Talk:Blood libel

• Talk:Blood libel archive

I think it (materials that are not directly blood libels) should go out and the rest of the materials about blood libels in the Arab world should be pruned considerably. Here's why, in point form:

1. Blood libel is an ancient myth that was used against many different minorities, including Jews, but also Christians of various types (transsubstatiation aside). A long time ago, I personally did some research on blood libels against the Bogomils of Bosnia. They occassionally pop up in the United States today against people suspected of satanism. This is mentioned in the article, but hardly expanded sufficiently.
2. The first recorded blood libel was recorded by Josephus in Against Apion (Book II), where he apparently quotes Apion describing a supposed account by someone who escaped the Temple, where he said he was being fattened up for sacrifice and a cannibalistic feast. (Interestingly enough, fifteen years ago I actually heard Apion's claim repeated as fact on a tour of the Temple Mount, but my story is entirely anecdotal.)
3. As such, blood libel has a recorded history extending about 2,000 years back. That's a long time. It deserves some coverage.
4. Certain events, while linked with blood libel, are not blood libel per se. For instance, during the Black Death (1347-1350) in Europe, Jews were blamed for poisoning wells, thereby causing the plague. They were first blamed in Spain, but the rumors and stories spread north and reached as far as Poland, resulting in riots, pogroms, mass suicides, etc. The mobs were a frenzied lot. Jews were often tried before the plague hit the town, but even efforts by Pope Clement IV (twice) and HRE Charles IV on behalf of the Jews could not stop the killing. Still, these were not blood libels. Hugh of Lincoln was.
5. Similarly, some of the events listed were not blood libels, while others were.
6. Some of the most important blood libels of the 19th and early 20th century should certainly be mentioned. These include the Damascus libel of 1840 (Cremieux was involved in that) and the Beilis case (the basis for The Fixer) in 1903, and even the Polish, Greek, and Yugoslav cases in the late 1920s. (I'm skipping Kielce for obvious reasons--I avoided Himmler and the Stuermer too.).
7. I may have skipped a lot of centuries, but there were important cases of blood libel in each of them, and I am not even touching on the non-Jewish instances of blood libel, which, unfortunately, I am not as familiar with (and I don't have any sources handy for the Bogomils).
8. As far as I know, no one has ever attempted to count the victims of violent actions taken in response to blood libel charges. I think I am being conservative saying that they exceed a million.
9. Yes, charges of blood libel still exist. Yes, they are most common in the anti-Israel media. Still, I do not believe their impact is as lasting and as significant as the earlier blood libels.
10. (For those with some Jewish background--ever wonder why European Ashkenazic Jews held sefira more strictly as a time of mourning than did Sephardic Jews? Note that sefira starts on Passover, i.e., matza week.)
11. On the other hand, when perusing the article on Saturday, I saw that it had about 1,350 words, of which 928 were on Arab and Muslim blood libels, and another 200 (exactly) were on blood libels against Jews in general. This in no way is an accurate reflection of the historical phenomenon. Why is the contemporary section padded with material that is not strictly blood libel. As for the list of real potential blood libel charges ...
12. I don't see the need for a list of contemporary blood libels by a particular group in a particular period. Personally, I think it is biased, but that's just me. For history to be accurate, things also have to be placed in proportion. No one would think of writing an American history with the entire focus on Nixon.

Danny, these are valid points all. There should indeed be much more written on blood libels in other time periods, by other groups. I understand your concerns about bias; fair call! I do wish to mention the reasons that this section (blood libel in today's Arab world) had so many examples listed. (A) It is still happening, as we speak. Its modern history. (B) There have been many comments on various Wikipedia "Talk" entries by people who can't, or won't, accept that some Arabs have such views. In the past, on various Wikipedia talk entries, reports of anti-Semitims have been accused of being "Zionist lies". No matter how well-known any given phenomenon was, there were just too many people who refuse to believee that it existed. Thus, all this material was put here not to attack Arabs as a whole, but rather to refute those people who deny that such anti-Semitic atttiudes and polemics exist. Personally, I think this article should be expanded. We don't need to cut any one section so much as improve the others, for both NPOV balance, and to simply offer more perspective. RK

And that's where we disagree. I don't think of Wikipedia as a place to refute anything. When dealing with history here, we should just be reporting the past (or the present) as coldly and as removed as possible. Danny 00:41 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

Danny, you are responding to points that I am not making, and to a position that I do not hold. You have totally misread what I wrote. Again, I agree with you that we should just present history. The problem is that some people deny the existence of certain historical facts. I was giving readers specific references to the existence of such facts. In the past, some people came blazing into Wikipedia Talk pages, and brazenly lied, saying things like "Nonsense, no Arabs are anti-Semites. No Arabs would ever say such bad things about the Jews." When the existence of facts is contested, it is a standard Wikipedia response for someone to provide proof and sources. If not, someone can come here and say "Nonsense, Christians in medieval Europe never committed a blood libel", and then delete the article." Obviously, we can't have this. Such events did occur, and if more than person questions the existence of historical facts, it is a standard Wikipedia operating procedure to bring forth proof that said historical events did indeed exist. RK

I think Rk's point is valid. Its to counteract a negative sterotyping of Israelis as being accusers of slander. Now all he needs to do is see how he and other Israelis are guilty of hypocrisy, when they dont equally contribute to exposing the propaganda machine to which they have been acclimated.

I think Rk's course of action, despite his valid point, is invalid. Danny, as usual makes concise, clear, unbiased, and highly informed points that Rk feels compelled to dismiss with the wave of a hand. One wonders if he actually reads anything that he responds to.

Libel is perhaps the wrong word, though it may be in common use. Once again, it seems RK has taken it upon himself to politicise a topic to the nth degree, all the while claiming its NPOV. Quote: "The problem is that some people deny the existence of certain historical facts". This isnt the problem, at all. the problem is RK's attempts to include, in a legitimate article, an agenda, which he clearly states is the refuting of what other people think and say. He never stops to question the validity of what he reads, nor consider the human factors; all societies propaganda, and the level of intelligence it contains, is directly proportional to the level of discourse that its Dictatorship permits it. We can excuse some, if not most of the racist, militarist, fundamentalist rhetoric (including flat out lies) to some degree. We understand that people who are kept in the dark cant be criticized for burning their fingers (and cursing!) while they light their candles...

RK's expertise in the mind, culture, beliefs and political tactics of all Arabs no doubt surpasses what anyone else knows, and perhaps, what Arabs know of themselves. Perhaps this comes from his awakening understanding of human nature as universally equivalent, and his knowledge of the other only reflects his knowlege of self. But hope digresses me... why respect any opinion other than RK's, seeing as he has the direct connection to the truth itself. -Stevert

Hi Danny, RK.

I removed some material regarding libels that (imo) weren't blood libels, and RK responded, saying that he felt it should stay, because (rephrasing):

1. They can be viewed as an evolution of blood libels
2. Other people use the term in that manner.

Both are good points, but I'm not convinced. For (1) I'd be happy to include a para pointing out some of the evolution, and providing links, but I think details of individual cases should be seperate. Regarding (2), it seems that "blood libel" is sometimes used as a propaganda term for general anti-Semitism. That's fair enough, and that fact should be in the intro (perhaps as a disambig block), but I think this article will be better and more encyclopedic if it focuses on the more clearly defined meaning of the term. To draw a parallel, the anti-Semitism article focuses on the standard meaning of Jew hatred, rather than spending vast quantities of time talking about hatred of other "Semitic" people. Martin

In response to Danny, I agree on two points - and it looks like RK does too.

• Arab blood libel should be put into the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict and black propaganda.
• More content should be added dealing with historical blood libel and modern blood libel not directed against Jews.

Should material should be removed from the content regarding anti-Semitic blood libel? I think there is an argument for sticking to three or four of the strongest and clearest historical examples, but that can evolve later, once we know what examples are clearest and strongest. Martin

Although none of the links that RK provided (now archived) were to neutral sources that we can all respect, and although the majority of the examples he cited were not examples of "blood libel" at all, I nevertheless concede that the racist anti-Jewish blood libel would appear to be alive and well in at least some parts of the Arab media.

I therefore humbly apologise to RK, and to anybody else who was offended by my previous forthright dismissal of RK's assertions. Sorry.

RK, may I offer you some advice, (advice that I really I ought to try to follow myself): Try to guard against over-stating your case. It just makes people automatically disbelieve everything you say. Remember the story of the boy who cried "wolf!".

GrahamN 02:48 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

So far, I think the articles by Osam Al-Baz and the book by Mustafa Tlass are the best evidence for anti-Jewish blood libel in some parts of the Arab media. In both of these we get confirmation from moderate Arab sources, which is key. They also give some indication of scale - in the first, a response might not have been made unless there were a number of incidents, in the second we know the number of reprints. I think we should have those two, one other convincing incident, and delete the rest. As I said above, I think it's best to focus on the strongest and most compelling evidence. Martin

I disagree on removing all but these examples. Many encyclopedia discuss multiple examples of a given phenomenon. Wikipedia is not paper, and thus we have no need to worry about space restrictions. For a separate reason, I think we should keep many examples here: otherwise we will end up a year from now with new people who deny that most of these events exist. Thirdly, look at the article on Persecution of Christians. This gives many different examples, and I think it adds to the context to show how common this sort of persecution is. This also allows us to see how this kind of persecution (anti-Jewish or anti-Christian) varies from nation to nation, from decade to decade. It even opens up an analysis of how historical events cause changes in these types of phenomenon. 165.155.160.122[?]

"Syrian state-owned media have promulgated the same libel -- among other unlikely accusations, such as that "Zionists" spread aphrodisiac-laced chewing gum among Arab students. [1] (http://mypage.bluewin.ch/ameland/Libel)"

The linked article talks about stuff that's not blood libel, and the UN response that's already covered. It also quotes an example of "blood libel" that is quite clearly alegorical rather than literal.

"This Matzah is kneaded by American weaponry and the weaponry and the missiles of hatred pointed at both Muslim and Christian Arabs."

Are we to suppose that the author literally meant to say that people were making unleavened bread with M-16s? No. It's figurative - in the same way that an Israeli politician might say that Arafat's hands are "soaked in blood". Hence, it's not a blood libel - it's opposition to slaughter. Real accusations of real blood libel really happen - let's not muddy the field by including figures of speech. Martin

Once again, it seems to me that the problem with this article is that it spends more time on the contemporary (though admittedly somewhat obscure) manifestations of the anti-Semitic blood libel tale in the Arab world than it does on the better known instances of blood libel, from the middle ages write down to Kielce in 1946. Where are Hugh of Lincoln or Simon of Trent in all this? Why is there no mention of the related myth of "desecration of the Host"? Yes, I know this is not paper and it is a work in progress, but the overly excessive emphasis on one aspect of blood libel mythology and related stories while the historically important cases are ignored is what I would call a lie of omission. How many people were massacred as a direct result of Arab blood libels? (None) How many people were killed as a result of medieval and early modern blood libels? (possibly several million). I will try to remedy this a little, but a lot of the examples should go. Danny 17:36 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Glad to see you still agree with me. It's made worse because some of the incidents discussed are so obscure it's difficult/impossible to work out the truth. Many of them are only reported in sites that are opposing anti-Semitism, and I don't trust those sites not to exaggerate or over-emphasise the truth. In the same way I wouldn't go to the commission for racial equality for an unbiased view of the extent of sexism. Martin

No problems, Martin. I just want the article to be representative of what a blood libel really is. See what I did with Simon of Trent. That's a blood libel. I will start work on Hugh of Lincoln next. Danny

People still seem to be confused about one point: This article is not finished. No one is lying via omission about Arabs (i.e. trying to make them look evil) or about Christians (i.e. trying to whitewash European history). The only problem is that the article is being written as we speak. Please try and understand this. Of course it does not have the sections you are asking about. We, together, are still writing this article. As I have asked others before, if you think something important is missing, please jump in and help. Please add more information to the article. Please help out in any way. But NPOV and historical context are not gained by stripping away newly created entries until they are "even". The solution is to continue working on the article to improve it. I mean, isn't the point to create articles, and not to delete them ? Wiping out text doesn't help. RK

Last night I thought of a key fact - no individual Jew has been accused of a blood libel since the Damascus incident in 1840 - things like Mustafa's book are referring back to that book and talking in generalities - and Danny's right to say that these are different things.

RK - are you ok with the removal of the syrian link+text (above)? Martin

"The Dossier of the Jews in Modern Egypt" is a book review in an Egyptian newspaper, on a book by 'Arfa 'Abduh. The review quotes 'Abduh as saying that all Egyptians must be made aware of the "fact" that Jews are "bloodthirsty killers,"; that Jews murder gentiles as part of Jewish ceremony, and that in no way should Arabs believe that blood libels are "a figment of imagination"; rather, Arab reports of blood libels against Jews are literally true. (Source: al-Sha' b, 1 Dec 1998).

Again, this I'm removing - the review is quoting Arfa, and reporting on blood libel is not the same as blood libel, or wikipedia would be guilty, as would news organisations like the BBC. If someone can provide information on the book itself, then that might be stronger evidence.
Question: does anyone know the name of the Syrian delegate who allegedly cites Tlass's book? It would be interesting to track his subsequent career... Martin

Sorry Martin. Your point above is not true. There was a blood libel in Austria in the 1860s, quite a few in czarist Russia, into the twentieth century, including Kishinev in 1903 and the famous Mendel Beilis case of 1911, which was the basis of Malamud's book, The Fixer. There were blood libels in Greece, Poland, and Yugoslavia in the 1920s, and in 1946, 42 Jews were killed by a mob, in Kielce Poland after a blood libel. There have been other cases since then, however these would probably meet your definition of anti-Semitism (which, by the way, I also disagree with--prejudice can be anti-Semitic). Danny 12:29 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Danny. I'm surprised, in a sense - I would have expected any more recent blood libels to be covered by the kind of articles that RK provided links to - but such articles appear to ignore them completely. Teach me to treat absence of evidence as evidence of absence...

I agree that prejudice can be anti-Semitic, but personally I would only call prejudice anti-Semitic if it was extreme prejudice. In milder cases I would prefer to be clearer and more specific by using a phrase like "anti-Jewish prejudice". Martin

In response to 165.155.160.122[?] above - and to try and prevent references getting drowned in backlog, see Talk:Blood libel/references, where I've kept them. Hopefully this will prevent future people falling into the same trap that I and GrahamN fell into, or at least make the resolution a lot speedier. Martin

I've used a "repeated instances" quote, although technically the ADL is refering to anti-Semitism in general, rather than blood libel in particular. I'd like to improve on this. While the ADL is very enthusiastic about condemning individual acts, it doesn't seem to give any indication of its prevalence. It is more common to see it commenting on the incidence of anti-Semitism in general, but that doesn't help us. I note from [2] (http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/blood.asp) that the ADL has highlighted a single instance of Egyptian blood libel in the period Feb 2001-2002. Does that tell us anything? Martin