Talk:Council for the National Interest/Archive 1

Archive 1

THIS ARCHIVE FROM APRIL TO JULY 2006 IS THE ONLY ARCHIVE FOR THIS ARTICLE

---

---

Redirect

can someone please make a redirect from Council for the National Interest to this page. thx. --64.230.121.230 04:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed Claim - can we find a better source?

"It is the organization's position that the Israel holds a virtual dictatorship over the American congress, and that the Iraq war was launched primarily on behalf of Israel. [1]"

I do not deny the above but the current source, an article on National Vanguard (a racist website) about Paul Findley, whose position they like, doesn't mention CNI by name nor does it mention anything specific about a dictatorship. I would suggestion that the precision of the claim be improved if you want to use this source. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 04:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe added it back into the article with the claim that "If it was dubious it should be removed, but you admitted that it was probably true".

My contention is that Moshe is clearly admitting above that he is not following WP:RS. I also didn't claim that it was true, but that I have no information either way at the moment. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 16:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If some evidence exists that it is true, that the custom is just to add a fact tag.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I will add back some claims that are also probably true in the IRmep article. I hope you treat them as I am treating your currently unsupported additions to the CNI article. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the edit sumary- While National Vanguard is not a reputable source, in this case it is acceptable since the info is taken from an inteview Findley gave to them, which implies he didn't think he would be misrepresented. Also please see WP:Point, the IRmep has entirely different circumstances.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

neo-nazi reference

It turns out that the summary of Findley's remarks provided by neo-nazi Mark Farrell was imprecise. All the more reason not to cite Farrell as a source. However, it's probably ok to quote from Findley's own words in the interview (unless there is reason to believe Farrell doctored the film). I solve the neo-nazi problem by citing the film itself, not Farrell's paraphrased description. Maybe this paragraph about Findley's interview should go on Paul Findley instead of on CNI, since the connection between Findley's views and CNI's views is not completely established. Precis 09:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with saying that it was Paul Findley who actually said it, but seeing as how Findley started the organization to espouse his views I don't see how there could be any argument that CNI and Findley have different takes on the subject. Also the fact that Findley gave a detailed interview to this organization shows that he didn't believe he would be misrepresented so it seems like this would be one of the few situations that a source like this should be acceptable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If Findley trusts that he won't be misrepresented by a neo-nazi, that shows bad judgment on his part. Just because Findley trusts someone doesn't mean Wikipedians should do the same. Whenever possible we should use Findley's and CNI's own words as a source for their views; much better than using a dishonest summary by a bigot who is advertising his films. Precis 16:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Findley has written three books on the subject, it seems unnecessary to quote from a controversial source, particularly since we don't know Findley's relationship to the interviewer, or even who the interviewer is. I'll try to gather a better collection of his ideas from his own books, in his own words.

But until then, we might as well quote him accurately--

• I removed the "expressed agreement with the slogan "Israel rules America"" since I could not find this anywhere in the film.
• I replace the "controls public policy" quote with two quotes that describe how he thinks this is actually done.
• I removed the "media" quote since this was inaccurate. What he actually says is "But it [images of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians] doesn't make the news here because the media is just as intimidated about [showing] the facts on the ground in the middel east as everyone else." Which doesn't seem particularly newsworthy.

Roger Skye 00:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we living on different universes? I listened to the entire film, and Wikipedia is quoting accurately. Findley does most certainly express agreement with the slogan "Israel rules America". If you couldn't find it, I suggest you rewatch more carefully. The other quotes you tampered with are also dead on balls accurate. As for Hamas being freedom fighters, that is an accurate paraphrase of the CNI NYT ad. If Hamas is a typical anti-colonial insurgency reacting against the terrorist government of Israel and fighting to end occupation, that sounds like "freedom fighter" to me. How could it mean anything else? Wikipedia articles are supposed to include the bad with the good. Attempts to remove the bad, especially under dubious pretexts, are not going to fly here.Precis 12:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarified mission

I changed the opening sentence to "... an organization advocating a reduction what it sees as the undue influence of Israel over the formulation of U.S. foreign policy." because the original was giving the misleading impression that CNI is a Palestinian advocacy group.

PS I'm new to this editing process, so please bear with me. --Roger Skye 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Some what probably argue that in some respects it does act as a Palestinian advocacy group.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the "It is CNI's position ..." paragraph. The old phrase "controls debate" was too strong, and I could not find any reference to Hamas as freedom fighters in the reference cited (or anywhere else). The old phrase, "the Iraq war was launched primarily on behalf of Israel" seems excessive, when the most recent CNI statement says "In Iraq, and now in Iran, there is strong evidence that irrational concern for Israel by U.S. policymakers continues to be a prime motivation for our military adventures" [2].

Added section on what CNI actually does. (Hope I got the formatting right.) Roger Skye 00:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we remove McCloskey paragraph?

Does the section on Pete McCloskey speaking at the IHR in 2000 belong here? I ask, because--

• CNI explictly distanced themselves from his appearance.
• McCloskey is no longer on the board of directors of CNI
• McCloskey explicity distanced himself from IHR
• McCloskey's speech had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but was on the subject of free speech. [3]
• McCloskey has explicitly stated that he does not deny the Holocaust. [4]
• IHR explicitly state on their site that THEY do not deny the Holocaust.

While it might belong under a Pete McCloskey article, I don't see the relevance to this article. It just seems like an attempt to tar by association. Roger Skye 00:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Mckloskey has also made statements which seem to negate some of these "explicit statements".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you share them with us? And what about my other 5 points? Roger Skye 02:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How about you look over the articles sources, and then after you do that stop whitewashing the group's controversies.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have looked over the article's sources--was unable to locate any "controversial" part. Please share with us. Please also address my other 5 points. Roger Skye 03:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Has Moshe broken the 3RR rule?

User Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has reverted my changes 3 times without addressing a single one of the reasons I adduced for those changes in Discussion. For example, he reverted "It is CNI's position that the Israel lobby controls debate, that the Iraq war was launched primarily on behalf of Israel, and that Hamas is an organization of freedom fighters." even though I pointed out that the statement is not true. There is no depiction of Hamas as freedom fighters in the citation he offers, nor does "primarily on behalf of Israel" accurately describe the CNI position. Please see my earlier comments under "Clarified Mission".

Moshe removed my entire section on CNI activities without explanation.

Please also see my edits to the quotes from the Findley video discussed under "neo-nazi reference". Again, Moshe offered no explanation, even though the allleged quotes he restored do not exist. Roger Skye 03:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:3RR before you make another accusation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to post here, why not address the points I have raised so that we can proceed? For example--

• In the aims section, where does CNI call Hamas "an organization of freedom fighters"? I can't find this. And shouldn't this section concentrate on the organization's principal aim--the restriction of the lobbying powers of foreign governments?
• Also, what is your reference for the claim that CNI holds "that the Iraq war was launched primarily on behalf of Israel"? As I explained above, what they actually say is "there is strong evidence that irrational concern for israel by U.S. policymakers continues to be a prime motivation for our military adventures." --Roger Skye 08:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Many of the quotes were taken from various interviews that Paul Findley gave with websites like national vanguard [5]. While these websites (especially national vanguard) would not normally be considered acceptable sources, since Findley himself gave direct sit down interviews with them and since no mainstream news organizations (and not even very many fringe ones) will have anything to do with Findley or his associates, these websites are permitted as sources.

For some reason some one has deleted many of the references for this article, I went ahead and reinserted the national vanguard interview and when I get the chance I will try to reinsert the other ones as well.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is your reference for the claim that CNI holds "that the Iraq war was launched primarily on behalf of Israel"? As I explained above, what they actually say is "there is strong evidence that irrational concern for israel by U.S. policymakers continues to be a prime motivation for our military adventures." --Roger Skye 08:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

M&W have stated many times that the Iraq War would not have been launched were it not for Israel Lobby working on behalf of Israel. If CNI thinks that irrational concern for Israel is a prime (aka primary) motivation for our military adventures (aka Iraq War), then CNI seems to be expressing agreement with M&W. Why would you think otherwise? Precis 12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure CNI would agree with M&W. The only distinction I'm making is between "THE primary motivation" and "A prime motivation". The first is a stronger claim than the second. It's a subtle distinction, but just so there won't be any chance of misrepresenting their position, why don't we use their own words? "There is strong evidence that irrational concern for Israel by U.S. policymakers continues to be a prime motivation for our military adventures," together with a citation reference.

But more importantly, placing this sentence up in the aims section gives the misleading impression that CNI is an anti-war group. They were formed long before there was any Iraq war. Their focus clearly is on limiting lobbying power--whether that lobby has led to a war or not. I would like to keep the top section focused on their goals and activities. Since it's a public lobbying group, we really don't have to try dissect their "ideology"--what they say and do speaks for itself. The comments about "freedom fighters" and Iraq seem to be a bit of a distraction, particularly at the very top of the article. --Roger Skye 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, is normal practice for discussion to take place sequentially--down at the bottom of the page, or should I try to insert comments up in earlier sections that I think are related? For now, I'm going to post at the bottom of the page.) --Roger Skye 17:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarified mission II

I've made a change to the Aims section that incorporates all the points discussed above:

• emphasis on lobby control
• removed the bogus (and irrelevant) "freedom fighters" reference
• used their own words for the Iraq responsibility (although I don't really think this should be up here at all)

--Roger Skye 17:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry, forgot to put an Edit Summary.) --Roger Skye 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, have you been able to find a reference for the "Israel rules America" statement yet? If not, I think we should remove it. Also, we still have to discuss what purpose the IHR discussion is serving. I don't think it belongs in this article. Also, in my discussion of 00:58, 10 July 2006 I identified some problems with your quotations from the Findley video. You reverted my corrections. Have you had time to come up with a reason for your action? --Roger Skye 22:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

hamas

Please respond to the following comment made earlier: If Hamas is a typical "anti-colonial insurgency" reacting against the "terrorist" government of Israel and fighting to end occupation, that sounds like freedom fighter to me. How could it mean anything else? CNI's support for Hamas most definitely belongs in this article (as does CNI's claim that AIPAC controls debate). As a compromise, I propose to start a VIEWS section, collecting together CNI quotes on the middle east. Precis 22:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your earlier post. Do you have a link for the "freedom fighters" issue, so I can read it? Perhaps the Views section is a good idea, although again I think we should mainly include quotes on the subject of the lobbying process, since that's their main focus(as well as the Hamas quote if you insist). --Roger Skye 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the quote. It's "Many Americans do not understand that Hamas is a typical anti-colonial insurgency responding to an Israeli occupation and what amounts to government terror against Palestinian civilians. It is not at all related to al-Qa'ida or 9/11."[6] If you want to include it, fine. Let's just be careful not to tip the emphasis away from lobby control. --Roger Skye 23:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

About your desire to reflect CNI's position on public debate, I tried to do that in the current version:

• "It is CNI's position that the Israel lobby exerts excessive control over Congress and that it works to prevent open public debate on the subject of Israeli policies."

The actual CNI quote that I was summarizing goes:

• "It shuts down any rational debate or even any discussion of Israel’s actions. Three past heads of Israel’s security service, Shin Bet, have said that the actions of the present Israeli government are self-destructive, yet those views are not heard by the American public. The many organizations that make up the Israel lobby include several whose main effort is to intimidate editors and producers in the media and prevent an open discourse about Israeli policies and our uncritical support for those policies.

Was my characterization of that paragraph unfair? --Roger Skye 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

About the Findley video quotes (now that I've seen your post)--

• I can't find Findley saying "Israel rules America" anywhere. (Or assenting to it.) Of course I may be missing it, so if you could just give me it's rough location in the video, I'll look again.
• Wik: "Israel, through its lobby, controls public policy in the Middle East."

video: "Israel, through its lobby, has controlled public policy in the Middle East." (close enough :) )

• Wik: "The lobby for Israel, in the realm of Middle East policy, owns the entire Congress."

video: not found; closest I found is "The lobby for the state of Israel is the most powerful, most intimidating lobby in Washington--certainly in the field of foreign policy--of any of the 3000 or so lobbies which exist there." (around the 8:00 min mark) This is the quote I tried to use to replace the missing one with, but was prevented by Moishe.

• Wik: "The media, like every other sector of our society, is thoroughly intimidated by the lobby for Israel."

video: "... but it [images of the occupation] doesn't make the news here because the media is just as intimidated about [showing] the facts on the ground in the middle east as everyone else" (about the 34:00 min mark) Not close enough, I would argue.

Do you think the quotes I chose for my 02:51, 10 July 2006 version (reverted by Moishe) do not accurately reflect the message of Findley in that video? --Roger Skye 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

freedom fighters

I found the quote. It's "Many Americans do not understand that Hamas is a typical anti-colonial insurgency responding to an Israeli occupation and what amounts to government terror against Palestinian civilians. It is not at all related to al-Qa'ida or 9/11."[6] If you want to include it, fine. Let's just be careful not to tip the emphasis away from lobby control. --Roger Skye 23:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC) In view of this quote, please explain why you said it is "bogus" to say that CNI views Hamas as freedom fighters.

I wasn't aware that CNI had made any public pronouncement characterizing Hamas. Sorry. (But remember there is still some semantic distinction between an "insurgency responding to an occupation" and a "freedom fighter". If we include it in a Views section, we should probably quote them accurately.) --Roger Skye 00:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what you see as the distinction between freedom fighters and typical anti-colonial insurgents responding to a terrorizing occupying power. Precis 00:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Both can refer to the same objective reality, but "freedom fighters" is a polemical term, whose use marks the speaker as a propagandist with an axe to grind. He is not only describing a situation, but advocating it. --Roger Skye 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

mark farrell video of findley

I can't find Findley saying "Israel rules America" anywhere. (Or assenting to it.) Of course I may be missing it, so if you could just give me it's rough location in the video, I'll look again. The location is between 12 and 13 minutes into the video. Findley also claims here that Ariel Sharon himself uttered such a phrase, which is utter nonsense often spewed on neo-nazi and militant Islamic websites. As for the other quotes you couldn't find in the video, they are there verbatim, but I don't want to take the time to pinpoint their locations for you. Perhaps you can enlist someone else to help. Precis 00:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

At that section I found "The control that their government has had over the policy of our own government has been total." Nothing about Israel ruling America. (I hope this isn't an example of what you mean by "verbatim", because I don't think it's close enough to be considered an unbiased representation.) --Roger Skye 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, if after playing the video you look in your Windows cache you can find the WMV file and save it. This lets you explore it by jumping to different locations.)--Roger Skye 02:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On my copy of the video, the sentence you quote about "The control...has been total" occurs at time 12:18. Seventeen seconds later, at 12:35, Findley agrees with the statement "Israel rules America", which he nonsensically attributes to Sharon. I can understand why you have trouble finding quotations in a 69 minute video, but when I give you a one minute window and you still can't find it, I'd like an explanation. What kind of game are you playing? Precis 05:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops! You are right and I'm sorry. But in my defense--I had stopped listening when he started quoting Ariel Sharon, and so missed it. I never dreamed that you wanted to highlight a phrase from an Israel prime minister! If you want to include it, fine, but you must make clear that he was quoting Sharon. --Roger Skye 14:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

polemics

Both can refer to the same objective reality, but "freedom fighters" is a polemical term, whose use marks the speaker as a propagandist with an axe to grind. He is not only describing a situation, but advocating it. --Roger Skye 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC) It is polemical to call IHR "Holocaust deniers". Is it therefore your opinion that this description of IHR should not be used by WP? (I'm trying to figure out if you are opposed to all polemical descriptions, or just those of a certain stripe. )Precis

Sorry, I'm not really following your thinking here. What do you mean? (By the way, "polemical" wasn't really the best choice of words--I should have said something like "value-laden" or "tendentious" or "partisan".) --Roger Skye 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll rephrase the question. Do you find it acceptable to use the value-laden term "Holocaust deniers" to describe IHR in Wikipedia, or do you prefer a more neutral term like "revisionists"? Precis 21:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what IHR do, so I hope I'm not defending something that I don't approve of. But when I traced the McCloskey link I saw them say, on their About Us page, "We are NOT Holocaust deniers; of course the Holocaust is a fact." Now if this is true, and not contradicted by stuff inside their site, then it's definitely unfair to call them "Holocaust deniers", in my humble opinion. It's not a matter of neutral or partisan "tone", it just seems to me to be a FALSE statement.

However I recognize that this is a very touchy subject, and I'm no expert. Do you recognize the term "revisionist" as a valid category at all, and if so, who fits in there? Revisionist history, to me, is any group trying challenge conventional historical narratives, and to me is very important. --Roger Skye 22:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, it is a valid category. But IHR's revisionist history is a cover for antisemitism. Their historical research is about as scientific as creationism. I don't agree with the literal view that one has to deny the existence of the Holocaust outright to be called a Holocaust denier. Denying the existence of gas chambers alone can rightly be called Holocaust denial, and I don't think WP is obligated, in the interests of neutrality, to water this term down by calling it revisionism. Precis 23:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sharon's quote

You have to make clear that Findley was quoting Ariel Sharon. He quotes Sharon making an extreme statement, and then goes on to explain in what sense Sharon was correct--

• "The control that their government has had over the policy of our own government has been total. One of the great, respected, leaders of Israel, a former memeber of the Knesset, once said that 'America rules the world, but Israel rules America,' and he was right: Israel, through its lobby, has controlled public policy in the Middle East." [12:08]

You have broken this thought into three phrases removed from their context. Please restore the whole quote. --Roger Skye 15:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I can't find any retraction in any U.S. newspaper of that wide-spread report of Sharon's claim. Only a "regret for not having attributed the quote more specifically", which is actually a form of confirmation. Most of the world seems to regard the report as true. (CAMERA, of course, is a lobby group and not NPOV.) On the other hand, we can't actually prove that Findley was referring to Sharon (since he never actually uses the name). I'll leave it up to you whether you want to credit Sharon, or just run Findley's quote straight. --Roger Skye 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. The Camera article gives facts to show this was a hoax from a pro-Hamas website. Of course Camera is not neutral, but I see no evidence that Camera is making up its facts in order to help Israel. The radio station (that was reported to have broadcast this quote) confirms that no such thing happened. I challenge you to find a single respectable source that has maintained, after the hoax was exposed in 2002, that the report on the quote was nonetheless correct. And please, if you can find a single respectable source that quotes any Israeli leader at all saying "America rules the world, but Israel rules America", please post it here. Why not just admit it, Findley made a mistake. Precis 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What was his mistake, quoting a nationally syndicated column that to this day has not been retracted (despite great pressure to do so)? What exactly are you faulting him for? --Roger Skye 22:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm faulting him for perpetuating an obvious hoax, two years after it was exposed. Precis 23:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

But obvious to whom? Anyway, thanks for combining those quotes, and I think you handled the controversy part well. But by calling it a "hoax" you make it sound as if Findley was deliberately out to deceive us, and that seems unfair, since there is no evidence for this.

I'm also a little worried by the "substantial evidence" bit. It's not really substantial at all when you think of it, coming as it does from a single partisan site and the story never having been retracted. This would be more neutral--

• It should be noted that there is some evidence that the attribution of the quote "America rules the world, but Israel rules America" to an Israeli leader is incorrect; see [20].

--Roger Skye 23:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to introduce neutrality, but in this case it is misguided, just as it would be misguided to say that since the Protocols haven't been officially retracted, this cannot be pronounced as an obvious hoax. To respond directly to your points,

• I do not think Findley is deliberately out to deceive us. His mistake is in falling for the hoax and then not carefully checking it out before perpetuating it.
• The evidence is not a matter of a single partisan site. There are virulently anti-Israel writers who too say the quote has no credence.
• I'll be happy to use your more neutral suggestion above, if you can find me a single reputable source claiming that an Israeli leader said "America rules Israel, but Israel rules America". I don't think you'll find one, because the quote is a fraud. Precis 00:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"The evidence is not a matter of a single partisan site. There are virulently anti-Israel writers who too say the quote has no credence."

OK now we're getting somewhere, because my main concern was a distrust of CAMERA. Do you have links for these? --Roger Skye 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I had earlier put a link to the Chicago Reader in the article. Precis 02:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I had missed that. You know it says that Geyer didn't get it from Kol Yisrael but from diplomatic Israeli sources? And that she definitely won't retract it despite CAMERA's pressure campaign? Hmmm. Oh well, this could go on forever. Let's drop this. :) I left your "substantial evidence" but changed "hoax" to "mistake"; i think that's fairer to Findley --Roger Skye 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Moshe?

Moshe, please explain why you just reverted my formatting changes. I didn't "water down" anything. What do you mean? --Roger Skye 01:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I am trying to consolidate all the Findley views into their own section so that I can combine them with positions taken from his books.--Roger Skye 01:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel it is necessary to engage you everytime you make the same edit again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But it IS necessary. I have no idea what your objections are. Please participate in the discussion. --Roger Skye 02:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up and read the edit summaries.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I've read them. Now what? Are you going to tell us what "facts were deleted"? --Roger Skye 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

funding

The description currently there seems to contradict the following, taken from the CNI website (dated 2004): To put the actual number of Saudi donors in perspective, CNI has had over 7,000 total contributors since its founding. Only 24 of these have been residents of Saudi Arabia, 9 of which are actually Saudi citizens. Furthermore, CNI makes a rule of not accepting more than 4-5% of its yearly donation amount from foreign contributors. Precis 06:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, although I'm not sure what it means yet. Lets look at the source. Certainly my little quotation from the CNI site isn't all that informative. --Roger Skye 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Funding section currently reads: CNI's website states, "Our operations are entirely funded by donations from individual American citizens. We receive a small amount of foundation support and no government support, foreign or domestic." [21] We should delete the entire section, or else add material to show it is misleading propaganda, because CNIF, which (coincidentally?) has the same address as CNI, accepts donations coming from other countries, with no proof of citizenship required. See [7] Precis 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. But that page is a Groundspring standard form. (Groundspring does fund collection services for lots of sites.) CNI may do their own screening after receiving the data. I hate to say they're lying without any evidence. Where is the link for that data you quote above? That might help us. --Roger Skye 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by your Groundspring argument, because the donation form at [8] is not a universal form, but is rather customized for CNIF. Note for example the box that is to be checked for donations earmarked for the full page New York Times ad. I agree we don't have the evidence to say CNI is lying, but do you agree that there is enough evidence at least to warrant removal of the WP section on funding? I can't find a page with the info you requested that is working now, but here is an old Google Cache of a CNI webpage, which of course would be useless for the purpose of sourcing:

This is G o o g l e's text-only cache of http://www.cnionline.org/speakout/debate/bruzonsky.htm as retrieved on 2 May 2006 00:48:48 GMT.

To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:5XPHwdekwggJ:www.cnionline.org/speakout/debate/bruzonsky.htm+%227000+total+contributors%22&hl=en&lr=&strip=1

Home | About CNI | Speak Out | Eye on DC | Learn More | Publications | Hearings | Support CNI | CNI Foundation | Contact Us

Speak Out > Supporters and Critics Bruzonsky's Claims of CNI Funding Are Not Reality

August 2

The following is an excerpt from an email distributed by Middle East Realities (www.middleeast.org), which is headed by Mark Bruzonsky. In it, he alleges that CNI is largely funded by Saudi nationals and has been since its inception. This accusation blatantly gives a false impression of CNI’s donor base, information of which Mr. Bruzonsky would have no knowledge and no proof to the contrary.

Aug. 2, 2004

Dear Mr. Bruzonsky,… I was particulary interested in your claim that CNI is Saudi funded. Is it possible for you to send any evidence of this, as I would love to read more.

Bruzonsky’s Reply: Actually a senior member of the Saudi Royal Family financed and personally attended the opening meeting in Florida, paying everyone's way First Class, plus friends and family for vacations, in order to get them to come...and then they all sang Happy Birthday to him during the event as he actually sat on the platform. Gene Bird (now the old retired State Department official who became President of CNI when no one else wanted to) actually admitted the Saudi funding and 'involvement' to me personally after being caught lying about it and trying to deny it. …It was in fact big money from persons in and connected to Saudi Arabia, including the Saudi Royal family, that got them going and sustained them for some time.

CNI Response: Mr. Bird neither lied about nor denied anything concerning CNI acceptance of donations from abroad, and rumors that Saudi nationals mostly fund CNI are unfounded. Mr. Bruzonsky interviewed Mr. Bird for two hours and broadcasted the tape, which is proof of his statements. To put the actual number of Saudi donors in perspective, CNI has had over 7,000 total contributors since its founding. Only 24 of these have been residents of Saudi Arabia, 9 of which are actually Saudi citizens. Furthermore, CNI makes a rule of not accepting more than 4-5% of its yearly donation amount from foreign contributors. As an organization seeking to educate and enlist Americans in the reshaping of US foreign policy, it is not in CNI’s interests to seek foreign nationals as a major source of financial support. The malicious use of misinformation by Mr. Bruzonsky demeans his standing and only hinders the honest attempts of organizations such as CNI to foster peace. Precis 05:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I added a Controversy section, since I anticipate a lot of these CAMERA/FairReporting type stories. I think we need some kind of policy on what is controversial or not. For example, I didn't find Bird's statements "controversial" at all--he asked a question; whereas lobby members tend to find all criticism of Israel controversial. What should be the standard we apply? Probably some kind of retraction has to be involved, I think. --Roger Skye 14:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

(BTW Precis, we need a link for that info you added on Birds bio. I didn't see it on their site.)--Roger Skye 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We also have to ask whether the McCloskey speech at the IHR belongs here. I've already mentioned these points--

• CNI explictly distanced themselves from his appearance.
• McCloskey is no longer on the board of directors of CNI.
• McCloskey explicity distanced himself from IHR.
• McCloskey's speech had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but was on the subject of free speech.
• McCloskey has explicitly stated that he does not deny the Holocaust.
• IHR explicitly state on their site that THEY do not deny the Holocaust.

How do we justify it's appearance here? It seems to be a cheap smear attempt. --Roger Skye 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (BTW, WAS he "the chairman for CNI at the time"? I thought Findley was Founding Chairman. Anyone have a link?) --Roger Skye 18:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

reply to questions in "Controversy"

I added a Controversy section, since I anticipate a lot of these CAMERA/FairReporting type stories. I think we need some kind of policy on what is controversial or not.

• What policy do you propose?

For example, I didn't find Bird's statements "controversial" at all--he asked a question;

• If someone publicly asked if you like to torture children, you might call that an innocent question, but I'd call it controversial. The Bird quote alone does not sufficiently emphasize the controversy. Perhaps you removed the rest because you do not think that Bird was implying anything sinister, but since the press disagrees, I'm putting the original version back in.

You seem to unaware that there is significant evidence that Israeli agents WERE involved in the training of investigators and even the conducting of investigations. It's not a subject for this article, but don't be so naive.--Roger Skye 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was only in 1999 that Israel banned torture. Before then, its supreme court officially approved the torture of prisoners. --Roger Skye 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

whereas lobby members tend to find all criticism of Israel controversial.

• That statement is simply false. I challenge you to name a single lobby member who finds ALL criticism of Israel controversial. And if you can't meet such a challenge, why do you make such statements?

What should be the standard we apply? Probably some kind of retraction has to be involved, I think. --Roger Skye 14:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• If an official refuses to retract his statement "Israel controls the media" , it is still controversial. Back to the drawing board.

(BTW Precis, we need a link for that info you added on Birds bio. I didn't see it on their site.)--Roger Skye 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• You are continually asking others for links that you cannot find. Do you require a link for your own info on Bird? [9]

Sorry. (Dont' be so touchy.) --Roger Skye 21:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We also have to ask whether the McCloskey speech at the IHR belongs here. I've already mentioned these points--

CNI explictly distanced themselves from his appearance.

• Lay is vastly distanced from his scandal. Should the controversy be removed from WP's Enron page?

McCloskey is no longer on the board of directors of CNI.

• Lay is no longer CEO of Enron.

McCloskey explicity distanced himself from IHR.

• Five years later.

McCloskey's speech had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but was on the subject of free speech.

• McCloskey himself admitted he discussed the Holocaust. References are at his WP page.

But his speech is up on the IHR site; it is about the ADL's attempts to restrict free speech. You can read it for yourself. --Roger Skye 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

McCloskey has explicitly stated that he does not deny the Holocaust.

• What is controversial is that McCloskey chose to speak to IHR at all. I'd find it controversial if my former Congressman accepted an invitation to speak at a convention of neo-Nazis, regardless of the speech's content.]

I'm not disputing that the speech raised a controversy, I'm saying it has nothing to do with this Wik article. --Roger Skye 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

IHR explicitly state on their site that THEY do not deny the Holocaust.

• Do you believe everything you read? Do a little research.

How do we justify it's appearance here? It seems to be a cheap smear attempt.

• You have a point here, but I think the solution is to be careful in how the information is reported, not to leave out the information altogether.

--Roger Skye 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC) (BTW, WAS he "the chairman for CNI at the time"? I thought Findley was Founding Chairman. Anyone have a link?) --Roger Skye 18:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, he was chairman at the time. Find the link yourself. Precis 21:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

::You seem to unaware that there is significant evidence that Israeli agents WERE involved in the training of investigators and even the conducting of investigations. It's not a subject for this article, but don't be so naive.--Roger Skye 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC) It is a huge leap to conclude from that that Israelis are to blame for the abuses, and it is wrong to even insinuate such a thing. Bird was NOT simply asking an innocent question. :But his speech is up on the IHR site; it is about the ADL's attempts to restrict free speech. You can read it for yourself. --Roger Skye 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC) I did read it, and I found mention of the Holocaust there. Perhaps you missed it on first reading. :I'm not disputing that the speech raised a controversy, I'm saying it has nothing to do with this Wik article. Roger Skye 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC) It reveals the psyche of a founding member of CNI, and as such it is relevant. To remove such history would be to whitewash the article.Precis 22:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"the PSYCHE of a founding member"? What is this, a psychology article? It's an article on a lobbying organization. It should focus on what the organization does. Stop trying to "interpret" for the reader. They're not dummies. --Roger Skye 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What an organization does relates to what the leaders of the organization do. Precis 23:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So is your opposition to what he said in his speech, or to the fact that he appeared at the event? --Roger Skye 04:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know what was said in the speech, since all I've read is the IHR transcript, and that source has been proven to be singularly untrustworthy. But if Pete really used the epithet "so-called Holocaust" as the transcript claims, that would be truly deplorable. To accept an IHR speaking invitation at all shows extremely poor judgment. Precis 06:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Insinuating?

I'm not understanding this. Every single word he spoke on the news is repeated in the article. Why do we have to "interpret" it for the reader. That is the very essence of the principle of NPOV--just lay the facts out and let the reader make up their own minds. --Roger Skye 22:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Please restore to neutrality. --Roger Skye 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

One possible compromise is to say that Bird's remarks have been criticized for insinuating Israeli blame, and then provide references to mainstream sources. This will highlight the controversy and put it into context. You ask for neutrality to be restored, so I assume you think there is an opposing point of view. You are welcome to add sources that provide an opposing point of view, e.g., "According to the NYT, Bird was not trying to blame Israel"--but I doubt if you'll find any. If you prefer this solution, let me know--otherwise I'm keeping the status quo, because the quotes alone do not suffice to explain to the reader what the controversy is all about. Precis 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just copied these comments down from up above in case you didn't see them--

You seem to unaware that there is significant evidence that Israeli agents WERE involved in the training of investigators and even the conducting of investigations. It's not a subject for this article, but don't be so naive.

If I remember correctly, it was only in 1999 that Israel banned torture. Before then, its supreme court officially approved the torture of prisoners.

BBC (notice the date) --Roger Skye 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, if I were to say "Bird, apparently alluding to widespread reports of the presence of Israeli interrogators at the facility, and Israel's record of engaging in torture, said ... ", that would be a violation of NPOV. --Roger Skye 22:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

False analogy. Your example involves speculation ("apparently"). It is not a matter of the speculation to say that Bird's question suggests Israel might be involved. What else could he be saying? Precis 23:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor is it a matter of speculation to say he was alluding to the widespread reports of Israeli participation in interrogations. He wasn't just dreaming this stuff up. Notice the dates. Given the news at that time, the whole world wanted to know whether American interrogation practices had been influenced by torture techniques developed by Israel against the Palestinians. I certainly did. Didn't you? --Roger Skye 23:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the issue at hand, if you agree that this is not a matter of speculation, why are you questioning the neutrality of what is currently written? We all agree on what Bird is suggesting, so there is no "neutrality" to restore. Precis 23:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"because the quotes alone do not suffice to explain to the reader what the controversy is all about." Precis 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Haha. Considering that the quotes exhaust EVERYTHING that he said, that should be a hint to you that this is another phony "controversy". --Roger Skye 23:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we do what I have suggested above: "Bird, alluding to widespread media reports of Israeli interrogators at the facility, and Israel's unfortunate history of engaging in the torture of prisoners, said "...". Let's also make sure to put in references to the media reports and Israel's torture rulings. That way there can be no possibility of anyone failing to understand Bird's two-dozen plainly spoken words. [I'm just being sarcastic, of course.] --Roger Skye 23:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the issue generated controversy in the press, I don't understand how you can characterize it as "phony". Now, you yourself said, and I quote, "For example, I didn't find Bird's statements "controversial" at all--he asked a question" Now if someone as knowledgable as you doesn't understand the controversy based on the quotes alone, that just underscores my contention that the quotes alone do not suffice to explain to the reader what the controversy is all about. How about responding directly to my question: in what way does removing the explanatory material restore neutrality, in light of the fact that we all agree on the explanation? Precis 00:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Every time CAMERA organizes a write-in campaign it's not a "controversy." That's the problem with lobbies. People cease to take them seriously. --Roger Skye 00:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you insist on doing the reader's thinking for him, add the explanation. But let's at least do it accurately: Reading Bird's words, it's clear that he is not wondering whether Israelis, as you say, "contributed to the Abu Ghraib abuses" in the sense of physically participating. He says, "Were any foreign interrogators [i.e. the Israelis known to be there] RECOMMENDING TREATMENT?" That is to say, were they introducing interrogation techniques? I propose changing

• "Bird appeared, suggesting that Israelis may have contributed to the Abu Ghraib abuses perpetrated by American soldiers. He said ..."

to

• "Bird appeared, suggesting that Israeli interrogation techniques may have been used at Abu Ghraib. He said ..."

To infer anything more than this from his words is pure speculation. --Roger Skye 00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you fail to appreciate that imputing blame without hard evidence is controversial. That's why the CBC apologized. You make an excellent point about wording, however, and so I offer the following as a compromise: On May 4, 2004, CNI President Eugene Bird appeared on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's National News, suggesting that Israeli interrogators may have recommended abusive treatment at Abu Ghraib. He said, "We know that the Israeli intelligence was operating in Baghdad after the war was over. The question should be: Were there any foreign interrogators among those that were recommending very, very bad treatment for the prisoners?" Three days later, CBC issued an on-the-air apology which concluded as follows: "The comment from the diplomat should not have been included in the report and we regret the error." Precis 01:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :) --Roger Skye 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you hadn't watched that video link before posting it. --Roger Skye 04:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the only link I have that provides a video showing that there was an on-air apology. If you have a different video, please substitute it. Precis 06:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

alamoudi

Should the following go into the Controversy section? It reflects on the controversial judgment of CNI, but I don't know if Alamoudi is important enough to offset the danger of imputing guilt by association. This is from the CNI website responding to FrontPage:

Abdurahman Alamoudi is no longer a CNIF board member. Mr. Alamoudi was a member of the Board of Directors, beginning in 1998, but was removed when he made a plea agreement admitting to some of the preceding charges in July 2004. If Frontpage had checked with CNIF, as a credible reporter would do, they would have known this. Throughout the 1990s, Mr. Alamoudi was the leading spokesman for American Muslims around the world. He served for three years, starting in 1997, as a goodwill ambassador abroad for the US Information Agency of the State Department, giving speeches throughout the Middle East on American tolerance towards Muslims and Arabs. This man was seen by many as an important figure in smoothing US-Arab relations and making the political climate more conducive to the peace process. In inviting Mr. Alamoudi to be a board member, CNIF did wish to share in his popularity and the goal of reducing anti-Americanism abroad. To be fair, however, Mr. Alamoudi has been a very insignificant part of CNIF’s everyday workings and political views and has not even been active since 2002. Everyone, of course, is disappointed by his activities, and CNIF regrets that Mr. Alamoudi made certain poor decisions that may have compromised American security and interests in the Middle East. It remains adamant in asserting that it had no knowledge of his criminal actions or possible terrorist connections. Apparently, the State Department did not either. Precis 01:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't find this remotely "controversial", although I'm sure you do. If you want to put it in, fine, but FrontPage.com is not NPOV and should not be listed as a source. Also, please keep it in context--he was, after all, employed by the State Department longer than he was by CNI. I think you would agree this is a small "controversy", even by your standards. --Roger Skye 00:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's a small controversy, and I'm on the fence about including it. The source is a CNI website responding to FrontPage.com, not FrontPage.com itself. I agree with keeping things in context, and that means (gasp) putting in supporting material to complement quotes. Precis 00:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ADL?!

No, ADL is not NPOV on any subject touching on the Israel lobby. Next you'll be linking to FrontPage. (Did you actually read McCloskey's "controversial" speech? It will teach you a little about the ADL.) --Roger Skye 06:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of ludicrous lobby fronts, please remove that FairReporting video. It's obscenely biased. It also falsely claims that Bird "implied israeli agents were involved in torturing prisoners." Everything in the article is already sourced. --Roger Skye 06:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Mark Farrell video is extremely biased in favor of Paul Findley, but that didn't stop us from using it. But back to the point. I included the video because it is the only visual proof I have that an apology was made. If you have another video, please substitute it. Visual proof is important because without it we might have to trust the words on a rather partisan website. TV images are harder to misrepresent. As for the ADL link, is there a Wikipedia rule that I'm unaware of that says that external links have to be non-partisan? If so, that would mean that the external links at The Israel Lobby will have to be removed. Please cite me the relevant WP guideline forbidding partisan external links, links that are not even referenced in the article. It is true that sources in the External Links must be reliable sources--but WP guidelines specifically say that sources are not automatically unreliable just because they are partisan. I don't think it would be proper to equate ADL with FrontPage in this regard. I'll be happy to remove the ADL link if I am misunderstanding the guidelines. Precis 06:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Every word of the retraction statement is already fully sourced in the (rather creepy) HonestReporting source. --Roger Skye 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

(Did you actually read McCloskey's "controversial" speech? It will teach you a little about the ADL.) --Roger Skye 06:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Did you actually read the ADL link? That will teach you a little about CNI. (I'm sure the irony is lost on you, but I couldn't resist saying it anyway.) Precis 06:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did some research on Wikipedia guides for External Links. It says the following is allowable: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first." WP:EL So it appears that the ADL link is acceptable. Precis 07:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

An article on whether the Israel lobby hurts or helps America would have multiple points of view. But this article doesn't have multiple points of view. There are multiple points of view about whether you want to support CNI or not, but not about what CNI is. This article is supposed to be about what CNI is. Pretty straightforward actually, since they state very clearly what they are for and what they are against. They feel the Israel lobby is harming America. Whether or not we agree with that, we are supposed to report that without bias.

ADL is an advocacy group promoting the Israel lobby. Their job is to OPPOSE efforts like the CNI's. It would not be a good place to send someone to get an unbiased picture of what the CNI does. --Roger Skye 15:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There ARE multiple points of view about what CNI is. Is it a lobby that supports Hamas? Is it a lobby that thinks Israel controls America? Is it a lobby that singles out Israel for blame? Is it a lobby that associates with extremists? Note that WP:EL encourages the addition of external links that provide balance. One strives for NPOV with balance, NOT by eliminating all partisan sources. Every word of the retraction statement is already fully sourced in the (rather creepy) HonestReporting source. --Roger Skye 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Every word of Bird's accusation is also fully reported in the same source, yet you felt it important to add the video. If you remove the retraction video, using your justification that words alone are enough, then also remove your anti-Israel video, to avoid being branded a hypocrite. Precis 22:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I do hope you won't brand me as a hypocrite. But you're missing my point. I don't want the HonestReporting link removed because it is redundant, I want it removed because it is misleading--it falsely states that Bird "implied israeli agents were involved in torturing prisoners." I would like to avoid linking to NPOV, misleading sites if we can, and in this case we can. Why are you so attached to this HonestReporting video? Don't you think it makes the lobby look a little sleazy? --Roger Skye 01:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, I think video statements are more credible than verbal ones on partisan sites. I think you yourself agree with that. For example, you have indicated here that you don't necessarily trust quotes reproduced on the Camera site--but I'll bet that if the Camera site had video coverage of the quotes being made, you'd find the evidence more credible. That being said, if you can make a convincing case that the film is misleading, that overrides issues of credibility in my book. But is the film really misleading? Isn't that what Bird was implying? The film doesn't say Bird implied PHYSICAL involvement, did it? Precis 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, keep it in. I think it's important for Americans to get glimpses like this of what goes on "behind the scenes". --Roger Skye 02:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you implying? Am I doing something wrong? Precis 02:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, if it's that important to you, it's fine. --Roger Skye 05:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found a nonpartisan source for the retraction quote, which obviates the need to establish credibility via video. So if you prefer, use this link instead: [10] Precis 07:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

five revert warning

There are five reverts on July 12, starting from the bottom up at times 1:10, 1:41, 2:14, 14:15, 21:50 Precis 08:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean? --Roger Skye 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If I am doing something you don't like, please explain. Is restoration of vandalism like Moishe's considered a revert? Is a grammatical edit like 21:50 considered a revert? I honestly don't know. In fact, I thought we were supposed to not repeatedly revert the same item. --Roger Skye 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You made at least five reverts, all of which count, including the ones you made from a different account. See WP:3RR Precis 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

different account? --Roger Skye 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See 21:32. Precis 02:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work on this article

I have glanced through the Talk page here and can see there has been some disagreement. I just want to say that I think the article is good. It deals with the subject with Neutral Point of View but there is no way a reader can come away without making a value judgment of the group. That is a good thing. If the article is NPOV but does not have enough information or enough links for readers to have an opinion, the article did not do a good job. The readers who blame Israel for all the wrongs in the world will like this organization and readers who blame terrorists for violence in the Middle East will definitely NOT like this organization. Good job! RonCram 00:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)