Talk:Three Ds of antisemitism

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Ambiguous in Intention

I'm finding it difficult to tell if this is an opinion piece, or a summation of a written work. The key ideas are all allowed to go mostly unchallenged, with the only apparent faults that can be found within the pitifully small "Criticism" section essentially being that the ideas weren't expanded on enough! Which isn't criticism; it's a request for an encore.

Whilst the "Demonization" and "Double Standards" sections are at least addressed in some way (with the former arguably even capable of standing on its own), the lack of adequate pushback or elaboration on the "Delegitimization" section comes off as odd, and even biased -- which would be fine if this article were simply a factual summation of an individual's perspective; yet it includes a section devoted to opposing viewpoints. Hence the apparent ambiguity of intent -- if you intend to address such a controversial subject as Zionism, and are bold enough to include criticisms therein, you are inherently taking a stance when you give off the impression that what criticisms do exist are wholly benign, if not complimentary.

There is no mention within the section on "Delegitimization" of the sovereignty of Palestine. There is no mention within "Criticism" of the State of Palestine. In fact, the only place the State is mentioned at all is in reference to the perceived hypocrisy of the global community in not allowing Israel to occupy even more territory. The State of Israel is mentioned as being described as a "racist endeavour" and Jews as being singled out as "ineligible for the basic right for self-determination", but no mention is made as to why people might have the former opinion, or the potential hypocrisy of the latter, re. the continued occupation of the State of Palestine by the Israeli Government.

I am not writing this to take a position on the Zionist debate; I only contend that by leaving this perspective out, you are. The problem isn't with cataloguing a set of criteria, or detailing the justifications of the people who put it forward, as long as it's done in a factual, objective manner. The inclusion of a "Criticism" section transforms this article from a summary of facts to a debate of ideology, which is perfectly fine, but only as long as you adequately represent both sides.

TLDR; Clarify your intent. Either simplify this to an impartial description of a philosophy, or do your due diligence when finding perspectives to critique it. RecycledHeroin (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be a little confused; if there are problems with the original "Three D's" concept, then Wikipedia CANNOT fix these on our own initiative (though we can report on criticisms that appear in reliable sources). The "Delegitimization" prong of the fork means that some people think that each and every ethnic group from Abkhazians to Kurds to Zulus is entitled to self-determination, but for some reason make a conspicuous exception for Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms of the three prongs of the 3D test not properly addressed individually in article.

Each of the three prongs has been criticized in some way as having been incorrectly applied or interpreted by supporters of israel with charges that they have been broadly interpreted in order to silence critics of israel and particularly prevent serious critisim of Israel by labeling of any such serious critisims as inharently antisimitic, thus leaving only mild critisms as the only form of legitimate criticisms pro-Israel advocates seemingly would allow. Rather then simply limiting the critisms of the 3D's to a seperate critism section, it would be better to follow the prefered Wikipedia method for dealing with criticisms and incorporate them into the body of the article where appropriate. In this caese we could still have a seperate section to address general criticisms about the test overall and whether it provides an generally accurate test of true antisemitism or not (though we should rename the section to something like "Other Critisms" or whatever) but we should also specifically address criticisms of how each prong is applied and interpreted by Israeli supporters within each prong's section. Let me point out some criticisms of each prong that have been addressed in other Israeli and antisemitism related article of Wikipedia that come from reliable sources that I think need to be added to this article.

• Deligitimization - This rest a lot on what critics would argue is a faulty premise, i.e. that Israel has an objectively obvious and/or at least internationally recognized "right to exist". Here are two examples of lines of disent by Israeli critics over the "Israel has a right to exist" claim from the Wikpedia "Right to exist" article: "Critics like John V. Whitbeck have argued that Israel's insistence on a right to exist forces Palestinians to provide a moral justification for their own suffering." and "Noam Chomsky has argued that no state has the right to exist, that the concept was invented in the 1970s, and that Israel's right to exist cannot be accepted by the Palestinians.". Noam Chomsky POV presents an argument why not automatically accepting Israel's "right to exist" isn't automatically antisemitic, especially if you believe that a) Ethnicities don't automatically earn a "right to self-determination" solely by being a internationally recognized distinct ethnicity and that international law has never recognized any consistent well defined "right to self-determination" as defined by Israeli defenders, which is why Natives Americans, Basque, Northern Irish, Kurds, Aborigines, etc, etc. don't have their own completely atonomous states currently.
• Demonization - The main critics argument here is the potential for conflation of criticisms of Israel or in some case specific Israeli governments or leaders (Past or present such as Netanyahu) with demonization of Jews as whole. Many critics of Israel believe that there has been a deliberate attempt to improperly remove the destinction between Isreal as a state and Jews as a whole, which they would liken to say a left-wing defender of a controversial civil rights activist like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson or a defenders of a controversial left-wing group/movement like Black Lives Matter accusing any right-wing critics (or even left-wing critics) of being racist merely for critising a movement/grouop comprise largely black activists as if racism is the only reason one could critisize said group/movement.
• Double Standard - This one has been critisized on several different grounds beucase a) It assumes too often the how the critics of Israel feels about other alledged human rights absusers and dictatorships often based solely on the logically faulty assumption that silence equals endorsement of the other human rights abusing practices/governments. b) It puts an unfair onus on the critics to equally publcially critisize all or many other human rights abusing countries that very few people could comply with due to time constraints and other for other legitimnate. c) It involves a double standard by defenders of Israel itself as trhey do not seem applu this doubel standard logic in the same way to critics of other human right absuing goverments (for ample: Critics of Cuba, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia , etc., as they never seem to be accused of a double standard when they solely or largely focus in on one countries human rights abuses amnd remain silent on other human right abusers (or worse seem to support them). d) It involves a logical fallacy where the mere act of being a hypocrite is considered to invalidate one's argument when the argument can be valid even if the critic does not practice what they preache. For examample, a smoker can argue smoking is bad for your health deapite continuing to smoke themselves. Thus as applied to israel, if a criticism of Israel is valid such as a human rights abuse allegation, it deosn't suddenly become invalid simply becuase the accuser hasn't held other countries with similar human rights abuses to the same standard. While such a "double standard" might be motivated by antisemitism, the mere existance of it isn't proof of antisemitism, especially in cases where you can't prove the Israeli critic is actiually holding the other countries in question to a different standard simply becuase they haven't stated in public an opinion on the other countries actions.
• General critisms of the 3D test - The criticism section is a good start on why the test is potentially problematic is currently spelled out doe to the criteria have definitional problems that could lead to overly broad and inapropraite charges of antisemitism. Thus we coukd expand on thsese arguments as well as the argument in the section currently that states that the 3D's might be a starting point for a valid test for when Israeli criticism become antisemitism.
• All of the above counterarguments from notable Israeli critics have been documented and explained in other articles on Israel, antisemitism, and in articles where Israel is a sub-topic like the "Right to Exist" article mnetioned above. So we can draw from those Wikipedia articles for sourced criticisms of these prongs to incoperate concerns and/or rebuttals to the three prongs of this test as currently defined and applied into this article.

--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

First off, the concepts must each first be fully explained before criticism is mentioned. I'm not exactly sure if your proposal is that each explanatory sentence should be immediately followed by a refutatory sentence, but if so, I don't think that format would be very useful. And the "right to exist" may be a very theoretical abstract metaphysical issue for you and Noam Chomsky, but it's a visceral gut life-and-death survival issue for many Israelis, given the constant barrage of wannabe-genocidal threats against Israel during the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, continuing at a lower level even today from Iran and others. AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Delegitimization - what does international say?

The section "Delegitimization" includes this sentence which I think is misleading about what international law says or doesn't say about self-determination: "This claim allegedly discriminates against Jews by singling them out as ineligible for the basic right for self-determination as it was determined by the international law."
It reads to me like we're saying that self-determination = statehood, with borders wherever you want them. That's not what the law says, afaik. --Slackr (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Only in the case of Israel (among all the states in the world) is there a widespread campaign to roll back an already-achieved self-determination and national sovereignty which has been widely-recognized internationally. Israel is just about the only country in the world which commonly receives genocidal threats ("wipe Israel off the map" etc) from the official state information organs of the governments of other countries... AnonMoos (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

2022

I'm guessing you consider the refusal of the current Israeli government to accept the State of Palestine's right to exist to be a different matter 82.11.163.59 (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You obviously consider your remarks to be quite cutting, but they're totally irrelevant to what I said: "a widespread campaign to roll back an already-achieved self-determination and national sovereignty which has been widely-recognized internationally". Which part of that did you have trouble understanding? AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

haha ... did'nt consider them cutting .. certainly more polite than yours ... its the "Only in the case of Israel (among all the states in the world)" that is problematic and relates to my pont .. many would consider than Palestine is another state whose existence is threatened .. largely by Israel itself (in its case it is under actual threat not verbal threats) .. sorry that you found it so upsetting that I noted that the current Israeli government denies the State of Palestine's right to exist 82.11.163.59 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be more emotionally invested in your remarks than I am in mine (at least I can refrain from sprinkling them with melodrama-villain style "haha"s), and the simple basic fact is that you still haven't bothered to read my words: "roll back an already-achieved self-determination and national sovereignty". Or else you have a strange view of the world, if you think that a real Palestinian state has actually been implemented in actual facts (not just declared in empty rhetoric). In that case, what the heck is anybody even fighting over now?? Is the sky magenta or chartreuse in your universe? AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

sorry the haha seems to have upset you now

so, as I said to start, you consider Israel's denial of the State of Palestine to be a different matter as you don't believe Palestine is a real state.

Many disagree with that:

Conversely John V. Whitbeck, who served as an advisor to the Palestinian negotiation team during negotiations with Israel, writes that "the State of Palestine already exists," and that when, "Judged by these customary criteria [those of the Montevideo Convention], the State of Palestine is on at least as firm a legal footing as the State of Israel." He continues: "The weak link in Palestine's claim to already exist as a state was, until recently, the fourth criterion, "effective control... Yet a Palestinian executive and legislature, democratically elected with the enthusiastic approval of the international community, now exercises 'effective control' over a portion of Palestinian territory in which the great majority of the state's population lives. It can no longer be seriously argued that Palestine's claim to exist falls at the fourth and final hurdle." 82.11.163.59 (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Whatever -- you seem to have either great difficulty reading and understanding a newspaper-level vocabulary, or a strange view of the word in which an alternate-universe perspective and/or inflated rhetoric prevents you from grasping basic ordinary facts. You can go through all the lofty abstract rhetoric you want, and it won't change the actual reality that a proclaimed Palestinian state has always lacked many of the basic attributes of sovereignty, such as control over what comes in and out of its borders, having recognized borders in the first place(!), not being subject to external supervision, etc. Furthermore, the government of Gaza is now completely separate from the government of the West Bank, and Mahmoud Abbas is now in the seventeenth year of his 4-year term(!). And as I said before, if a real sovereign Palestinian state exists now, then what the heck are people even fighting over??? Since that's not the case, therefore all of your remarks in this section are completely irrelevant to my original comment of "05:22, 26 November 2021" above. My advice to you: Quit while you're behind (or as Wikipedia expresses it "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass")... AnonMoos (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I see you know better than international legal experts of course. No wonder you want to "declare victory and go home" 82.11.163.59 (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Friedman

In the double standards section is Friedman's point that Israel should be subjected to the same international sanctions as Syria and Iran ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

singled out ?

So if "this claim allegedly discriminates against Jews by singling them out as ineligible for the basic right for self-determination" does this mean that anyone who opposes Israeli statehood but also opposes the statehood of anyone of the Kurds, the Basques, the Western Saharans, the Palestinians etc etc is not an antisemite as they are clearly not "singling out" Israel ? well as least it lets the Israeli government off the hook on that score as Israel itself denies Western Sahara right to statehood. 82.11.163.59 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not the failure to support any one particular nationalist cause which is the problem, but rather claiming that Jews are somehow inherently incapable or unworthy of self-determination and/or that any effort at self-determination by Jews is inherently ipso facto "racist". AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)