https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SLMGmSbQm4EC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=%22working+definition+of+antisemitism%22&ots=dp1M2HsQ2z&sig=vkPjNH2Rg5cCdi1MLGX7hXPPb5M#v=onepage&q=%22working%20definition%20of%20antisemitism%22&f=false https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Parliamentary+Inquiry+into+Antisemitism+in+Canad&oq=Parliamentary+Inquiry++into+Antisemitism+in+Canad&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=O-MoDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=%22working+definition+of+antisemitism%22&ots=cqkgcQoreR&sig=xEivb0ZIqo8YH5DtiujLxKND5tc#v=onepage&q=%22working%20definition%20of%20antisemitism%22&f=false https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Anti-Zionism+as+Racism%3A+Campus+Anti-Semitism+and+the+Civil+Rights+Act+of+1964&oq=Anti-Zionism+as+Racism%3A+Campus+Anti-Semitism+and+the+Civil+Rights+Act+of+1964&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/washington/10military.html?pagewanted=all&mtrref=en.wikipedia.org
http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/03/09DAMASCUS179.html
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41806170?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
The following, apparently well-sourced, couple of sentences on major issues facing the party in 2013 has been
edited out with the explanation "Removed outdated, now irrelevant speculation":
It also formed an alliance with
George Galloway and
Respect, the dissolution of which in 2007 caused an internal crisis in the SWP. A more serious internal crisis emerged at the beginning of 2013 over allegations of rape and sexual assault made against a leading member of the party.
[1]
[2] The SWP's handling of these accusations against the individual known as
Comrade Delta led to a significant decline in the party's membership.
[3]
Additional reliable sources could be added easily if the current ones are insufficent.
[4]
[5] The mainstream sourcing and significance for party membership (including the departure of several noteworthy members
[6]
[7]) suggests this is noteworthy, as does on-going reporting
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] and several mainstream opinion pieces over the years.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
References
1/
2/
George W. Woodbey Hubert Harrison Claude McKay Williana Burroughs Chandler Owen A. Philip Randolph Frank Crosswaith Negro Labor Committee Richard B. Moore Wilfred Adolphus Domingo George Schuyler Ella Baker Orval Faubus Combahee River Collective Bernice Johnson Reagon
References
[Stranded content:] In 2021, a conspiracy theory which falsely claims that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lied about her past employment as a bartender originated on The Jimmy Dore Show. In an interview with Paula Jean Swearengin, Swearengin incorrectly claimed that Ocasio-Cortez was actually the co-owner of the bar she worked at. Following Dore's video, this claim spread on social media and was repeated by other political YouTubers. [1]
References
We can find lots of reliable sources, including major scholars of antisemitism, describing at as using dog whistle antisemitism or engaging in the denial and minimisation of antisemitism, including using such terms to describe the editors' own positions and those of books it has published (e.g. by Michael Neumann or Cockburn and St Clair) as well as op eds. [1] [2] [3] [4] The question is whether this is enough to deprecate. These are just opinion pieces that we shouldn't use for facts anyway and which would not likely be due as this isn't a reliable source. But if there is a consist editorial policy to promote (or even deny) antisemitism that might push into deprecation territory. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 11:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
References
Finally, there is Alexander Cockburn. What has not already been said about Cockburn, a fine wordsmith, a sharp polemicist - and, frankly, an intractable foe of Jewish interests? The tropes of "the Israel lobby" resonate throughout The Politics of Anti- Semitism, a collection of essays (co-edited by Jeffrey St. Clair), that culminate in a self-serving complaint by Cockburn himself ("My life as an 'Anti-Semite'") in which he offers his definition of antisemitism: "to have written an item that pisses off someone at The New Republic.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
A textbook example of downplaying is the book The Politics of AntiSemitism (Cockburn and St. Clair 2002). Widely available in left bookstores, where it is often the only book on the subject, it clearly announces its intention from the first page: "I think we should almost never take antisemitism seriously," and adding, "…maybe we should have some fun with it" (p. 1). On the rare occasion antisemitism is acknowledged to exist, it is trivialized: "Undoubtedly there is genuine antisemitism in the Arab world: the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the myths about stealing the blood of gentile babies. This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to answer Aunt Bee's last letter" (Cockburn and St. Clair 2002: 7). Ten out of the eighteen chapters address not antisemitism, but its "misuse" by groups who accuse pro-Palestinian activists of it. Not one contribution deals with the historical background of antisemitism in general, or the left in particular. Instead it assumes antisemitism is an irrelevant issue, especially in contrast to Islamophobia. This is perhaps unsurprising given the book is co-published by Counterpunch, an ostensibly left magazine that has given space to white nationalists and antisemites including Alison Weir, Israel Shamir, Paul Craig Roberts, Eric Walburg, and Gilad Atzmon (Levick 2002, Wolfe 2016). What is more surprising is that left authors and publishers would produce a book whose primary function is to downplay and deny the existence of antisemitism.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Michael Neumann, a philosophy professor at Trent University in Canada, is an extreme example of one who refuses to take political responsibility for the consequences of his anti-Zionism. He outlines his approach to the question in an email exchange with an antisemitic group (Jewish Tribal Review 2002). They ask him whether he thinks that their website is antisemitic. He replies "Um, yes, I do, but I don't get bent out of shape about it. I know you're site and it's brilliantly done. Maybe I should say that I'm not quite sure whether you guys are antisemitic in the 'bad' sense or not…. [I]n this world, your material, and to a lesser extent mine, is a gift to neo-Nazis and racists of all sorts. Unlike most people in my political niche, this doesn't alarm me: there are far more serious problems to worry about…. [O]f course you are not the least bit responsible for how others use your site."11 This discussion occurred five months after Neumann (2002) had published a piece entitled 'What is Antisemitism?' in which he argued that antisemitism is trivial compared to other racisms and that it is understandable that Israeli crimes result in a hatred of Jews in general. Here are some quotes from this piece by Neumann which illustrate a willful and showy refusal by somebody who considers himself to be an antiracist, to take antisemitism seriously
The anti-Zionist activist Michael Neumann did not deny the reality of antisemitism but rather justified it in the well-known anthology The Politics of Anti-Semitism, co-published by the anarchist AK Press and CounterPunch, the latter of which has published antisemitic writers for many years.
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Text "ISSN: 2164-7100" ignored (
help)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |issn=
value (
help)
Coda Story "far-left news site"; Washington Post "far-left media outlet"; Diplomat "far-left website"; Unherd "far-Left news site" (this is an opinion article on a contrarian opinion site - I would avoid using); Telegraph "controversial far-left news website", Irish Times "far-left website"; Times "far-left website"; MMFA "Far-left conspiracy theory outlet"; Telex "a far-left news website noted for pushing conspiracy theories, ... best known for its support of authoritarian regimes, denial of the Uyghur genocide, and an explicitly pro-Kremlin perspective on Russian events"; WNG "a far-left news site founded by Max Blumenthal that positions itself against U.S. interventionist foreign policy. The site also supports the Assad regime in Syria, questioning accusations of the Syrian president’s abuses; backs Venezuela’s dictator Nicolas Maduro; and claims Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protesters are backed by the CIA"; Jewish Chronicle "known for its pro-Kremlin editorial line and its support for the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and has published content denying that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians"
Deleted refs to check. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
References
The other "stars" listed on the film's IMDB page are Ivan Katchanovski, an academic promoting conspiracy theories claiming that the protesters shot dead on the Maidan in 2014 were the victims of a "false flag" operation
References
Pro-Assad:
References
He has been described by James Kirchick in Time magazine as being a "crank 'historian", [1] by the Genetic Literacy Project as a "conspiracy theorist", [2] and by the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR) as a "LaRouchite fascist" and " Holocaust denier", [3] CARR has documented his close connections to the conspiracy theory organisation GlobalResearch, the far-right Lyndon LaRouche movement and Alexander Dugin's Eurasianist movement. [3]
References
Kirchick
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WP:ABOUTSELF from LinkedIn (i.e. usable for "uncontroversial self-description.": [7]
She has contributed to publications such as the New Eastern Outlook and media outlets including RT, Press TV, and Al Mayadeen. Susli has appeared as a guest on Satellite News channels France24, SkyNews, Al Mayadeen, Indus News as well as George Galloway’s Mother of all talk shows
Freelance gigs listed:
Monbiot, George (15 November 2017). "A lesson from Syria: it's crucial not to fuel far-right conspiracy theories". the Guardian. Retrieved 7 November 2023. ( WP:RSOPINION)
Postol and Susli both appeared on a podcast run by the Holocaust “revisionist” Ryan Dawson
Carlston, Morgan (18 February 2016). "Don't Doubt the Iron Dome". bellingcat. Retrieved 7 November 2023.
Even though there appears to be mainstream acceptance of Postol’s criticism, he also has affiliations with fringe individuals, appearing in YouTube videos with 9/11 conspiracy theorist Ryan Dawson, and (along with Richard Lloyd) assisting Assad propagandist Maram Susli in her attempts to disprove allegations of Syrian President Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons in August 2013. Both also assisted Seymour Hersh in his widely criticized Ghouta articles. When questioned over Susli’s alleged Holocaust denial, Postol said “When I got statements from outside people saying she was a Holocaust denier, quite frankly I wasn’t going to ask her”.
Holt, Jared (30 October 2019). "Angelo John Gage Spreads Hate with a Twitter Blue-Check". Right Wing Watch. Retrieved 7 November 2023.
On his YouTube channel, Gage has hosted anti-Semitic pundits and white nationalist pundits, including E. Michael Jones, Jean-François Gariépy, Kevin MacDonald, Adam Green, Ryan Dawson, and Tomislav Sunić, and conspiracy theorist Maram Susli.
Burley, Shane (2022-10-25). No Pasaran: Antifascist Dispatches from a World in Crisis. AK Press. ISBN 1-84935-483-9.
Susli herself has far right sympathies, appearing on podcasts hosted by [David] Duke and having been interviewed by [Richard] Spencer and Lana Lokteff.
Guckert, Élie (21 August 2020). "Le massacre chimique de la Ghouta, cas d'école du conspirationnisme pro-Assad". Conspiracy Watch (in French). Retrieved 7 November 2023. (considered RS by fr.wikipedia)
Dans une interview accordée au complotiste Ryan Dawson en 2014 au sujet de la jeune blogueuse [Susli], le chercheur du MIT [Postol] lâche sans sourciller : « Je savais qu’elle était chimiste car je la suivais sur Twitter. Je pouvais voir à sa voix qu’elle était une chimiste aguerrie ».
Espousing baseless theories about 911 and more, [Susli] has appeared on the podcast of former KKK leader David Duke as well as that of Ryan Dawson, who denies many aspects of the Holocaust, calling the gas chambers 'extraordinary bullshit'
many of the earliest apologists of the Khmer Rouge were leftist academics (Hildebrand and Porter 1976, Caldwell 1978, Kiernan 1977, Chomsky and Herman 1979).
This is the first book to attempt a comparison of Cambodia and Timor-Leste (East Timor) since Noam Chomsky's and Edward Herman's duets After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology (South End Press 1979) and Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Pantheon Books 1988), neither of which were dedicated studies of comparative analysis nor particularly notable for their objectivity.
The earliest document readers may have encountered in this debate is a review article by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman for the Nation in 1977. It concerns three books: [Barron and Paul]'s Murder of a Gentle Land: the Untold Story of a Communist Genocide in Cambodia; [Ponchaud's] Cambodia: Year Zero; and [Hildebrand and Porter’s] Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution.... Rather than investigating the substantive allegations of genocide made by the authors they criticize, Chomsky and Herman use their review to discuss the perceived ideological bias of western media against communist/socialist regimes. Indeed Hildebrand and Porter’s conclusion... chimes with the view Chomsky and Herman reiterate in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media - that anti-communist bias in the western media manipulates, distorts and suppresses information to suit capitalist interests. To that end, tales of communist atrocities serve to discredit leftist ideas. Chomsky and Herman state they do ‘not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments.’ However, they denigrate Barron and Paul without independently verifying the facts, and are critical of the ‘extreme unreliability of refugee reports’ and the interviews with KR survivors by Ponchaud, Barron and Paul. The fact that Hildebrand and Porter are entirely uncritical of the DK regime appears to escape their notice...
Hildebrand and Porter and Chomsky and Herman were, along with Laura Summers, Malcolm Caldwell and Ben Kiernan (who later changed his mind), part of a group committed ideologically to pro-revolutionary narratives focused on anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism and the superiority of communism/ socialism . DK survivor Sophal Ear states, ‘They were so caught-up in the idea of a peasant revolution that they did not stop and ask the peasants themselves how they liked the ride.’35 Developing a term coined by Michael Vickery , Sophal Ear refers to this group’s narrative as the ‘Standard Total Academic View’. They are ‘standard’ in the sense of mainstream in their generation of scholars or journalists in reputable left-leaning publications. (More seasoned scholars such as David Chandler were of the previous generation, not part of STAV.) Historians are rightly critical of the way pre-KR Cambodia was popularly portrayed as ‘ a gentle land’ of peaceful Buddhists, ‘paradise,’ ‘a fairy tale kingdom’ of happy peasants - an image Sihanouk deliberately cultivated. 38 Yet the STAV scholars created an equally simplistic fiction, constructing the KR in ‘romantic’ terms as brave 1789-style revolutionaries battling the encroachment of American imperialism.
{{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |website=
and |journal=
specified (
help) Writing in an unpublished University of California honors dissertation (albeit given an extra half-life with the advent of digitization), as Sophal Ear (1996) explains, having first read Malcolm Caldwell, the British academic murdered in Phnom Penh on December 23, 1978, soon after meeting Pol Pot, he realized that an entire “community” of Cambodian scholars served as the Khmer Rouge’s “most effective apologists in the West.” True, but however misguided or misled in their understanding of KR behavior leading into the evocation of “killing fields” as was already being exposed by some media, they were also critical of US policy reaching back through the “Vietnam War” and so they should have been. These he labels STAV scholars, and he names them; Summers, Caldwell, Hildebrand and Porter, Chomsky and Herman, Chandler (“briefly”), and Kiernan (“deservedly”). As Ear (1996) declaimed, three works reveal how different facets of the STAV have previously been explored, namely, the first, an essay by William Shawcross (1983); the second, an essay by Stephen J. Morris published in the National Interest (Summer 1989); and the third, Gunn and Lee’s CWDU [Cambodia Watching Down Under, 1991]. As explained, Shawcross focused on the Chomsky-Herman thesis... In particular, Ear cites CWDU on the Sydney-based News from Kampuchea, noting as well the Gunn and Lee proposition that News was published “as a catalyst to the Barron-Paul book Murder of a Gentle Land (1977),” described as “the first English-language book to lambaste the Khmer revolution for its brutal excesses.” As Ear fills in, with News endeavoring “to deconstruct distortions and bias in western press coverage” on DK, it was joined by Chomsky and Herman in letters-to-the-editor, etc. In the Conclusion to Chapter 5, as Ear writes, the early works of the STAV scholars are today “remembered only in a footnote.”
in the latter half of the Khmer Rouge era, the public debate between French journalist Jean Lacouture and American academics Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman foregrounds moments of violent encapsulation and productive foreshortening. ... In their June 1977 article ‘Distortions at Fourth Hand’, Chomsky and Edward Herman analyse successive waves of scholarship and coeval media coverage around these events, examining the presence of what they term a ‘line’ in the American imaginary. By 1977, Chomsky and other leftist academics sought to pose a different question than that asked in 1975: not can but rather should these reports be believed?... Within and beyond this debate, those such as Sophal Ear identify a determination to undermine the credibility of refugee accounts of Khmer Rouge violence in the works of Chomksy, Herman, Hildebrand, Porter and others. Indeed, the castigation of refugee narratives as ‘unreliable’ or manipulative in attempting to secure survival present in several of these works is not mitigated by the now well-documented Chinese and covert American support of the Khmer Rouge as an geopolitical counter-balance to Vietnam.
The CST [[[Community Security Trust]]] accused MEMO of peddling conspiracy theories and myths about Jews, Zionists, money and power.[8]
On Monday afternoon, i24News, an international news cable news network based in Jaffa, reported that Corbyn visited Israel and the West Bank to meet with Hamas officials in 2010. According to the report, Corbyn, then a minor MP, was flown in by Middle East Monitor, a British organization which has accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and whose rhetoric was described as “strikingly familiar [to] older forms of antisemitism” by the Community Security Trust, British Jewry’s anti-Semitism watchdog.[9]
An article shared almost 7,000 times on Middle East Monitor claims that Saudi Arabia has authorised an incorrect translation of the Quran and implies that it this was done to please Israel. The news was shared far and wide by anti-Saudi blogs and social media pages. The news however, is fake. The article claimed that the Masjid Al Aqsa was changed to “The Temple” which is the Jewish name for the third holiest site of Islam. The claims got even wilder where it was claimed that Saudi authorities allowed the name of, the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (ﷺ) to be deleted from the Quran. The source of this claim is the biggest concern. Middle East Monitor claims their source as “ Shehab News Agency”, an extremist blog which was removed from Facebook in 2015 for promoting extremism and anti-Semitic content. More specifically the source is “researcher on Israeli affairs, Aladdin Ahmed” which upon closer inspection leads us to the original article from which the Middle East Monitor article seems to be taken. The Iranian website Iqna.ir which published the same story 28 hours before Middle East Monitor. They place their sources as the same video and the same individuals.) 2020.
There were many others who claimed direct Israeli responsibility for deadly force used against African Americans. The Middle East Monitor (MEMO), a press monitoring organization that has been characterized as a group that promotes Jewish conspiracies and is pro-Hamas, circulated a cartoon of an Israeli soldier instructing an American policeman in a classroom on how to kneel on someone’s neck.) 2020.