Talk:AIPAC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jane Harman Controversy

I believe the Controversy section would benefit from update on the Jane Harman controversy, even if it is only a link to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#AIPAC_controversy

Having little skill in editing WP (or understanding the procedures for adding controversial content), I shall reserve that priviledge to those who do.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.200.190 (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Christian Evangelicals

A large portion of AIPAC's strength is derived from right wing christians who believe Israel is the key to armageddon; so I'm suprised they aren't included in this article. It would be helpful if someone knowledgeable in this topic could add something to the article. --Hokiefan 01:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the role of evengelical Christians in the Jewish lobby is generally exagerated, and anyways religious Christians are not really represented in AIPAC itself. Since this article is not really about the entire Israel-US relationship I don't think that the role of right-wing christians is particularly relevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It is customary to add new sections to the bottom of the talk page rather than the top of the page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the role of Evengelical Christians in their support of Israel is incredibly strong and is not based on Israel being the key to Armageddon. The bond exists because Christians in general believe in the Jews as the Chosen People of God and respecting Jews and Israel is instrumental in being a good Christian. Some ministers like Pastor John Hagee go even further and make ministering about Israel a top priority. Pastor Hagee is the Founder and National Chairman of Christians United for Israel. Other well-known ministers like Gary Bauer are on and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell was on the Executive Board of Directors of CUI as well. However, I do agree with Moshe that the Christian-Jewish relationship would be beyond the scope of this article. Jtpaladin 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

". The bond exists because Christians in general believe in the Jews as the Chosen People of God and respecting Jews and Israel is instrumental in being a good Christian." If this is genuinely what they believe then their beliefs run contrary to scripture and 2,000 years of Christian tradition (See: New Covenant). I'd say that "Christians in general" is a gross exaggeration.68.118.255.104 04:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. If we are to look back at over 2,000 years of violent acts by people who consider themselves Christian and by those who consider themselves Jews, we would be merely counting dead bodies. Both groups did cruel things to each other. If you broaden the death toll and include "Gentiles", the numbers get even worse. But, why rehash what we already know unless there is some interest in keeping the sickening past alive by pointing fingers of accusations? Jtpaladin (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mr. Al-Silverburg was disputing the role of Evangelical Christians in their support of Israel, my guess is, as I would argue, that their role within AIPAC specifically is overestimated. Evangelical Christians for Israel have a number of their own PACs and Political Organizations through which they funnel money and support to their candidates and issues under a banner specific to their group ID. This is not to say that they don't work with AIPAC at all, just not to the extent that people would have you believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimalaiyah (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lobbying Power

Wikipedia should be NPOV. And whether your views of AIPAC are positive or negative, noone can deny their power as a lobbying organisation. Indeed, they boast of it on their websites as a key attribute. Therefore the section on "Lobbying Power" should remain.

If you think AIPAC lists lobbying as one of its strengths, you can quote them doing so in the "Strengths" section. As for the other quotes, there is a section for them all down below, and you can add any relevant ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Lobbying power requires its own seperate section as it is absolutely integral to the way the organisation works. If you accept that the material should be there just in seperate sections, then this is really an argument over semantics, and the Lobbying power section should remain 12 May 2005

The article already has plenty of material dealing with this, as well as a section for quotes. Just because you think it is important doesn't mean it requires its own section, which in fact includes nothing from AIPAC itself, and instead just has your own POV about AIPAC, combined with a couple of quotes from American politicians. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The quotes are from AIPAC's own site. They provided the material, and indeed openly publicise it. The fact that you want to suppress information about this organisation suggests strongly that you are trying to impose your own POV on the article. Lobbying power is a key part of what AIPAC is. I think if anyone is trying to impose their own POV it is you. May 12th

Jayjg, perhaps you should reedit the article including the quotes, in the activities section if you think that is best. I don't think it is fair to just remove content - the article is way under the maximum under current guidelines, and the content is important. Otherwise we will just be repeating these childish tit for tat changes, and it would really be better to come to some kind of consensus.

The article already contains this information. Lobbying is mentioned right up front, so is pro-Israel. If you think the quotes are extremely important, why don't you include a couple at the end. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I've done as you suggested. 13 May 2005

Various POV

This article as it is currently written comes across to me as if it came directly from AIPAC's PR department. It needs major POV work. -Cab88

It seems that AIPAC is more loyal to Israel than the USA itself.AIPAC should be outlaw as a terrorist organization for promoting business and arms to the terrorist state of Israel.With these organization,the possiblity of a Palestinian state is Zero

User Cab88 is correct. The current entry is 100% Zionist propaganda that fails to acknowledge AIPAC's life or death power over American politicians and journalists. Tell the truth!!!

I've rewritten the article to at fix the POV issues such a making sure all subjective or debatable pro-AIPAC claims are attributed to it's AIPAC and it's supporters and making sure the views of it's critics are covered to at least some degree. Hopefully now we can stop having a edit war over the appropriateness of NPOV tag. -Cab88

Please, will those trying to keep the blantantly POV version stop waste our time by removing from my NPOV additions as I am more then willing to revert them back as often as needed. If you have a problem with any additon of mine then please discuss on the talk page first. -Cab88

As I promised I reverted to the NPOV rewrite once again. I would say to Jewbacca, who suggests I need to talk about revisions befor making major edits, so far as I know no such rule exist. Besides, my revision was not exactly a wholesale rewrite. I keep much of the original material, simply adding attribution to the claims made to AIPAC and it's supporters so as to separates simple facts from debatable claims. The main POV issues with the original article and why it was POV are as follows:

• The article's claims as to why AIPAC is a effective as they is in POV.
• The claim that AIPAC represent both Israel and US interest is also POV. Some people disagree with claim.
• AIPAC does have it's share of critics and for this article to be NPOV it must include their views on AIPAC.

Now Jewbacca, as I stated before, If you have problem with any part of my rewrite then please discuss it here. As long as you refuse to explain what it is about my rewrite you don't like and simply revert the article then I will revert it back. -Cab88

Jewbacca, your rewrite was less POV then the old version you kept reverting too but you can't simply leave out the critisisms of AIPAC just because you disagree with them. Articles like this need to have a counterbalancing viewpoints. Only presenting AIPAC and it's supporters views is not NPOV and I'm sure you know that. I've added back the paragraph omn it's critics after doing a rewrite and citing external sources. Let's not have another round reverts as you must know by know I do not give in easially. When you make major edits or reverts it is best if you explain what your concerns/complaints were here at the talk page just as I have done above. -Cab88

---

Greetings. I just completed a substantial revision. It's not a rewrite, because I did not delete any existing text or opinions. I added information on AIPAC's activities and accomplishments, and noted some important missing information such as the resignation of president Steiner and other controversies. I also added a quotations section, to which I invite contributions. I especially would like quotations specifically and overtly praising AIPAC. I could not find enough of those on my own. Peace.--A. S. A. 10:12, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

That's a very apt quote, thanks Jayig. It's great that you found one from the same May 2004 conference pictured at the beginning of the article. A couple more like that ought to round out the quotations section.--A. S. A. 17:38, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I thought it went well with the picture. I'll try to see if I can find other quotes. However, I have a fundamental problem with all these quotes; I believe they should actually be transwiki'd to Wikiquote, and a link provided here. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I confess I am still a newbie in many respects, and transwiki-ing to Wikiquotes is above my head. I will have to read up on that soon. Mainly when I've added quotations to articles I just used other articles which already had such a segment as a guide. I know there's a lot more to it under the surface though. Wiki-research time.--A. S. A. 21:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

POV.. does this need a tag

I think that this article should likely have a NPOV tag at the top. Does anyone agree? --jacobolus (t) 06:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not. What specifically do you regard as POV, and what is your suggested NPOV rewording?--A. S. A. 16:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe it shouldn't have an NPOV tag. But it definitely needs more critical sources and analysis. There are many sources extremely critical of AIPAC, and currently (with quotations section, etc) this article reads like an AIPAC press release. Lots of the information (particularly quotes about how great Aipac is, over and over throughout the article) doesn't seem particularly relevant, or at least redundant. There doesn't seem to be any objective analysis of what AIPAC does --jacobolus (t) 21:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "controversy" section is currently larger than the actual description of the article. The quotes list both criticism and praise. It's hard to understand how it could be more NPOV. What percentage of the article should be devoted to criticism; 70%? 90% ? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page Move

I think this should be at American Israel Public Affairs Committee, because that is its title. --jacobolus (t) 21:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The organization is better known by its' initials, AIPAC. Jtpaladin 18:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of material

I've reorganized the material so that it is better serperated into appropriate sections. Since it seems that some people have been criticizing that lack of objective information in this article created specific sections that will make it easier to address the deficiencies in that area while separating pro-AIPAC opinions into their own section where they will not be confused as part of an objective description of AIPAC The sections on it's activities and goals and it's history needs more objective information for those out their willing to help with this task. --Cab88 13:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've put the History before the Activities, as it was before, which makes more logical sense, and cleaned up some of the language and links. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The quotations sections reads like a "slug-fest" between supporters and opponents, for what it's worth I think the article would be better off without it. Other than that it's a good read. --Uncle Bungle 23:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

anti-democratic

Given "its analysis of the voting records of U.S. federal representatives and senators" I think that it is fair to say that AIPAC keeps a close watch on said representatives.

Given that "its (Jew Watch) stated purpose is "Keeping a Close Watch on Jewish Communities & Organizations Worldwide."" qualifies it as *anti-semitic as a matter of fact* --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) and Exactly right. Jayjg (talk) 15:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is logical to deduce that Jew Watch is anti-semitic because it is keeping a close watch on these organizations because they are Jewish.

It is, therefore, logical to deduce that AIPAC is anti-congress and anti-senate because it is keeping a close watch on these organizations.

Given that these officials represent a significant element of the U.S. representitave system, it could be said that AIPAC keeps a close watch on the workings of the U.S. representitave government (democracy), it is, therefore, logical to deduce that AIPIC is, in fact, anti-democratic.

As a result, I'm still puzzled as to why this article describes "They (AIPAC critics) also say that AIPAC wields undue influence over Congress". It is obvious that AIPAC is anti-democratic as a matter of fact. This should be changed. --Uncle Bungle 02:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Good one. Keep plugging away, Uncle.Bungle, you'll find an opening one day. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let the flag for hypocrisy fly high from every pole... --Uncle Bungle 11:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By "hypocrisy" do you mean insisting on qualifying claims as coming from a specific a source when it suits you,[1] and then turning around and failing to do so when it doesn't?[2] Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I meant that keeping an eye on an institution is anti-said institution, regardless of wether you support the watchers or the watched. But perhaps you would perfrer citing a tertiary source providing a "quote" edited by a secondary source with an obvious political agenda when it suits you [3] and stomping on one when it doesn't. [4] And if you have a problem with my source for Iran's nuclear program take it up in that talk page please. --Uncle Bungle 16:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with your source; if you have a problem with mine, take it up in that talk page please. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's get quite frank for a moment. I love Jews, and I am a big Jew-lover from way back. In fact, I'm 1/4 Jewish! Got a nice Jewish grandma, that I call my Nan. She is a kind old lady who would never advocate the daily slaughter of Palestinian people. My point is, hey, if you're a Jewish American, that is great, more power to you. Right on, Jewish-American! But if you want to go on about how Israel is such a great country and BLAH BLAH BLAH like almost every hyper-pro-Israeli Jew does in America, then I say, WHY HAVEN'T YOU MADE ALIYAH YET??? GET YOUR ASS TO ISRAEL NOW, YOU FRIGGIN' HYPOCRITE! Quit dragging me, a Gentile, into your silliness by lobbying MY government to fund your routine killing of the indigenous population. If you want to kill Palestinians, do it on your own dime, asswipes! Better yet, make ALIYAH now and beautify America by ridding us of your grotesque and hypocritical Zionist selves. Peace out y'all!

Wow, that's great, you love Jews. Does that mean you're going to stop vandalizing the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

typical rightwing old-school Zionist BS, Jayjg. But let's lay out a fact... 99% of Americans are not Jews. The continued lobbying of the US government to tow a 100% pro-Israeli line has already had negative repurcussions for the majority of the people of the United States and will eventually have VERY negative repurcussions for Israel and quite possibly American Jews. AIPAC doesn't care about the Jewish people, they care about an already outdated idea. The point of the surely nutty rhretoric above (what you labeled as "I love Jews, Jews out of US" or such, is probably there simply to alert American Jews to the fact that AIPAC is hypocritical at best. Israeli Jews consider even so called "left-leaning" pro-Israel American Jews to be slightly to the right of Sharon. The basic message of the post, though obscured by silliness at times, seems to be: if you think Israel is great and worthy, then make aliyah. And that is so bad?

Actually, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that 97.9% of Americans that aren't Jews? Tomer ^TALK 04:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Regarding what you call the "nutty rhretoric above", since you authored it, why do you consider it nutty? As for my original question, it's clear that you continue to intend to vandalize Wikipedia pages:[5], so I suppose this article will unfortunately have to remain protected. It would be nice if you could contribute positively to the project; please consider that as an alternative to vandalism. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how keeping on eye on the voting records of Congress makes AIPAC "anti-Democratic". Lots of organizations watch the voting records of Congressmen. That's what political orgainzations do. AIPAC is interested in seeing that a pro-Israel stance is followed by Congress. What's wrong with that? Nothing. Groups like "Jew Watch" post links to some very absurd things like, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", whereas to my knowledge, AIPAC does not post links to scams and lies. So there's a huge difference between AIPAC and Jew Watch. That I even have to point this out is absurd. Jtpaladin 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Espionage

Can someone who is able to make edits please add "See AIPAC espionage scandal" under controversies. I realize that its allready linked to Larry Franklin but the content relates directly to the above mentioned scandal. Also, three paragraphs on the issue warrants a subsection, or, better yet, reduce it to a single paragraph and move relevant content to the above article. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 23:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

None of these are sourced. Where do they come from? Can someone provide sources for these?

Also, the formatting needs to be fixed. It's all over the place.

Excessive linking

An IP editor has just added a huge whack of links to this article [6] [7], all critical, and most from just a couple of websites. This would appear to violate a number of guidelines, including "Wikipedia is not a link farm" and Wikipedia:External links (e.g. "The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other"). Is there any reason for keeping all of these insertions? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The Jeffrey Goldberg - New Yorker quotation

Please explain the justification for the deletion of the following quotation:

"I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.” Jeffrey Goldberg (The New Yorker)".

It is exactly of a piece with other quotations which display the perception articulated by public figures of the enormous influence wielded by AIPAC. Furthermore, it is germane since the Steiner controversy is covered in the article. I can understand if this quotation is false and never appeared in the New Yorker, but otherwise, I cannot see any justification for its deletion other than a POV attempt to shield AIPAC form unfavourable factual portrayal. Those who have deleted this quotation, please explain your point of view. It was not my original addition, but if you have a case I will not continue to restore it. --AladdinSE 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the quote is correct. I won't remove it again. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

This article is almost entirely devoted to criticism. I understand that all kinds of conspiracy theories feed on wicked Jews/Zionists, but why would a serious encyclopdia promote such views? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article is biased, but am more concerned with the introduction and the general statements about this organization's aims. We read "on behalf of a strong U.S. - Israel relationship", and "in the best interests of Israel and the United States" and so on as if AIPAC is equally devoted to both countries and balanced between them. This is of course rubbish and one only has to read AIPAC's own description of itself to see that it is rubbish. "AIPAC members are involved in the most crucial issues facing Israel.", "For more than two decades, AIPAC's Political Leadership Development Program has educated and trained young leaders in pro-Israel advocacy", these are accurate statements from AIPAC's own summary [8]. And AIPAC's list of its "current agenda": "Stopping Iran From Acquiring Nuclear Weapons", "Standing By Israel to Ensure the Security of the Only Democracy in the Middle East", "Defending Israel Against Tomorrow's Threats", "Preparing the Next Generation of Pro-Israel Leaders", "Educating Congress About the U.S.-Israel Relationship". It is completely obvious that AIPAC is primarily interested in Israel's welfare and that their support of American interests consists mostly of the "Israel's interests are also America's interests" type of argument. Wikipedia's description is more whitewashed than AIPAC's own description. Surely we can be at least as honest as they are. --Zero 07:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah right, "Israel first". Why not both America and Israel? I guess that would ruin so many good stories... ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The argument that AIPAC's actions in support of Israel are also in support of America is a point of view. It may even be true but I have no interest in debating it. The only thing I'm sure about is that it should not be assumed in our article as if it is incontrovertable fact. It's an opinion and should be presented as such. --Zero 08:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

AIPAC has often been a controversial organization, and I believe the simple coverage in the article of the relatively recent public scandals and controversies gives to some an impression of bias which does not actually exist. Are we to refrain from mentioning that these investigations, resignations and public embarrassments occurred, simply to avoid the appearance of unbalance? That would be censorship. To justify the placement of a POV tag, actual inaccuracies, falsehoods and defamations must be outlined and proved, must they not? Let us begin this dialogue on a point by point basis, to resolve the concerns of POV. Also, if balance is what some editors are looking for, perhaps some research into concrete and specific accomplishments of AIPAC can be included? We already have a list of quotations of praise alongside those of criticism, but the "Successes" section are could use a little more specificity. --AladdinSE 11:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Spiegel reference.

A reader at HelpDesk-l asked what "[SPIEGEL, p. 52]" refers to in the history section. Here's the reply I sent.

Frank, I think it's "Spiegel, Steven L. The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict. Making America's Middle East Policy; From Truman to Reagan. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985".

The quote in our article may have come from a quote from "When victims rule" <http://www.holywar.org/jewishtr/27govt1.htm> which has a bibliography at <http://www.holywar.org/jewishtr/30bibl4.htm>.

Thanks for bringing this phantom reference to our attention, I'll make a note on the article's talk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee> for it's editors.

Please verify, cite, and also correct the possibly erroneous "Siegel". -- Jeandré, 2006-01-15t14:56z

The function of AIPAC; and adversarial attitude in edit summaries

Regarding the differences in how to state what AIPAC's function is, I object to anonymous editor 70.176.62.225's Flame War attitude, personified in his/her edit summary comment: "Prepare for an edit war". This is not the way to approach solving a dispute. Nor are racial slurs, which the editor has also used. Now, the two versions of the intro sentence which talks about what AIPAC does, are:

• The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a special interest group that lobbies the United States Government on behalf of American support of Israel.

• The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a special interest group that lobbies the United States Government on behalf of Israeli-American interests as it sees them.

The reason "on behalf of American support of Israel" does not work is that is is too slanted to present the POV that AIPAC pays no regard to US interests. The paragraph continues to say that 'It describes itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby"'. Therefore "on behalf of Israeli-American interests as it sees them" is much more neutral. --AladdinSE 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A comment: The "controversial" in the first line tilts this article against AIPAC. Whether or not it is in fact controversial, this should not be the first and prime adjective to describe it. It's like saying, "George Bush is the controversial president of the United States." Better to start by saying, simply, that he's the president."

Deletion of sourced material

I have restored the material deleted [9] by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. There do happen to be analysts that consider the Reagan material to be controversial, and they have been properly cited. Moreover, the paragraph is strictly neutral and presents a rebuttal favorable to the Israeli perspective: The United States defended its vote stating that the proposed resolution would allow the PLO to retain its weapons during the evacuation, thus allowing it to potentially carry out attacks throughout the evacuation.

Paul Findley is a long-serving US congressman (House, not Senate) who wrote a best selling book that deals with AIPAC a great deal, and who happens to be well respected even by the man who beat him in the election... hardly "long discredited". Deleting his comments is a blatant act of censorship.--AladdinSE 12:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul Findley despite what you say, is today considered radical. It is common poilicy to be respectful of your opponent after winning an election, I would hardly say he was well-respected after he publicly accused Zionists of virtually blackmailing the entire American government. Even so I could see how quotes could be used in certain passages of this article to understand the criticism of Aipac, however, the passage that I removed supported no greater thesis, it basically exists as a one line attack on the organization. It is completly inappropriate to stand alone as it does.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)P.S. Sorry, I originally meant to say congressman not senator.

Here is the review from Amazon.com of his book They Dare to Speak Out, bold emphasis added:

The first book to speak out against the pervasive influence of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on American politics, policy, and institutions resonates today as never before. With careful documentation and specific case histories, former congressman Paul Findley demonstrates how the Israel lobby helps to shape important aspects of U.S. foreign policy and influences congressional, senatorial, and even presidential elections. Described are the undue influence AIPAC exerts in the Senate and the House and the pressure AIPAC brings to bear on university professors and journalists who seem too sympathetic to Arab and Islamic states and too critical of Israel and its policies. Along with many longtime outspoken critics, new voices speaking out include former President Jimmy Carter, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney, Senator Robert Byrd, prominent Arab-American Dr. Ziad Asali, Rabbi Michael Lerner, and journalist Charles Reese. In addition, the lack of open debate among politicians with regard to the U.S. policy in the Middle East is lamented, and AIPAC is blamed in part for this censorship. Connections are drawn between America's unconditional support of Israel and the raging anti-American passions around the world-and ultimately the tragic events of 9/11.

It is entirely POV to take upon yourself to declare who is discredited and for what reason. If a man can serve 22 years in Congress and write best-selling books that deal directly with the subject of this article and still not be considered worthy of being quoted along with other critics of AIPAC, then there is something very rotten in the state of Denmark. It's censorship anyway you slice it.--AladdinSE 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break, show me a review on amazon that isn't positive, they're in the business of selling stuff. Do you cry censorship everytime someone deletes something that you write? This is wikipedia, people delete stuff when they don't belong in an article, get over it. One more revert and you'll break the 3RR.

I haven't seen anything that says "They dare to speak out" was a bestseller, and even if it was it is irrelevent. When someone decides to blame all of a nations problems on a vast Zionist conspiracy that means they are not a neutral source, it doesn't matter who they are.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of reviews on Amazon.com that are HORRIBLE and extremely negative. It is their policy to let stand any unfavorable reviews that readers want to append to a book or movie. Yes, people delete stuff on Wikipedia all the time, and do you know what else happens all the time? Other editors disagree and do not allow the deletion to stand. That's something you will have to get over. I do not cry censorship everytime something is deleted. Only when they advance such directly biased arguments as you have done. The man served in Congress for 22 years! And you don't even know what he actually has to say. By no manner of means does he "blame all of a nations problems on a vast Zionist conspiracy". He alleges vast undue influence of a foreign government on the Congress of the United States resulting in unbalanced American foreign policy. Regardless of your opinions or mine, he is a successful author and long time congressman and you simply will not be allowed to censor his remarks on AIPAC.

Also, you clearly have no idea all what the 3RR is! I suggest you read it properly. I made one revert on 02/28/2006, and one minor edit involving uniform Wiki style section and subsection spacing. To violate the 3RR, you have to revert 3 times in a 24-hr period. I reverted once, not twice. Just to show you how wrong you are about Wikipedia policy, even if that second edit was a revert instead of a minor organizational edit, I could still have reverted a third time on 02/28/06 and not violated the 3RR. To commit that violation, you have to actually make a fourth edit. As it happens I made one revert only.--AladdinSE 13:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually your exagerating, the fact that you reverted my edit three times without making any other substantial additions would constitute a violation of the 3RR, although looking back it was not in a 24 hour period. Also I'm sick of people arguing that anything a person says is relevent in an article by virtue of the fact that they hold a position of authority, or because they have excelled in something that should be irrelevent. Just because Gary Trudeau was successful as a satirist doesn't mean it is okay to quote him stating the George Bush Sr. is an idiot on Bush's article.

Also your talking about the reader reviews, I was referring to the professional review at the top, I have never encountered one for any product that isn't positive.

By the way throughout this argument I have never talked down towards you, you however have been extremly condenscending throughout this entire ordeal and erroneously accused me of falsities at every turn. I would appreciate if you showed a little common respect.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your tenacity in holding on to the assertion that Paul Findley is still well respected and "mainstream" is just wrong. Obviously his rhetoric isn't as explicit as what may appear in Jew watch, but it is clear what his beliefs are. It is his position that America invaded Iraq primarily on behalf of Israel and called this "America's darkest time". It was an exageration when I said "blame all of a nations problems on a vast Zionist conspiracy" I should of said "blame all that is wrong with a nation's government on a vast Zionist conspiracy".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You still persist in manifest misinterpretation of policy. You are flat wrong about what constitutes the 3RR, and I would lay off your 3RR threats in edit summaries here and in other articles until you digest the concept that 4 reverts in a 24 hour period constitute a 3RR violation. As for condescension, if you would reexamine your "advice" for me to "get over it", you may want to heed your own advice where condescension is concerned. An editorial review on Amazon.com is more valid because they allow readers to post negative ones alongside them. In any case, the positive review is not exaggerating or falsifying when it quotes collaborations from former Presidents and current public figures in Findley's updated books. You don't get that it doesn't matter what you or I think his views are or if you or I think they are too extreme, you may not take it upon yourself to disallow his criticism. Furthermore, you are falsely quoting me. I never said he was "mainstream", I said he was a 22 year US Congressman and a best selling author, one who moreover wrote a book dealing mainly with AIPAC, and you are flat out trying to censor his comments and saying he is irrelevant and extreme. Not gonna happen.--AladdinSE 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Look I'm not going to go back and forth with this argument, I have asked user:Zero0000 to look the oncflict over, check your talk page for details.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI I already replied on my Talk page before your last post here. --AladdinSE 14:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to go back and forth like this, it is tedious and accomplishes little. I am going to add a POV tag to the section until the dispute is resolved

.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, none of the quotations belong here. They should all be transcluded to Wikiquote. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jayjg, I was thinking about imposing on you to perform the transwikification, since you did it on the Sharon article. I'm ashamed to say I've not yet learnt the process. Truth is, I haven't even read a how-to page yet *ashamed grin*. Would you please do it, as Moshe only deleted the quotes section without linking to the Wikiquotes. I'm restoring the quotations section in the interim. Thanks.--AladdinSE 08:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's weird, I was trying to create the page yesterday, but Wikiquote wouldn't let me. Anyway, an IP editor did it for us, so everything seems to be solved for now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, the lunatics who expressed their opinions in the book, "They Dare to Speak Out", are for the most part are disgruntled wackos. Former President Jimmy Carter, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney, Senator Robert Byrd, Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson, and Dr. Ziad Asali are nut-jobs with an axe to grind. While I agree that their quotes regarding AIPAC are appropriate and should be allowed into the article, I would also caution that these people have a screw loose and display hostility towards Israel. The problem is that some of these people were or are still in Congress and other areas of govt. and by that qualification alone should be allowed to be quoted in the article. If we were dealing with people outside of govt., like private citizens, then unless they have some qualified, special knowledge of AIPAC, then their quotes would not be appropriate for the article. Regardless, caution should be taken in who is quoted. I hope this helps. Jtpaladin 23:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the explanation for the massive deletion carried out on 2008-09-09 14:34? Over 7,000 bytes of good material was censored deleted by User:Mr. Bergstrom under the guise of "proportionality". I object to this peremptory deletion. -- NonZionist (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Links removed

I'm removing a few links, as they are not encyclopedic, not notable, or do not support the case they are claimed to be support. In particular:

• this one is an opinionated couple of paragraphs by Hassan A. El-Najjar, apparently an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Dalton State College, prepended to a piece by James Zogby.
• This link is an opinion piece by Frances M. Beal, who apparently wrote a few articles for the San Francisco Bayview newspaper in 2002, and who claims to be the National Secretary of the Black Radical Congress, an organization whose website appears to have gone defunct: [10].
• This link does not actually list any specific actions by AIPAC claimed in the sentence it is supposed to be supporting, and only provides one statement by an anonymous caucus member regarding it.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 05:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. It is a little unclear from the {{fact}} request whether citations are requesting proving specific AIPAC allegations, or simply proof that critics allege them. Lokiloki 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've finally managed to get the changes and cleanups in. There was an edit conflict, I'm not sure if stuff was lost. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

David Duke

The relevance of David Duke's opinions on a working paper is unclear. Presumably David Duke also supported Bush against Kerry in 2004, but notation of that fact is probably not included on Bush's wiki page. There already exists criticism in the paragraph directly suggesting that the authors are anti-semites, and the inclusion of David Duke seems needless, provocative, and out-of-context. We might also find that OJ Simpson supports the authors, too... Lokiloki 05:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Duke's support was quoted in several reliable sources; that's what makes it notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. restoring it was no accident, for the reason listed above. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I know it was... I don't deny that he said that. Just as you deleted my reference to Jimmy Carter's opinions on Israeli settlements from that wiki page, Duke's opinions don't seem relevant in this case, and seem designed to imply that the authors are as grossly anti-Semetic as him. Lokiloki 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Since they've been accused of being as grossly anti-semitic as Duke, and since they support Duke's thesis, it's obviously quite relevant here. Carter is an ex-president, with no particular relevance to the settlements. OTOH these claims are central to Duke's arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That is faulty logic. Do you have proof that they "support" his theses? Indeed, they do not "support Duke's thesis", nor, for that matter, are there any references to such. If you can reference that they support his "arguments", that would be great. Otherwise, it quite clearly appears to be an attempt to blacken their names via association. Unless we are back in the McCarthy hearings, it is disheartening to see such "evidence" here. You are also engaging in a common argument fallacy: A supports B, therefore B supports A. "A" is irrelevant here, and it's simply a means to discredit. Lokiloki 06:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

They claim that there is a pro-Israel lobby that is all powerful, and that it is bending American foreign policy towards the needs of Israel, and against the interests of the United States. Furthermore, they claim this cabal has made it impossible to get their thesis published, and is now working against them, as they expected. That's exactly what Duke claims as well. The fact that Duke supports this paper was reported as notable in reliable sources. I'm having trouble seeing the issue at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is specious. Hitler supported abortion, but it would be completely inappropriate to describe pro-choice arguments as, say, "Pro-choicers argue, like Hitler, that..." simply because of all the additional baggage of Hitler. David Duke is known as more than an anti-Semite, but as a Ku Klux Klan racist: to associate the paper's authors with him in a similar such manner is aggressively POV. If the paper's authors specifically paid homage to Duke, or otherwise even referenced him, that would be one thing. But simply because his detractors make that association is insufficient. That several pro-Israeli newspapers and organizations made the comparison, just as many pro-life organizations connect Hitler to pro-choicers, is irrelevant and, again, specious. Lokiloki 07:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources tying Hitler to the pro-choice movement? Which "pro-Israeli newspapers and organizations" are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, the New York Sun [11] which was the originator of the Duke quote. It is a well-known pro-Israeli news source. While it might fit the standards of wikipedia's "reliable sources", it simply seems needless and specious to include the Duke reference, as it is clearly designed to associate the authors with him in an unflattering way. I don't see how it is any less relevant than, say, including the Carter statements on settlements to others who hold similar anti-settlement views in the Israeli settlement article (which you deleted). I understood your point about not including the Carter statement there, but I can't help but question when you assert that this roundabout association is somehow relevant here. Lokiloki 07:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Loki, it's clearly relevant that a Kennedy School of Government paper on supposed pro-Israeli influence in the U.S. was praised by an anti-Semite like David Duke, the PLO's mission to Washington, and a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is mentioned by the source we link to, and so it isn't original research, regardless of your view of the source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

(can't keep up with how many colons to include)... I never claimed it was OR, but that its relevance as criticism to the referenced article is questionable, not least because the criticism already includes multiple assertions, including those of anti-Semitism. To say, in effect, "look, look, that crazy David Duke guy also says similar things" is specious. Simply because A and B might share similar beliefs about a particular topic, does not mean that A should be associated with B's other beliefs, as this implication herein suggests. I do not deny that such references should be included on Duke's own page, but to include said references on the page of this reports authors who have never expressed any relation, knowledge, or association with Duke is inappropriate. Lokiloki 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that Duke holds the same views. That would be OR. It says that Duke praised the report, which is what the source says. We say "A said X," and we link to A. That is how Wikipedia is written. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only does the article simply note that Duke praised it, but it's not only "pro-Israel" sources that have noted this. For example, Joe Scarborough on MSNBC interviewed Duke on just this topic,[12] and The Washington Post made note of it as well.[13] Jayjg ^(talk) 08:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Scarborough is a right-wing political opinionist, and the WaPo reference was to the Sun mention. Regardless, I do not doubt that he made the quote, it is just that the relevance is debatable. Care should be taken when associating a scholarly article published under the (arguable) aegis of Harvard with the views of an admitted Ku Klux Klan member. It seems a devious way to discredit. Lokiloki 08:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You're failing to assume good faith here. If you can find other people supporting the paper, it would make sense to mention them as well. I didn't go out searching for Duke; rather, the sources listed him as the most notable supporter. As for the scholarly nature and Harvard's aegis, the former is debatable, and the Harvard seems to be distancing itself as far as possible from the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Harvard should be more careful what it publishes if it doesn't want to attract anti-Semitic admirers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty low opinion. The inability to criticize AIPAC without associations with anti-Semitism, or its sad proxy David Duke, is disturbing. I have not yet read the report, but I try to assume good faith on two presumably very well-educated PhDs at two of the top institutions in the US. Again, the relevance here is debatable: Jayjg deleted my inclusion of cited claims by Jimmy Carter that settlements were at the heart of the PIC saying "so?"... why should the opinions of a US president, who brokered the most long-standing peace treatment in the ME, on a subject of international significance bear any less than, say, the opinion of a marginal racist on a scholarly publication? Lokiloki 08:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You're making a strawman argument here. No-one is asserting that criticism of AIPAC is anti-Semitic; frankly, I'm none too impressed with the organization myself. However, people are asserting that this particular paper by Mearsheimer and Walt, which claims an organized cabal of Jews has taken control of America's foreign policy (to the detriment of the United States), is anti-Semitic. It's not hard to understand why some people would view that as anti-Semitic, seeing as it's the same nonsensical conspiracy crap that anti-Semites regularly spout. As for your continual repetitions of the "Jimmy Carter" argument, to begin with, we're talking about this article, not some other article. In addition, as has already been explained, Jimmy Carter has no particular connection to issues of Israeli settlements. On the other hand, David Duke has quite a strong connection to both American politics, and accusations of Jewish cabals controlling American foreign policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in so late in the game, but the David Duke/Jimmy Carter comparison struck me. I think Lokiloki is right. If Carter, an elder statesman who routinely travels around the world on peace missions (and moreover was the architect of the Camp David peace), and comments on all sorts of iniquities and problems, if such a man can be deleted as irrelevant re the Settlements, then the inclusion of Duke's comment here is flimsy indeed. Its a guilt by association ruse, and unworthy of this article. --AladdinSE 15:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Carter is an ex-president, who has nothing to do with the settlements, and whose Camp David accords never dealt with them. He may comment on all sorts of things, but I don't see the papers running to him for his opinions about the settlements. On the other hand, Duke talks about the Jewish lobby and its insidious effects on American foreign policy all the time, and the media has apparently run to him to find out his opinion on this specific issue. There is no comparison. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The part about David Duke is *obviously*, *clearly* an attempt to discredit the paper by associating it with David Duke. It seems that the smear campaign has reached Wikipedia. Serious NPOV issues at work here.

Blame that damn Jewish-controlled media. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

At least three editors have suggested that this inclusion is POV. I believe that this topic should be marked as POV dispute. The subtle guilt by association fallacy [14] ("Guilt by Association is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it") employed here is invidious and does not belong. By proxy, it also is "Argumentum ad Nazium" [15] ("In almost every heated debate, one side or the other—often both—plays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general.") Lokiloki 00:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see two editors who have objected, you and AladdinSE. The key to deciding whether to include material is whether it's properly sourced and relevant. There's no disagreement about its sourcing, so the argument is over whether it's relevant. Given that David Duke frequently takes the same position as the report does, and is vilified in part for that reason, it's clearly relevant that he publicly voiced his support. Readers can then take one of three positions: (1) maybe Duke isn't so bad after all, (2) maybe there's an anti-Semitic thrust to the report, or (3) this is guilt-by-association; I'll judge the report on its own merits. What isn't acceptable is for us to decide on behalf of the reader that only (3) is the appropriate response. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The IP editor also voiced POV above. Lokiloki 01:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the main problem is the fact that it mentions David Duke, it's that the manner in which it mentions him is obviously done to discredit the report. To make this article NPOV, someone needs to do a little bit more research into the reaction to the report, and provide some more detail other than just saying "David Duke supports it, but everyone else..." There have been other people besides David Duke who have either voiced support, or made the point that it at least highlights the need for more open dialogue about our Israel policies. For example, Daniel Levy, an advisor to the Israeli prime minister, wrote in Haa'retz that the case made in this paper is a "potent one" and that "Israel must not be party to the bullying tactics used to silence policy debate in the U.S. and the McCarthyite policing of academia by set-ups like Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch. If nothing else, it is deeply un-Jewish. It would in fact serve Israel if the open and critical debate that takes place over here were exported over there".71.129.159.1 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea but let's face it, the anon wasn't the most unbiased editor, and he didn't have any coherant argument.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the IP editor (who posted above you and after you) makes some good points. Lokiloki 01:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As I suggested a while ago, the solution was to add more support for the paper. It's now been added; Duke, Levy, and the authors have defended the paper in various ways. What else is required? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A steak dinner would be nice... Lokiloki 03:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll pick you up tomarrow night at 8:00 - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I hope we are going to Smith & Wo's... Lokiloki 07:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In answer to Jayjg's rebuttal to my post above: Carter is an elder statesman that has traveled to the occupied territories on peace missions and who has direct expertise with the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is more qualified then most to comment on Settlements. You don't see the press running to him for comments? I disagree. I saw him criticize settlements in Larry King Live, and there are many journalistic sources which feature his position. The Guardian Daily Times Haaretz The Washington Post Jerusalem Newswire USA Today BBC are a few that I picked out after a cursory search. Getting back to the point, The contested phrase and association, "The Paper has been praised by David Duke" is just so odd and out of place, because Duke's relevance is so tenuous. Of all the people to include, much less list first, are we to chose this racist former Klansman? To be listed as having praised the paper, surely he has to be a respected analyst or person of significance. On papers about Gay Rights, the media often quotes or interviews Fred Phelps, but not in manner designed to consider the qualitative analysis of his opinions, but rather to spotlight extremist, distasteful personages, and their very existence as a fringe group. This is what Duke is. Under Wikipedia's own guidelines, he is by no means a reliable source qualified and untinctured by bias. His citation here in an encyclopedia article is unsuitable in every way.--AladdinSE 04:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aladdin:

I agree that the inclusion of Duke is an attempt to negate by association and "poison the well". I think it is inappropriate and pretty low-down; the original reference to him was clearly a guilt by association tactic by a well-known pro-Israel newspaper. This fallacious argument seems similar to, say, referencing Erik Rudolph when discussing pro-lifers, or Hitler when discussing pro-choicers (both of which are frequently referenced in quasi-mainstream press).

It sounds like you have some good references to Carter and his capacity for valid commentary on the settlements. Perhaps my initial inclusion was injudicious, but given your research, I encourage you to include the reference in Israeli settlements.

Lokiloki 05:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look here - if Duke's opinion has indeed been propagated in the media, but others feel that the inclusion of his opinion here is 'pretty low', would people mind if the reference to him was rephrased a little just to lessen the perceived 'well-poisoning' look of it? Something like: The paper was referenced as a "wake-up call" by Daniel Levy,[16] a former advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.[17] A Haaretz editorial declared: "it would be irresponsible to ignore the article's serious and disturbing message...The professors' article does not deserve condemnation; rather, it should serve as a warning sign."[18] Separately, the paper was also praised by David Duke, the former Louisiana representative and white supremacist known for his anti-Semitism. Would this be a bit better? Ramallite ^(talk) 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems better, although I personally think that David Duke is not relevant to the article: it's yellow journalism. Lokiloki 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Better, yes, but I am still of the opinion that it does not merit inclusion, based on guidelines of reliable sources. --AladdinSE 06:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it yellow journalism? there is nothing sensational about it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is... inclusion of highly polemic individuals as supporters or opposers of particular arguments is old-hat for propagandists. It is akin to including references to Josef Mengele (who published on abortion, and who ran an abortion clinic) when discussing pro-Choicers. It is guilt by association. The report was published by two highly reputable academics (to wit, Harvard and UofC are two of the best Unis in the world)... a pro-Israel newspaper included references to Duke to imply that the report was nothing but base anti-Semitism. Such crass dismissal and association is inappropriate for WP. Lokiloki 06:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that David Duke is still highly respected for some people, it may be hard to understand because you reside in New York and I'm in California, but David Duke is highly respected in some circles, not the circles you or I would want to be around, but still they exist. Mengele's supporters are far more on the fringe. I would say Duke is more along the lines of Al Sharpton, because he has adopted or at least pretended to adopt more moderate views.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler is still highly respected by "some people" and in "some circles". It is meaningless, he remains a discredited and reviled racist. Not a reliable source. Duke can only hope for the level of credibility that Sharpton now has.--AladdinSE 08:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that. I think the public views of Al Sharpton were once pretty damn similar to the ones David Duke used to have. Obviously us on the western and eastern seaboards know he is a ignorant douchebag, but in southern states people still generally support him. Look at the accusations that Sharpton levied at people during Tawana Brawley scandal, and that was even after he had become mroe mainstream. I really don't think Sharpton is that different from David Duke.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And I think Duke is a lot more mainstream than Hitler as well as Nazis in general.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, you don't come back from the KKK, you just don't, not in America. Sharpton has come a long way since Tawana Brawley, but he was never a racist, he fell flat on his face for wrongful accusations of racism. Since that debacle, he has built up a genuine record of civil rights credentials (and this coming from a person who was never a big fan of his). There is a gulf impassable between the two personalities and political realities. --AladdinSE 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I just kinda feel like all of us have somewhat of a bias view about David Duke since I come from a "blue" state and I'm guessing you do too, the kind of people that support Duke probably aren't going to be the kind of people who contribute to wikipedia because they don't own a computer (or read or write for that matter :), but I still think they are substantial in number).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But seriously, even in the red states, do you think the political establishment would touch him with a 10-foot pole? He's virtually persona non grata, and his limited public support isn't enough to get him elected dog catcher. It's just nuts to insert his support for the Chicago/Harvard paper. He is isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. It's transparent guilt-by-association, and must be above Wikipedians.--AladdinSE 22:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the WP:RS guideline; the issue is whether or not the newspaper is reliable, not whether or not Duke is reliable. As I said above, there's been plenty of press around his reactions to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, your WP:POINT edits at Israeli settlement are hardly in good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We are clearly at variance as to the WP:RS guideline. The issue is very much that David Duke is not reliable. The plenty of press you refer to has no qualitative analysis of his considered opinions, only shock value that this racist has supported it. Your "reference" is the right-wing neo-con New York Sun, and all they say is: "The paper has won praise from anti-Semite and white supremacist David Duke". That's it. Zilch analysis. No comment or quotation from Duke himself. It is a unadulterated case of Association fallacy, specifically Reductio ad Hitlerum. David Duke likes this paper, therefore this paper must be bad. You've linked Ad hominem enough times that such a blatant violation such as this ought not to escape you.

If you will please limit your accusations regarding other articles to those article Talk pages, we would be much better able to follow a productive line of discussion for each disagreement. My Israeli settlement edits were both (Carter and Stone) fully supported by my participation in two separate corresponding Talk threads. You reverted both while replying only to one. Talk about good faith. P. S. As in the Settlements article, I've decided to limit to one revert daily as far as this disagreement goes, to minimize disruption and edit war headaches. I hope discussion will continue. --AladdinSE 00:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added some of Duke's reactions; would you like more? He also said he was "surprised how excellent it is", and he's got lots of praise for it on his website. Even the authors have responded to Duke's praise for the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So what? Josef Mengele said many things about abortion. Should those be included in discussions of abortion? This page should be marked POV dispute. Lokiloki 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As I've unfortunately had to say too many times on Wikipedia, Godwin's Law rules all debate. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hurray! Another New York Sun reference! It is all irrelevant, he's a white supremacist and anti-semite, it's a clear Ad hominem fallacy. --AladdinSE 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant; he's been quoted by a number of sources on this, and interviewed on MSNBC about it. The authors even commented on his response to it; it's clearly relevant, and newsorthy. I'll add other non-New York Sun sources for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The criticism of the report itself is about 3 times the size of the actual paragraph describing what the report is about. That should be remedied. Lokiloki 19:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should add more people who praise the report; I believe a head of the Muslim Brotherhood praised it, for example. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, there should be more description of the content of the report itself. There comes a point where inclusion of criticism and "praise" about a report critical of the article at hand is nonsensical. Since this section is about criticism of AIPAC, it is a little strange that now the majority of the content is simply criticism of the criticism. Lokiloki 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. I suppose at some point it might become its own sub-article. Meanwhile, I note that the praise for the report section is longer than the criticism. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the addition of Walt's rebuttal of Duke's praise, "I have always found Mr. Duke's views reprehensible, and I am sorry he sees this article as consistent with his view of the world". --AladdinSE 11:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Me too. The David Duke argument is a clear example of reductio ad Hitlerum, but it's worth mentioning precisely because so many critics of the paper have brought it up. —Ashley Y 08:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it actually constitutes reductio ad Hitlerum becasue the article makes no actual value judgements on David Duke's support.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mearsheimer & Walt paper - move to separate page

It may be time to move the Mearsheimer and Walt paper to its own wikipedia page. It would probably be best to title that page after the title of the paper. I also just created an AIPAC category (although not its main page) that could help to associate these AIPAC topics together. --64.230.123.75 01:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. How about The Israel Lobby or The Israel Lobby (paper)? —Ashley Y 04:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

(rewrote old comment) Sounds good -- I would go with the second that includes "(paper)" just to be clear. I was thinking that the full title would be better but it is cumbersome. --64.230.123.75 16:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The full title (The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy) might not be a bad idea either. —Ashley Y 20:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hedrik Smith criticism

The Hedrik Smith criticism seems relevant, but the citation is extremely poor. The book's proper name is not given, nor is a page number, and this is an over 800 page book. Is there any way of improving that? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I will try to go to the library and find this book tomorrow or early next week and provide more detailed citations and details. I am unfamiliar with the book. Lokiloki 06:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

External links

I've been cleaning up the external links on this page, as they were in serious violation of WP:EL. Many of them were from non-encyclopedic sources (e.g. blogs, conspiracy sites), and the huge number of Critical links violated the rule that "The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." I haven't been through them all yet, and I've tried to keep the best links. Ideally we should have a small number of supportive links, and a small number of critical links, each from very good sources. It's fine to have two or three more critical than supportive links, but you can't really have 20 links in a critical section, and none in a supportive section. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems quite bizarre and POV that you removed, for example, [16] which is not a blog, but a link to Harvard's Faculty Working Papers. This paper is referenced in the article, and should presumably therefore be included. Please attempt to maintain some semblence of NPOV. Thanks, Lokiloki 07:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary for that link? Yes, the paper is already linked, in the references section, which is exactly why it should not be linked in the external links section. We don't double link items in both reference and external links. Please assume good faith, and attempt to maintain some semblance of civility. Thanks, Jayjg ^(talk) 07:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not see the other references, thanks, and sorry. Lokiloki 08:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia will be finished if "Hebrew Battalion" is not stopped!

If the "Hebrew Battalion" aka Sayanim [17] at Wikipedia (Wikipedians/Moderators), are allowed to continue to terrorize non-jews, because of their views, then the entire Wikipedia, which is already suspected to be a Mossad's front operation http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm will soon collapse. In the age of information, internet, blogs, etc.; the Sayanim will not be allowed to censor the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.99.112.83 (talk • contribs).

OH NO! a gentile finally has spoken out! What are us Jews supposed to do know?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

One good thing about anti-Semites is that they can never spell, so they're remarkably easy to spot. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you do realize that Moshe spelled "now" as "know", don't you? And he also said "us" when the proper form would have been "we". So please do not call Moshe an anti-Semite. I will personally vouch for him as not being one. :p Sorry, I couldn't resist the opportunity for some levity. By the way, don't merely assume that the incoherent unsigned lunatic is a Gentile. He could be "False Flagging" just to get people upset. Jtpaladin 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And where does that leave us that have one parent on one side and one on the other? We are double targets in this activity of naming of privileged characters. After all, we are all "mongrels" if one would be absurd enough to start namimg names in the idiocy of dividing humanity. I had my house taken by "affirmative action" as a "white" just to be called later a thieving "Jew". Are there any lawyers to straighten that out? Most likely not seeing how I have no identifiable separate identity to lobby corrupt world governments with. And when will these "adjustments" (reparations for real or not past racial, ethnic, gender... damages) to society end? Or are they too much needed for more reasons for such "civil rights" groups to exist and make money? And what's to be done with those innocently damaged therefrom who discriminated against no one? And have somehow those somewhere who could have saved the world with their talents been destroyed simply for working hard and becoming able? We should be careful how we proceed as abuses only level the playing fields for the idiots and nefarious alike. Some of above fits that, it might seem. AvantVenger (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

CIA official agrees with Walt-Mearsheimer Study

CIA official Michael Scheuer: Does Israel conduct covert action in America? You bet it does

For years – even decades – U.S. citizens have been the subject of a political action campaign designed and executed by Israel. Currently, Israel's campaign is part steady-as-she-goes and part improvisation to neutralize an unexpected and – for Israel – worrying development. So far, Israel's covert political action is succeeding hands down. Americans are gradually being indoctrinated to believe Islamists are today's Nazis and that there is no "Israeli lobby" in America. [18]

Simply put, Israel is conducting a brilliant covert political action campaign in the United States, a campaign any intelligence service in the world would rightly be proud of. [19]

Michael Scheuer [20] served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the once anonymous author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" and "Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the future of America". [21]

This is the opinion of one man not the CIA, your basically trying to imply that his word is unbiased by adding other irrelevent information about how long he has been working for the organization.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Truth-seekers can still use "Cabal-free" version

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee&oldid=49909399 America once in the past, before 'Cabal' got here, used to be the Home of the FREE!

And here we have yet another of the few brave human beings willing to speak out against those insidious Jews. Strange how there are so many of these brave few.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

David Steiner Controversy

A link to the complete transcript between former AIPAC president David Steiner and Haim Katz was deleted because they said the source was unreliable. However, if the editor had bothered to click the link they would have seen that the page has a photo of the original Chicago Tribune article on the controversy over Steiner's remarks. They would have also noticed that the page includes the transcript that is completely accurate (except for the small inaccuracy of the letters "ds" coming up as "David Steiner AIPAC" each time, but this is a minor issue. The fact remains the transcript is accurate and should be linked to in the article since it is available for everyone to read.

Here is the link to see for yourself: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/AIPACClinton.html

I think it is clear that there is nothing wrong with this being added to the page. I would encourage others to read over the transcript and add more to the article to explain the situation even more. Walkerson 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The source is completely unreliable, regardless of whether it claims to have scans of articles, and the section far too long. PLease find a reliable source to start with. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What makes a section too long when it has relevant and informative information? Also the tapes authenticity is not in dispute by anyone. The original tape was turned over to The Washington Times and reported by many press outlets. The scans are legitimate and there are no factual errors on that page from whatreallyhappened.comWalkerson 21:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an unreliable source. That means everything on it is unreliable, including transcripts, scans, and anything else. As for "relevant and information information", that's your take. In fact, it made the article about a single conversation with one individual, rather than an article about the organization. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That is how you add to an article on wikipedia, piece by piece, bit by bit. This is how an article becomes a more thorough article. Next someone will fill out a different section, but it won't get anywhere if you keep deleting things. The episode in question is very significant and that is not only my take but, that of the weekly magazine Forward as well, to mention only one source that you may think is relevant and informative. If we went by your standard of what is an unreliable source we wouldn't be citing any sources as even the NY Times and the Washington Post get it wrong some of the time. We have to judge each page on its own merits and the page I linked to has no incorrect information. AIPAC never disputed the transcript. IN FACT, David Steiner admitted to the authenticity of the tape. If you look up AIPAC on Nov. 12, 1992 in the Chicago Tribune archive website you will find the article and you can also look up AIPAC on the Nov. 4 and Nov. 5 1992 in the Washington Times archive or look it up at the News Library News Bank website where you will also find corroborating evidence. The information may be difficult for some to comes to terms with, but it is both factual and relevant and should not be deleted.Walkerson 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you must provide reliable sources; anything not reliable sourced can be removed. You can't just assert such sources exist, you must provide them. As well, the article is about AIPAC, not about one conversation Steiner had. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I gave you all the sources you need. All you have to is follow the directions. The Chicago Tribune 300 word article can be found in their archives to prove the first scan. The Washington Times has a 936 word article on Nov. 4 1992 breaking the story and a follow-up article of 736 words the next day. To repeat, these are available at the News Library Newsbank. As I also stated the Jewish weekly The Forward thought this was a very significant episode in the history of AIPAC and said so in a one-page editorial. This episode had real repercussions on the relations between the Clinton administration and Israel which is exactly what AIPAC was concerned with at the time. It is their very raison d'etre so please don't poo poo it and call it only a conversation. The conversation has some very interesting things to say and people visiting an encyclopedia should be able to read it. If you have a problem with style help to finesse the passages. Haim Katz, the gentleman on the other end of the line told the Washington Times that he taped the conversation because "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate clout AIPAC has, the public should know about it." Please stop deleting factual info. Walkerson 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If this is true then why don't you link to the actual chicago tribune article? Instead you link to this strange "What really happened" propaganda website. I am once again deleting your additions until you can link to a reliable source. By the way you have vilated the 3RR rule.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If you would do a little digging instead of knee-jerk reverts you would see that a portion of the Chicago Tribune article is on the What Really Happened page. I have no concern with the rest of the site. I only link to this page since all of the information is fact and it has pictures of the original articles and transcript backing up the quotes provided. Please stop deleting factual information. Go to the Washington Times website or the Chicago Tribune website to see the corroborating evidence. Jayjg is the one that has almost violated the 3RR and you have come awful close as you deleted three times without even coming here to the discussion to discuss your reasons, failing to recognize the sufficient corroboration that has been provided, or doing just the least amount of leg work to see the facts for yourself. I am editing the passages, adding more facts, providing more sources, discussing it here. But you both seem to want to delete it no matter what and explain yourselves after when pressed. I thank Jayjg for at least coming here to discuss and showing some desire to discuss it civily even if he is quick to revert. Walkerson 23:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Walkerson, it's not up to other editors to provide reliable sources, but rather for those who wish to include the information to do so. Please find some reliable source for all these claims, then we can examine what is actually relevant to this page. Oh, and even it something happens to be "factual info" (as it may or not be in this case), that doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts, and certainly not of transcripts of telephone conversations. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Transcripts of this information is available from more reliable sources -- it just takes more work. It is available as one of the source materials uploaded in support of a paper in "Journal of Palestine Studies" - specifically the paper in "Vol. 22, No. 2 (Winter, 1993) , pp. 142-168." The Journal of Palestine Studies is a reputable publication from the University of California Press. --64.230.124.79 04:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Brave and True American Patriot, Justin Raimondo

Antiwar, April 24, 2006 "Two trials and a treasonous trio: Libby-Rosen-Weissman" The very brave and true American patriot, Justin Raimondo is exposing the Cabal which has infected American nation, relentlessly. But since Wikipedia is controlled by the "Hebrew Battalion" aka Sayanim [22], they only allow the Cabal LIES to be published. Mossad agents Larry Sanger and Jim Wales [23] have made sure of that. But in the age of information, internet, blogs, etc.; the Sayanim will not be allowed to censor the truth. Read Justin's articles here [24] or here [25]

And here we have yet another of the few brave human beings willing to speak out against those insidious Jews. Strange how there are so many of these brave few.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The website, http://judicial-inc.biz, is clearly the work of a paranoid schizophrenic who's delusional focus are Jews. The behavior of those with this mentally disorder are similar no matter what they choose as their focus. The attempt to spread these delusional theories at Wikipedia will only be met with opposition and scorn (as demonstrated above) which will probably but inadvertently reinforce his delusions of persecution. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 17:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Mearsheimer and Walt" section

I've removed the "Mearsheimer and Walt" section, as follows:

John Mearsheimer, political science professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Academic Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, published a working paper, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, in March, 2006 claiming that U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by AIPAC.

The paragraph itself is false, since the paper never claims that the "Israel lobby" is "motivated primarily by AIPAC". Indeed, the actual article does not make that claim, stating instead it is motivated by a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations". Moreover, the paragraph does not state anything specific about AIPAC itself. Does Luckylittlegrasshopper suggest that the paragraph be inserted as boilerplate into the articles on every single individual and organization mentioned in the paper? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" paper was originally pulled out of the AIPAC article into its own article to deal with it appropriately -- thus to pretend now that it isn't relevant to the AIPAC article at this point is strange and it falls into a classic strategy mentioned in Wikipedia's no censoring policy, pull out damaging information into its own separate article and then orphan it. I understand that I could be mistaken though. I didn't write the summary you are trying to remove and I can't at this moment remember editing it, although I might have. Anyways, the paper does clearly refer to "American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organzations" as "the key organizations in the Lobby". There are currently 171 news stories that mention AIPAC in connection with the Mearsheimer and Walt story in Google News too thus this connection isn't spurious: [26]. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The IP editor who originally inserted the information was simply propagandizing, and put in a whole bunch of barely relevant stuff. It eventually evolved into a good article about the paper itself, which is why it went into its own article. As for the "summary", my objections above are relevant; the paragraph was false boilerplate material. I suppose specific information from the report about AIPAC might be relevant, but this wasn't it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Censorship by editors of reference to Findley book

An editor (al Siverberg) has just vandalized/ censored a book by former Congressman Paul Findley. Editor made unsubstantiated charge that Findley is linked with Holocaust deniers. Editor is exercising POV censorship of reality of this book and its revelations. Dogru144 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

outdated links

AIPAC's "Who we are" page has moved. http://www.aipac.org/documents/whoweare.html has been changed to http://www.aipac.org/whoWeAre.cfm. --aardfark 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Economist claim

Why has this been removed? Sure, it's their POV, but it's notable nonetheless. —Ashley Y 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was a notable POV. Ashley, what are your thoughts about the title of the AIPAC espionage scandal/Franklin, Rosen, Weissman section? Given that there exists a page entitled AIPAC espionage scandal I would have thought that would be the logical title for the section as well as the widely accepted name for that series of events. Thanks. ANW 09:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe what they are reporting would be notable but the report itself is not especially notable for a news report, and since the conclusions are so hotly disputed it would be inappropriate to include it in the article as fact.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really see how it was presented as fact.

The Economist magazine claimed AIPAC's political power is the one of the main reasons for America's support of Israel. "Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right."

"To Israel with love". The Economist. Aug 3rd, 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

It seems to be presented as an opinion by the use of the verb "claim". Thanks. ANW 10:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinion isn't the overall tone of the passage.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How would you suggest changing the tone of the passage, so as to appear less as fact and more as an opinion? Thanks. ANW 10:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Economist is a well-respected newspaper (magazine if you prefer) that is not even known to be particularly biased against Israel. Their opinion on AIPAC is relevant.

As for the section heading, it should match the article, though one could optionally drop the word "AIPAC". Perhaps one could put in "espionage accusations" if one were concerned that the title implies that the espionage charge is definitively true. —Ashley Y 10:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "AIPAC" is redundant in the title of the section. The problem with "espionage accusations" is that at least one of the accused has admitted guilt in transferring classified information to foreign officials, so it's not just accusations. Maybe "Espionage investigation" or "Espionage indictments"? Thanks. ANW 12:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

AIPAC hasn't admitted guilt, though, have they? How about "Espionage allegations"? —Ashley Y 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

New centralized "Israel lobby" and "Arab lobby" articles

I just added a link to the "See also" section but it was removed with barely a comment. The new article, which is still under development, is here Israel lobby in the United States. It attempts to provide an overview of the Israel lobby that is distinct from any particular lobby group (such as the AIPAC.) The term Israel lobby is used a number of different places in Wikipedia without sufficient explanation. It isn't accurate to link it to AIPAC directly. Also the AIPAC article is not the place to discuss the more general lobby. Thus the article.

I also created an Arab lobby in the United States. --Ben Houston 17:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

NYT quote

The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence a presidential candidate's choice of staff, to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals."[citation needed]

The citation would appear to be at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40711FD39540C758CDDAE0894DF484D81, but I don't have a Times select subscription, so I can't confirm that. (Sorry, forgot to sign) Ealex292 00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Turns out that my school does have a subscription (through an organization called Proquest). The citation looks accurate. The URL I got is http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=956546371&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=3586&RQT=309&VName=PQD (that might be school-specific). I have added the Times Select and Proquest links to the page, and removed the fact-checking template. From the comment in the article, "this quote should be checked with the NYT because it's quoted on a lot of dodgy websites" --- I felt the abstract plus Proquest was enough to justify the removal.

Abstract:

LEAD: After several decades of growth in size and sophistication, the leading pro-Israel lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has become a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East. After several decades of growth in size and sophistication, the leading pro-Israel lobby ...

Ealex292 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, somebody has re-added the fact-check template. Unfortunately, the article is under copyright to NYT, and they've decided not to make it publicly available. Instead, it is part of the premium "TimesSelect" service. I think we should either take the date and link to abstract as enough fact checking, or completely give up on the quote and delete it. I doubt we'll get better evidence until copyright expires. Ealex292 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If the substance can be verified to be accurate from the NY Times source, that's sufficient evidence. Cite the link, or better still the date it was published in print. The TimeSelect thing is basically access to newspaper articles for those paying for an NY Times subscription, it's not that the paper's trying to keep documents out of public view. Right now pretty much all editorial writings require subscription to the paper for access as well. Shams2006 07:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The date has been there for a while. I saw the date, figured it couldn't be hard to verify, and did a little more research. Now to see if it will stick around a little longer with all the <ref> goodness... The quote itself is a two-part thing: the first is visible in the abstract, but the second requires access to the article itself. (I'm guessing viewing the article itself from the link is straightforward if you have TimesSelect.) Ealex292 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Washington Institute under "successes"

There's an odd sentence in the "successes" section:

Martin Indyk former research director at the AIPAC, founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think-tank in 1985.

How exactly is this an AIPAC success? There is no sourcing tying WINEP's founding to AIPAC. Just because the founder of one institution previously worked for another institution doesn't mean that the second had any role in founding the first. Without appropriate sourcing, this is original research. GabrielF 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WHY was the following Nader info removed/censored?

The following was removed from the "Critics" section even though it is fully sourced and obviously critical of Israel's influence in the U.S. via AIPAC and other organizations:

In August 2004 during his presidential campaign, Ralph Nader was criticized for expressing what many saw as antisemitic attitudes when he "suggested that President Bush and Congress were 'puppets' of the Israeli government" [27] [28] [29]. Nader is quoted as saying that: "The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced" [30]. Nader's statements regarding the Israeli influence on American foreign policy and American politicians brought him much criticism from the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish organizations. Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, was quoted soon after Nader made the comments, stating that "What he [Nader] said smacks of bigotry" [31]. Foxman, in an open letter to Nader about his comment(s), wrote: "...the image of the Jewish State as a 'puppeteer,' controlling the powerful U.S. Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse" [32]. Nader's response to Foxman can be found here, and Foxman's counter-reply to Nader's letter is here.

Here's a transcript of an interview with Nader where he discusses what he said: [33]. Also note that the YouTube video is a clip from CPSAN, where he said this. --WassermannNYC 10:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained on the other 4 articles into which you attempted to POV-push this trivia, it was a tempest in a teapot, and the only person who still cares about it is you, the person who is also obsessed with identifying the "Jewish lobby" and all the rich Jews in the United States, along with claiming David Irving is a "Scholar of the Holocaust". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, I don't appreciate your smear tactics; I expect better from an admin. committed to the principle of NPOV -- and PLEASE explain yourself more fully; your ONE SENTENCE does not justify deleting valid, relevant, and well sourced information. Yes the info was inserted in to 5 different articles, but you fail to add that they were all RELEVANT articles and that identical information is copied/pasted and crosslited on Wikipedia routinely if it pertains to multiple articles. Also, anything reported in the Washington Post and investigated by the ADL (along with other reliable sources) that was said by a former presidential candidate (a multiple presidential canidate actually, and well-known national figure) is not mere "trivia." I simply cannot understand why you keep saying that this is "trivia" when that assertion is a blatant falsity; the Washington Post is (as you know) one of the top newspapers in the USA. I am not "obsessed with identifying the 'Jewish lobby' and all the rich Jews in the United States" as you write: they are simply articles that I am interested in and seek to expand/enrich with factual, well-sourced, and relevant information (how many times must I say this?) -- also, must I remind you that around 80% or more of your own edits deal with Jewish-themed articles, many of which you and other admins. fiercely protect and watch in shifts, preventing other good editors from even touching them. However, I would like to ask: isn't the job of admins. to watch/police the entirety of Wikipedia instead of having 80% or even more of your edits (and the edits of some other admins. are close to 100%) on Jewish themed-articles? (as I said, this is not just you: many other high-level admins. edit Jewish articles almost exclusively to the detriment of the rest of the project, which you all seem to conveniently ignore to spend the vast bulk of your time and energy on Jewish-themed articles).

Again, please assume good faith, as you have noticed that ALL of my edits were not vandalism; they were all made in good faith in the interest of furthering the project of an OPEN and FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. I am very interested in Jewish businesspeople in the USA (and the other List of Jewish Americans) and American-Israeli relations, and this is why I spent all of that time expanding that list only to have it unjustly deleted by you in the blink of an eye (and hence my high edit count in regards to these particular articles).

As for your other smear: "...claiming David Irving is a "Scholar of the Holocaust"...that IS NOT what I said. If you had read it correctly, I wrote: "I see that we don't have a 'Category:Independent scholars' here on Wiki. Though I find Irving's views pertaining to Jews and the Holocaust absolutely despicable..." -- I simply proposed to create a 'Category:Independent scholars' (for not only Irving but many others) as pertaining to Irving's history books that were written independently of any university or organization. Such a category would also be relevant for any other scholar or researcher that has published outside of the academic system yet still have valuable and well-researched views on their primary subjects; this had nothing to do with his personal views on the Holocaust, which I immediately denounced (Irving has never written a book on the Holocaust exclusively as far as I can find, only on WWII history). So, if you would please stop misquoting me I would certainly appreciate that. Also, since you canvassed this over my own canvasses on the pages which I added the Nader info that you later removed, I'm going to go ahead and copy/paste this response to the other smears in order to offer a rebuttal to your smear tactics. --WassermannNYC 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Economist Criticism Rebuttals (& Cites added)

Several editors have added rebuttals to the Economists claims that AIPAC and the religious right influence American foreign policy toward Israel. I wonder if this is appropriate. First, the rebuttals far outweigh the original claim in terms of content and, IMO, push the paragraph into the POV realm. Second, this is the "Critics" section: do rebuttals even belong here. Third, though many of the other criticisms are dubious claims or at the very least debatable, none of them include rebuttals. My first instinct is to remove the rebuttals entirely. If that is deemed too drastic a response, how about trimming the list to a summary of the original rebuttal, removing the latest additions. Taft 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: since a decent portion of the article centers around the debate over scope of AIPAC's influence, does this topic warrant its own section? Taft 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Taft, I think the rebuttals are NOT appropriate, and that they do not belong in this section. Mainly because it mixes rebuttal into a criticism section, thereby diluting the criticism. That portion of the paragraph was easily extracted and placed in the previous "Support" section. Since you have had no other response for the last few days, I have made this change for you since I was making other changes. Please move it back if you are not happy with what I did: I moved the text and made it the last paragraph of the "Support" section.

Taft, if you have access to the Economist article (it's a pay site) I would flesh this criticism out some and replace the last sentence, since it is rather thin with the rebuttal moved out and deserves a better statement of the argument in the Economist article.

Other Changes made: I found and filled in some of the CN (citation needed), put back some of Bush's speech which was missing context, and added a paragraph with quotes from Cheney's speech today.

Thanks, Jgui 05:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I also added meat to the bones of the Espionage discussion. This deserves at least to have the characters and charges explained; the previous version was inadequate. Thanks, Jgui 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1982 edit

In 1982, AIPAC was allegedly able to convince the US Congress and President Reagan to veto a French-supported UN resolution condemning the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon, which called for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from Lebanon to allow for the safe evacuation of Palestinians. This series of events caused some critics in the media to argue that the "Reagan administration could not commit itself to concrete action to stop the killing in Lebanon".[4] The United States defended its vote stating that the proposed resolution would allow the PLO to retain its weapons during the evacuation, thus allowing it to potentially carry out attacks throughout the evacuation.

Some users apparently do not know how serious this is, especially when written in such a manner it could be considered slander and/or libel. This is absolutely ridiculous, and the source is worse. It comes from the Institute for Palestine Studies and is written by excessively anti-Israel people like Cockburn. It provides absolutely no evidence for the claim. What you would need to include this paragraph would be something perhaps from the Washington Post that says "AIPAC has convinced several congressmen...", not this boloney. You would need a congressman from 1982 to make that claim. You would need something reputable. The idea that the entire US Congress and the President of the United States were all "convinced" is extremely serious, it cannot be accompanied by such a weak source. It reeks of POV and has no base to support it at all whatsoever. Nothing. It will be removed. --Shamir1 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Consensus. Please try to adhere to these Wikipedia policies in the future. I'm not going to try to revert anymore, not because I agree with you or appreciate your rabid tone -- and certainly not because I appreciate your style of disregarding consensus-building procedures and repeatedly biasing Wikipedia against Palestinians and non-Zionists -- but because I'll let things cool off and allow other editors get involved if they see fit. Just to correct a couple things -- Cockburn is "excessively anti-Israel" in your opinion, but many disagree, and others have argued convincingly that the Washington Post is excessively anti-Palestinian. Also, nobody is being "slandered" or "libeled" in the quote above. Please in the future try to work with other editors to build consensus even if you personally feel passionately about a subject. . Organ123 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That flow chart is AWESOME! I have never seen that before. That sums up Wikipedia to a TEE. What a fucking mess/load of shit! AWESOME! I LOVE it :) Cheers --Tom 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

A new editor (TruthSeeker1901) inserted a new section and three paragraphs on the Armenian Genocide. I have removed these, and left a note on this editor's talk page, for the following reasons:

1. All the text added is uncited. It therefore reads as if it is all Original Research. See WP:RS and WP:OR. In order to add this section, it must have citations from Reliable Sources: e.g. newspaper or periodical articles, etc. For example, your first sentence is that AIPAC has lobbied the U.S. Congress against commemorating the Armenian Genocide - but your statement of this is not sufficient; you need to find a Reliable Source who makes this claim or at least show some evidence from a RS that this lobbying has taken place.

2. Text is not written to be NPOV - see WP:NPOV. For example the heading "GENOCIDE DENIAL & SUPPORT FOR REVISIONISM" is taking the point of view that AIPAC is Denying the genocide and supporting revisionism - which I doubt they would agree to. Or the sentence "The Armenian community has attempted outreach to no avail" is argumentative - who is "the Armenian community", who have they reached out to, who has not responded?

3. This "controversy" must be Notable (WP:Notable) in order for it to be included. Finding a number of WP:RS who discuss this issue (needed for the first point) goes a long way towards showing notability. I also checked the WP page WP:Armenian Genocide page, and did not find any mention of this controversy there. If this is significant, wouldn't it be on that page?

4. WP format for header was not followed.

5. Finally, it is strongly advisable to leave a note on this Talk page when adding substantial amounts of text, so you can explain your reasons for adding, notability, etc. Please leave a note here before adding these paragraphs after reworking them.

6. The text I removed is the following. If an editor wants to insert this text, they should rework it, especially by finding citations and rewriting it to be NPOV:

GENOCIDE DENIAL & SUPPORT FOR REVISIONISM

AIPAC, along with other major American Jewish lobbies such as ADL and B'nai B'rith have lobbied the U.S. Congress against commemorative resolutions affirming the World War I Armenian Genocide. The Armenian Genocide (1915-1923) resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians and the forced deportations of the rest. Along with Armenians, other Christian minorities in the Ottoman Turkish Empire perished (including Assyrians, Arabs and Greeks).

The Turkish government has denied the facts behind the genocide; the death toll; and that the genocide was centrally planned. Israel and the major Jewish lobbies such as AIPAC have supported Turkey in this denial.

AIPAC has used its considerable clout in helping to defeat the Armenian Genocide resolutions (either in committee or from keeping it from getting to a floor vote). The rationale used by AIPAC is that Turkey has a long standing history of having accepted Sephardic Jewish refugees from Spain and that Israel-Turkey relations are more important than recognizing the first genocide of the 20th century. Israel also seeks better treatment of its Jewish minority in Istanbul and Turkey's assistance in allowing more Turkish Jews to be allowed to emigrate to Israel and the occupied West Bank.

The Armenian community has attempted outreach to no avail, as it appears that the "realpolitik" considerations (Israel-Turkey relations) trump the obvious irony and hypocrisy of Jewish organizations lobbying against recognizing someone else's tragedy. Many in the Armenian diasporan communities also believe that a motivation is for Israel and the Jewish diaspora to maintain the perceived uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust experience as opposed to other genocides (before or after).

Thank you, Jgui 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversies and Critics

An editor recently removed info from the Controversies related to the Steiner conversation, since he felt that the text was untrue and misleading. I rewrote using direct quotes from that conversation, instead of paraphrasing, which should be non-controversial since the statements are directly from the transcript. Thank you, Jgui 05:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I reorganized the Critics section to improve organization. I put all the US House of Rep quotes at the top, and made flow into following paragraphs logical (instead of random). I added a large quote from the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, since it is a substantial and detailed criticism of AIPAC that deserves to be noted. I kept all citations and left most other text unmodified - just moved it. Jgui 07:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Shamir, you made some deletions and changes without explaining why. I left them all except for the following:

1. You removed citations explaining which Representatives were US Congress (calling them simply Representative). I added these back since this article also refers to a State Rep and it is better to explicitely state which is which to minimize ambiguity. I've left your abbreviation in the subsequent sentences since they have been properly introduced in the first sentence that I added back.

2. You removed a sentence with a properly-cited quote from Obey that I did not add - I only moved it in my reorg. You gave no explanation for removing this sentence so I added it back.

3. You changed the first sentence from "US Government" to "US Congress". AIPAC lobbies the executive branch as well as the congress, so it was correct before your change.

4. You removed properly-cited direct quotes of the Steiner conversation without any explanation. You previously removed text in this paragraph claiming it was untrue and misleading, so as I explained above I put in direct quotes which should be non-controversial. Removing properly-cited text without explanation can be considered vandalism - please be more careful.

5. You also removed a sentence and citation from the Forward; I assume because it was a dead link. Please follow the correct WP protocol, which is not to remove text and citation, but to add a CN to the sentence. I looked up the citation and added it back so it now links properly.

6. You also removed part of Stephen Walt's title. As you may not know, Harvard professors are assumed to be Faculty of Arts and Sciences if you do not specify which school they are faculty for. Stephen Walt is professor at the Kennedy School of Government so I added that back.

Thank you, Jgui 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to get back at you later. I made the info more concise and removed what was not very controversial. While he sounds incredibly boastful, it is not scandalous that some AIPAC members were helping out or working for the Clinton campaign or that they would be promoted in some way. Yes it sounds boastful, but sometimes you have to read it again and think of it individually without the other more controversial points. With the issue of aid, it is partly not controversial. The $3 billion stats is known and can be found on the website of the U.S. embassy in Israel. The more controversial and "juicy" part is the lesser known other goodies. I also removed the "AIPAC-approved" thing because it sounded odd and wasnt very representative of the content, besides the fact its not needed in order to deliver the point.

I did not remove any titles before names. Prior, it said United States Representative for each one, so I removed the United States from it. I then abbreviated the states from which they represent as that is how it is usually written with their name/

As for the "criticism" cited in the Forward, it was not that critical. He claimed that AIPAC's interests are right-wing, which he may consider a bad thing but that it because he personally does not adhere to right-wing politics, not because of the system of AIPAC.

I will re-add the title to Walt (I just found it long), and the Government part which is my mistake. --Shamir1 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Shamir, thank you for explaining your edits.

1. I vehemently disagree with your edits to the Steiner quote that I researched and added with a citation, which you said you removed large portions of because it "was not very controversial". This is a short paragraph - there is no need to be more concise. Please bear in mind that I originally added this quote because you had removed text fairly similar to the text that you just put back in (which you claimed at the time was "untrue and misleading"). What is scandalous about this quote, and the reason I believe it caused him to resign and the reason it should stay in its entirety, is that Steiner is claiming to have power over the Clinton campaign's Secretary-level appointments, implicit power over the AIPAC workers who will be in Clinton's campaign, and power over the Bush administration's appropriations to Israel. And his stated reason for this power is that "they're looking for the Jewish votes". The trimmed version you put in its place does not convey this, so it is not a suitable replacement for the direct, properly-cited quote. Please do not remove this.

2. I agree that the "AIPAC-approved" statement was clumsy and not well written, so I left that out consistent with your change.

3. I put back the US Representative (and State Representative) titles where called for. I think you will have to agree that just stating "Representative" is ambiguous - I don't understand why you think it is better to be ambiguous? Please note that their titles are only stated in this long form once - the first time they are introduced - which I believe is the correct way to do it.

4. I don't think it was proper to delete the Obey sentence as you did, since he is listed above as one of the AIPAC critics in the first sentence - we need this sentence to know what he is criticizing. Since you thought the Obey sentence was weak, I used a direct Obey quote from the Washington Post article that more clearly states why Obey thinks that AIPAC is not representative of Israeli opinion as a whole, which is what his criticism is about.

Thank you, Jgui 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

3. They already have a title. The first one says United States Representative and the rest continue with Representative. That is not ambiguous at all, especially since some have the state abbreviation. It is not ambiguous.

4. I am not sure about the critique of Obey. He says he is left-wing and doesnt like AIPAC because he thinks its right-wing.... I donno how critical that is. --Shamir1 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Espionage Section Update

Can someone update this section? First, Rosen and Weissman were scheduled for trial on June 4. Is the trial still going on or is it over? Second, Franklin pleaded guilty so it should fall under ESPIONAGE rather than ESPIONAGE ALLEGATIONS since it is confirmed that he committed espionage. We must distinguish between Franklin's case which is confirmed espionage and Rosen/Weissman which are just currently allegations since they have not been found guilty. --CommonSense101 20:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I just updated it with recent news: the trial was posponed again to January 08, and AIPAC agreed to pay for Weissman's defense through appeal. Jgui 16:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I also added cited text from Washington Post and Jewish News Weekly to flesh out "Activities and Stated Goals" section. Thanks, Jgui 01:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

More news on the espionage front:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- More than one thousand documents released under Freedom of Information Act filings reveal details of a secret battle that raged between founders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and top US law enforcement officials. The new book "America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government" reproduces and analyzes these files and their troubling implications for rule of law in the United States. "America's Defense Line" also reveals stunning details of a preferential deal engineered within the highest levels of the US Department of Justice over the course of three years and implemented in 1965 -- but kept secret from the American public until today. Old documents and new analysis from the Center for Policy and Law Enforcement raise many questions about the upcoming October 2008 AIPAC espionage trial.

-- Grant Smith (IRmep), "Declassified Old Documents Shed New Light on AIPAC Espionage Prosecution - IRmep" Reuters, 2008-08-20

Propose adding the following:

More than 1,000 documents released under FOI reveal what the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy describes as a "secret battle between AIPAC and the U.S. Justice Department". The documents will be used in the upcoming October 2008 AIPAC espionage trial. America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government provides details of a secret preferential deal implemented in 1965 between the Justice Department and AIPAC.

-- NonZionist (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah Spelling

I think that one consistent spelling for every proper noun is pretty important overall and necessary within a single page, but our spellings of Hezbollah differ markedly within many single pages including this one. 'Hezbollah' seems to have reached majority in English literature and therefore I think:

• it should receive precedence
• outside quotations, it should be the only spelling we use
• within quotatipn, a '[sic]' should be inserted after all other spellings. Does anyone disagree? Thecurran 19:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do any articles having anything to do with israel or jews are so vehemently defended. They are almost always altered with POV to make israel look like an angel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.80.92 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"notable" sources and other remarks

RIDICILOUS

I'm afraid that the WRMEA is a notable and reliable source. Its publisher was established in 1982 as a non-profit 501(c)(4). It has a board of directors. The authors of its articles are known, as is its executive editor. It therefore deserves inclusion as much as any other source. [34]

The American Chronicle is published by Ultio LLC. [35]. The author of the article is William Huges, whose political commentary has been published [36].

The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy is a very well known publication, and the London Review of Books is about as reliable as they come. It was written by professors from the University of Chicago and Harvard.

Internet Archive is used all over Wikipedia, and Fortune Magazine speaks for itself.

Since there was no objection to Jewish News Weekly as a source, I've restored the original, accurate and contextual quotation.

--Uncle Bungle (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that edit, Uncle,; the editor has been missing for a year. I looked for that info to determine if I would revert (I'm 1RR'd at IPCOLL) and was glad to see you already had. I've been working on associated pages (since this edit[37]), but discussion is elsewhere, serious, good-faith discussion seems to be, well, one-sided, and my plate is pretty full. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial". That word in the introduction is what is ridiculous. The sources are pretty lame, and if anywhere belong in criticism. Out of all the articles on WP this one is introduced as "controversial"? That is incredibly loaded. Please. That has got to go. A criticism section (properly sourced) is justified and delivers what it deserves. Come on. Even Hamas does not get such an intro.

Please look at the edit more carefully. I did not remove most of the sources you are talking about. I simply moved them to the appropriate places. They are still there and say the very same thing. Check Successes for the Fortune part, for instance. Internet Archive, London Review, they are all still there. That is, unless you are talking about the "controversial" part. Funny, I have read thousands of WP articles with criticism sections and I cant recall one where the first adjective of the article itself is "controversial."

I just shortened the Jewish News Weekly part. A quote is not necessary, and the selected quote is misleading. The "but some in the pro-Israel community once saw the war as an effort that would more closely align the United States and Israel against a common enemy: Arab and Muslim radicalism," is problematic. The "but..." puts emphasis on what follows that word, which is not related. "Some in the pro-Israel community" is not AIPAC, and "once saw" is not notable. That part of the source can only confuse and the emphasized portion is not directly related to the article. Either way, it is unnecessary and un-needed. The relevant part stays. This really shouldnt be a dilemma.

WRMEA is a pro-Arab paper and may be called such. Check Robert Fisk, B'Tselem or other articles that have CAMERA (or many others) labeled as pro-Israel groups. It is what they are. Don't run ahead of yourself. I did not delete this source from the article. In fact, does it even need a "according to the WRMEA"? I think its fine without it.

Is a poll commissioned jointly by an anti-Israel lobby (CNI) and Zogby considered to be a fair one? The credentials are not very good. It is no wonder it has hardly been re-published. (I do not even consider the fact that the partner [Zogby] heads the Arab American Institute to be an issue in this case. This poll was commissioned in part by an anti-Israel lobby and it has hardly been reported by any other source at all besides that lobby. This is an encyclopedia.

The removal of the McCollum info was not based on anything.

Grant Smith is not considered notable at all, and the source is a weak one. A notable commentator from a better source (Washington Post weighs a lot more than indymedia.org) would be more encyclopedic. This isnt a laundry list of just anyone who just don't like a group. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

fact tags

Please don't remove fact tags unless replacing them with the source, or removing the unsourced material after waiting an apropriate length of time.

--Uncle Bungle (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Right again, and done well. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What AIPAC does

Maybe AIPAC sprinkles candy on the land of Israel and fights the evil scourge of liberal new anti-semitism. Maybe AIPAC is a conduit for espionage for a foreign power. Whatever AIPAC does, declaring it needs to be backed by reliable sources. We don't say "Scientology helps it's followers do whatever" based on the Scientology website, and we don't say "AIPAC fosters strong ties between Israel and the US" based on the AIPAC website. We find reliable sources to back such statements.

Further to that, in the interest of an WP:NPOV, if we going to put the "strong ties" in the lead as one of AIPACs primary activities, then we can also put "controversial" back, since it's cited by reliable sources.

Thank you. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we are not going to put "controversial" back for all the reasons above. That deserves no further discussion. THERE IS NO QUESTION that AIPAC's main mission is a strong relationship between Israel and the United States, as repeated over and over again on their website (in addition to press releases). That is not debated, it is a fact that that is what AIPAC's mission is. Albeit some do not like that mission, and argue that such a relationship is not in one or the other's interest, but it does not change the very simple fact that AIPAC works to pursue this goal. AIPAC hosts meetings with leaders and public officials from (primarily) two countries: America and Israel. That's it. As for even more sources (if it even needs one) there are hundreds of quotations from presidents and other politicians who explicitly state that AIPAC's goal is this. (Which again, is not even debated at all.) If we need other objective descriptions of AIPAC: AIPAC's primary mission is to work with America's leaders to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship. [38] and "AIPAC is a registered domestic lobby whose principal mission is to work with Congress on legislation that strengthens the relationship between the United States and Israel."[39] That is what it is described as, that is what it says it is (again, not contested), and that is how it has been originally on Wikipedia. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New source

Added some info from the founder of AIPAC (Kenen)'s 1981 book on the history of AIPAC under his control. I added info on the early history and reason for name change. I then fixed several areas where information has leaked out, so that the WP text no longer matched the cited RS references. I corrected these, and created a new subsection for the Steiner resignation. If you question any of this, PLEASE read the cited references - this is all accurately supported. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I would ask editors to refrain from inserting words such as "controversial" to describe an organization and then providing the opinions of a few people who oppose the organization as "proof" that the organization should be described as "controversial". If notable people/groups have voiced specific objections to the organization, the specific nature of those criticisms should be noted. If CAIR does not get the controversial label in the intro., neither does this. Stanley011 (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the sources themselves in no way mention that AIPAC is controversial. So adding "controversial" constitutes OR Stanley011 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC).

Please respond to my latest point. Using your tactic (describing an organization as "controversial" and justifying that label by using articles that have criticized that organization, valid or not) any organization on Wikipedia should be described as "controversial." Why not edit the United States Senate page to read that the senate is a "controversial" branch of government, since I can point you to tons of sources that have criticized it for its ineffectiveness, burdensome rules, etc. Stanley011 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it so odd that an editor would seriously have to justify removing such a clear weasel word. Read the above explanation (under "RIDICULOUS") if needed. Keep an eye out, Stanley011, some editors are just out to compromise the integrity of this encyclopedia. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" is generally a meaningless weasel-word, and in this case is also original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not original research when the very word controversial is attributed by the sources to AIPAC. Scythian1 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources you provided do not describe AIPAC as "controversial"--that is your own interpretation of the sources, and as such, is indeed original research. If you find sources that describe AIPAC as "controversial" by all means include them in the article and be sure to note in the sentence who, exactly, is the one describing AIPAC as controversial Stanley011 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC).

Formatting very messed up

The formatting of the bottom section of this article is very messed up. Nightkey (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nightkey: You've got the same situation wherever a bloc of writer/editors believe their primary duty is to an ideology rather than to the facts - Almost, if not all, of the references are one sided. AIPAC and Israel are not as pure as "pure driven snow", but they're not demonic and the source of all evil. Like most things on this plant, they're not perfect, an admixture of good and bad, with both good and bad intentions. In the case of Israel, Israel's leaders are responding to what they believe is an existential threat - a real threat to Israel's existence and the survival of the Jewish people they believe they are now responsible for.

Unlike what some here would like to publish, the Nazis and other Europeans perpetrated the Holocaust and slaughtered 6 million Jews along with 12 million others - Latvians, Poles, Slavs, Serbs, Romani (Gypsies), Catholics, Orthodox, Masons, Communists and the murdered in this industrial slaughter goes on...

Until the records were destroyed, they filled a city block.

Now that they've been destroyed, Holocaust denial has returned with a vengeance, and for some inexplicable reason, some here want to call it, "Questioning the Holocaust." Not even those who hold the "Holocaust Deniers Conferences" would dare say such a thing! Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows better than to try to claim that what he is doing is "Questioning the existence of the Holocaust" - He calls it a MYTH.

But, those who have an ideology to advance should NEVER let troublesome things such as FACTS get in their way.

The day they do, the sections you're worried about will "clean themselves up".

God Bless, Michael - --Traditional Anglican (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In Criticism

There is no closed quotes in first point in criticism??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.30.158 (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup from anon IP 76.208.131.200

An anon-ip has made a number of changes that were not discussed here first. Some were good but others were unsupportable based on his edit summaries. I have removed the bulk of those improper changes, leaving the ones that improve the article. If this editor wishes to discuss his changes, he should appear here.

• He changed discussion of Iran so that it no longer matches AIPAC's own website, and introduces unsupported inflammatory allegations. This is OR and does not belong here.
• He added a list of books (sometimes twice) to Further Reading that have nothing to do with AIPAC (instead having to do with terrorism, Al Quada and justifications for the war in Iraq). These clearly do not belong here.
• He altered a discussion of Rep. McCollum stating "Article stated B. McCollum was a supporter of Israel purely on the basis of unnamed, unsourced Jewish activists and "Capitol Hill staffers". Correction was made to reflect the actual record.". In fact the cited reference from the Jewish Daily Forward states: "Aipac sources, senior activists in Minnesota’s Jewish community and congressional staffers who know her well, described McCollum as a strong supporter of Israel who has excellent relations with the local Jewish community."

I also added a Further Reading book written by the founder of AIPAC (which clearly DOES belong here), and moved the Mearsheimer and Walt article to the head of the Criticism section since it is the most prominent criticsm.

Thank you, Jgui (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I also corrected an inaccurate parenthetical comment about Moran to make it consistent with the citation (the same WP sentence had two separate citations to the same article). Jgui (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't know how else to answer...

This is the correct way: bring it to Talk where it can be discussed. Jgui (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The correction on the Article for AIPAC - Section Aims and Activities needs to stand simply because the present statement is inaccurate. Per his own statement, The President of Iran has stated that the Holocaust IS A MYTH and NEVER happened (I provided a Link to a Wikipedia Article). This isn't "Questioning the Holocaust" - This is "DENYING the Holocaust" by any reasonable definition of the word. According to the same article, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the "disappearance" of Israel (most charitable translation of his remarks) or for "wiping Israel off the map"(Most ptobable interpretation given in the Wikipedia Article and in most of the World's Press) And, The AIPAC website makes clear that the "Nuclear Activities" they're referring to are the development and construction of nuclear weapons. To claim that the truth is "inflammatory" is outrageous!

Your changes in this section are NOT supported by any citation in the article. These statements are NOT supportable unless you can find and cite Reliable Sources (RS) that state the case as you yourself believe it to be. And please note that citing another WP page is not sufficient. Jgui (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The correction on Pastor John Hagee should stand simply because "Socialists" and "Liberals" are almost never identified by the Main Stream Media or these articles as "Left-Wing" unless their views are "Left-Wing" they make the people of Berkeley or Sweden look conservative. I believe it only fair that those on the Right be treated in the print and speech in the same manner as those on the Left are. To do otherwise is Inflammatory and inaccurate. One can describe Pastor Hagee as controversial and fundamentalist and never use the pejorative "Right-Wing" and be very accurate without being inflammatory or unfair to those who are politically or religiously conservative.

As a former "Funde Christian", I can tell you truthfully that your statement about what Hagee says and believes is completely false. What Anon typed was the what these people believe. Just as Liberals have the right to have what they believe and say accurately represented, so do conservative fundamentalist Christians. Hagee (and AIPAC) believes that the enemy is the ideology of Islamism (the selfsame ideology that drove people to slaughter children at Beslan and to fly planes into buildings packed with people guilty of the crime of going to work), NOT Muslim people - Muslims are prospects for conversion (Just as Christians are prospects for conversion for Muslims). And, Hagee believes that the 2nd Coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is supposed to occur after (1) the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel and (2) the funding of the Nation of Israel with its Capitol in the city of Jerusalem along with (3) the conversion of massive numbers of Jews to the Messiah, Jesus. (Please note - I'm summarizing literally dozens of books, pamphlets and sermons).

Now, I've known literally dozens of Jews, including the secular Jewish woman I owe my physical well-being to. the Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi I owe my Spiritual well-being to and several survivors of the Holocaust. Although NONE would accept Hagee's "generous offer" of conversion to Jesus Christ, None would consider his "offer" or him to be anti-Semitic.

I have no idea why you would insist on calling Him and his "offer" anti-Semitic, esp. in the context of this article.

I agree that some of the language of this Hagee section (which I did not write) should be wikipedia-ized. I encourage you to find RS citations to improve it. Jgui (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the books - they were posted in order to suggest that organizations like AIPAC don't exist in a vacuum, and neither does Israel. The article stated that Israel supported the Second Iraq War. I know that wasn't the case, and one of the books Anon cited supports that.

Senator Mike Gravel (1969-81 Alaska, D), aged 78, Ran for President this year on both the Democratic and Libertarian Tickets, Raised a whopping $476K + $47.6K self-financed (Not even enough to run for State Assembly in California), Received 2 Very Low Level Campaign Endorsements (and 0 Political Endorsements), and never received more than .4% in any primary and .04% in any disputed primary.

Gravel's short citation should include his presidential aspirations, since that is how he has become most notable. Ask yourself this question - had you ever heard of him before he ran for president? Jgui (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor Alan Keyes is a brilliant and decent man, but Republicans don't usually go around calling him a Presidential Candidate (in spite of the fact that he's done better than Sen. Gravel in his runs for the Presidency). Please, remove the "Presidential Candidate" from Sen. Gravel's name - It cheapens the term and its only use is to prejudice the reader.

Same for Keyes - had you ever heard of him before he ran for president? Jgui (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV - this article would have to go a long way before it could accurately be said about it. The changes I've requested are only so WP could live up to that Standard.

Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional Anglican (talk • contribs) 12:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Revised by Michael - --Traditional Anglican (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

About five bogus edits by anons today. Reverted back to last non-anon edit. --John Nagle (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Three more somewhat bogus edits by anons. Reverted back to last non-anon edit. --John Nagle (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

I removed the last paragraph, from a fringe writer, and I think the whole section needs trimming back, though I don't know what the parameters should be. To open it up, here's a section that is not clearly criticism, is over-sourced (if that's possible) and doesn't seem obviously notable:

• Journalist Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch and former congressperson Cynthia McKinney maintain that AIPAC was instrumental in helping to defeat Congressional candidates that AIPAC deemed unfriendly to Israel, including McKinney (after her first term as a Representative) and Earl F. Hilliard of Alabama.

I'm not even sure it should be reworked and put into another part of the article. Why is AIPAC being criticized for the everyday activity of supporting/opposing politicians? I propose removing it, but I am in no rush, so I would like to see if there is a consensus. (P.S. I am a paid-up member of AIPAC, for what it's worth. My politics are fairly mixed and even liberal in many ways. Just want to be up-front about that.) --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody responded here to disagree, so I've gone ahead and removed it. I've also removed another section I'd taken out before, which another user put back in, though they did add more information to it. This section seems to me too long and out of proportion, it's basically a catalog of various gripes against AIPAC, some fair but some also too fringe. Too much space is being given to various individuals and groups with mostly the same complaints. I think this needs a lot more work, and the best outcome would be just a paragraph or two explaining what the nature of criticisms are, with a couple of examples from what's here now. I don't have time to write one now, but I should have time to work on it over the next day or two. If anyone has thoughts to contribute, please respond and I'll happily work toward consensus. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to the massive deletion carried out on 2008-09-09 14:34. I do strongly object to this peremptory deletion of over 7,000 bytes of good material. Your sense of "proportion" certainly does not accord with mine. Only WP:AGF prevents me from regarding this biased deletion as censorship and vandalism. -- NonZionist (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like you to define "fringe", please, and specify which WP guidelines these quotes would run afoul of. That is, you seem to be asserting that &mdash apart from whether the criticisms are substantial and worthy of mention in themselves — that it is their sources per se (Cockburn, Smith) which are somehow "too fringe" for inclusion in a WP article. So I'd like for you to shore up this "fringeness" assertion you're making, please. Yellow Rain (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My main issue is that it is too long, and that it would be better assembled as an overview of the criticisms of AIPAC. I don't think it is necessary for it to be a comprehensive list of all the various complaints about the organization. I also think it could be merged with the Controversies section. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It belongs in the criticism section - since the paragraphs are criticisms. Moreover, the notion of excluding "fringe" writers' opinions is novelty since I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that pointedly defines a fringe writer.Scythian1 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to refocus this debate on the undue weight section of Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines because that is what I meant before. First of all, I want to be very clear that I am not trying to remove this section, only put it in proper perspective.

The article currently lists many different individuals’ complaints about AIPAC (Reps. Moran, Obey, McCollum and more) that are all essentially the same argument: that AIPAC is too powerful and places allegiance to Israel above the U.S. While I disagree with their views, I recognize that it is the position of a significant minority, and should be represented. However, this can be done with one or two examples. As "undue weight" says:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

This article currently repeats certain criticisms more than once, and there are a couple things in here which are not actual criticisms, such as the Economist quote. This is why I am working on an alternate version, and hope to post it soon. I would like to invite others who have edited this page to weigh in, as well. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As promised, I've been working on another version of this in my spare time. So this version accomplishes a number of things.

I have standardized the citation templates, to the best of my knowledge. I have "wikified" some links. More importantly, it is more concise and it is no longer a list, so it is clearer to readers unfamiliar with the subject. The first section outlines the principal criticisms against AIPAC. The second section offers some detail into the arguments of prominent critics Walt & Mearshimer, while including relevant statements from AIPAC. It preserves text and citations from the longer version, and keeps the language neutral per WP:AVOID. The third section mentions a few prominent politicians who have publicly disagreed with AIPAC:

The breadth of AIPAC's influence has been the subject of criticism, often relating to American and Israeli policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Critics argue that it has distorted American foreign policy in favor of Israel, and that Jewish-American public opinion is to the left of AIPAC and other mainstream Jewish organizations.

Among the best-known critical works about AIPAC is The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt. The working paper and resulting book claim that AIPAC is a "de facto agent for a foreign government", whose "success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it." The AIPAC website claims the organization "receives no financial assistance from Israel, from any national organization or any foreign group. AIPAC is not a political action committee. It does not rate, endorse or contribute to candidates."

We need a major overhaul on all information pertaining to foreign agency. AIPAC founder Isaiah Kenen was a foreign agent for the Israeli Foreign Ministry. I believe we can link to the original registration form online. That would be a great addition. Also, to juxtapose AIPAC's claims that it is not a political action committee, we should link to the internal AIPAC memos published in the Washington Post showing deputy political director Elizabeth Schrayer directing the Gold Coast PAC, the Georgia PAC, ICEPAC, and other political action committees AIPAC created to give to favored candidates. I believe that a high resolution scan of those document will also soon be online and provide interesting context, in line with Mr. Bergstrom's valient efforts at quality control hereRabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AIPAC has been the subject of occasional criticism by American progressive politicians. In Sept. 2007, Representative Jim Moran of Virginia stated that the Jewish community as a whole and AIPAC, in particular, drove the United States toward the war in Iraq. Moran later apologized. Other prominent politicians who have criticized AIPAC include Representative Dave Obey of Wisconsin, former Senator Mike Gravel and former Representative Cynthia McKinney.

I realize this isn't the final version, if there is such a thing, but I hope this can be the basis for more work and further refinement. If there are no objections to this version, then I will post it sometime tomorrow. If there are, let's talk about how to find a consensus. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please obtain a consensus before you make wholesale deletions to such lengthy articles. People do not check articles on Wiki every second. Consensus does not happen overnight or in a day, or two. The edits that you make grossly water down the criticism. This information was laboriously posted on Wikipedia - and no, the information is not a reiteration of itself. Your deletions also contravene the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Even assuming that some criticism content were similar, that is of no moment. We have just about unlimited space on the internet, and we are not under page length constraints. The same could be said if one were to delete and snip out portions of AIPAC's "successes" and summarize them in 2 or 3 sentences. Scythian1 (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I second this. People come to an encyclopedia looking for information, not "proportion". Using "proportion" as a justification for the peremptory removal of almost all criticism of AIPAC is smacks of censorship. If proportion is a genuine concern, then the solution is to move the information to a separate article. -- NonZionist (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Haaretz, Joe Biden has become critical of AIPAC:

Biden dismissed the prominent role played by the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, saying the group "doesn't speak for the entire Jewish community," and it "doesn't speak for the state of Israel, no matter what it insists on any occasion." -- Mozgovaya, Natasha, "Biden: Israel's decisions must be made in Jerusalem, not D.C.", Haaretz, 2008-09-04

I propose adding the following to the "Criticism" section:

Joe Biden, the 2008 Democrat candidate for vice president, argues that AIPAC has undue influence. Biden said that AIPAC "doesn't speak for the entire Jewish community," and it "doesn't speak for the state of Israel, no matter what it insists on any occasion."

-- NonZionist (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The 2008-09-17 01:02 update changed "often relating to American and Israeli policies" to "often commenting the group to American and Israeli policies". The latter phrasing doesn't make sense. The explanation given for the update is "(again, POV wording)". No explanation was offered here in the talk page. Making edits without prior discussion simply fosters edit wars. If there is a good reason for an edit, it should be possible to explain that reason here in talk! -- NonZionist (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a simple, unintentional mistake in copying and pasting. There is no reason for to be paranoid about little things like this! I have since corrected that mistake. The Squicks (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My main point is that edits should be proposed and justified here in the talk page. Only then does it become possible to build consensus. If you want us to support your edits, you need to tell us in detail why you are making the edits. We can then agree with you or suggest alternatives. In this way, the article remains stable and volatility shifts to the talk page. I see no good reason for bypassing the talk page.

I notice that you replace "progressive" with "liberal" in one of your undocumented edits -- "occasional criticism by American liberal politicians". I think your intent here is to create the impression that condemnation of AIPAC is limited to a handful of "Treasonous Liebral Politicians". In reality, condemnation extends across the spectrum, with ordinary Americans more strongly opposed to AIPAC than the spineless politicians.

Paleo-conservatives should be mentioned in the "Criticism" section. They are more protective of U.S. sovereignty than liberals -- and are, accordingly, more dismayed when that sovereignty is surrendered to a foreign lobby. See, for example:

• Raimondo, Justin, "AIPAC and Espionage: Guilty as Hell", antiwar.com, 2005-09-30, and

• Desch, Micahel C., "Prophets in Their Own Land: How to go from respected academic to anti-Semite—in one simple step", The American Conservative, 2006-06-19.

-- NonZionist (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Restarting discussion of Criticism Section

I've looked closer at Wikipedia policies, and it turns out there are extensive Wikipedia guidelines covering fringe theories at WP:FRINGE. However, I will not immediately alter the page again, as it is my goal to find a consensus on this section. Instead I present in more depth some of my concerns about this article, and I would appreciate comment from members of the community. I will refer at times to my previous version of this section[40], which I posted a week ago and has since been reverted.

As I've noted above, this overall article is too unwieldy and confusing, made up of various lists and so is unhelpful to lay readers. Meanwhile, this section in particular gives the impression that some of these views are more notable than they actually are. Worse, it does not explain them very well, it merely cites incidents involving its proponents. This section is the worst offender, but not the only one.

Here's what I propose doing and why:

Remove the claim by Grant F. Smith that AIPAC is a "secretive political intelligence-gathering and covert operations powerhouse." This undoubtedly qualifies as WP:FRINGE in that it "depart[s] significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." It also does not meet the threshhold for inclusion because there are no available statements by second parties. First, it must be noted that his book is self-published and not a reliable source per WP:VERIFY. See Amazon[41], which lists the publisher as the Institute for Research, and the Institute for Research[42], which describes Smith as the Director of their media center. Meanwhile, a web search for Google yields Wikipedia, press releases by Smith and blog entries informed by the same. I find no other secondary sources for Mr. Smith's claims. This should clearly be removed.

Revise the section to make the underlying arguments more clear. Currently this section is written as a bulleted list which serves more to highlight particular incidents rather than adequately describe the criticisms contained. A big problem as well is that certain arguments are presented at face value, without any description from second party sources. For example, the section about the Hedrick Smith book is an extension of the argument that AIPAC is too influential. I had removed this before, but perhaps it could be mentioned in an additional sentence on my previous paragraph about the Mearsheimer/Walt book, but it is inappropriate to quote at length. Same goes for members of Congress who have essentially the same criticism of AIPAC. Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) an indiscriminate collection of information, and multiple bullet points about disagreements during the 1990s and 2000s do not add anything significant in and of themselves. It does make sense to describe one or two of these incidents, and the Moran incident is probably the best-known. (It also includes an extraneous source from a blog called Mondoweiss, which should be removed regardless.)

Move the bulleted sections about McCollum and FARA to History or Controversies. They are not presented as criticisms of AIPAC per se, but rather public disputes between AIPAC and its detractors.

Above I was asked whether I would object if someone removed sections from "successes" to summarize them instead, and the answer is definitely no. As I have said, this article needs a lot of work, and if we can find consensus, then I will continue work on this article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be a bit premature to knock off Mr. Smith. His new book "America's Defense Line" references over 1,000 pages of Department of Justice files revealing how AIPAC's predecessor organization was forced to file a secret Foreign Agents Registration Act declaration as the agent of the Israeli government. That would tend to lend some credence to his charges about the spin-off organization, AIPAC. The DOJ is a pretty good secondary source. You'd also know that his book was published by a duly licensed nonprofit corporation in Washington, DC if Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Jayjg and SlimVirgin hadn't had IRmep's page struck from Wikipedia after an administrator reversed all of their modifications on NPOV grounds--Perhaps these types of vicious attacks and smear attempts have caused that organization to put him out front as a lightning rod for all of these guys. Just speculating. Leading_Authority (Leading_Authority ) 08:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Leading Authority, I hope you don't mind me moving your comment out of the middle of mine, just for clarity. Anyway, the fact that IR is a licensed non-profit does not change the fact that the book is still considered self-published; it did not go through a separate, intellectually independent publishing house, as WP:RS specifies. It is also not up to Wikipedia to determine what the book proves, and without additional verification from reliable sources it should not be included. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You saying something is self published, with no evidence to support that charge. It is rather like categorizing Cockburn as "Fringe". That man wrote columns for Dow Jones. He writes and edits CounterPunch? Does fringe that make him? Maybe some person can even find something from David Duke applauding Cockbern's writing. Or maybe this emerging effort is simply not a very valid or acceptable process.

Since IRmep appears to have done several books, with a range of contributors, the burdon of proof you have to prove why their books must appear on Wikipedia citations not. Wikipedia is making no judgements about small publishers. You yes, so you have burden proof. But why time waste?

Matter is becoming moot in this case. Actual document showing that AIPAC was formed because it predecessor was ordered by DOJ to register as the foreign agent of Israel was publicly released and is even linked on the AIPAC wiki page now. That history changes it does.

I proposed replacing all history with "AIPAC's predecessor was secretly forced to register as an Israeli foreign Agent by the US Department of Justice Internal Security Section. AZC lobbying resources were transferred to AIPAC to reinitiate lobbying for Israel. Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, formerly a registered foreign agent for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then assumed AIPAC's leadership."

No objections there are, I assume.Leading authority (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Leading Authority, I have already presented the evidence that it is self-published and its inclusion is inconsistent with WP:RS, especially regarding WP:REDFLAG. I'm not sure what your argument is otherwise. When there are reliable sources discussing whatever those documents say, then let's put that into the article. And I wouldn't endorse that particular version of the History section, no.

If there aren't any serious disagreements with my reading of Wikipedia policies, I'll "be bold" and implement the edits outlined above. If a reversion of my proposal reoccurs without reference to these guidelines, I suppose I will add a disputed tag on the section and seek advice from an administrator. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And finally changed. If you disagree, please discuss on the talk page here first rather than simply reverting my edits. Thanks --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The book, "America's Defense Line" needs to be included in the AIPAC artical. You have not presented any evidence that it is "self published". The Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble listings reveal that several experts on the Israel lobby have vouched for the book, including Tim Llewelyn and John Mearsheemer. The author himself appears to be a leading expert in the field and has begun releasing the original documents in this book for other scholars to review. In light of this, and the most important criteria for inclusion "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia." this important work cannot be excluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.167.113 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've already explained why the book is self-published. From what I gather of site content guidelines, a blurb does not count as verification, and the MarketWatch "story" is also a press release from the same group. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The book does not appear to be "Self published", though that does not matter, since the onus is on you prove that it is self published AND that the cited information is not reliable. Since the primary source is the US Department of Justice, you may have a very hard time doing that. The Reliable Source guidelines specifically state "according to Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances; see above. When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is best to explain how it is being used inappropriately, rather than simply point out that the source is self-published." Again, please explain how DOJ documents are unreliable, and how the book (again after proving it is self published) is not being appropriately used. Rabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have explained that the Grant books are self-published because the listed publisher at Amazon is the same organization where Mr. Grant serves as director. That seems pretty clear. I have also cited WP:REDFLAG as a problem. It says: "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim" including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources." If these claims are verifiable, why then is Mr. Smith the only source? DoJ documents are primary sources, and their direct use would be a violation of WP:NOR. This argument has gone on for a few weeks now without ever developing and with different user accounts making the same arguments against my edits. If nothing else, this has helped me become much more acquainted with Wikipedia policies, but I didn't start editing to fight about these things. If it is changed again without a sufficient explanation based on a close reading of site policies, I will flag the section and find an administrator to help resolve the situation. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You have not proven anything about self publishing, and don't appear to apply the policies correctly. Repetative assertions do not equal truth. Furthermore, the publisher appears to have peer reviewed by with number of experts on the Israel lobby, including congressment and scholars.

"In America's Defense Line, Grant Smith has penetrated once again into the murky waters that underlie the observable control of US Middle East policy by Israel and its aggressive American support base that have undermined the efforts of successive US administrations, be they Democrat or Republican, to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. In Foreign Agents and now in America's Defense Line, using recently declassified documents, Smith exposes the charade that the 'pro-Israel lobby' is simply a well-organized, overly zealous group functioning within the spirit of traditional American political advocacy. What we see is something far more sinister. America's Defense Line should be required reading for anyone concerned with preserving what is left of the US political process." Jeffrey Blankfort is the former editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and hosts the international affairs program "Takes on the World" on KZYX Pacifica Radio in Mendocino, California.

"Grant Smith renders great service. The secret documents reviewed in this volume will help any reader understand how a small but determined group of zealots for Israel have placed the United States in grave danger. It is a wakeup call that must be answered, if our noble experiment in representative government, which has long proclaimed justice for all people in all lands everywhere, is to survive. I choose those words carefully. This is no time to sit on our hands. Unwarranted fear of Israel has plunged us into an abyss that gets deeper all the time. All that is needed is a civilized discussion, one that this volume must surely bring forth." Paul Findley, Member of Congress 1961-83, author of three books on the U.S.-Israeli relationship, including the Washington Post bestseller "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby"

"This is vital reading for anyone interested in what really guides American attitudes towards Israel. Grant F. Smith reveals how the almost universal misunderstanding of the Israel-Palestine question in the United States, and the blind support for Israel in Government, the media and public opinion are not sentimental accident, but the result of assiduous plotting and planning by Israel, its agents, and friends to subvert the American system and freedom of speech over more than half a century." Tim Llewellyn, former BBC Middle East Correspondent

"The Israel lobby is one of the most influential interest groups in American history. Yet there is insufficient public knowledge about its origins and operations. Grant Smith's new book is a major step forward in correcting that problem. He provides a fascinating—and disturbing—account of how I.L. Kenen laid the groundwork for AIPAC, the most powerful organization in the lobby." John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the author with Stephen M. Walt of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (2007)

"This is an excellent book that brings together declassified material showing how the Israel lobby managed to sow corruption at the highest levels of the US government and even break US law. Like other excellent books by the author (e.g. Deadly Dogma and Foreign Agents), America's Defense Line breaks new ground in research into the destructive role of narrow special interests in US domestic and foreign affairs. This latest contribution is a tour de force and is a must read for anyone interested to understand why we are embroiled in the quagmire of the Middle East and how we might get out of it (thus saving our economy and our global reputation)." Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, Professor at Bethlehem University and author of "Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle"

"Once again, Grant Smith has produced groundbreaking research into the nuts and bolts of how Israeli partisans break U.S. laws and get away with it – decade after decade. This essential reading lays to rest oft-repeated myths about the 'special relationship.' The corrupt essence of that relationship has been kept secret from American voters for 43 years. America's Defense Line provides a declassified and thorough damage assessment." Alison Weir is the Executive Director of IfAmericansKnew.org

"It has been a long honeymoon, but it may at last be coming to an end. The neoconservatives and the Iraq war have had the positive effect of exposing the ways that an ultra-Zionist agenda hurts the American interest (a subject of another Grant F. Smith book). And so today a new debate over Zionism has begun in America: how pro-Israel should the United States be? And how pro-Israel should the American Jewish community be? Given the success and power of Jews in this country, a factor that I.L. Kenen [the founder of AIPAC] and his adversaries would never have anticipated, this is not just an ethnic conversation; it is one that all Americans can join. I hope that the light Smith shines on a period in which Jews were far more ambivalent about Zionism will help to restart that debate." Philip Weiss, writes for The Nation, The New York Observer, The American Conservative and Mondoweiss

The Documents in the book and on the Internet are from the US Department of Justice. Again, the onus is on you to prove the work is self published, and that the US Department of Justice is an inadmissable source. The policy clearly states that it is not permissible to charge "unreliable source" or "self publishing" and delete content. Please do not vandalise my edits until you comply with these guidelines.Rabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

See Also section: Jewish Lobby

A. Sniper: I reverted your deletion of "Jewish Lobby" in "See also" section. It is highly relevant to this article (e.g. it is mentioned once in this article; AIPAC is mentioned twice in the "Jewish Lobby" article; and "Jewish Lobby" is mentioned in Israel lobby in the United States and six times in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy). It is just the "See Also" section. Do you have a compelling reason why it shouldnt be there? Is this article too long? --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do think this article IS much too long, such that it's not helpful to the lay reader and overall needs to be more concise. However, I haven't looked at this particular dispute and so I have no opinion about it as yet. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

New book on AIPAC

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=3033 --John Bahrain (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

John, see a few paragraphs above for discussion about this book. It has already been added and removed a few times, and fails the reliable source standard, and without some reliable verification or reproduction of its claims, it shouldn't be included here. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden

The Obama campaign people say the way the Repbulicans are using Biden's comments takes them out of context. The story is here and here. Note that, as the page for Biden himself says, AIPAC praised his nomination and speaks favorably about his positions. The Squicks (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

An spokesperson for this group says that “Joe Biden is a strong supporter of the US-Israel relationship. He’s been a staunch supporter of US aid to Israel, a leader in the fight against Palestinian terrorism, and is a vocal advocate of the special relationship between the two democracies. We look forward to continuing to work with him in the senate or in the White House.” The Squicks (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New Declassified Department of Justice Files on AIPAC Origins and Founder

New facts have suddenly emerged about AIPAC's true origins. In the interest of presenting useful, documentable facts to users, I propose the following edits to be made by Thanksgiving Day:

Founder Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen was a *registered foreign agent* of the Israeli government.

SOURCE: Original US Justice Department registration document: http://www.irmep.org/ila/Kenen/IOI/KenenFA-1/default.asp

AIPAC's lobbying and PR was actually developed within the American Zionist Council in a unit called the "Kenen Committee". This fact is known because, contrary to the gist of the introduction, the AZC *was* investigated by both the Senate and the Justice Department and then *ordered* to register as a foreign agent!

http://www.irmep.org/ila/Senate/default.asp

http://www.irmep.org/ila/AZCDOJ/default.asp

Since none of these facts can now be credibly disputed, we can get this entry moving closer to truth and reality on an accelerated basis! (the Isaiah Kenen section also needs a makeover, as I'm sure we can all agree.) Thanksgiving Day approaches!

Recent FARA revelations

Copied last paragraph from article page, same still there, for now; let's talk, not revert.

Historic, ref'able instances/personalities exist supporting the basic FARA alegations. The FARA question dates from Kenen's initial involvement, as noted avove, and at other times, the noted hearings, the Chairman, some testemony. It is all out there. The disputed para also points to whether another reference and earlier sentence is currently correct. I will be adding refs and references, and anticipate collaboration, if one wants to include one's two cents. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

US Department of Justice files declassified in 2008 reveal that the Kennedy administration ordered the American Zionist Council to register as the agent of Israel under the Foreign Agents Registration Act . A US Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigation revealed that AIPAC Founder Isaiah L. Kenen continued to receive funding from Israel for lobbying and public relations into the early 1960's. Kenen himself had been previously ordered to re-register as a foreign agent when he left the direct employment of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Older Supporting References

Concerning the validity of the facts behind the recently declassified documents, I found the following, first.

Only one of these organizations is registered as a lobby --- the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It is of interest to note that AIPAC is registered as a domestic, not a foreign, lobby, having been exempted from the Foreign Agents Registration Act. (During the Fulbright hearings of 1963, enough evidence from documents subpoenaed from the files of several of the pro-Israeli organizations was found to justify its inclusion in a category described in the title of the published hearings as “non-diplomatic representatives of foreign principles”; however, AIPAC’s domestic status was maintained.) The issue of “foreign” versus “domestic” lobby is not without importance; pro-Israeli groups are always quick to label supporters of Arab causes as foreign agents. For example, Thomas Dine, in a speech written for the National Association of Jewish Legislators, said that Arab influence in the United States was directed and financed from “outside.” “They,” said Dine, “are a foreign lobby… their support is not rooted in American soil.”[70] Israel, however, is a foreign nation, and those who actively work for its interests could also be considered agents of a foreign government.

Second, is this one.

In 1963, Fulbright chaired an investigation that brought to public attention the exceptional tax treatment of contributions to Israel and aroused the ire of the Jewish community. The investigation was managed by Walter Pincus, a journalist Fulbright hired after reading a Pincus study on lobying. Pincus recalls that Fulbright gave him a free hand, letting him choose the ten prime lobbying activities to be examined and backing him throughout the controversial investigation. One of the groups chosen by Pinkus, himself Jewish, was the Jewish Telegraph Agency --- at that time a principle instrument of the Israeli lobby. Both Fulbright and Pincus were accused of trying to destroy the Jewish Telegraph Agency and of being anti-Semitic.

Pinkus remembers, “Several senators urged that the inquiry into the Jewish operation be dropped. Senators Hubert Humphrey and Bourke Hickenlooper [senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee] were among them. Fulbright refused.”

The Fulbright hearings also exposed the massive funding illegality channeled into the American Zionist Council by Israel. More than five million dollars had been secretly poured into the Council for spending on public relations firms and pro-Israel propaganda before Fulbright committee close down the operation.

I should note that both of these refs are from the 1980s, so they considerably pre-date any recent declassification. I should also note that Grant’s book is described at another site[43]. This site provides data to support these older refs. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FARA registration a long-standing issue

Kenen himself notes this, in his book, Israel's Defense Line: Her Friends and Foes in Washington, partly available here[44].

The following is from another relatively early book about the lobby.

With no time to lose, Israeli leaders began searching for an American who could create an effective lobbying operation quickly. The perfect candidate for the job, it turned out, was already working for them --- I. L. (“Si”) Kenen, an American journalist and Zionist who had been working for Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Abba Eban, as a combination press secretary and PR man.[Ref to Kenen book] During the war, Kenen had been information director of AZEC, Abba Hillel Silver’s [post-Biltmore Conference] Jewish lobby, which, after the war and the creation of Israel, had been renamed the American Zionist Council. The AZC was a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

Abba Eban asked Kenen asked if he was interested in lobbying Congress for more US aid to Israel. “Should I continue my registration as an agent of the Israel [sic] government?” Kenen asked. “Was inappropriate for an embassy to lobby?” [Ref to Kenen book] Eban, who would soon be ambassador to Washington as well as to the UN, suggested he take a “leave of absence from the Israeli government” for six months to a year to head an “ad hoc” American a lobbying operation and return to his UN post for the next General Assembly.

But Louis Lipsky, the well-known American Jewish leader, who was then head of the AZC, was opposed to the impropriety --- and danger --- of an agent of a foreign government lobbying Congress. He wanted Kenen to be the executive director of his organization. As an American lobbyist for an American organization, Kenen would not have to register as a foreign agent and would be free to lobby Congress and criticize American policies. (Kenen writes that he later learned that Lipsky and Nathan Goldmann had discussed a list of candidates to head the ad hoc lobbying operation that did not include the one Zionist. In fact, several non-Jews were discussed, among them Truman’s former political adviser, Clark Clifford and Milton Eisenhower the future President’s brother. [Ref to Kenen book]

In 1951, Kenen switched from his diplomatic post to the American Zionist Council to begin an intense lobbying effort for American aid to the troubled Israeli economy. Working closely with Manhattan’s Jacob Javits and Brooklyn Congressman Emanuel Celler in the House and Robert Taft, Paul Douglas, and Hubert Humphrey in the Senate, Kenen managed to secure $65 million in economic assistance for Israel in 1951 and another $73 milion in 1952.

Louis Lipsky[45], although red-linked in Wikipedia, was quite an important Zionist and Zionist lobbyist in the US, in the pre-state and early post-state days.

Hope this helps provide material to re-write the section. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. My problems with its inclusion are procedural, based on what I know about Wikipedia site policy. There are a number of policies which apply here. One is WP:REDFLAG, which states, among other things, that "exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources," and the FARA issue certanly counts as "apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources." All 3 sources go back to an organization called "IRmep" that is relatively unknown, whose website is not very professional, and seems to be one-man shop. In terms of content, it is indistinguishable from a blog, and blogs are not usually admitted as sources. (See WP:SELFQUEST.) Furthermore, the documents it hosts are obviously primary sources, which are not preferred sources (see WP:PRIMARY). Even if published by an established, reliable source, they still must be used with care. IRmep is not even that. I do have other concerns about the section, but for now I think these alone warrant its removal. Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand, given the way the paragraph was previously presented without transition, that one might see a red flag. But, on this page in particular, I can also see how it might cause some editors just to see red, period. For that reason, I have provided some RSs on the broader historical subject so that the existence of this most recent, previously classified material may be presented in a more neutral light, with less flag waving and the revert-heat that brought it to talk. At the same time, based on what I know about Wikipedia site policy, I do not believe the procedural removal of this recent material, which emanates from a 45-year-old historical event, is exactly what that procedure suggests.

I am unqualified to determine the professional quality of IRmep, nor would I presume to do so. I do note, however, that the site is currently red-linked in Wikipedia, which might be due to a lack of notability, interest, personnel, or lack of consensus. I was unaware of ‘selfquest’ and didn’t bother to look into it much.

I will note, however, that several of your links have passed through the most important verifiability requirement of Wiki; I believe my non-internet, book references on the general subject have put this to rest, to a large degree. Whatever declassified documents might have arisen since that time, would have to be legitimately assessed in light of ‘Accession of New Data’, as described here.

I hope this provides a collaborative basis for future editing of the subject, rather than continuing deletion, as if the entire related subject did not exist. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bergstrom's objections alleging narrow interpretations of site policy violations just don't hold up. Specific details of the foreign agents claims were referenced to the book "America's Defense Line." Bergstrom deleted them back in August and September selectively quoting WP:RS claiming the book was not a reliable source. I insisted that the book does meet that standard as a heavily referenced work, peer reviewed and blurbed by several academic experts on the Israel lobby such as John Mearsheemer, James Petras, Jeff Blankfort and Philip Weis from a nonprofit publisher with seemingly 10 or so other peer reviewed books.

Now Bergstrom alleges that IRmep is relatively unknown, although it is quoted all over web newsites such as C-SPAN, Radio France, Financial Times of London, Washington Post, the State Department's Washington File, and others for analysis as far back as 2003 on Middle East policy and the Israel lobby.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=179299-1&highlight=

Bergstrom now states the website is not professional and makes unsubstantiated allegations about the nonprofit's staffing. The website does seem rather ugly, but that is not a Wikipedia site policy violation, only an aesthetic one. No grounds for deleting DOJ files there.

Now Bergstrom objects to a generous grand concession, including both the primary AND secondary sources. Declassified DOJ documents AND the peer reviewed book substantiating the following indisputable facts:

1) AIPAC's founder began lobbying as a registered foreign agent of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was ordered to re-register as a foreign agent when he stated to the DOJ that he would leave and privately lobby/do PR for the Israeli government. Book and files irrefutably substantiate this.

2) Contrary to the previous Wiki entry intro, AZC (the predecessor of AIPAC) WAS actually forced to register as a foreign agent by the DOJ. The primary documents and secondary source (the book) substantiate this.

3) The AZC shut down and shifted operations over to AIPAC, to avoid registering as a foreign agent. Perfectly logical given its history.

Selective and narrow interpretations of Wikipedia policy is not good cause to continually censor these important declassified insights into AIPAC. I think this chapter is now closed.Rabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert of recent post and sources about Obama nominee for National Intelligence Council

Included below are the prose and refs for a recent AIPAC-related post. I am not questioning anything, just know it was in the wrong spot, but seems notable enough. So it is moved here for discussion, should that develop.

Prose formerly in lead paragraph:

Scandalously on March 10, 2009 Obama's top pick, Charles Freeman, withdrew his nomination for National Intelligence Council, after claiming overt harassment by AIPAC.

References to subject [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

AIPAC Section needs complete overhaul

This wikipedia entry has too many references to AIPAC assertions, some of which fly directly in the face of widely known, documented, online sources. It needs to be completely overhauled to emphasize:

1. The controversial origins of the organization, it was set up by a Foreign Agent of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who was repeatedly ordered to register as an Israeli Foreign Agent after going stealth; 2. Ongoing debate about what it really is, American nonprofit? Stealth foreign agent? The question is still very much open to debate, including by some former AIPAC officials, but only one side is represented here. 3. Two ongoing legal cases, one pitting the DOJ against AIPAC staffers over espionage, the other pitting AIPAC staffer against the Board of Directors are almost completely ignored here. 4. The organization's admitted credo that it does not want to be seen as the responsable party for some outcomes (e.g. the Iraq invasion, Chaz Freeman ouster) even as it works to make policy happen "off the record". This places in grave doubt any information emanating from the organization itself, other than address and other verifiable data. 5. Deception. The organization says it does not orchestrate campaign contributions. The Washington Post published internal AIPAC docs showing it did just that in 1986:

http://irmep.org/ila/AIPAC/PAC_Coordination/1986_PAC_Memo.htm

At best, we might be able to say "AIPAC does not influence funding of political candidates for office....anymore."

Currently, most of the content could be sourced from AIPAC's website, making the Wiki redundant, and therefore of little value.

NonResidentFellow (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think the article needs overhaul, argue it here, do not change it first.

You are giving way to much wight to the issue of "foreign agent". It does not belong in the lead in any cae.

You are also engaging in OR as well as relying on an unrelaible source. To use the documents that were released by the DOJ you need to rely on scholarly articles that processed them, except for the most trivial stuff (dates of events etc.). Mashkin (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the source is Isaiah Kenen's own FARA registration form. Actually, it is of primary importance that AIPAC was set up by a former employee of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since these documents were only released in 2008, there aren't too many articles about it, but that's the point of Wikipedia. Rehashing bromides from 1986 just won't cut it.NonResidentFellow (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you will have to wait until there are scholarly articles that deal with this. The fact that Kenen worked at the Israeli delegation was not unknown of course. In any case, putting the whole issue in the lead is undue weight.

You have violate the WP:3RR which you are very well aware. Please revert yourself to avoid the consequences. Mashkin (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maskin, please stop violating 3RR on my fully sourced edits. I am working on some new PAC contribution sections, and your deletions are making it difficult to add value to this section!NonResidentFellow (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Because AIPAC is such a secretive organization, that takes pride in leaving "no fingerprints", ::::I propose that we have a section up front, so that readers can value the context of any claims ::::originating from AIPAC in subsequent sections. Here are the four I'll be putting into the new ::::"Culture of Secrecy" section:

"There is no question that we exert a policy impact, but working behind the scenes and taking care not to leave fingerprints, that impact is not always traceable to us." The National Journal, August 31, 1992

"Calculatedly Quiet" - Fortune Magazine, December 1997

"Donor Secrecy" - LA Times May 8, 1998

"The Lobby is like a night flower, it blooms in the night, and dies under sunlight" Jerusalem Post, August 24, 2004 quoting Steve Rosen, former AIPAC director for policy, now under indictment for espionage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NonResidentFellow (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please Read and Respect Wikipedia's guidelines

You are clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines. You are trying to stack this article with original research from an extremely POV website. Also, placing controversial information in the introduction is inappropriate. Finally, the tone of your additions is not NPOV (this is especially critical when dealing with controversial information. "Dynamic" information is not always appropriate for Wikipedia - keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a political advocacy website or a place for conspiracy theories.

One more note, you have also violated the 3RR rule. I advise you to be more careful. Also, please remember to sign you posts.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

On the contrary, my carefully sourced edits have vastly improved this section. Please do not vandalize sourced changes with low value content. Please also do not violate 3RR rule by reversing my edits. NonResidentFellow (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, your edits are sourced from a POV website. That is not acceptable in wikipedia. Also, I have not violated the 3RR rule, yet you have violated the 3RR rule several times now. I will again remind you to respect wiki policy.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Your assertions about POV are just that, assertions. Most of the hyperlinks are to source documents produced by the subject. Please respect wiki policy by not violating 3RR. NonResidentFellow (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted. I'm sure that you're convinced that the best interests of Israel are directly opposed to that of the United States'. Please try not to assume that your own opinion is unbiased fact. The Squicks (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • NonResidentFellow has now conducted 5 reverts witin a 24 hour period. This is unacceptable and a violation of wiki policy. In addition, NonResidentFellow is adding original research and POV material that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not an investigative blog.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
    • What is the argument for taking out sourced content about the origins of AIPAC and plausible deniability policy? Is there some sourced material that underscores the reversion? Leading authority (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree. If the content is sourced, there should be a debate, not spurious charges of POV and a spate of revisions. AIPAC seems to have improved in the past week, greatly.Rabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The additions are either (1)From a highly ideologically biased opinion based website or (2)Personal opinion with no backing.

Really, you can't assume as fact that Israel's best intersts are directly opposed to the United States best interests. This is a claim of yours that is an opinion. It is not fact.The Squicks (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not following the ad hominem about fealty to Israel. But if it is sourced, I say it should be there. AIPAC history, from the new perspective, seems to be that it is a gift from Israel.Rabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of this

Let's look at the changes one by one, shall we?

• Although it claims to be a domestic nonprofit organization lobbying for American interests, it mainly advocates for pro-Israel foreign policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States.

This is someone's personal opinion, which the editors pretend is fact. You can't assume as fact that Israel's best intersts are directly opposed to the United States best interests. This is a claim of yours that is an opinion. It is not fact.

• The AIPAC was created after the US Department of Justice ordered its predecessor organization, the American Zionist Council to register as a foreign agent of Israel in 1962.

No reliable source is cited.

• AIPAC values operational secrecy and the ability to achieve policy outcomes with plausible deniability... Given AIPAC's commitment to plausible deniability, it is difficult to evaluate whether claims of non-involvement in controversial policies are accurate.

No reliable source is cited for any of this. Instead, what we have is an unrelated interview with a past member of the group. The term "plausible deniability" is made yp by editors with nothing but thin air. "claims of non-involvement in controversial policies are accurate" is also from thin air. What evidence is there for any of this? None.

• Critics point out that Israel is ineligible for US aid under the Symington Admendment since it is a nuclear weapons power.

Again, no source is cited. The Squicks (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why all the controversy?

When one looks at the foreign agent creator of AIPAC, it quickly becomes obvious that this is a stealth foreign lobby.

This is synthesis of a point of view and original research, which violated Wikipedia guidelines. Again, it quickly becomes obvious is false. This is your opinion. It is not fact.

The case file for the AZC/DOJ showdown is cited, and is also cited in teh book "America's Defense Line' which is cited.

A controversial, very ideologically biased anti-Israeli website is cited. That is not acceptable.

AIPAC operational secrecy is cited in three seperate sources, nothing new there.

The terms being applied to them-- "plausible deniablility" and so on-- are not cited. They come from thin air. What we have is a quote from a person about staying out of the spotlight, with you proceed to blow up into some gigantic evil conspiracy.

But the Symmington violation is not cited. I'll ad that.Rabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have no response to defend your claim that Israel's best intersts are directly opposed to the United States best interests. I'm waiting for proof for that... The Squicks (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent reboot. I awoke to all this…; obviously, y’all are faster at typing and obviously interested, or not, in the overhaul suggestion. It certainly could do with some changes, but there is little chance I will engage in a marathon like that. I am using the first edit of this diff[51], as my benchmark.

The first deletion of material, in history dealing with AZC, Kenen, FAFA, etc, was previously discussed above, here. Although not well integrated into ‘History’ or including all the facts ref’d there, the deletion constitutes the removal of previously discussed consensus editing; I am restoring it chronologically in history, somewhat reluctantly. I also want to point out the new blue link to AZC, which may answer concerns of relevance and allow a better re-write. I generally have no problem with the new material in 'Aims and activities’, but it seems too long. The re-writen ’AIPAC's views of its strengths and achievements’ seems fine also.

The problem is that the claims are not supported by the sources, or it is not clear whether they are supported (e.g. a general reference to the hearings). Mashkin (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I do feel that the removal of material about ‘former AIPAC chief lobbyist Douglas Bloomfield’ lacks NPOV circumspection; this seems a disservice to the readers and is based on rather flimsy OR grounds. I say this because it is very true and relevant to AIPAC and its changing tactics and political bent over time; I note this section elsewhere, particularly the accessable refs, to answer editors’ concerns regarding the impact of Oslo on AIPAC and the wider lobby. I will not revert the edit now, however, because the better quality material from the refs elsewhere should be included first. Once that material is introduced, the Bloomfield material will document yet another change of course concurrent with the change in the Israeli government. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Israel Lobby Archive [TILA]

It is NOT a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. I have 0 objection to including vertifiable facts (facts, not opinions) that belittle or sound bad for AIPAC.

But if there is not a reliable source for this info attributed to them (and the childish attempt by an editor to pass a TILA source off as from another person really was cute!), than that info is not going to stay in this article. The Squicks (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"stangelhold on US policy

W&M's opinion, itself heavily criticized, that AIPAC has "has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress" is marginally worthy of mention in the criticism section, but as a fringe minority position using loaded, extreme language, it does not belong in the lead. Millmoss (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a finge position. American policy towards Israel has at all times been influenced by pressure upon successive administrations and Congresses by groups representing nearly 6 million American Jews . . . The lobby on behalf of Israeli causes is dominated by the umbrella organisation, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC is widely regarded as having undue influence over the Congress and the policies of the US. Those exact words, "stranglehold", are not needed, but the controversy surronding their influence should be included. The foreign agent bit could also be reworded, but that is likewise not a fringe theory. See Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal. nableezy - 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim that it has a "stranglehold" over congress is indeed a fringe position, which has been heavily criticized. The quote you provided does not support it, in the least. It is fair to say it has an influence over US policy, and it may be ok to state that some groups think that influence is "undue". The "foreign agent" bit is also a minority position, which does not belong in the lead, as is the claim that the lobby itself (vs. individuals who worked for it) was implicated in spying. Millmoss (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence was indicted on "one count of conspiring to communicate national defense information to an agent of a foreign government" and plead guilty to that charge. The "agent of a foreign government" was the AIPAC staffers who in turn relayed that information to Israel. There is no dispute about that. nableezy - 19:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence is a U.S. Air Force Reserves colonel working as a Department of Defense analyst at the Pentagon. He is not,AFAIK, an AIPAC member. The allegations of AIPAC being an "agent of a foreign government" have nothing to do with the Lawrence case. As the article describes in detail, such claims date back to the Kennedy administration. Millmoss (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That is just silly. He plead guilty to passing information "to an agent of a foreign government". That "agent of a foreign government" was in reference to the AIPAC staffers. Nobody said that Lawrence himself is either an AIPAC member or an agent of a foreign government but that those who he did pass that information on to were those agents. nableezy - 19:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article tells us, the charges against the AIPAC staffers were dropped. The only person convicted of any wrong doing in in this case is an American Army officer who is not an AIPAC staffer. All of this is described in detail, in the appropriate section of the article - but to promote the non-conviction of AIPAC staffers to a claim of "AIPAC implicated in espionage" in the lead is not appropriate. Millmoss (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I say AIPAC officials were convicted? No. But the charge against Lawrence clearly refers to AIPAC staffers as "agent(s) of a foreign government". nableezy - 20:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You claimed AIPAC was implicated in espionage, and wanted to put that in the lead, apparently based on a case involving 2 AIPAC staffers, in which the charges were subsequently dropped. Surely you see how this is inappropriate. Millmoss (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They were "implicated", somebody plead guilty to providing them classified information that was passed on to a foreign government. I did not put that anybody was convicted of a crime, but they were clearly implicated. This is not based on the charges filed against the staffers but on those filed against, and pleaded out by, Lawrence. nableezy - 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No charges were filed against AIPAC, and charges against its staffers were dropped. To claim that AIPAC was "implicated" based on this is undue weight, and has no place in the lead. The details can be (and are) discussed in the body of the article, and can be discussed in further detail in the Lawrence article, but this statement does not belong in the lead of this article. Millmoss (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyperionsteel, WP:LEAD clearly says that the lead should explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The espionage scandal is a notable controversy and should be mentioned in the lead of the article. nableezy - 00:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as it is kept to a reasonable length without undue influence. There is an entire section on this issue later in the article. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

Is the following a "reasonable length"?

A Pentagon analyst plead guilty to charges of passing US government secrets to AIPAC staffers in what is known as the AIPAC espionage scandal. Both staffers were later fired

nableezy - 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The current version seems fine (which is why I didn't revert it).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

That is exactly what you reverted but as we now agree that it is fine I think we can close this discussion. nableezy - 14:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now the lead states "critics state it has undue influence" on the U.S. Congress but this is neither interesting nor instructive to the nature of the "undue influence" that can be verified. In my opinion, the words "de facto foreign agent" explain the nature of the critique. And "stranglehold on U.S. Congress" is just plain more interesting. (In fact, I find the current wording boring, which is basically why I decided to "spice it up" initially with this edit. Thus prompting this discussion section.) Removing it has been explained in an edit comment as "Quotes from critics do not belong in the Introduction (that's what the criticism section is for)" but I do not know where this policy or guideline comes from. I'm going to attempt to conform the article to what I consider WP:LEAD to ask for again. Pecoc (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting. An introduction is supposed to be descriptive and NPOV. Polemical quotes from critics do not belong here. That's what the criticism section is for.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

The sentence was prefaced with "critics" so it prepares the reader for criticism, so I don't understand how NPOV was not maintained. My concern is that the meaning of the criticism—which could be easily summarized—is lost. Pecoc (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There are articles from Jewish sources about how AIPAC is losing its stranglehold on US policy.[52] ("A model to be emulated, the envy of virtually all other lobbies, AIPAC has been at the forefront of the bilateral relationship for decades." - Jewish Telegraphic Agency.) [53] ("J Street, which sees itself as a dovish alternative to the all-powerful AIPAC..." -- Haaretz) [54] ("Not surprisingly, the voices that have until now dominated debate not only among Jews, but also in Congress and much of the media, are less than enthusiastic" - Alterman, NYT.) --John Nagle (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles you cite don't use terms like 'stranglehold'. They say alternatives to AIPAC, such as J street, are appearing and that they see AIPAC's effectiveness as a model for emulation. Millmoss (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)