as a Jewish homeland, even before Israel officially existed as a nation, allows for an easy transposition of historical events, enabling the anti-Semitism of one age to become identified with the words and actions directed against Israel in the context of the contemporary crisis in the Middle East. Often, these transpositions are inappropriate and lead to incorrect conclusions about people’s motives as they participate in furthering discussion and understanding about the Israel-Palestine conflict. As rhetoricians, we should be concerned by this possible misuse of history in these debates; indeed, the charge of anti-Semitism, if it is to be taken seriously, must be leveled with precision and not as a scatter-shot propaganda device for scoring cheap political points. In this discursive environment, every statement introduced into the debate contains a hidden motive, or at least a hidden rhetorical or historical resonance whereby nothing can be interpreted as being offered in good faith: “You claim that the Rachel Corrie Courage in the Teaching of Writing Award is about X (rewarding courage, risk-taking, innovation, etc.) but it is really about Y (anti-Israelism, pro-Palestinian politics, and anti-Semitism).” It is this displacement of a particular conception of anti-Semitism, a conception that had a particular meaning and resonance at a particular point in history, which tends to confuse participants in contemporary debates about the Middle East. As rhetoricians, we should be much more vigilant about the prospects of importing this flawed conception of anti-Semitism into the field of rhetorical studies, particularly when doing so has the potential to hurt possibilities for dialogue and understanding."
  5. ^ Quigley 2021, p. 251-252: "A difficulty in attributing anti-Zionist views to anti-Semitism is that such views are held by Jews… Opposition to Israel is depicted as a product of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is "weaponized" to silence criticism of Israel. "Shameless exploitation of anti-Semitism delegitimizes criticism of Israel," wrote one analyst, and "makes Jews rather than Palestinians the victims." If anti-Semitism is invoked too loosely, allegations of anti-Semitism may come to be regarded with a jaundiced eye." The term "race card" has been applied to this phenomenon in a related context… The same risk is present with inappropriate charges of anti-Semitism. "False charges of antisemitism," warned Special Envoy Forman, "can hinder the real fight against hate." Amnesty International expressed concern that "conflating antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy is detrimental not only to ending serious crimes under international law, but also to efforts to address and end antisemitism.""
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Marcus68 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "In Israel and the U.S., 'apartheid' is the elephant in the room". The Washington Post. Omer Bartov: "You can call me a self-hating Jew, call me an antisemite. People use those terms to cover up the reality, either to deceive themselves or to deceive others. You have to look at what's happening on the ground."; Barton's comments also referenced at "'Accusing Israel of apartheid is not anti-Semitic': Holocaust historian". Al Jazeera.
  8. ^ a b Abraham 2014, pp. 67–68: "With increased attention being brought to Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights in the European press since the beginning of the Second Intifada in September of 2000, US supporters of Israel sought to blame the poor reputation Israel was developing in the international community on the rise of a New Anti-Semitism. As this line of thinking went, Israel had been targeted for criticism not because of what it does to the Palestinians in violation of international law, but because of a resurgent wave of anti-Semitism that has roots in age-old hatreds of the past. Israel’s critics, then, were hiding their thinly veiled animus toward the Jewish state behind anti-Zionist arguments and were not motivated by humanitarian they purported to be. To draw this equation between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, Israel’s supporters have sought to make the argumentative leap that criticism of Israel as the Jewish state is anti-Semitic precisely because Israel is the home of all Jews for all time. However, this argument does not work since there are many anti- Zionist Jews who reject Israel’s attempts to speak in the name of Judaism. The traditional response to this problem has been to label anti-Zionist Jews as “self-hating Jews,” which requires a suspension of rationality and sound judgement."
  9. ^ Chomsky 1983, p. 53: "It might be noted that the resort to charges of “anti-Semitism” (or in the case of Jews, “Jewish self-hatred”) to silence critics of Israel has been quite a general and often effective device. Even Abba Eban, the highly-regarded Israeli diplomat of the Labor Party (considered a leading dove), is capable of writing that “One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism [generally understood as criticism of policies of the Israeli state] is not a distinction at all,” and that Jewish critics (I.F. Stone and I are specifically mentioned) have a “basic complex...of guilt about Jewish survival.”"
  10. ^ Waxman, Schraub & Hosein 2022.
  11. ^ a b Mearsheimer & Walt 2008, pp. 190–191"Supporters of Israel have a history of using fears of a "new anti-Semitism" to shield Israel from criticism."
  12. ^ a b Muzher, Sherri (2005-10-27). "Beyond Chutzpah: An Interview with Professor Norman Finkelstein". Campus Watch. Whenever Israel faces a public relations debacle such as the Intifada or international pressure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, American Jewish organizations orchestrate this extravaganza called the 'new anti-Semitism.'
  13. ^ Chomsky 2002, p. 1.
  14. ^ Ahmed, Nasim (2023-09-15). "Weaponised definition of anti-Semitism is a 'tool' to undermine free-speech". Middle East Monitor.
  15. ^ Stern, Kenneth (2019-12-13). "I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it". the Guardian.
  16. ^ Amor 2022.
  17. ^ Adalah 2023.
  18. ^ Graeber, David (2020-04-12). "The Weaponisation of Labour Antisemitism". Double Down News.
  19. ^ a b Steinberg 2023
  20. ^ Goodman, Amy; Bartov, Omer (2024-04-30). "Israeli Holocaust Scholar Omer Bartov on Campus Protests, Weaponizing Antisemitism & Silencing Dissent". Democracy Now!.
  21. ^ a b Chomsky 1983, p. 18: "The Perlmutters deride those who voice “criticism of Israel while fantasizing countercharges of anti-Semitism,” but their comment is surely disingenuous. The tactic is standard. Christopher Sykes, in his excellent study of the pre-state period, traces the origins of this device (“a new phase in Zionist propaganda”) to a “violent counterattack” by David Ben-Gurion against a British court that had implicated Zionist leaders in arms-trafficking in 1943: “henceforth to be anti-Zionist was to be anti-Semitic.” It is, however, primarily in the post-1967 period that the tactic has been honed to a high art, increasingly so, as the policies defended became less and less defensible."

    The events of 1943 mentioned by Chomsky were reported at the time as follows: Sedgwick, A. C. (1943-08-18). "PALESTINE ISSUES SHARPEN AT TRIAL; British Effort to Stamp Out Gun-Running Brings Conflict With Zionists to Fore". The New York Times. Mr. Ben-Gurion described Maj. R. B. Verdin's much-discussed address to the court, in which, acting as counsel, he sought leniency for his two British soldier clients on the ground that they had been ensnared by the gun-running ring, as "characteristic of the lowest type of anti-Semitism." Many find it hard not to consider such a description exaggerated, especially when the Nazi excesses in Berlin and Warsaw are borne in mind. There are many, too, who feel that any charge of anti-Semitism in its accepted sense is most noticeably incompatible with the military court proceedings against the Jewish defendants, which are carried out with a scrupulousness and courtesy designed to preclude any such castigation, and where every consideration is accorded to the defense, even to the point of one judge's offering his cushion to one of the defendants, who looked uncomfortable on the hard wooden bench.

    Christopher Sykes described this as follows in 1965: Sykes, Christopher (1965). Cross Roads to Israel. Mentor books. Collins. p. 247. This provoked Ben-Gurion, understandably exasperated by the publicity organized by British information services, to a violent counterattack in which he asserted that the court had acted under anti-Semitic influence. In keeping with the new spirit of absolute uncompromise, he opened a new phase in Zionist propaganda which lasted to the end of the mandate: henceforth to be anti-Zionist was to be anti-Semitic; to disapprove of Jewish territorial nationalism was to be a Nazi.
  22. ^ Brownfeld 1987, p. 63-64: "The tactic of using the term anti-Semitism as a weapon against dissenters from Israeli policy is not new. Dorothy Thompson, the distinguished journalist who was one of the earliest enemies of Nazism, found herself criticizing the policies of Israel shortly after its creation. Despite her valiant crusade against Hitler she, too, was subject to the charge of anti-Semitism. In a letter to the Jewish Newsletter (6 April 1951) she wrote: "Really, I think continued emphasis should be put upon the extreme damage to the Jewish community of branding people like myself as anti-Semitic... every time one yields to such pressure, one is filled with self-contempt and this self-contempt works itself out in resentment of those who caused it.""
  23. ^ Sir John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier With the Arabs, p.7: "In the course of this narrative, I have voiced criticisms of the actions of various governments, notably those of Britain, the United States, France, the Arab countries and Israel... Criticism of the Israeli government does, however, require a particular explanation. A number of people, both Jews and Gentiles, are apt to refer to any criticism of Israeli policy as "offensive anti-Semitism", an accusation implying a definite moral lapse. I wish to defend myself against such a charge. "Anti-Semitism", I assume, is an emotion of hatred or dislike towards Jews as a whole, whether considered from the point of view of race or religion. I can state categorically and with all sincerity that I feel no such emotion. But it is of the essence of Western democracy to allow free criticism of the government, a right freely exercised against the governments of the U.S.A., Britain, France and other free countries. It does not seem to me to be either just or expedient that similar criticisms directed against the Israeli government should brand the speaker with the moral stigma generally associated with anti-Semitism."
  24. ^ Benny Morris (3 October 2003). The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews. I.B.Tauris. pp. 19–. ISBN 978-1-86064-989-9. Over the decades there has been a tendency among Israelis and Jews abroad to identify strong criticism of Israel as tantamount to, or as at least stemming from, anti-Semitism. Zionists routinely branded Glubb an 'anti semite', and he was keenly aware of this.
  25. ^ Piety 1975, p. 5: "I am saddened and depressed by charges of anti-Semitism levelled at distinguished individuals and institutions such as the Christian Science Monitor, one of the most highly respected newspapers in the world: the American Friends Service Committee, an organization whose indefatigable search for non-violent solutions to national quarrels earned the AFSC the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947, and the admiration of the world for 60 years; former U.S. Senator J. Willam Fulbright; and national columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. They are pilloried because all, at one time or another, have either explicitly criticized Israel, or have published material that Zionists regarded as critical of Israel. Such savage and offensive calumny, unsupported by any other evidence, should embarrass Jews and enrage any disinterested American. The cry of anti-Semitism reverberates now through the corridors of the United Nations since the General Assembly has approved a resolution condemning Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination… Israel… represents as well a surrender by many Jews of their glorious, 4,000-year-old religious and historical tradition to the political imperatives of Israel, the submerging of Judaism in favor of Zionism. These imperatives are employed by Zionists to stifle dissent among Jews. Anti-Zionists are regarded as freaks, Communists, renegades. The ugly cry of anti-Semitism is the bludgeon used by the Zionists to bully non-Jews into accepting the Zionist view of world events, or to keep silent. Like all brutal and bullying tactics, the cry of anti-Semitism is counterproductive. However successful it is in the short run, it will ultimately give substance to the apparition it chases.”}}
  26. ^ Brownfeld 1987, p. 66.
  27. ^ Brownfeld 1987, pp. 56, 57, 62: "In an article entitled "J'Accuse" (Commentary, September 1983), Podhoretz charged America's leading journalists, newspapers, and television networks with anti-Semitism because of their reporting of the war in Lebanon and their criticism of Israel's conduct. Among those so accused were Anthony Lewis of the New York Times; Nicholas von Hoffman and Joseph Harsch of the Christian Science Monitor; Rowland Evans, Robert Novak, Richard Cohen, and Alfred Friendly of the Washington Post; and a host of others… More recently, Podhoretz excited much discussion with attacks on two writers, the liberal Gore Vidal and the conservative Joseph Sobran-both guilty, he charged, not only of anti-Semitism but of a variety which is "naked," "brazen," and "vicious… Another target of those who see anti-Semitism in all discussions of the Middle East that do not wholly support the position of the government of Israel is novelist John Le Carre”
  28. ^ Rubenberg 1989, p. 358: "The labeling of individuals who disagree with the lobby's positions as "anti-Semitic" is a common practice among Israel's advocates. For example, when Senator Charles Mathias [R., Maryland] voted in favor of the AWACs sale to Saudi Arabia, a Jewish newspaper in New York commented: "Mr. Mathias values the importance of oil over the well-being of Jews and the State of Israel. The Jewish people cannot be fooled by such a person, no matter what he said, because his act proved who he was." Former Congressman Paul "Pete" McCloskey [R., California] also has had the charge of anti-Semitism leveled at him: "When I ran for reelection in 1980, I was asked a question about peace in the Middle East, and I said if we were going to have peace in the Middle East we members of Congress were going to have to stand up to our Jewish constituents and respectfully disagree with them on Israel. Well, the next day the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith accused me of fomenting anti-Semitism, saying that my remarks were patently anti-Semitic." Indeed, it may be that the weapon of greatest power possessed by the pro-Israeli lobby is its accusation of anti-Semitism. George Ball comments: "They've got one great thing going for them. Most people are terribly concerned not to be accused of being anti-Semitic, and the lobby so often equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. They keep pounding away at that theme, and people are deterred from speaking out." In Ball's view, many Americans feel a "sense of guilt" over the Holocaust, and the result of their guilt is that the fear of being called anti-Semitic is "much more effective in silencing candidates and public officials than threats about campaign money or votes.""
  29. ^ Findley 1987, p. 316
  30. ^ Brownfeld 1987, p. 53: "Today, more and more, anti-Semitism has been redefined as anything that opposes the policies and interests of the state of Israel. One cannot be critical of the Israeli prime minister, concerned about the question of the Palestinians, or dubious about the virtue of massive infusions of U.S. aid to Israel without subjecting oneself to the possibility of being called "anti-Semitic”."
  31. ^ Ball & Ball 1992, pp. 217–218: "Efforts to Suppress Independent Opinion… AIPAC and other groups have assiduously claimed that opposition to Israeli policy equals anti-Zionism, and anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Viewed objectively, it seems astonishing that Jewish organizations and Israeli spokesmen should employ the charge of "anti-Semitism" so carelessly as to trivialize it. "Anti-Semitism" is a term freighted with a long and ugly history. It conjures up images of vicious civic discrimination, the religious persecutions of the Inquisition, the Russian pogroms, and the ultimate horror of the Holocaust. Any Jewish American who equates that term with critical comments on transient Israeli policy implicitly acknowledges that he cannot defend Israel's practices by rational argument. Is it anti-Semitic, for example, to point out repeated Israeli violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions? Or to suggest, as the State Department did from 1979 to 1981, that the implanting of settlements in the Occupied Areas was illegal? The overuse of the term "anti-Semitism" gives the practitioners of real anti-Semitism a quasi-respectability, just as Joseph McCarthy devalued the term "Communist" by recklessly applying it to anyone whose views deviated from his own. In addition, the haphazard use of this odious term is clearly intended to stifle criticism of American policies in the Middle East.”
  32. ^ White 2020, p. 67: "Israeli officials, as well as Israel advocacy organizations internationally, have a long history of charging Palestinians and their allies, as well as Israel's critics and human-rights campaigners, with anti-Semitism. Prominent individuals are not exempted."
  33. ^ Abraham 2014, p. 179: "If to state that “Israel is in violation of international law” is beyond the pale, reflecting that one harbors anti-Semites animus, then it is completely understandable why public figures such as Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu are so often accused of engaging in anti-Israel rhetoric. This tendency to condemn criticism and critics of Israeli policy as anti-Semites enforces a type of political correctness at the cost of refusing to promote greater understanding about the conditions producing conflict in the Israel-Palestine conflict."
  34. ^ Chomsky 2002: "With regard to anti-Semitism, the distinguished Israeli statesman Abba Eban pointed out the main task of Israeli propaganda (they would call it exclamation, what's called 'propaganda' when others do it) is to make it clear to the world there's no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. By anti-Zionism he meant criticisms of the current policies of the State of Israel. So there's no difference between criticism of policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism, because if he can establish 'that' then he can undercut all criticism by invoking the Nazis and that will silence people. We should bear it in mind when there's talk in the US about anti-Semitism."
  35. ^ Gutman, Abraham (2021-05-27). "Supporting Palestinian rights is antisemitic because Israel wants it to be". The Philadelphia Inquirer – via nbcnews.com. It is this conflation between Israel and Judaism, one that is baked into the foundation of Israel and perpetuated by its leaders, that leads to a problematic tautology: Israel's leaders represent all Jewish people, and thus by definition any criticism of Israel must be criticism of all Jewish people — and hence antisemitic.
  36. ^ Riemer 2022, p. 7: "Just as Islamophobia has been politically instrumentalized in the service of neocolonial control of Muslim populations, anti-Semitism currently provides the excuse for a heavy-handed and highly irrational assault on fundamental democratic liberties. This takes the form of the severe legal penalties increasingly leveled against expressions of Palestine solidarity on the grounds that they are instances of racism against Jews, or of witch-hunts against Palestine supporters on the grounds of their supposed anti-Semitism - the vendetta against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK Labour Party being the most flagrant example. Facebook even considers the term "Zionist" as potentially anti-Semitic - particularly clear evidence of the rational and moral dead end in to which Zionists' efforts to defend their ethno-state inevitably lead. As we will explore in the last chapter of the book, overcomplication and excessive subtlety can easily sound the death knell of progressive politics. So it is important to assert the self-evidence and the lack of nuance with which two simple facts should be stated: anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism, and objecting to Israel's anti-Palestinian policies, as many Jews do, is not anti-Semitic. It is not anti-Catholic or anti-Latino to criticize the policies of Costa Rica, where Catholicism is a state religion, just as it is not Islamophobic or anti-Shia to criticize Iran or anti-Buddhist or anti-Asian to criticize Cambodia. In just the same way, objecting to Israel's anti-Palestinianism is not anti-Jewish racism. What would be anti-Semitic would be to oppose Israeli policies and measures on principle, simply because they are decided on and enacted by Jews - the exact opposite of the stance adopted by BDS."
  37. ^ Ganz, Marshall (February 2024). "Calling for Respect, Freedom, and Security for All Is Not Antisemitic". The Nation. Retrieved 19 February 2024.
  38. ^ Harpin, Lee. "Former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy tells Expo event antisemitism 'weaponised' to silence Palestinian struggle". www.thejc.com. Retrieved 2023-12-15.
  39. ^ The Right is weaponizing Antisemitism to Distract from Israel’s Atrocities and Smear Campus Protests
  40. ^ Yousef, Odette; Hagen, Lisa (25 April 2024). "Unpacking the truth of antisemitism on college campuses". NPR. Retrieved 30 April 2024.
  41. ^ Attanasio, Cedar; Offenhartz, Jake; Mattise, Jonathan (1 May 2024). "Columbia University threatens to expel student protesters occupying an administration building". AP. Retrieved 30 April 2024. Israel and its supporters have branded the university protests as antisemitic, while Israel's critics say it uses those allegations to silence opposition. Although some protesters have been caught on camera making antisemitic remarks or violent threats, organizers of the protests, some of whom are Jewish, say it is a peaceful movement aimed at defending Palestinian rights and protesting the war.
  42. ^ Jewish faculty reject the weaponization of antisemitism
  43. ^ Letter from Jewish faculty on academic freedom, attacks on the University, and the weaponization of antisemitism

Description

Citation General charge Specific Charge or Cited Instance Use of "weaponization" Note
Lerner[1] Yes Yes No Opinion piece.
Thompson[2] Yes Yes No* *only via Mearshimer & Walt
Alexander[3] No No Yes* Passing reference to "so-called weaponization of antisemitism and Holocaust memory"
Mearshimer & Walt[4] Yes (no quote provided) (no quote provided)
Leifer[5] Yes No No
Finkelstein[6] Yes No No
Mearshimer & Walt [7] Yes No No
Mearshimer & Walt[8] Yes No No
Mearshimer & Walt [9] Yes No No Questionable quote alteration: citation is in support of "They argued that, by stifling discussion, weaponization of antisemitism allows myths about Israel to survive unchallenged" when in fact, the source reads "Playing the anti-Semitism card stifles discussion even more and allows myths about Israel to survive unchallenged."
Finkelstein[10] Yes No No
Plitnik & Aziz[11] Yes Yes Yes
Kasrils [12] Yes Yes No Instrumentalization is used.
Finkelstein[6] Yes No No
Omer[13] Yes Yes Yes
Beinin[14] Yes Yes No
Marcus[15] Yes No No "the anti-semitism card"
Abraham[16] Yes No Yes* *"The usual charge that critics of Israel are motivated by anti-Semitism is no longer as effective a weapon in distracting the public from the relevant criticisms of Israel’s behavior.”
Mearshimer & Walt[17] Yes No No

References

  1. ^ Lerner, Rabbi Michael (2007-02-07). "Highest Jewish values sometimes conflict with Israeli policy". The Mercury News. The impact of the silencing of debate about Israeli policy on Jewish life has been devastating.
  2. ^ Thompson 2012, p. 12: "They called the charge of anti-Semitism "the Great Silencer.""
  3. ^ Alexander, Jeffrey C.; Adams, Tracy (2023). "The return of antisemitism? Waves of societalization and what conditions them". American Journal of Cultural Sociology. 11: 261.
  4. ^ Mearsheimer & Walt 2008, p. 191b
  5. ^ Leifer, Joshua (2019-08-26). "Israel's one-state reality is sowing chaos in American politics". +972 Magazine. Today, the Israeli hasbara apparatus's most active front is the attempted redefinition of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, with the goal of rendering any opposition to the occupation, Zionism – or even simply Israeli policies themselves — beyond the pale of mainstream acceptability.
  6. ^ a b Finkelstein 2008, pp. 34: "The chief political and ideological advantage of playing the anti- Semitism card, however, was succinctly (if unwittingly) put by one of Israel’s most vigorous apologists, Harvard professor Ruth Wisse. “In the case of the so-called Arab-Israel conflict,” she explained, “to permit the concept of anti-Semitism into the discussion is to acknowledge that the origins of Arab opposition to the Jewish state are to be located in the political culture of the Arabs themselves, and that such opposition can end only if and when that political culture changes.” It displaces fundamental responsibility for causing the conflict from Israel to the Arabs, the issue no longer being Jewish dispossession of Palestinians but Arab “opposition” to Jews, and fundamental responsibility for resolving it from Israel ending its occupation to the Arab world ending its irrational hostility toward Jews. Although Israel’s apologists claim to allow for criticism of the occasional Israeli “excess” (what is termed “legitimate criticism”), the upshot of this allowance is to delegitimize the preponderance of criticism as anti-Semitic—just as Communist parties used to allow for criticism of the occasional Stalinist “excess,” while denouncing principled criticism as “anti-Soviet” and therefore beyond the pale."
  7. ^ Mearsheimer & Walt 2008, p. 191-192: "Third, this tactic works because it is difficult for anyone to prove beyond all doubt that he or she is not anti-Semitic, especially when criticizing Israel or the lobby"
  8. ^ Mearsheimer & Walt 2008, p. 192: "The accusation is likely to resonate among American Jews, many of whom still believe that anti-Semitism is rife."
  9. ^ Mearsheimer & Walt 2008, p. 196a.
  10. ^ Finkelstein 2008, pp. 16: "This shameless exploitation of anti-Semitism delegitimizes criticism of Israel, makes Jews rather than Palestinians the victims, and puts the onus on the Arab world to rid itself of anti-Semitism rather than on Israel to rid itself of the Occupied Territories. A close analysis of what the Israel lobby tallies as anti-Semitism reveals three components: exaggeration and fabrication; mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy; and the unjustified yet predictable “spillover” from criticism of Israel to Jews generally..."
  11. ^ Plitnick & Aziz 2023, p. 47.
  12. ^ Kasrils, Ronnie (2020-12-17), Against the Witch Hunt: On the Instrumentalization of Antisemitism in Britain's Labor Party
  13. ^ Omer, Atalia (2021-01-21). "Weaponizing Antisemitism is Bad for Jews, Israel, and Peace". Contending Modernities. Retrieved 2024-01-01.
  14. ^ Beinin 2004, p. 112: "Summers may have thought that he was expressing himself in a reasoned way to an academic audience. But the conflation of criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism was an already well-established ploy. The endorsement of this notion by the president of the country's most prestigious institution of higher learning authorised others to go on the political offensive without fear that they would be criticised as boorish enemies of academic freedom… Among these were several high-profile incidents, most of them motivated by opposition to Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. Paradoxically, by failing to make a clear distinction between anti-Semitism, which should always and everywhere be opposed, and anti-Zionism, which is a legitimate political opinion, the ADL and like-minded organisations exposed American Jews to attack because they were identified with Israel."
  15. ^ Marcus 2010, pp. 68–69: "Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that overplaying the "anti-Semitism card" must be avoided for several reasons. These are, generally speaking, a subset of the risks of playing "the race card" that Stanford Law Professor Richard Thompson Ford catalogued in his important recent book of that name. First, it is dishonest (at least if it is done intentionally)… Second, it is shortsighted and dangerous in the way of the boy who cried wolf. It may be regretted if it is needed later, especially if others become wary of false or exaggerated claims. Third, it can be mean-spirited because it involves the use of charges that in some cases can have serious repercussions. In addition, there are two other dangers that Ford does not discuss. Even if true, an overplayed "anti-Semitism card" may distract socially concerned individuals and organizations from other pressing problems, including social injustices facing other groups. Finally, it may disrupt or retard outreach efforts to other groups, including Arab and Muslim groups, with whom partnership efforts may be jeopardized."
  16. ^ Abraham 2014, p. 51: "The usual charge that critics of Israel are motivated by anti-Semitism is no longer as effective a weapon in distracting the public from the relevant criticisms of Israel’s behavior.”
  17. ^ Mearsheimer & Walt 2008, p. 196: "The obvious reason is that increasing numbers of people recognize that this serious charge keeps getting leveled at individuals who are not anti-Semites but who are merely questioning Israeli policies or pointing out that the lobby promotes policies that are not always in the U.S. national interest. "

Conclusion

There are no grounds to assert that charges of "weaponization of antisemitism" or "antisemitic accusation" aren't equally incidents of bad faith argumentation for the purposes of potentially silencing debate, most especially when most of the accusations leveled in sources cited in this article are unspecified and are general aspersions to phenomena presumed to be substantive, but rarely explored and argued in detail. A heavy amount of misleading synth and OR has been deployed in this article to create a falsely neutral starting position that there is a stable definition (there isn't) and that it is only the "weaponization" accusation itself that is subject to bad faith charge. The accusations are flying here in both directions, and should be given due and equal scrutiny under their appropriate sections.

On these grounds, I reinforce my above stated preferences for both renaming and resolving extant POV issues. I know that "instrumentalization" is considered by many here to be an uncomely term, but it is far more neutral, has sufficent use in sources already provided, and allows a more general umbrella for the examples provided in the article so far to preserve under a more generally appropriate definition, in which other examples of "instrumentalization of antisemitism" may appropriately reside under a broader and more inclusive definition of "antisemitism accusations exploited for political purposes" that covers the breadth of interpretations and cited instances covered across RS, scholarly research, and the current discussion.Mistamystery (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The conclusion says it all, yet another argument for changing the title. Again the hopelessly wrong argument that a descriptive title needs a definition when it doesn't. Again, the hopelessly wrong argument that an article title is a POV issue when it isn't. Looking forward to the RM. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
As Selfstudier says, a descriptive title does not need a definition. The article is not claiming that "Weaponization of antisemitism" is a common name. We are saying the article is about "Weaponization of antisemitism". If we can agree on another title, then that's what an RM is for. Makes no sense to have both an RM and NPOV tag. The NPOV tag is just a shame-tag. I'll remove it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
So what would be the response if the conclusion section were not buttoned with a mention of a potential alternate title? That is not remotely the point of the POV post and could easily be excised it if is proving to be a distraction to the matter at hand.
These quick and dispensary responses merely seem like a workaround to avoid addressing any of the POV issues raised when a postscript about potential solutions was not remotely the point nor emphasis. Also, I'm not the only editor who was insisting upon the preservation of the tag until long discussed POV issues in the article are satisfactorily addressed, and - in the interest of lessening any confusion
The argument is not merely that there is no common name for the term "weaponization of antisemitism", but that there is no case for neutral use, nor grounds for even the definition provided - which points to merely POV but factuality issues in the article.. And I think the evidence on this front is pretty clear. The majority of the article doesn't even refer to specific instances of supposed "weaponized" antisemitism accusation, but generic commentary that casts aspersions toward a general spectre of such supposed behavior, yet almost entirely avoids discussion or analysis of specific incident.
I'm going to adjust my postscript shortly (to abate any further confusion that this is remotely tied to a RM effort), and restore the POV tag, and await detailed responses on the numerous POV issues in the current article outlined. Mistamystery (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
There isn't any confusion, all your efforts and walls of text are devoted to changing the title. Just put up an RM and stop writing stuff. Once the title is decided, all your points will automagically disappear.Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I’ve not yet read this entire comment, but your first point about this article’s cobbled-together (synthesized) reification of the article topic is absolutely true. Zanahary (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This was taken to the OR noticeboard here and generated a distinct lack of interest, so editors don't agree with this view, which itself appears to be synthesis. Selfstudier (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
A previous discussion failing to generate interest is certainly not evidence for editor consensus, and the invocation of such a discussion would not be a substitute for an argument. But regardless, that discussion saw all commenting editors, excepting yourself, affirming some concern about OR or neutrality. Zanahary (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
They nevertheless cared insufficiently to come here and edit, or else they did and the current status of the article reflects that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Selfstudier, that does not make sense as an argument. That a change has not yet been made does not mean that there is an unlitigatable consensus to never make that change, nor that there is an unlitigatable consensus that a discussed problem is in fact not a problem. Zanahary (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: I have read all of the above three times – I was surprised to see that you don’t appear to have attempted to make a direct case that anything in the article is POV.

Our Template:POV states: Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant.

If you still believe there are POV concerns, please could you connect your position directly to this text from the template above? I don’t see anything in your comments about any of the core POV concerns, such as balance, neutrality, fair representation, quality of sourcing etc.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: just checking you saw this comment. I would really like to understand your position, as you clearly feel strongly. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile appreciate the follow up. I have day job obligations and an otherwise busier than usual week. Want to make sure I am thorough in my response to your question, so will be a day or two before I am able to get back to you on this. Best, MM Mistamystery (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: The more words you use the more diluted your message. I don’t think you are saying that the word antisemitism is not used as a cudgel against those daring to criticize Israeli actions, the IDF, Netanyahu, prosecution of the war, the plight of Palestinians, and many other issues over decades. As I understand it, such accusations are the subject of this article. So, I don’t see the POV issue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How is this an NPOV defense? Whether an editor contests or accepts that antisemitism is “used as a cudgel” is irrelevant; we go off of sources, not what editors think is a reasonable observation. As it stands, this article’s sourcing is analogous to citing op-eds alleging specific instances of, for instance, dishonest charges of abuse, for an article on “weaponized abuse” or, pending the move, “weaponized/instrumentalized/misused accusations of abuse”.
This article is using these op-eds, which are largely specific, as the primary sources for an originally-researched analysis of a supposed broad phenomenon. Without a real secondary/tertiary (depending on how you delineate) source connecting these individually-addressed instances/arguments to a validated (via acknowledgment and affirmation of existence) broader phenomenon of bad-faith charges of antisemitism, their inclusion in this article is non-neutral original research. Zanahary (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
See my comment above, this article was already taken to the OR noticeboard here and no-one is interested in such an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

no-one is interested in such an argument

Be respectful. And the discussion you linked sees everyone suggesting some change, with the article’s only defender being you. Zanahary (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
with the article’s only defender being you. Not close to true. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Here are quotations from every editor besides SS and another editor who opined that the article would always be contested in terms of its neutrality in that discussion:

…seems to me to be heavily based on original research

.

Ugh. This is one of those articles where the sources are likely to mostly be opinion pieces, isn't it? Truthfully a better title might help; the current one is non-neutral and while it might reasonably pass WP:COMMONNAME if we want an article consisting of nothing but a bunch of quotes from opinion pieces, we could probably fold the topic into a more neutral descriptor that would allow for more academic coverage

.

I agree that a change of title is needed and could result in a more neutral article. Even the first source currently cited in the article applies scare quotes in two of its three instances of using the words "weaponization" or "weaponized", and the source's third use of the words also does not endorse the idea.

.
So, yes, the little discussion generally agreed that the article has a problem with neutrality or use of sources. Zanahary (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
These comments are more than two months old - the article was significantly developed since then; it is now double the size in kb vs. when this NORN was opened. And the discussion had just five editors, only two of which were "uninvolved", of which one made a neutral comment that you did not quote above. So the above quotes boil down to the two-month-old views of a single uninvolved editor, who explicitly did not review the article before commenting. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like we agree that that old discussion doesn’t have much bearing on present assertions about this article’s state. It generated little discussion and no apparent action, petered out, and the article has changed a lot since. Certainly there’s no reason to dismiss any invoked arguments reminiscent of that (again: non-consensus-generating) discussion’s. Zanahary (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
And what did they do about it? Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Now I'm doing something: I'm raising the argument on this article's talk page. Please feel free to engage with it. Zanahary (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
What argument? Please provide one that I haven't heard before. Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Be respectful When I'm not being respectful, you'll know. Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Mistamystery, thanks for taking the time to compile your lists, which are especially constructive for considering RMs and usability of some of the sources. Llll5032 (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't really have any suggestion about the way forward here, but it is clearly the case that (a) a large proportion of the sources used are primary sources and we have a major lack of independent secondary sources showing that they are noteworthy; (b) a large proportion of the sources are opinion pieces, with no clear criteria for why these particular opinions are the relevant ones; (c) many of the sources make more vague or modest claims than the claims they are appended to in footnotes, or only briefly make a claim about weaponisation in passing; (D) that many of the opinion pieces are in fairly marginal sources. The problem is that the thesis of the article was identified and then sources sought to bolster it, rather than starting with an actual topic and looking for the most general, neutral overviews of the topic and the most widely accepted scholarly takes. It is therefore fundamentally flawed so hard to see how to fix it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

'Non-primary source needed' tags in lede

Are these tags appropriate? I'm inclined to remove them but I'm not sure. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

When a source says “dogs are scary” and is the sole citation for the article text “some writers have opined that dogs are scary”, it’s being used as a primary source. Especially for an article’s lede, unattributed article text like this needs to come from secondary sources. Zanahary (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't mind making the lead more focused so that we get right to the heart of the matter and don't need to deal with these distractions. Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
These tags are definitely appropriate. We need heavyweight secondary sources to make these claims. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

More sources to be added

7 May 2024 Weaponizing Antisemitism to Stifle Criticism of Israel Featuring: Adam Horowitz Raz Segal Shira Robinson

25 March 2024 Weaponizing Anti-Semitism in U.S. Universities and Society

Amanpour and Company He Wrote a Definition of Antisemitism; Now He Says It’s Being Weaponized Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In the third video, Stern doesn't say "antisemitism" is weaponised; he says a very specific definition (the IHRA definition that he wrote) is. In the first two videos, the expertise and noteworthiness of the contributors isn't totally clear to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The IHRA definition...of antisemitism. Anyway this is not as yet in the article. and nor are the other two. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jews-arent-weaponizing-antisemitism-theyre-often-israels-most-vocal-critics https://www.jns.org/no-right-wing-jews-arent-weaponizing-anti-semitism

https://fathomjournal.org/book-review%E2%94%82the-definition-of-anti-semitism// Zanahary (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Not an expert. Selfstudier (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Nor are, to name a few, Matthew Abraham, Abraham Gutman, Helen Benedict, Marshall Ganz, or Harold R. Piety. I don’t really have a problem with that, as gathering whether an author is an “expert” is quite subjective and difficult when we’re looking outside of peer-reviewed academic sources. I’d prefer we limit ourselves to those sources, which exist, rather than mine op-eds, but as long as there’s no consensus to keep the sources strictly academic, these may help to complete the article. Zanahary (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
You edited after I replied, don't do that in future thank you. My reply was directed at the natpost link which I see has been removed from the article by a different editor in any case.
As to the other two, Robert Fine is OK although Idk why you need to use a book review for his opinion, and the JNS source is complete crap. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, not sure why a book review would be the go-to here either. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
If you want to contest any opinion based on the non expertness of the giver, feel free. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Rahim Mohamed and Adam Levick are not experts and their opinion is not noteworthy. The late Robert Fine was an important expert, but he can't see how his text is useful here. Can you spell out how that would be used? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Fine was already added I believe. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weaponization_of_antisemitism/Archive_7&oldid=1235993233"