Talk:Israel lobby in the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt as sources

A huge portion of this article seems to be derived from John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. These are hardly unbiased sources (I offer the following passge from the Washington Post. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801178_pf.html

[Walt] also hypothesized that if not for the Israel lobby, the Iraq war "would have been much less likely."

Up next, Mearsheimer ridiculed U.S. leaders for "falling all over themselves to express support for Israel." And he drew groans from the crowd when he spoke about a lawmaker who, after questioning Israel's policy, "met with various representatives from major Jewish organizations, who explained to him the basic facts of life in American politics."

When the two professors finished, they were besieged by autograph- and photo-seekers and Arab television correspondents. Walt could be heard telling one that if an American criticizes Israel, "it might have some economic consequences for your business."

Before leaving for an interview with al-Jazeera, Mearsheimer accepted a button proclaiming "Walt & Mearsheimer Rock. Fight the Israel Lobby." "I like it," he said, beaming.

Yet much of this article takes what these professors say as fact without any other points of view. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Have you read the sources in this article? There are plenty of opposing points of view here! Good grief, are Stephen Harper or Noam Chomsky unbiased sources? There are other sources out there, just as legitimate as Stephen Harper, but whenever I've cited them they have been reverted here. Honestly, for an issue like this, ARE they any sources that could be considered UNBIASED? If you're for US support for Israel you're biased and, most certainly, if you're against US support for Israel you're biased. Though Mearsheimer may have been overused here, the point here is that he enunciates, AND HAS AN ONLINE SOURCE TO CITE, the central viewpoints of many who think that Israel, especially with its uncompromising stance towards their settlements, is--or has become--much more a strategic liability of the US than an asset. From the point of view of Realpolitik, the only things of strategic value in the Middle-East are the Suez Canal and oil. Does Israel control any of these? Indeed, by siding with Israel no matter what they do the US has antagonized, and in the past was penalized, by the Arabs who do control these strategic assets. This is a glaringly obvious view of the relationship between the US and Israel, and it needs to be articulated (it certainly needs mentioning much more than the ludicrous view of Stephen Harper, who can look at the last 60 years and actually think that the US has benefited more by being an ally of Israel than it would have as an ally of the Arabs).68.164.3.169 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the article as I mentioned above is it doesn't include the dozens of other people who have done good research and writing on the topic; not to mention the hundreds of news stories that could be drawn on about the Israel lobby. But I haven't followed this article and don't know if deletionists were busy deleting every one else. So don't assume you know what the POV is, if you've just wandered by. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't "assumed" anything. Rather, I was just pointing out that a large portion of this article is based on the writings of people who are hostile to the "Israel-lobby." (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

There are two things being talked about with M&W here. The first is their book and it's earlier versions; the second is their celebrity/infamy since. Based on that, I'd prefer to keep the book/early refs and resist adding new ones from the same source playing to a crowd. Also there are many other refs that have been argued to death and edited out over time. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The addition of Walt and Mearsheimer's speech and behaviour in public shows that their are more hostile towards Israel and their supporters than they let on in their book. It also casts doubt on their objectivity and intentions. However, this may not be the best article for this issue. Let me think it over.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

I've tried to clean up some of the over-reliance on M&W in this article in the past. I wouldn't mind doing some more work on this. --GHcool (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

First, one doesn't use alleged outside "hostile" comments to judge material here. If it is relevant put it in the article. Second, hostility is often in the mind of the beholder on this topic, isn't it? Considering there is a highly paid industry developed to make anyone who criticizes Israel look like an antisemite, I think we'd have to evaluate every alleged case of "hostility" on a case by case basis.

My question again - have other facts and opinions from other sources been deleted to make this article so heavily dependent on M&W?? There is so much other good material out there it doesn't make sense why it's not here, besides editors' laziness. Well, maybe I'll work on it myself soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your second question is not relevant to this topic. If you want to add more sources and material you can. However, you must ensure that they meet Wikipedia’s standards on relevance, NPOV, notability and reliability (which is why, I suspect, much of the material on this topic has been removed).

As for my first point, I felt it would be best to discuss Walt and Mearsheimer's opinions on Israel and its supporters on the talk page before inserting it into the article (which is the proper procedure to follow in Wikipedia).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Hyperionsteel. I would highly recommend that you read through these three sources about the Israel and Arab Lobbies that were not written by M&W:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/lobby.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201627_pf.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020610/massing

I found these three to be informative. Note that the first and the last appear to be written before M&W published their work on the subject.

I think it would be wise to add other sources to this article as there are many high quality ones.

I do not agree that there is a lack of high quality sources on this material. Just a few google searches brings up many quality articles on this topic in reputable publications.

I also do think that attacks on the character of M&W as those made by Hyperionsteel on this talk page are out of place. I view these attacks as attacking the messenger rather than the message (in an original research fashion) and really do not belong here on this talk page.

--John Bahrain (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. The reference I cited, although it does question M&W's character, doesn't support, refute, or question any of the information presented in this article. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Gee, that's sounds pretty close to most rebuttals of M&W; the few points from the first round review were corrected/modified. Then it was mostly nit-picking and increased character and motive speculation. The subject is valid and the RSs are innumerable. The currently stated problem is the high usage of that one source. Another recent problem, sounding somewhat like the above, is the deletion of material that can be sourced elsewhere, just because it was ref'd to M&W. That seems a less-than neutral, collaborative approach; maybe it would be more NPOV to leave them in the article and discuss what should be deleted and why.CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured something like that was going on. Do you know what period the best information was in so it can be retrieved? Mr. Cool's deletion of material from M&W just cause he disagrees with it is against policy. I'll have to look at other deletions. Some of problems might be solved by merging artificially structured subsections. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So, an article by Mearsheimer and Walt which was first published in the London Review of Books is biased? But an article written by Mitchell Bard in the Jewish Virtual Library, an organisation that he's the director of (doesn't that make the article a little bit self-published), is reliable to the extent that information extracted from it is treated as factual?     ←   ZScarpia   21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

New Section on Israel Lobby Crime

The US Department of Justice released a great deal of material on Israel lobby crime in its formative period of the 1940s-1960s. I'd like to start a new "crime section" up near the top to discuss:

AIPAC founder Isaiah L. Kenen's failure to reregister as a foreign agent after ordered by the DOJ

http://irmep.org/ila/Kenen/default.asp

The US Attorney General's order to the entire American Zionist Council (umbrella of ZOA and Hadassah) to register as an Israeli foreign agent and the subsequent battle which led to it's demise and relaunch within AIPAC.

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

How the earliest elements of the lobby created nonprofit front organizations to steal US military equipment for Israel.

http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/military/Calhoun,%20Arming%20David.pdf

Shell company reorganizations (such as the Jewish Agency - American Section to Zionist Organization - American Section) when direct Israeli government actions guiding supposedly independent organizations were revealed.

http://irmep.org/ila/ja/

I'm ready to get crackin' if everyone agrees this is important.... NonResidentFellow (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Irmep.org does not qualify. Furthermore, the JPS article you bring up, "Arming David: The Haganah's Illegal Arms Procurement Network in the United States, 1945-49," does is not about the Israel lobby at all. Rather, it is about illegal arms procurement prior to the establishment of the State of Israel and the ramp up to the 1948 War of Independence. --GHcool (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

IRmep.org is presenting Department of Justice Documents, therefore opinions about Reliable Sources do not apply. Illegal activity, particularly through nonprofit front organizations is a core characteristic of the lobby (See the Jack Abramoff's use of Indian casino money laundered to purchase arms for West Bank settlers, or Hadassah's and the ZOA's ongoing money laundering to the West Bank through the Jewish Agency as reported by The Forward). You can't do a serious artical about the lobby without discussing crime.NonResidentFellow (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can dismiss IRMEP off hand, especially in regards to its releasing government information, if seems genuine and no other source can be found that has released it, including a govt web page. As for the other sources, if you can find a source that clearly discusses the lobby and a certain incident and then have another source with some more obviously relevant info to the incident, it might be allowable, on a case by case basis. The title of the section might better be "Illegal Activities" or Allegations of such, of course include recent AIPAC prosecutions, other spying incidents whose WP:RS link them to WP:RS, etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I nothing CarolMooreDC wrote convinced me that IRMEP satisfies WP:RS on the issue of the Israel lobby in the United States. It doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article. Secondly, there was no such thing as an Israel lobby before there was such thing as Israel, which didn't occur until 1948. Smuggling of arms into Palestine is not cannot be considered relevant to a discussion of the Israel lobby. It is an anachronism and a non-sequitur. Thirdly, any alleged illegal activities done by AIPAC belongs in the AIPAC article, not in the Israel lobby in the U.S. article (assuming, of course, they are cited to a reliable source). --GHcool (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that IRMEP doesn’t have its own article doesn’t necessarily matter concerning whether it is reliable or not; I believe the criterion for an article is only notability. It is notable. Secondly, the statement “there was no such thing as an Israel lobby before there was such thing as Israel” is walking around the elephant in the room, because the Zionist lobby, which did exist prior to Israel, is and has been redirected to the Israel lobby disambiguation page, and may be used as geographically appropriate. I will stay away from the smuggling/illegality issues for now. Thirdly, I agree that material should be placed where it belongs chronologically, but it should also be placed appropriately with its historic roots. The close association between the earlier American Zionist lobby and the birth of AIPAC is very well sourced in the history section, where the word ‘Zionist’ was changed to ‘Israel,’ and the word order was modified.

To the author of the section, I will note a very basic fact. If you feel that the issue you have raised is notable and worthy of inclusion, then you should be considerably more circumspect and NPOV in your approach for including it. As this is only your second edit, I assume you now realize the error of your approach. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

CasualObserver is largely correct re IRMEP, especially on not irrelevance of it not yet having an article. Its speakers have appeared at reputable functions as well. Now if it IRMEP came up with information contrary to most WP:RS without any real basis in reality, that might be easily challenged.

The Israel lobby is generally understood to include those who worked for the creation of Israel before it was created. For example British Journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft writes that perhaps the “first lobbyist on behalf of the land of Israel” was Theodor Herzl.. Ref: Geoffrey Wheatcroft, Most favored nation, Boston Globe, April 2, 2006. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

However, Wheatcroft was not referring to the Israel lobby in the United States, which is what this article is about.

I'm willing to give IRMEP the benefit of the doubt for now, but I'll be watching edits cited to that source very closely. --GHcool (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(out-dent) Very true, but this has been sitting on the talk page for a year and includes the following, very similar specifically US reference:

Before Israel existed as a state, it existed as a political lobby first in the capitals of Europe and then in Washington. Zionism was the romantic dream of a band of nineteenth-century European ideologues who often could agree on only one thing: that to achieve a “normal” life in an anti-Semitic world, Jews required a “Jewish state.” Zionist leaders worked tirelessly to convince the rest of the world to help them make that dream a reality. They met with hostility and skepticism. Foremost among their doubters were the Jewish leaders of America.

I hope that clears up any confusion you might have seen. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Zionist Organization of America was found to be acting as an illegal foreign agent, it simply transferred operations into AIPAC. The Jewish Agency - American Section had the same thing happen, so it changed its nameplate to World Zionist Organization - American Section and continued operations in the same building.

So rather than mention these facts in separate sections (though that's a good idea), it's better to explore the regenerative criminal nature of aspects of the lobby in this Wiki page. The facts are indisputable, though uncomfortable to many.NonResidentFellow (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing the lead per WP:lead

Wikipedia:LEAD#First_sentence_content says words and phrases commonly used interchangeably with other words and phrases can be mentioned in the lead. The example they give is: Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), also known as lye, caustic soda and (incorrectly, according to IUPAC nomenclature) sodium hydrate, is ...

Therefore in this article it would be: "The Israel lobby in the United States (also called the Zionist lobby or less accurately the Jewish lobby) is a term used to describe the loose coalition of groups and individuals who attempt to influence American foreign policy in support of Israel and its policies." CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me.CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Any source for those claims? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If 50 percent of Americans support Israel and only 2 percent of Americans are Jewish, then why call the Israel Lobby the "Jewish Lobby"? Yosef.Raziel (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that this had not been done. WP:Lead says we can use search engines to show frequency of synonyms. The lead to Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has said for several months "(also called the Zionist lobby or less accurately the Jewish lobby)". (Note that Bard, already a ref to lead, makes point about Jewish lobby being less accurate.) I personally think Jewish lobby should be reserved for lobbying on matters predominantly NOT about Israel. But even the mainstream press and Jewish medias and groups often talk about the Jewish lobby and wikipedia should reflect reality not our personal preferences. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a newspaper or an encyclopedia? And what does this WP:NOR have to do with the Israel lobby in the United States?

I've removed the following insertion to the talk page for discussion:

After a news report that Israeli Prime Minister bragged of calling then US President George Bush in order to prevent then US Secretary of State Condelezza Rice from voting in favor of a UN resolution which she helped put together<ref>http://www.forward.com/articles/14957/</ref>, Douglas Bloomfield, a former chief lobbyist for the AIPAC, the Washington-based pro-Israel lobby, dismissed the episode as "a spitting match between two lame ducks." Douglas continued "This reinforces the perception that the Israeli prime minister and Israeli leaders have easy access to the leaders of the U.S.,” Bloomfield said. “It is a fact that the Israeli prime minister can get the president on the phone. Not every prime minister in the world can do that. It is no secret that Israel tried to influence the U.S. regarding U.N. votes. It reinforces what the rivals of Israel say about the enormous clout Israel has in Washington, and I see nothing wrong with that." But Bloomfield then added, "It is a mistake to talk about it."<ref>http://www.forward.com/articles/14957/</ref>

Considering that this whole newspaper item is about the Prime Minister of Israel allegedly calling the U.S. President, what does it have to do with the Israel lobby in the United States, the topic of this article? If a former member of AIPAC comments on something, does that mean it automatically becomes relevant material for this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg's point. --GHcool (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --David Shankbone 06:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree also, as it was included. But I also note that it certainly points to the power of a prime node of the lobby hierarchy. Similarly, their noting that, "It is a mistake to talk about it." reinforces a standard RS'd tactic of the lobby. It may be a mistake for them, but Wikipedia should consider it oppositely, being NPOV, and all. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The "It is a mistake to talk about it." part is the valid one for this article, as it shows the lobby's attitude to Israel's influence being highlighted. The emphasis shouldn't be on Olmert's boast, but on this. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess we need an "Israel lobby in Israel" article ;-) The content does belong in the Israel-US relations article and I'll put it there when I get a chance. Also, this long section title a big over-wrought, POV and doesn't may not(?) leave much space for edit summaries. Self control? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Third Rail Metaphors

• Summation of previous edit:

( removed material unrelated to the lobby's influence. The Huffington Post article addresses Israel in American politics, not the lobby speicifically)--ghcool

Mmm. You know, I do "sorta" see where you're coming from-- I went back and saw that the article didn't specifically use the word 'lobby' in it. But, from reading the article, I can very easily see how I could've believed that it did. While it's true that the word 'lobby' is not used in there, methinks that the point was very strongly implied by the author and were there any reason for its non-inclusion, it was probably just spatial considerations.

The above notwithstanding, let's try putting an LSAT syllogism to use. ;)

Ok, even if the Tasini article were to be interpreted as being silent on the 'influence of Israel lobbying', the sentence I typed on Wikipedia was remarking on the 'existence of the third rail metaphor'. The Tasini article was, of course, relevant to a discussion on the the 'existence of the third rail metaphor'; it even used the words third rail. Now then, Here, a discussion or commentary on the 'influence of Israel lobbying' would very reasonably be a place to find remarks on 'existence of the third rail metaphor'. And, because the Tasini article is relevant to a discussion on the the 'existence of the third rail metaphor', the Tasini article is properly cited from on Wikipedia.

Even so... while the sentence I had typed regarding the Tasini article ought be re-created, I can understand how the case can be made that remarks on the 'existence of the third rail metaphor' within the context of a discussion of the 'influence of Israel lobbying' might be worth further supplementing. I've added another source that talks more directly on the Israel lobby and the metaphor. AlphaFactor (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks AlphaFactor for the civility of your last post. Its so rare to find that on talk pages regarding Israel. Unfortunately, I'm finding myself unmoved by your arguments and decided to delete both of the paragraphs. To connect the Tasini article to the lobby violates Wikipedia:No original research. I will not comment on whether it belongs on Wikipedia or not, but if it does, it does not belong in this article because it is not specifically related to the topic of the lobby. The Mother Jones thing is related, but the information contained in that paragraph is redundant with the information in the rest of the section. --GHcool (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Helping set a civil tone is the very least I can do. :)

I suppose if you're quite sure that the paragraphs ought not warrant inclusion, I guess it's alright-- but I did spend a good bit of time trying to prepare them properly. =/ But, what I am going to insist then is that you make some edits reflecting that the very words 'third rail' are in general use regarding characterizations of the Israel issue and Israel lobbying. It's actually quite important (as opposed to redundant) as the third-rail metaphor is a widely understood concept in policy and political matters, and would directly aid a conversation on the influence of the lobbying. If you could, please make the appropriate edits or additions. I think the sources that I was using earlier might be good starting points for the undertaking. Thanks, man. :) --AlphaFactor (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• AlphaFactor, if you can find a reliable source that uses the term in specific connection with the Israel lobby in the United States, I would be willing to discuss its inclusion in this article. I'm sorry about the time you spent on it so far, but as it is written and sourced, it just doesn't belong here. I respectfully decline the invitation to research this point myself as I do not see it as a pressing need for the article. --GHcool (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Errr... ok, then...

if you can find a reliable source that uses the term in specific connection with the Israel lobby in the United States, I would be willing to discuss its inclusion in this article.

I'm pretty darn sure that the second article I was using -- the Mother Jones article -- fits that description. To the extent that you find it redundant and unfitting for inclusion on that basis, well, with respect, I disagree. That said, if you could, please try to find us some Wikipedia guidelines or protocols indicating what ought be done when two guys disagree as to a question of redundancy. And...

.

.

.

Reverting... NOW! Nyah, just kidding. But please do get back to me.

Here's to Good Faith. --AlphaFactor (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose you're right to some extent, however I fail to see how the phrase "third rail" is so important to the understanding of the Israel lobby. I'm not completely opposed to it. I just don't understand why its important to say the same thing twice; once directly and once through a metaphor. --GHcool (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hey GH. I do appreciate your patience with talking things through on this. I was just in a study lounge watching a couple friends hold an IRL flamewar on the topic. You're absolutely right that the article already directly says what the phrase 'third rail' would communicate via metaphor. The power of words being the way that they are, though, concepts are often better crystallized depending on the language used to describe them. We've already seen it ourselves-- with some instances being less tasteful than others. A person could simply remark 'the Palestinians have killed many Israelis', but the idea is conveyed much stronger by, 'Nazis killed Jews by the trainload, Palestinians kill Jews by the busload'. Conversely, one could say, 'Israel has instituted an unfair policy of treating some people differently from how they treat other people', or, they could package&encapsulate their thoughts then deliver them as, 'Israel is practicing apartheid'.

Here, as I mentioned earlier, the third-rail metaphor is a widely understood concept in policy and political matters, and is a recognized concept in Political Science. It would stand to convey a certain standpoint on the nature of the Israel Lobby much more concisely and vividly than explaining its nature at length. It has the additional attribute of indicating that the topic shares qualities with other manifestations of 'touching the third rail' (like opening discussion in the Deep South on gun control) thereby communicating that public officials would probably tread very lightly on the issue.

And... I've said my piece. I'm grateful you're at least trying to see things from my point of view. Though Wikipedia might be generally driven by consensus, I've seen enough to know that this write-up is largely a work product of your blood&sweat and if you'd still rather not pursue inclusion, I'm totally ready to go by your decision.

Lastly, I'll be stopping by your user-page soon. I want your advice&help on something so be on the lookout. ;) --AlphaFactor (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC):

AlphaFactor, the "trainload/busload" thing is hardly what I would call encyclopedic. Yes, some words and phrases carry more emotionally charged meanings to them, but that doesn't mean we have to use them all, especially when the information is redundant. --GHcool (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Former US President Jimmy Carter re: Israel lobby

Interview with former US President Jimmy Carter: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-29/carter-on-iran/

--John Bahrain (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

GHCool removed the above as linkspam. This is a talk page and this article is directly relevant and to remove it without comment except for an accusation of link spam is inappropriate, especially since I only posted it in one spot.

Here is an excerpt of the interview with Jimmy Carter. When asked about the recent appointment of Mitchell as a representative of Obama with regards to the I-P conflict, Jimmy Carter responded in part:

"AIPAC [The American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is the dominant voice among the Israeli organizations in this country. And if you look at the purpose of AIPAC, it’s not to promote peace, it’s not to bring peace to Israel, it’s to promote and defend the policies of the incumbent government in Israel. And so they defend Israel. It’s politically impossible, as you know, for any member of Congress to make a public statement condemning or criticizing the policies of Israel. It would be political suicidal for them to do so. A lot of the members of Congress agree with me, some very high up in the Congress. But if they came out publically and said it, their seats would be in danger."

While it does echo some of the material in this article, it may be best to add this to the AIPAC article directly. --John Bahrain (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear John Bahrain, Please review WP:Soapbox. I'm happy to continue this discussion where you began it here. --GHcool (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many quotes

I'm tempted to put the following tag on this article:

Before I do, however, I'd like to invite the Wikipedia community to amend the article by turning the long quotations into shorter paraphrases. I intend to do some of the work as well, but thought I'd warn people here in case they accuse me of WP:CENSOR or some such fiddle faddle. --GHcool (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Never mind, I just did it myself. --GHcool (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your notice, but my schedule is different. I consider the paraphrase of the opensecrets quote inappropriate since the source is likely the best neutral source concerning PACs (any PAC) and their funding and contributions. The paraphrase misses the ‘nationwide network’ that supplies the bulk, but includes the ‘additional’, while omitting to ‘bundle’ it. The paraphrase also loses the aspect of favored candidates who receive the funds, which seems neutrally stated as ‘candidates favored by the PACs’. Importantly, the ‘to support Israel in its negotiations and armed conflicts with its Arab neighbors’, is missing, because it indicates a view that some might see as unusual or somewhat contradictory. If you don’t see it as such, just change the name to another MNNA, for example, and see if it makes sense for a possible consensus. Overall, the exact quote is both an informative and neutral statement of who the ‘Formal lobby’ is and what they do. I have somewhat reverted the paraphrase of this reliable source for these reasons, but have also removed the distinctive formatting to better include it in the short paragraph, because I understand that there might be different sides of undue. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You make a fair point. I don't mind keeping this quote in its entirety. --GHcool (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And I appreciate your understanding of these points. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

where is campus watch?

How can you have a section on campuses but not mention the Campus Watch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reliable quote on the topic of Campus Watch in the context of the Israel lobby from an article by Michael Massing entitled "The Storm over the Israel lobby":

"In 2002, [Daniel] Pipes created a Web site called Campus Watch, which "reviews and critiques" Middle East studies in North America "with an aim to improving them." (Initially, Campus Watch also encouraged students to take notes on lectures by professors critical of Israel, with the goal of "exposing" them on the [Middle East Forum] Web site, but this feature was dropped after it was widely condemned as a form of McCarthyism.) [Middle East Forum]'s work on campuses parallels that of AIPAC's own college advocacy program."

Originally published in the New York Review of Books but available to subscribers only:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=19062

A reprint of the article is available here on the Shalom Center website:

http://www.shalomctr.org/node/1127

--John Bahrain (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Long blockquotes in references

While I understand that the original blockquotes, explaining the left-right split, were maybe excessive, my expressed concern of OR and SYNTH were the reasons for their length. I understand others’ concerns, but similarly, feel their total deletion is also maybe excessive; it is as well unenlightening ‘for the benefit of the readers.’ This seems less than forthrightly informative, since editors are supposed to neutrally state what RSs say while not denuding their statements of relevant information. I have therefore restored specific shorter portions, which I feel are necessary to both adequately support and protect the two sentences’ continued inclusion in such a heated topic area.

I also note the previous total lack of blockquotes in references. It seems a very limited interpretation of the use of RSs, particularly with the recent paraphrasing of many previous direct quotes. It seems similar to discussing ice cream and describing Cherry Garcia as ‘vanilla with chunks’. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the blockquotes in theory, but even the shortened blockquotes could be shortened a little bit more. I will do it now and hope that I have done it in a way that CasualObserver feels is fair. --GHcool (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Except for one sentence in the Israeli MEIRA quote, the most recent shortening seems acceptable. The specific sentence is re-inserted because it notes why, where and what ‘hard-core Zionists’ pursued and closes up the mention of aid noted earlier. The Oren quote looks fine, but I may check into it. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Walt and Mearsheimer book

How shall we describe it? Bestselling smacks of promotionalism, and is a little misleading about the book's impact. The Walt and Mearsheimer book is hugely significant, but not because it spent 1 week on the NYT Bestseller list at 12th place for nonfiction. It is hugely significant because of the firestorm it provoked in foreign policy and political circles. Ray^Talk 05:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it need to be described here ? It's described in it's article. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be, and suggest that 'bestseller' is RS'd and probably better than firestorm-provoker or other editorial suggestions. Maybe there is another sourced neutral word that describes its significance better, but unless one is provided, it seems that the current version does it succinctly. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I initially removed the "bestselling" adjective attached to the book as promotional language, but CasualObserver pointed out that we want the reader to notice that the book is significant. That said, I still think that calling it a "bestseller" is both promotional and fails to capture its impact. Finding neutral language that addresses the book's significance will require some discussion, I think. Given that the book provoked the head of CFR (among many others) to accuse two tenured professors of high standing of shoddy scholarship, what does everybody think of "controversial" as a compromise? Ray^Talk 17:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the book caused a controversy, but do not see the singular usage of "controversial" as a compromise in any way. Given that however, I do see the common term "controversial bestseller" as workable and distinctly more compromising. In a somewhat forward-looking light, I might add that your (admittedly talk-page) prose construct of 'provoked the head of CFR (among many others)....' seems to be a SYNTH destruct, unless of course, it was under a CFR letterhead. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume we're ruling out Hitchens' 'smelly'. If we are going to describe it rather than just name it the term "controversial bestseller" looks okay to me too. Was it influential ? What changed ? Did I miss something ? :) Sean.hoyland - talk 05:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial bestseller" seems appropriate to me too. --GHcool (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm easy. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Jewish assimilation

I was wondering whether widespread Jewish assimilation in the United States could ever slow down the social and political efforts of the lobby ? In certain Jewish communities, especially in Reform and Masorti communities, there are assimilation rates that are reportedly approaching 80 % of members for those that are descendents of second-generation or third-generation immigrants. However, the issue of assimilation doesn't appear to bother the lobby that much since the issue is regarded as all but secondary next to the public drive for support of Israel and the Zionist cause. ADM (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen lots of articles on assimilation over the years so a good search of relevant terms might find some relevant WP:RS info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, 77% of American Jews voted for Obama.[1], even though the "Israel Lobby" was generally for McCain. "Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, characterized McCain's record on Israel-related issues as "excellent."" [2] AIPAC is struggling with positioning issues; they were closely associated with the neocon wing of the Bush administration, and with the Republicans totally out of power, there's some questioning within AIPAC. It's too early to say how that will come out. --John Nagle (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Freeman and similar campaigns/incidents

While I agree the freeman section too long, I think there needs to be a separate section on the most noteworthy Israel Lobby campaigns, historically and more recent, including this one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a different approach to a history section, and similarly valid; I agree this particular may be cut, but strongly concur others must be added. The relationship, as Alan Dowty puts it, it was "not a simple linear process of growing cooperation, but rather a series of tendentious bargaining situations with different strategic and political components in each." Ref is here. I'll work on some quick and easy ones, but consider US/Saudi AWACS Sale, having already past the notability standard. It is also easily ref'd. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

One reliable source on AWACS is from the AJCmte[[3]] (long pdf, starts on ‘Intergroup relations’, pg 66). Another typical restrict-the-others-military lobby incident, ref’d from Foreign policy and ethnic interest groups, by David Howard Goldberg,[4](start pg64), concerns the earlier Carter (then Reagan), F15 sales to Saudi Arabia in 1978. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Case for Peace ... controversial?

Alan Dershowitz's book The Case for Peace has been labeled as "controversial" in this article. While it is true that Dershowitz's The Case for Israel has been controversial in some circles, The Case for Peace has been pretty well received by practically everybody. I am not aware of any "controversy" surrounding The Case for Peace in the Mearsheimer/Walt-ian sense of the word (which is what is being alleged in the edit summary when the adjective was added). I will delete the word "controversial" within the next day or two unless it can be cited to a reliable source. --GHcool (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what the publisher of the book (Wiley) says about it [5]:

Dershowitz accuses those who attack Israel of international bigotry ... expect lots of discussion

Let's see what Publishers Weekly said of the book [6]:

Dershowitz continues to back such controversial Israeli actions as the targeted assassination of suspected terrorists and the construction of the West Bank security wall (bold added) ... He is less conciliatory toward outside supporters of the Palestinians, whom he accuses of opposing peace and seeking "the destruction of the Jewish State," ... He particularly targets the "real and acknowledged" conspiracy of "anti-Israel, anti-peace, anti-truth zealots" Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn and Norman Finkelstein and offers a detailed rebuttal of Finkelstein's recent anti-Dershowitz broadside Beyond Chutzpah. In keeping with the vitriolic conventions of the debate-over-the-debate-over the Middle East, he bombards opponents with inflammatory charges based on sometimes tendentious readings of skimpily contextualized remarks ... Dershowitz presents his usual vigorous case, but not the judicious treatment these issues cry out for.

Let's see what the New York Times said [7]

In Part II, Dershowitz issues a jeremiad against longtime foes like Noam Chomsky, pilloried here for "literary McCarthyism." ... Dershowitz takes the fine art of counterpunching to a new level ... To Dershowitz, many of Israel's critics (even some Jewish ones) are anti-Semites ... He condemns ... self-appointed sensitivity police. But his own call to "marginalize" those ... would merely transfer the policeman's baton from one side to the other.

This doesn't sound to me like a quiet and reasoned call for peace that was accepted quietly by all sides, does it to you? And these are just some of the citations used in the WP article on the book. OK? Jgui (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Even the review of "The Case for Peace" in the Jerusalem Post isn't that favorable:[8]. "The problem with Dershowitz's newest volume is that while the first Case for Israel was a unique and important work, the more books in the series that are released the more the arguments appear to become trite, personal, reactive, particular and quickly outdated." --John Nagle (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Expect lots of discussion" appears to have been wishful thinking and/or a marketing tool for Wiley since the book did not provoke lots of discussion (at least not in comparison to Case for Israel or Mearsheimer & Walt's book).
• Publisher's Weekly calls describes "Israeli actions" as "controversial," not Dershowitz's book.
• True, the NY Times, Publisher's Weekly, and the Jerusalem Post have less than stellar reviews of the book, but that doesn't mean that the book is controversial. At worst, all it means is that its a bad book in the opinions of some critics. If you look at the Wikipedia entry for [[The Case for Peace], you'll notice that many prominent people think that the book is great. This is the nature of books on controversial topics. The book itself isn't controversial. There has not been a large public backlash and accusations of distortions as there was for Mearsheimer & Walt. --GHcool (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GHcool, did you read the reviews I included for you? This is a book about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that has received RS reviews in Publishers Weekly and the New York Times noting that: "Dershowitz accuses", "he targets", is "vitriolic", "bombards opponents" with "inflammatory charges" based on "tendentious readings", he "issues a jeremiad", "pillories", "counterpunches", "condemns" and accuses of being "anti-Semites". Excuse me, are you seriously claiming that a book that receives these sorts of statements in RS reviews is not "controversial"?? And this is only the RS reviews, and not the response of the many academics who were named in and attacked by the book - it is fair to say that their responses are much more extreme. So it is pretty clear that this book is not, as you stated "pretty well received by practically everybody" or devoid of any "controversy" but exactly to the contrary. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a counterexample:

Imagine a book on the topic of UFO sightings. The author of the book is a skeptic of the UFO claims. The NY Times says gives the book a mixed review saying that the book targets, accuses, is vitriolic, bombards opponents, etc etc. The people who believe in UFOs and claim they have seen them in the sky dislike the book intensely. However, skeptics, conspiracy buffs, astronomers, and others interested seem to accept the book as an acceptable, but relatively minor work in the vast literature on the topic.

Would anybody describe this hypothetical book as "controversial?" I think not. --GHcool (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ghcool, your response here is a perfect illustration of the crux of the problem. In your analogy the writers such as M&W, Chomsky and Finkelstein who state that the Israel lobby is damaging the US by wielding excessive power are as nutty and misguided as are the UFO conspiracy theorists. And in your analogy Dershowitz is speaking the truth, which should be obvious to everyone reasonable - just as everyone reasonable (the UFO skeptics, astronomers, etc.) knows there is no such thing as UFOs. So you do not personally find it controversial when Dershowitz is "accusatory", "vitriolic", "inflammatory", "tendentious", etc.

But the problem, Ghcool, is that there are many people who find Dershowitz's views just as "smelly" (to use Hoyland's characterization above) as you seem to find the M&W book to be. And these people find Dershowitz's book full of accusations, inflammatory charges, and false claims of anti-Semitism to be very controversial indeed. There are two sides to every controversy - and BOTH sides are controversial. You may think Dershowitz is always right, but that is only your POV and WP is decidedly not a repository for the POV beliefs of individual editors. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Jgui, you are turning my argument into a straw man. I do not agree with everything Dershowitz writes, and even if I did, my thoughts on the book are irrelevant. I fully accept that not everybody thinks Dershowitz's book is fantastic. What I do not accept is the notion that the book is "controversial."

The UFO counterexample was a hyperbole. While it is assumed by many that Jewish lobby conspiracy theories are less nutty than UFO conspiracy theories, I still think that the logic applies for both cases. If you didn't like that counterexample, I'll give you one that may illustrate my point better:

In 2008, a movie called Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was released in theaters. The film got fair to good reviews from film critics and grossed over $300 million. Fans of the original Indiana Jones films generally disliked it and/or thought the originals were superior. The Communist Party in Russia called for the film to be banned because of its negative portrayal of Russians. All of the above are several different responses to the same film, but does that make the film controversial? I would say not.

Except for Finkelstein's reaction, the so-called "controversy" surrounding The Case for Peace isn't political in nature. It is differing opinions on its merit as a work of prose. Similarly, except for the Russian Communist Party's reaction, the differences of opinion on Indiana Jones are about its merit as a work of cinema, not on its politics. --GHcool (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghcool, the UFO analogy was entirely yours and is a very telling glimpse into your POV on this issue - no straw man is needed when you telegraph your views so clearly. When a book reviewer talks about the "accusatory", "vitriolic", "inflammatory", "tendentious" writing of the author, they are not discussing the "merits as a work of prose" - they are talking about the strident and confrontational stance taken by the writer of the book. And by definition a strident and confrontational book on the Israel lobby is controversial - whether that book has been written by Chomsky or Dershowitz.

Ghcool, I hope you will take this opportunity to remove your "dubious" notation from the article. If you don't, I'm sure another editor will do it for you, but I think it would be better for you to do it to show that you now recognize that there are two sides to every controversy, even if you feel that one of them is the "right" side. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, Jgui. Find me a reliable source that uses the word "controversial" to describe the book (not the author or his rhetoric), and I will gladly remove the dubious tag and this conversation will be over. If you are correct in assuming that the book is controversial, then it shouldn't be too hard to find such a source. I can probably find dozens of such descriptions for M&W's book. All I am asking is that you find even one single RS that verifies your claim. --GHcool (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Review in Jewish Virtual Library "Although Dershowitz's controversial ideas have sparked intense criticism from both sides, The Case for Peace does contain some gems that help put a different perspective on the conflict."
• Review on All Judeaicia "To that end, Dershowitz offers a plan that is bound to be controversial."

Also, deleting cited material based on the "magic word" argument, (that a source must contain some exact "magic word" to be quoted), is one of the things that got Jayjg (talk · contribs) sanctioned. --John Nagle (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghcool, I appreciate your removing the "dubious" notation from the article, but I do not find your substitution of the word "polemic" to be adequate. I believe the case for calling Dershowitz's book "controversial" was already more than proven - as Nagle points out "magic word" arguments are not productive. But if we add Nagle's research, we now additionally have RS reviews that state that the book presents Dershowitz's controversial ideas and plans backing controversial actions. I assume that you are not prepared to argue that a book of controversial ideas and plans is somehow not controversial. I will therefore restore the word "controversial". I will leave the word you cited ("polemic") since you added and cited it - but I personally prefer the phrase "controversial book" that I originally used, so please make that change if you agree. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that makes a certain amount of sense. I guess I didn't see it that way until now. I accept the argument. Thanks for your patience. --GHcool (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The lobby's influence on academia

I think a new section needs to be started on the lobby's influence on academia. There are currently some quotes of Carter regarding access to the campus which alludes to the merging of academics and politics. When UK academia started a boycott on Israel and when a boycott was trying to be organized in Canada one of the points Israeli academia made was the separation of academics and politics in the name of freedom. However if you research there are professors and researchers, mostly in the Anglo world who have been stripped of their tenure or dismissed due to their criticism of Israel.

For one, Denis Rancourt a professor at the University of Ottawa, was recently fired due to his grading policy. But in his personal statement he was let go due to his criticism of Israel. Although this is in Canada and not the US, I'm certain if Israel has this amount of influence in Canada there will be significant influence in American campus'.

http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/component/content/article/25.html

Here's a hyperlink to his personal statement. In Canada he has been labelled a nutjob recent to his firing however nutjobs in general do not get tenure in a major University nor do they get promoted and work at the University for over 2 decades.

If you have any more professors or people in Academia who were fired due to politics please post.142.150.48.164 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Israel lobby

Template:Israel lobby has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GHcool (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved name of article vs. policy

Per Wikipedia:Move, one doesn't just change the name of an article. It should be moved back immediately.

• Such moves are supposed to be discussed on talk and consensed on.
• Name of article should reflect general use, which clearly is "Israel lobby."

I'm not sure how to do it and will ask an administrator how to do it if no one else knows how. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. I noticed the person who did this also created a dubious article called Anti-Israel lobby in the United States whose back bone is an article written by an AIPAC employee. This obviously reeks of POV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, would you please explain the logic underlying your conclusion that "Israel lobby" reflects general use? --GHcool (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on the person who wants to change the title to prove it. Note that this was tried on another Israel lobby article and the admin changed it back. I am confidant they will this time too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll let the changer speak for him/herself, but I'd like to offer the following sources used in the article that use the term "pro-Israel lobby:"

1. William Safire
2. The Australian
3. Amitai Etzioni
4. Danny Ben-Moshe, Zohar Segev, Israel, the Diaspora, and Jewish Identity, Sussex Academic Press, 2007, ISBN 1845191897, Chapter 7, The Changing Identity of American Jews, Israel and the Peace Process, by Ofira Seliktar, p126
5. MERIA
6. New York Review of Books
7. The Register

Hell, the article even mentions that Mearsheimer and Walt prefer "pro-Israel" to "Israel." --GHcool (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's a much better indice than that. See Wikipedia:Name. However, thinking about it, pro-Israel lobby isn't that bad because it makes it clear what nation the Israel lobbyists in the US are most pro- :-) Hmmm. Does "Israel firster" have an article yet? :-) Will give others a chance to weigh in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the main point for why this is a better name. It differentiates them from a lobby for a foreign government or the anti-Israel lobby. --GHcool (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a contentious move and should go through the standard process. I have moved it back pending a move request. nableezy - 19:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• 'Pro-Israel lobby is the best name for a number of reasons.
• 1) It makes clear that this is not the lobby of the state of Israel
• 2) It lacks the mildly perjorative connotations that "Israel lobby" has.
• 3) William Safire says so According to William Safire, the term "Israel Lobby" came into use in the 1970's and carries "the pejorative connotation of manipulation."[4] He notes the degree of "animus" against Israel can be "calibrat[ed]" by the precise term used to refer to the lobby.[5] The term "pro-Israel lobby" is used by those with the "mildest" opposition to the Jewish State; this is followed by "Israel lobby", with "Jewish lobby" being employed by those with the most "virulent" anti-Israel opinions.[6]
• 4) Walt and Mearshimer admit that it is the preferable, more neutral term

According to Walt and Mearshimer, "Using the term 'Israel lobby' is itself somewhat misleading...One might more accurately dub this the 'pro-Israel community'..." since this is not the lobby of a foreign country, rather, it is composed of Americans.[7][8]

• 5) Pro-Israel lobby is what the American Jewish groups in the lobby (notably AIPAC) call themselves
• 6) "Israel lobby" is a term of opprobrium largely used by opponents of the Jewish State.
• 7) "Pro-Israel" is how the powerful Christians United for Israel refer to themselves.
• 8) Pro-Israel lobby is the more venerable term, and its wide usage can be readily established by typing it into google books.
• 9) google ( "israel lobby" site:nytimes.com) and you will find that the Grey lady uses pro-Israel lobby except when referring to the Walt/Mearsheimer book.
• I am unfamiliar with the process of making what User:Nableezy calls a "move request.Historicist (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The process is described at Wikipedia:RM#Requesting a potentially controversial single-page move. nableezy - 20:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Or we could shkip the discussion and go with the New York Times usage manuel, which specifies "Pro-Israel lobby" as the correct usage.Historicist (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are off-policy on that choice of name. The Israel lobby is the best name for the article, as it has been, since day one. I provide the following reasons, with rebuttal for those previously given.

• 1. The best name for the Wikipedia article is what common usage is and what RSs say. A quick Google search reveals that “Israel lobby” produces more than 5 times as many hits as does “Pro-Israel lobby”. It, therefore, adheres to policy naming conventions.
• 2. How does the name change make it clear that it is not the lobby of the state of Israel? The article is not called the Israeli lobby, although that phrase also occurs more often on Google searches than does “pro-Israel lobby”; it also occurs many times in Wikipedia and is redirected to the page. The lobby, in fact, does mirror government policy as well as changes in government; it therefore is tied to the Israeli government to some degree. This was most evident with the election of Likud in 1977 and coincident with the “militant emergence” of AIPAC; it changed considerably with the election of Rabin in 1992, later splintered over Oslo, and has again returned to the more militant Likud line along with the government.
• 3. Lacking the ‘mildly pejorative’ is acceptable to note within the article, but being politically correct and coddling of one pov in the article name is not a wiki-trait and it defies policy. It is very acceptable to have in the article, and I improved the Safire reference myself. I do however believe that Safire's pro-Israel political affinity should be noted as well. The Safire and M&W thoughts regarding the ‘pro-‘ are fine and are included now, but they are not sufficient basis for an undiscussed page move, which is what you did.
• 4. Regarding your point five, I will only assume that the ‘American Jewish groups in the lobby’ likely chose the name they best liked, and they too have probably read those sources. Again, this seems a somewhat one-sided interpretation of NPOV.
• 5. I believe you should provide a ref for your point six, as it regards the term 'Jewish State' and the lobby. Additionally, it adds a new political concept, beyond the article scope. This is about a country and its supporters; their religious ideology is something else, internal and unique to that country. Most lobby opponents do not complain about that particular concept, except for secularists and competing definitions of it. Use of that term is a red herring; opposition comes from co-religionists, not the wider public. Actually, most RSs note that opposition comes from differences in political ideology and geography, including human rights, equality and equal treatment, and adherence to international and customary law. Opponents also complain about the lack of open debate in the American political process, the inordinate amount of support provided in relation to things positive that America receives in return, and the ‘McCarthyite’ tactics used on campuses to limit open scholarly debate, to name some actual RS’d objections.
• 6. Same as my previous point 4, it is their choice; it is not a matter of Wiki-policy 'choice'. Also, ‘powerful’ appears to be OR, based on the contents of that article.
• 7. Similarly, ‘venerable’ seems derived from OR and SYNTH. On the other hand however, sources do note in particular that the right wing lobby component venerates the concept of Eretz Israel, as alluded in my point five, above. The usage of that term and concept is largely at the heart of opposition to the lobby and its usage in English mainstream media, dates to the election of Begin in 1977 and the emergence of Likud power in Israel.
• 8. Again, like your points 4 and 6, you have cherry-picked your sources sympathetic to your pov. Safire works with the NYT, and it too has a well-documented, generally consistent pro-Israel bias. Again, it is their choice, not ours.
• I find your claimed unfamiliarity with the article move process quite inconsistent with your 9000+ edits, but do note your historic, minimal talk-page involvement. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. The opposes are in the clear majority here, but their position is weakened by their failure to address the sources provided by those in support of the move. Thus, I can't see that there is consensus against the move, either. Aervanath (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Israel lobby in the United States → Pro-Israel lobby in the United States —

As I state above, Pro-Israel is the standard term, used by major newspapers like the New York Times. It is also a more accurate term since this is not the lobby of Israel, it is a lobby of pro-Israel Americans. Historicist (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. I will repeat what I wrote above: It differentiates them from a lobby for a foreign government or the anti-Israel lobby.

  I'd like to offer the following sources used in the article that use the term "pro-Israel lobby:" William Safire; The Australian; Amitai Etzioni; Danny Ben-Moshe, Zohar Segev, Israel, the Diaspora, and Jewish Identity, Sussex Academic Press, 2007, ISBN 1845191897, Chapter 7, The Changing Identity of American Jews, Israel and the Peace Process, by Ofira Seliktar, p126; MERIA; New York Review of Books; and The Register. Hell, the article even mentions that Mearsheimer and Walt prefer "pro-Israel" to "Israel."

  --GHcool (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Most people will search "Israel lobby." "Pro-Israel lobby" usually directly describes AIPAC and not all the other groups also involved. Just as many high profile uses of "Israel lobby" could be found. Since this was proposed by an individual who created the extremely POV WP:attack page Anti-Israel lobby in the United States article (which hopefully will be deleted), one gets the impression of a strong POV. Over all, No pressing reason to change long time name and very good ones NOT to change it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my post in the section above. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Please note that centrist newspapers (see my remarks above) such as the Washington Post and New York Times do not print the phrase Israel lobby except in opinion columns. They regularly use the phrase pro-Israel lobby to discuss organizations including but not limited to AIPAC. William Safire, a nationally respected expert on word usage, has written that Israel lobby is a partisan phrasing. (see section in article). And even Walt and Mearsheimer characterize their use of the phrase as questionable because not mainstream. A careful perusal of the hits that the phrase gets on google or google books or google news will quickly reveal the anti-Israel slant of those who use ithe pharse "Israel lobby." By heading an article with a phrase clearly linked with mild or strenuous opposition to Israel Wikipedia is promoting a POV position.Historicist (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The Israeli lobby in the US this article is about are pro-Israeli by nature, there is no anti-Israeli lobby in the US. So it doesn't have to be labeled as such in the article name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In fact, there is such thing as an anti-Israel lobby in the United States. --GHcool (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • According to various opinion pieces from self-described pro-Israel lobbyists. nableezy - 23:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It has already been explained to Nableezy that his argument is logically flawed and an ad hominem. "There's no such thing as an anti-Israel lobby because the pro-Israel lobby says that there is such thing and the pro-Israel lobby is always wrong" is a very poor argument indeed. --GHcool (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Funny, because that isnt my argument. nableezy - 13:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
          • If that wasn't your argument than I challenge you to give me the name of 1 American who is sympathetic toward Israel that you would consider a reliable source of information regarding topics relating to U.S.-Middle East relations. If you cannot name even one "pro-Israel" American that you would consider trustworthy on the topic, then it can be assumed that you believe that "pro-Israel" and "reliable" are incompatible terms. --GHcool (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
            • One American sympathetic to Israel that I consider a reliable source? Any historian that has a book on the topic published by an academic press. Can you name one Arab supporter of Palestine lobbyist that you consider a reliable source on this topic? If you are asking me if I consider lobbyists reliable sources on their political opposition the answer is no, but that is not limited to Israel/Palestine topics. This is close to saying Rush Limbaugh is a reliable source on the motives and aims, or even the life, of Barack Obama. He is not. nableezy - 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
              • So the argument isn't that pro-Israel = unreliable. The argument is that lobbyist = unreliable. That's a slightly better argument, but still a form of ad hominem. Would you say that an article written by an anti-tobacco lobbyist saying that smoking causes cancer is unreliable? --GHcool (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                • I would say you could get a thousand more reliable sources than that and there would be no point in using such a source. But yes, I would say a lobbyist would be unreliable for making statements of fact on medical issues and you should use a source from a qualified physician. nableezy - 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • I guess my analogy wasn't very good. A better one would be whether an article written by an anti-tobacco lobbyist on the existence of the tobacco lobby would be unreliable. Lobbyists may not be the greatest sources on medical issues, but they would certainly be qualified sources on the subject of lobbies. --GHcool (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • I dont think that using a anti-tobacco lobbyist to call the tobacco lobby the "anti-health lobby" or the "pro-emphysema lobby" would be appropriate if that is a more fitting analogy. nableezy - 21:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 06:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - This trend towards renaming articles to more "neutral" names (often ones invented by Wikipedians; e.g. check out Israeli demographic policies towards Jerusalem, the new "neutral" euphemism for the Judaization of Jerusalem) ignores what the preponderance of scholarly sources have to say (throwing WP:V to the wind) and misinterprets what WP:NPOV is all about. "Israel lobby" is widely used, is a neutral short-hand descriptor and suits this article just fine. Renaming is simply unnecessary. Tiamut^talk 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - concur with Tiamut, this is a "solution" in search of a problem. nableezy - 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - SEE where he got the idea Unbelievable. The one who proposed this on the 15 July obviously got the idea here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Israel lobby, after I had quoted Stephen Walt and John Mearheimer definition of the Isdrael Lobby, which is : "We use ‘Israel lobby’ as a convenient shorthand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. The lobby is not a single, unified movement with a central leadership, however, and the individuals and groups that make up this broad coalition sometimes disagree on specific policy issues. Nor is it some cabal or conspiracy. On the contrary, the organizations and individuals who make up this lobby operate out in the open and in the same way that other interests groups do. Using the term ‘Israel lobby’ is itself somewhat misleading, insofar as many of the individuals and some of the groups in this loose coalition do not engage in formal lobbying activities (direct efforts to persuade elected officials). Rather, the various parts of the lobby work to influence U.S. policy in a variety of ways, much as other interest groups do. One might more accurately dub this the ~‘pro-Israel community’ or even the ‘help Israel movement,’ because the range of activities that different groups undertake goes beyond simple lobbying. Nonetheless, because many of the key groups do lobby, and because the term ‘Israel lobby’ is used in common parlance (along with labels such as the ‘farm lobby,’ ‘insurance lobby,’ ‘gun lobby,’ or other ethnic lobbies), we have chosen to employ it here. To be part of the lobby, in other words, one has to actively work to move American foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. For an organization, this pursuit must be an important part of its mission and consume a substantial percentage of its resources and agenda. For an individual, this means devoting some portion of one's professional or personal life (or in some cases substantial amounts of money) to influencing U.S Middle East policy. (pp. 113-114)" (pp. 112-114). So the person in question haven't read the book, probably never reads books, but spends his time online in places like this, and he suddenly got what he thought was a smart idea. But it is common parlance to call it Israel lobby, just like China Lobby or Farm lobbyy. Now look at all the time I and others have used for this nonsense. This is destructive behaviour and not constructive work. It must be strongly condemned as contrary to common sense.Michelle Bentley (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question Is there some way to draw the eyes of editors uninvolved with Middle East politics to this overly partisan discussion?Historicist (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Yes there is. Oppose. The fact that people with one agenda like it and people with another agenda don't is immaterial. "Israel Lobby" is common usage. See our naming conventions or more specifically WP:COMMONNAME. The only reason this is an issue is because there is something politically symbolic at stake. Let it go.PelleSmith (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Would only make things less clear. There are well-known precedents like the "Rhodesia lobby" and the "Katanga lobby" in British politics. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Pro-Israel lobby is the best name for a number of reasons.
• 1) It makes clear that this is not the lobby of the state of Israel
• 2) It lacks the mildly perjorative connotations that "Israel lobby" has.
• 3) William Safire says so According to William Safire, the term "Israel Lobby" came into use in the 1970's and carries "the pejorative connotation of manipulation."[4] He notes the degree of "animus" against Israel can be "calibrat[ed]" by the precise term used to refer to the lobby.[5] The term "pro-Israel lobby" is used by those with the "mildest" opposition to the Jewish State; this is followed by "Israel lobby", with "Jewish lobby" being employed by those with the most "virulent" anti-Israel opinions.[6]
• 4) Walt and Mearshimer admit that it is the preferable, more neutral term

According to Walt and Mearshimer, "Using the term 'Israel lobby' is itself somewhat misleading...One might more accurately dub this the 'pro-Israel community'..." since this is not the lobby of a foreign country, rather, it is composed of Americans.[7][8]

• 5) Pro-Israel lobby is what the American Jewish groups in the lobby (notably AIPAC) call themselves
• 6) "Israel lobby" is a term of opprobrium largely used by opponents of the Jewish State.
• 7) "Pro-Israel" is how the powerful Christians United for Israel refer to themselves.
• 8) Pro-Israel lobby is the more venerable term, and its wide usage can be readily established by typing it into google books.
• 9) google ( "israel lobby" site:nytimes.com) and you will find that the Grey lady uses pro-Israel lobby except when referring to the Walt/Mearsheimer book.Historicist (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • wow, "Israel lobby" is "mildly pejorative" while "anti-Israel lobby" is perfectly neutral. Got to love the consistency there. nableezy - 19:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:Other things160.39.35.50 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Same individual making opposing arguments depending on what "side" is being questioned makes it hare to assume good faith. nableezy - 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support First, it's slightly misleading to say "Israel lobby" because the state of Israel isn't the one doing the lobbying. There are state-lobbies, but Israel isn't one of them. It doesn't need to be. Pro-Israel is not only more NPOV but factually correct. Second, "Israel lobby" is ambiguous. It could be both pro and anti, the word "Israel" does not automatically = stealing American tax dollars to do the bidding of the Zionist entity. To some, "Pro-Israel" (lobby) does.

I figure this is a no brainer here and can't really understand why people would object. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've followed a number of arguments on this page and that's my only claim to vote here: if my vote is not valid please feel free to dis-count it (I'm new to WP editing so I don't know all of the rules). Despite the valid argument that Israel lobby tends to suggest an 'Israeli' lobby (then again, Israeli would be the correct term, wouldn't it? Additionally, the word lobby followed by the country of lobbying does clear things up, doesn't it? Without the words "in the US", I would have definitely supported this move. To play the devil's advocate, is it UK group or British group? Japan embassy or Japanese embassy? In both cases it is the latter that seems to suggest an 'official' status, and the former just a loaned term.) Plus, the argument that certain centrist newspapers prefer "pro-Israel lobby" is irrelevant and in my opinion not neutral: we are not here to choose sides and say which newspaper "got their labels right", but to stick with what most people would immediately and clearly identify. I don't believe it is NPOV to correct what we consider people's misconceptions: and this is not even a generally negative slang term, but a very legitimate term used by a very large number of scholastic journals, commonfolk and intellectuals. Therefore I think the current title as a whole is pretty much conveying what needs to be conveyed, and in as few words as possible. 'Pro-' is a superfluous addition. At least, that's what I think.~Skye 22:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Skye, but as a new editor, there are things about Wikipedia that contradict your rationale. Firstly, Wikipedia does not work by "what most people" say or think. Rather, it works by verifiability and reliable sources. If Wikipedia went by what most people think, the article on evolution would not exist, or it would be written from a creationist perspective. The way it the term is reported in what you call "certain centrist newspapers" is highly relevant since those newspapers are reliable sources. --GHcool (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the note, GHcool. Excuse me while I clarify this, but is "Israel lobby" in any way unverified by reliable sources? And I thought the naming convention had to take commonality/popularity into account for ease of search, that's why I mentioned it. It seems you have misconstrued my opinion to be applied to the body of an article with all its elements - instead, my comments were with specific reference to article titles, and specifically this one. I may be new to WP in terms of tagging and such under a specific username, but I've been with the project in a way or another since its inception, I know the policy well enough. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about my view above. ~Skye 07:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support it is not the lobby of the State of Israel, which "Israel lobby" indicates, further the proposed name is used by RS like the NYT and is neutral/NPOV. - Epson291 (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. as Tiamut above. Replacing established terms with novel ones using the "neutrality" argument is a disturbing trend on Wiki. Address concerns about clarity, connotations etc. by adding to an article, not by renaming it. RomaC (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I must admit that I find it somewhat hard to understand why anyone would object to the plain, matter-of-fact term "Israël lobby". In no way, of course, does this suggest that the lobby comes from te state of Israel. It is just an analogy with terms like "Rhodesia lobby" and "Katanga lobby". "Pro-Israel lobby" just sounds linguistically less correct. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking, the pro is implied. The gun lobby, the tobacco lobby, the (legal) drug lobby, the medicinal marijuana lobby and so on. nableezy - 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Because this was proposed at the same time Anti-Israel lobby in the United States was created this obviously is a partisan, POV attempt to create a false divide of either you are Pro or Anti Israel, with nothing in between. Wikipedia should not be used in this fashion. This is very much against the resolutions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles which the instigators should read. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The instigators of this should get official warnings per the above mentioned arbitration case. I suggest bringing this to the attention of admins who have been enforcing this case.PelleSmith (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Safire definition

I am not understanding; the quote is reliably sourced to a notable person in the realm of US politics, why is it being removed? WP:NPOV demands that if we have proper sourcing, things remain in, and removal of "uncomfortable" material is just as great a violation as insertion. Please explain, perhaps I am wrong. -- Avi (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The rancorous renaming discussion should be enough to establish that the name "Israel lobby" is itself a subject of contention, and it's appropriate to include a discussion about the name in the article. Including sourced discussion of criticisms of the name as misleading or unduly provocative does not violate WP:NPOV; to the contrary, I believe it violates WP:NPOV to leave them out.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I found the exact source on Google book search, and linked it in for convenience. I did adjust the text to note that the "degree of animus" is not Safire's own opinion, but that of the "supporters of Israel" he is referencing. -- Avi (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi, in reply to your question on my talk page, frankly I find this surprising. In one of my edit summaries I wrote: "It is obviously bias (POV) to start this article by claims of a pejorative connotation of manipulation." I would assume that the word 'obviously' can be taken literally here and speaks for itself. The beginning of an article, of course, should contain a clear, unbiased outlining of the subject. Starting the article with a definition formulated by someone who is clearly partisan here, and who tries his best to give a negative connotation to the concept, is clearly not neutral. WP states about William Safire: "He is a staunch defender of policy in favor of Israel and for this reason received the Guardian of Zion Award of Bar-Ilan University in 2005." This may be quite respectable, but at the same time it rules Safire out as the one we should turn to for a neutral definition.

It is understandable that staunch supporters of the controversial policies of a particular country do not always like a neutral approach, however isn`t WP supposed to be neutral at any time? Your comment that "the quote is reliably sourced to a notable person in the realm of US politics", of course, misses the point. Al of us can find partisan quotes of persons with whom we are in agreement, and make sure that we state the source in a 'reliable' way!

If GHcool and yourself insist that this partisan comment by Safire is so valuable to your cause that it must be inserted, why don`t we work out a compromise, and insert the comment in a paragraph named 'Criticism of the term', not at the beginning of the article, but as a subheading under 'Debates'? I can hardly believe that anyone would deny that this would enhance the neutrality of the article! Paul kuiper NL (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So far, no-one has been kind enough to reply to this proposal. However, today, unfortunately, the struggle was resumed, and this passage was deleted and re-instated several times. I will therefore implement my suggestion of this reasonable compromise, and I hope sincerely that this offers a practical solution acceptable to everyone. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

lede is not neutral

I have a problem with the lede here: "Although the US lobby against Israeli Occupation has seen rapid growth in recent years, most analysts believe that the Pro-Israel lobby continues to have more organization, financial strength and influence than its political opposite. " several points come to mind. The second speaks to the renaming issue to pro-Israel, though I see that this has been decided, above. It does seem odd that your lede would actually require the modifier "pro-" but you don't seem to see the need to change its name accordingly.

But my main point is that the US lobby against Israeli Occupation is 'not the opposite of the pro-Israel lobby in the US. The pro-Israel lobby is not in favor of occupation but in support of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The only way that the US lobby against Israeli occupation would be the pro-Israel lobby's political opposite would be if the article defines Israel as existing in land that entirely belongs to Palestinian Arabs and defines the pro-Israel lobby as in favor of occupation. This would be a biased point of view so I am at a loss to understand its purpose here. Why this other lobby in the lede at all, except perhaps to make that point -- that Israel should not exist at all? There may be a pro-occupation pro-Israel lobby group somewhere but that doesn't define the pro-Israel lobby in the main. This definitely does not belong here. Perhaps a section on anti-Israel lobbies or anti-Israel occupation lobbies but not here on top! Stellarkid (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I'll change the lead accordingly. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why an editor keeps sticking this in articles it doesn't really belong, but I'm getting tired of reverting it elsewhere. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it since it has more to do with the opposition to occupation, ect. It looks like there is quite a bit of "material" that is questionable related to the Israeli lobby in this article. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Israel lobby in Canada

It would be a good idea if a similar entry could be created about the Israel lobby in Canada. There are quite a few Jewish organizations in Canada that have tried to influence public policy and public opinion on issues related to the Middle East conflict. ADM (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tried to influence? You can go to jail for questioning minor details of the holocaust there. If I had the time... CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GHcool's destructive edits

While I assume good faith, his recent triple removal of sourced material is disturbing. I contributed

Since the October War in 1973, Washington support for Israel has dwarfed that given to any other state. Since 1976 it has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance, and is the largest gross recipient since World War Two, a sum of more than $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel's annual $3 billion in direct assistance comprises roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, about $500 per capita per annum. This has been highlighted as Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

his destructuive edit, 21:38, 1 August 2009 GHcool (talk | contribs) (80,394 bytes) (→Background and History: removed copyright material (copied and pasted verbatum from the article) and summarized M&W's views, was not polite, and wrong- the original text read:

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

he wrote /mear01_.html</ref> 21:38, 1 August 2009 GHcool (talk | contribs) (80,394 bytes) (→Background and History: removed copyright material (copied and pasted verbatum from the article) and summarized M&W's views) (undo)

1. (cur) (prev) 18:48, 1 August 2009 Tiamut (talk | contribs) (80,888 bytes) (→Background and History: so copy edit it GHCool - its relevant and well-sourced and provides a counterpoint and continuation to Friedman cited above) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 18:19, 1 August 2009 GHcool (talk | contribs) (80,165 bytes) (→Background and History: removed copyright material) (undo)

In addition, his "summary" is innaccurate, since it makes no mention of weapons. Mearsheimer and Walt write that since 1976, Israel received a lot of money from the United States.http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html Please explain.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not being on top of this article, this description is pretty confusing. The original entry might have been written in a rather POV fashion, depending on what the source had to say. But the facts are clearly relevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Further, GHCool removed my paraphrase of the material, saying it was copyright violation. I have now restored it. It reads:

Mearsheimer and Walt write that since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance and largest gross recipient of such assistance since World War II, receiving a sum of more than $140 billion between 1948 and 2004. The annual $3 billion in direct assistance given to Israel comprises roughly one-fifth of the American foreign aid budget, amounting to about $500 per capita per annum. This is reflected in Israel's status as a wealthy industrial nation with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Tiamut^talk 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. --GHcool (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I fixed it more.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States&curid=6710883&diff=305870066&oldid=305869487 And restored this.] Do you want to move this down into the body or change the way its formulated? Instead of deleting it? Tiamut^talk 19:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this statement attributed to the authors? To the best of my knowledge, this is an uncontroversial statement of fact, supported by many sources, and govt statistics. The reference supports it, but there is no need to attribute it to the authors of the article, that I can see.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's core policies such as neutral point of view and verifiability. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Unmatched

I am deleting the sentence from the lead saying that the power of the lobby is "unmatched." If we have in the lead a sentence devoted to every catchy one-word adjective from every source, the lead will become awfully stupid. --GHcool (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please not blindly revert the article like you did earlier, you restored material not in line with MOS. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. I just noticed my error. I'll try to be more surgical in the future. --GHcool (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably my fault for getting in between two fighting dogs and then wondering why I got bit :) Just kidding of course :) --Tom (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I added that to the lede to try and give some sense of the importance of the lobby. At the momment the lede gives no impression of the size or importance of the lobby. May I suggest that some form of words may be found?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There used to be something to that effect, but it was deleted (which was probably a good idea). --GHcool (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested new section - Achievements

I suggest the creation of a new section entitled achievements, detailing the successes of the lobby.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. This article will not be turned into a dumping ground for every alleged "achievement" or "wielding of power" of the pro-Israel lobby. --GHcool (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish-American ambassadors under Clinton

I remember reading an anecdote about the supposed Israel lobby, an anecdote that claimed that it was because of the lobby that there was an unusual number of Jewish-American ambassadors under the Clinton administrations. This probably sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it is one of several such conspiratorial allegations that are unfortunately associated with the concept of Israel lobby. ADM (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it sounds like a Jewish conspiracy theory. Thanks for sharing, but this is not a suitable topic for this article. --GHcool (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Israel PACs

Hi, I'm not sure how to integrate this source [9] on Israel PAC contributions; the $2m total estimate (for 2000) doesn't seem to square with the existing sources here, which suggest substantially higher figures. Based on that data, contributions are just 0.1%-2% of campaign funding for recipients of Israel PAC money. Rd232 ^talk 11:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Objection to the current page

Having typed "Judaism and American politics" into the search box, I was redirected here. With respect, this is ridiculous; Judaism in U.S. politics covers a hell of a lot more than the Israel lobby and you know it. 216.15.41.45 (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions for how to improve the situation ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish lobby should have a section on non-Israel related lobbying in US and other countries on various issues related to Jews (anti-semitism, police security, etc.). Lots of articles about "Jewish lobby" stick to those topics. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for history

Feel free to use: Washington's elders of anti-Zion May 5, 2009, Lenny Ben-David , THE JERUSALEM POST. Includes info related to statement "Once the anti-Israel crusade was led or conducted by senator J. William Fulbright and congressman Paul Findley, assisted by Jewish anti-Zionists like Elmer Berger and the apostate Alfred Lilienthal, and supported by Arab propagandists and oil interests." All I have time to offer right now. And of course there's always a good books.google search. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This looks like it was written from a very negative viewpoint and too many people mentioned there are identified improperly as "Jewish" or whatever. see WP:BLP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tags you added. Please read WP:DRIVEBY and the template documentation.

"The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."

You need to "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why." Sean.hoyland - talk 07:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It was stated, now the various Arabs and Arab-Americans are labelled as clearly as their Israeli and Jewish counterparts. If you want to label people to imply bias, it goes both ways. Otherwise this is just a hit piece. Read WP:BLP which YOU must adhere to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't stated. It would be more useful to cite the exact parts of the article you are talking about, what you mean by 'improperly' and 'whatever' and what you are referring to specifically with respect to violations of the BLP policy and who you are talking about. Ethicity/nationality information may be proper or improper depending on the context so without specific instances it's not clear what you are referring to or why you think it's to indicate bias. You may very well be right. I don't know. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Citing essays to revert is bad form. Removing templates means you think that the article no longer exhibits the faults tagged. If I may well be right, as you state, you should have addressed a question for more clarity rather than reverting as you did. WP:BLP trumps WP:DRIVEBY which has no validity as policy or practice, just someone's soapboxing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it means that you didn't provide a reason for the tag so the tag should be removed until you provide the information to justify it being there. I have never read through or contributed to the article as far as I can remember (...although apparently I did this edit). You keep referring to BLP. What are the names of the living persons you are referring to and what is the nature of the BLP violation ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Characterizing living people with labels without citation is improper. You ought to know that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles need to comply with policies rather than notions of impropriety. If you are concerned about labels without citations then just remove the instances you added to the article and any other instances added by other editors that don't comply with policy or add value to the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from Judaism and American politics

Judaism and American politics redirects here. IMO, that is a terrible idea. Doing this suggests that the only role that Judaism has had in American politics is to serve as a lobby for Israel and its interests. This is patently false. I propose to recreate Judaism and American politics as an article which covers the entire topic and not just the "Israel lobby". --Richard S (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with the opinion that the former redirect was a bad idea, and will peruse the resurrected article; good edit. I also agree that the now-severed redirect suggested entirely too much, but would better characterize whatever it suggested as patently inaccurate, or editorially speaking, as UNDUE, POV and non-neutral. At the same time, depending on era and point of view, it was not patently false. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that Jews in the U.S. haven't lobbied actively in favor of Israel's interests. Of course, they have and they still do. I simply meant that the two are not the same thing. The key phrase in what I wrote is "only role". The Israel lobby is not the only role that Judaism plays in American politics although it is certainly one of the most well-known. --Richard S (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

the realities of American politics and lobbying

This is a bizarre article. Although I have made a few minor improvements, it is written from a bizarre perspective. The United Sates was founded as a Christian country, it is still today a predominately Christian country and the citizens, Christian and non-Christian, overwhelmingly support the right of Israel to exist. This article treats "jewish voters " as though this small minority could control American elections. Are you kidding Me?!?! Until I happened on this page today, it was written as though the pro-Israel lobby was almost entirely Jewish, when it is and always has been overwhelmingly non-Jewish and the largest organization now lobbying for Israel is profoundly and unmistakably Christian. Let's at least try to edit this encyclopedia so that it reflects reality and not some alternate universe.AMuseo (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

for example, one section actually had this tag

Main article: Diaspora politics in the United States

, as though all pro-Israel lobbying was Jewish. Unbelievable.AMuseo (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Single source tag

I tagges the article because, although the list of sources is lengthy, the structure and tone of the article is almost entirely defined by the first two sources onthe list, Walt, Mearsheimer and Bard. All three write as though the equation Jews=Israel lobby was true when, in fact, an informal proIsrael lobby is as old as the naiton. At least, John Adams and other founding fathers worte in favor of establishing a Jewish State, and the Jewish pro-Israel lobbies, formal and informal, have never been as powerful or as numerous as the non-Jewish supporters of Israel in American politics. I will try, but it wold be useful to have other editors trying to make this a respectable NPOV article.AMuseo (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 120 numbered sources, 21+14, only 35 (29%) are from the people you mention. That is not "one source". Actually, the sources are the books, not the persons. Then you write: "All three write as though ... " -- Can you read between the lines? "... as though the equation Jews=Israel lobby was true" is not clear, what do you say here? Where does the article say that? After that, what's wrong with the source(s)? "an informal proIsrael lobby" -- well, if that existed, it could be added (with enough quality etc). But that does not adstruct that the article undersourced. Then, what you added here is off-topic, and not suitable for a wiki-article. I see WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, no WP:RS, and WP:POV.

I conclude & propose: removal of the tag -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly and strangely enough, you keep editing while not answering here. So I reverted, because we might expect a reaction from you before going ahead. You surely know a bit about wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have tagged several of the most flagrantly POV sections and the article as a whole. I believe that the tags should stay until sources are found and material added to discuss the broad sources of non-Jewish, American support for Israel, discuss Christian support for Israel is detail comparable to the space given to Jewish support for Israel, and that draw as heavily on a wide range of sources as this article currently does on the highly controversial and hotly contested Walt-Mearsheimer narrative as though it was a NPOV source.AMuseo (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are eight such tags now. None of these "flagrant" POV's is even addressed here by you. Then here you write "until sources are found and material added to discuss the broad sources of non-Jewish, American support for Israel, ..." - well, if there are no sources found for your point, why declare anything POV? You write like: "there are no sources yet for a different statement, so the current statement is POV". I'd say for that same reason: no sourced opposite point -- it's right for now. Then you call a "narrative" (in fact it's an academic publication) "controversial and hotly contested", but that is no disqualification at all of a source, and you conclude "as though is was a NPOV source" ("as though" again?). Wrong again, the source should be WP:RS. This is not a motivation for the POV-tags.

Anyway, if a perceived POV is not pointed out here to discuss (eight expected), than the NPOV tag should be removed. -DePiep (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly and strangely enough, you keep editing while not answering here. So I reverted, because we might expect a reaction from you before going ahead. You surely know a bit about wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed POV-tags after non-discussion here. Jee. -DePiep (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal and Fox

This statement in the article needs to either be cut from the article or clarified: "Major media outlets including the Wall Street Journal and Fox News can be classed as part of the informal pro-Israel lobby." --GHcool (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely ignore. Simply slander. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Misattributed quote?

The article attributes the quote "It’s almost politically suicidal ... for a member of Congress who wants to seek reelection to take any stand that might be interpreted as anti-policy of the conservative Israeli government." to Morris Amitay. But isn't this quote by Jimmy Carter? Or have two people said the exact same phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGrimm (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Source Reliability: Mitchell Bard article from the Jewish Virtual Library

Information from the Mitchell Bard article The Israeli and Arab Lobbies in the Jewish Virtual Library is being treated as factual. Should it be? If I remember rightly, the consensus was that the JVL should not be treated as uniformly reliable: each article should be considered on a case by case basis. Unless it has been decided that Mitchell Bard should be considered as reliable in his own right, presumably, if my recollection is correct, the reliability of the article has not been determined until the consensus position has been established.     ←   ZScarpia   23:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mitchell Bard is reliable. Thanks for your concern. --GHcool (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that a consensus position (in which case could you point me towards where it has been discussed) or just a personal opinion?     ←   ZScarpia   10:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC) (Oh! .... thank-you for your interest)

A large percentage of Wikipedia believe he and JVL is reliable, although its coverage is slanted in favor of the point of view that the Jewish state has a right to live in peace and security in the Middle East. Contrary views are not expressed on JVL, and are often argued against (as well such bigotry ought to be). Regardless on what one's views on the Arab-Israeli conflict are, JVL is certainly reliable with respect to the Israel lobby in the United States, which is the topic of this article after all. --GHcool (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks as though that "large percentage" doesn't translate to a majority of the editors who commented. I suggest reworking the article so that Bard's JVL article is no longer being used as a reliable source.     ←   ZScarpia   22:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted. --GHcool (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the "Israeli hawks"?

I've heard of the "Israeli hawks lobby", and a web search shows the term is used in the Los Angeles Times, so it's something mainstream. Is it just another name for the Israeli lobby? Or just the Israeli lobby in the USA? Or are the "hawks" some subset of the Israeli lobby?

There no mention in this article and I also found it nowhere else on Wikipedia. A mention in some article would be useful. Gronky (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional info: the AIPAC is referred to as the "Israeli hawks' lobby", in the USA. Still don't know what hawks are... Gronky (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Way out of proportion

The attention paid too this article is absurd. The top ten foreign nations lobbying the American government do not include Israel. http://www.propublica.org/article/adding-it-up-the-top-players-in-foreign-agent-lobbying-718 You want to talk about foreign influence on America? Can we talk about the United Arab Emirates, which spends millions of dollars every year buying American Congressmen. I can't even find an article on the Oil lobby. But I have created Pakistan Lobby in the United States and Turkish lobby in the United States and added to Arab lobby in the United States. You want to talk about foreigners buying Congressmen? Follow the money. Equatorial Guinea spends more money lobbying in Washington every year than Israel does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.Casaubon (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been working on Saudi Arabia lobby. There is no comparison between the power of the two lobbies. None at all. The Saudis have real influence. A foreign government that tells the American government what to do and what not to do (don't help the democracy protesters in Bahrain, the King won't like it) It would be useful for more Wikipedians to edit where the power is.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to include this article in your 'See also' sections and be sure to read WP:SOAP. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are proportion problems and you have sources to prove this, please edit the article to reflect this.

However, based on my very limited knowledge of this topic, the Israeli lobby is mostly fuelled by pro-Israeli jews within the USA, so a count of contacts or donations from foreign nations would not actually prove or disprove the point being made here. Gronky (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)