Talk:The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy/Archive 1

Archive 1

The following text by 151.204.254.197 (talk • contribs) was moved from the article to the talk page by Caesura (talk • contribs).

AS WRITTEN, THIS PAGE MUST BE MARKED AS NON-NEUTRAL

this article, in case people do not follow current events, is, to say the least, controversial.

this wiki clearly endorses the author's conclusions in a supposedly neutral description. there are problematic factual claims, notably the inability for the article to find publication in the united states -- the authors list no peer-referreed journals from which their paper was rejected, and it was published on the harvard university web site. —This unsigned comment was added by 151.204.254.197 (talk • contribs) .

MARKED AS NON-NEUTRAL? RUBBISH!

It is quite clear that views from all sides including those with mixed views have been given fair exposure. Whoever is keeping watch on this wiki is doing a fine job. Keep it up. --218.208.215.56 09:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

David Duke

Why are David Duke's views on this paper notable? As far as I'm aware, he's a fringe white supremacist, not a foreign policy or political expert. Why don't we ask the timecube guy what he thinks about it, too? Deuterium 16:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that trying to remove David Duke's criticism is problematic -- see the previous debate on the AIPAC page. Instead of trying to remove the guilt by association reference, it may be better to add more information to this page -- as per my two suggestions below. --70.48.240.217 17:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence of the David Duke section to reflect the fact that Duke's commentary merits a separate section not because David Duke's commentary on the paper in and of itself is not particularly notable, but because his commentary received a lot of attention in the media and has played a significant part in the public debate over the paper. Coffee Warrior 08:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"but because his commentary received a lot of attention in the media and has played a significant part in the public debate over the paper" -- is that so? I've seen him mentioned before by publications in connection with this peice, but mostly in the same way he's being mentioned here: to create guilt by association. The New York Sun or whatever would mention him in the same breath as Walt or Mearsheimer, just for effect, but that's usually the extent of it. I still think that even his simple inclusion in the article is somewhat suspicious, and that Duke actually being given his own subheading is just ridiculous. This is a prominence that is simply out of proportion with his prominence in the scope of this issue, and it's only result is and has been to guilt by association. --Clngre 11:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is just a normal cheap shot used by wiki on a regular basis. Someone should email Davis Duke and have him send $$ and a big kiss to AIPAC - then publish it ( where I don't know, .....

I removed this section. Didn't seem neccessary.

Proposal: List of Annotated Supporting/Criticizing Articles

I think it would be helpful to put together a list of the recent reputable news articles/opinion pieces that support and oppose this paper along with the name of the publication, the location of publication (i.e. US, UK, etc.) and author (and author's primary affilliations). I would even denote which attack articles which contain accusations of anti-Semitism on the part of the authors. I can't help noticing that the large majority of the individuals engaging in the most severe attacks on the original study's authors in this debate are actually denoted in the paper as being associated with the lobby -- that is what such a list can demonstrate or not. Such a neutral fact-based meta-analysis is what Wikipedia does best and would help people draw their own conclusions.

(I do not feel it is useful to denote which authors are Jewish, since that is a question that may come up and be used to attack even the existence of such a meta-analysis, because that would be encouraging prejudice based on religious affiliation.) --70.48.240.217 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: List of Claimed Factual Errors with Analysis

Many critics of the article are saying it is riddled with factual errors. It may be useful to list all of the claimed factual errors and then do a bit of research to confirm or deny these claims on an individual basis. Again, such a neutral meta-analysis is what Wikipedia does best. --70.48.240.217 17:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that would completely contravene Wikipedia's no original research policy, so there's no point in bothering. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to insert your own research again, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it is original research if we collect together the list of claimed factual errors. If the collection of material from reputable sources is original research then all of wikipedia is. --70.51.228.208 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I should add that the material both the claim of factual error and the disproving of it were both sourced from newspapers. --70.51.228.208 20:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting together lists of claims of factual errors would be obviously be a new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas. (see WP:NOR). And citing your own personal counterclaims, if that's what they are, would definitely be as well. Why don't you try out this section on a subpage first. Oh, and you might want to get yourself a userid as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NOR, "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." I am not drawing conclusions that could be characterized as "analysis, or synthesis" nor am I making any novel "statements" or "arguments" or "ideas." Maybe we should get a third opinion if we can't come to agreement on this. I honestly do not see how this is original research. --70.51.228.208 20:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The way you've described it would be original research i.e. creating your own list of mistakes and then doing research to confirm them, or otherwise, "on an individual basis." If you're going to post such a list, you must copy it from a newspaper article, and you can only include research conducted by newspapers or similar reputable sources, in relation to this report and its aftermath, sticking very closely to what the sources say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin. Below is the addition that Jayjg claimed was original research. Do you consider it to be original research and if so how would you change it? I actually thing it would be valuable addition to the article. Please note, I only got as far as putting in one claimed factual error before it was removed by Jayjg. --70.48.69.93 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Claimed Factual Errors

(The following is the piece that User:Jayjg above refers to as original research. I have placed it here so that it can be built upon and de-"ugly"-ified.)

Many critics have contended that the article contains numerous factual errors. What follows is an attempt to list those claimed factual errors, the source of that claim and whether that error can be substantiated or disproved:

• "In fact, the whole paper is full of errors, large and small. A matter as simple as Israel's current population is incorrectly stated at 6,276,883. The number is precise but inaccurate. Israel's population recently reached eight million, a fact that was reported extensively in the press, and could have been verified with very little effort." - Ilana Freedman, "A dangerously wrong study on the Israel lobby", March 24 2006.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, the current population of Israel is 6,276,883 as claimed by Mearsheimer and Walt. [1]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.228.208 (talk • contribs)

This is OR, without a doubt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A classic example of original research. He is attempting to rebut an article about the paper using his own research. What's more, I don't think the article he's attempting to rebut is even referenced in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Why is it OR? The rebutting is actually drawn from a newspaper. I guess I didn't quote it enough. Would it be OR if I didn't rebut it but just collected the factual errors? Thanks for any help. --70.48.69.93 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Which article rebuts this? Exactly who is the person who "rebuts" this; are they notable in some way? And why would one quote Ilana Freedman to begin with? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This:

'Israel is the only recipient of US aid that does not have to account for how the aid is spent.'

To my knowledge, U.S. aid to Israel is earmarked for use on defence, specifically through American defence contractors. Can someone at the very least provide a non-biased source for this? Joffeloff 14:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Check congressional records - yah fat chance, you will be 80 when you emerge - money comes from taxpayers, then goes to Israel, then they spend it on US corporations, who send the money overseas ( China etc ) - guess who got screwed.

Chomsky's comment

Perhaps Noam Chomsky's comment on the paper is of some interest. It is found at http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm. Basically, Chomsky disagrees with the authors' analysis and conclusion, but commend them for "taking a position that is sure to elicit tantrums and fanatical lies and denunciations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.190.192 (talk • contribs)

A reference to Chomsky has now been added to the Criticism section. It can't easily be placed in the Mixed Reviews section, because Chomsky didn't offer much praise, other than for the authors' courage. 204.210.35.48 08:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Chomsky comment should be moved to "Mixed Reviews". As I read Chomsky's review, he is not disputing the existence of a powerful Jewish lobby. Rather he is pointing out the lobby alone does not have enough explanatory force to account for US policies. PJ 07:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you justify your proposal merely on the basis that Chomsky is not disputing the existence of a powerful Jewish lobby? Can you cite an example of ANY critic of M&W who disputes the existence of a powerful Jewish lobby? Chomsky said he didn't find the thesis of the paper very convincing, and that sounds more negative than mixed. Precis 09:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

New Survey

Available from here: [2]

• 49% of Middle East academics polled believe that the academic community is "hostile" to studies that are critical of the Israel Lobby and US policies toward Israel. 26 pct. believe academia is "open" to such findings.
• 85% of Middle East academics polled believe that the Israel Lobby as described by Mearsheimer and Walt is "negative" to "extremely negative" to US interests.
• 65% of Middle East academics polled believe that the most powerful intimidation tactic of the Israel Lobby is charging detractors as "anti-Semites", followed by attacks from the mainstream media by embedded Israel Lobby sympathizers (59 pct.).
• 91% of Middle East academics polled believe it is "extremely accurate" to "accurate" that the Israel Lobby's tactics expose the United States to avoidable hostility in the Middle East.
• 86% of Middle East academics polled believe that the Israel Lobby places what it considers to be Israel's interests above the national interests of the United States.

--70.48.240.217 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, surveys pretty much say what the authors want them to say, and the views of the "Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy" are clear. By the way, would you mind not poisoning the well when describing individuals in articles? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it okay to describe people by directly relevant attributes? Not all commentators are equal are they? I was just following the lead of Pershe who added the correct and helpful description of David Duke as a white supremacist.

I'll add the survey results in time -- and when I do, please don't engage in any "well poisoning". ;-) Best. --70.51.228.208 18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Duke is best known for being a white supremacist; Cohen is not best known for his membership in that organization, which itself is not best known for supporting the war in Iraq. Regarding the survey, if the survey were actually about the study itself, rather than general attitudes about an "Israel Lobby" and their "intimidation tactics", and were from a reputable source, it might be worth including. As neither is the case, there's also no point in including it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Cohen actually is well known for his neoconservative connections -- he was a founding member of PNAC which did clearly advocate intervention in Iraq and did act as a nexus of neoconservative thought and planning. If we still remain in disagreement, it will be best to get a third opinion on this matter.

The full study is available here [3] and it does deal specifically with the paper and its authors if you give it a read. Can you explain specifically why the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy is not reputable? I would like to attempt to address your concerns if you can make them specific. Thx. --70.51.228.208 20:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would you imagine it is a reputable or notable source. What exactly is known about it, anyway? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What is known about IRmep is that: 1) Their ongoing surveys of Middle East Acadmics is respected enough to receive hearings in the Senate http://www.irmep.org/gaza.ram 2) Their survey shows what the broader community of Middle East experts from academia(rather than lobbies or "think tanks) think about the Israel Lobby study findings. 3) Their director is a respected researcher and author. (this comment was added by anonymous user User:70.108.159.63 on April 6 2006)

Let's talk about the organization itself. What have reliable sources said about it? Who is on its board? Who are its main members? Its website says nothing about this. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also curious as to the origins of IRmap -- it is a new entrant to the field. Should we create an article on it? --70.48.69.93 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring this study because the release was also reproduced in US Newswire, a mainstream news organization (with offices across America) - Israel Lobby Exposes U.S. to Avoidable Hostility Overseas while Smearing Academic Critics as 'Anti-Semitic', Says IRmep Poll; Mearsheimer and Walt Study Accurate. This means the study results are notable and IRMEP is a reputable enough source for newspapers.

Secondly, Moshe... said that the study wasn't about the Mearsheimer-Walt paper. If you read the study or the news release, you'll see that this is incorrect. Deuterium 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who as even looked at IRmep's website for more than a 30 seconds will see it is not even reputable enough for the guardian. It is clearly a propaganda website with a bad dress-up job designed to make it look official.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out already, anyone can get anything put out over US Newswire; all you have to do is pay them to do it. This is hardly an indication of notability. Second, when one reads the survey questions, one immediately sees that they are not about the paper itself, but rather assume the paper's conclusions are true, and ask the alleged participants what the implications of these "facts" are - in other words, the survey is about "the evil Israel lobby", and not about the paper itself. And finally, the website itself is obviously a propaganda website; again, can anyone explain what exactly we know about this alleged organization? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Unbalancing of Ha'aretz Editorial

The version after I tried to make it a balanced reflection of the actual editorial (I have bolded the main balancing clause):

A Haaretz editorial said that the paper expressed "an anti-Israeli feeling" and that it "involved an attempt to blame the Jews for developments that are unconnected to them." Although it goes on to say that "the conclusion that Israel can draw from the anti-Israel feeling expressed in the article is that it will not be immune for eternity. America's unhesitating support for Israel and its willingness to restrain itself over all of Israel's mistakes can be interpreted as conflicting with America's essential interests and are liable to prove burdensome." The editorial concluded that "the professors' article does not deserve condemnation; rather, it should serve as a warning sign."[16]

What you converted it to a simple and unhestitant accusation of anti-Semitism without explicit comment/explanation:

A Haaretz editorial said that the paper expressed "an anti-Israeli feeling" and that it "involved an attempt to blame the Jews for developments that are unconnected to them", but concludes that "it would be irresponsible to ignore the article's serious and disturbing message...The professors' article does not deserve condemnation; rather, it should serve as a warning sign."

Can yuo please clarify your actions User:Jayjg? Do you feel that your description of the editorial is more accurate / balanced? I am going to re-insert my balancing addition in the mean-time. --70.51.228.208 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is more accurate because the rest of the quote does not pertain to the article itself, but is rather a general political analysis. Pecher ^Talk 20:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The summary of Ha'aretz's position was done by someone else, not me. The person who did it is certainly not pro-AIPAC. I just combined the two. The information you included was overly lengthy, and was a political analysis, not about the paper itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this quote completely about the article: ""the conclusion that Israel can draw from the anti-Israel feeling expressed in the article is that it will not be immune for eternity. America's unhesitating support for Israel and its willingness to restrain itself over all of Israel's mistakes can be interpreted as conflicting with America's essential interests and are liable to prove burdensome." -- it mentions the "article" explicitly and talks about how the authors could be misinterpreting Israeli actions as being in conflict with America's. I counter that both sentences are directly relevant to the article and it in general captures the overal spirit of the editorial -- I hope you take a moment to read it. I am not making this up. --70.51.228.208 20:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, this is political analysis by the authors of the editorial, not an analysis of the paper itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Should I interpret the opposition and reverting of any change I attempt made to this article as a sign that I am not allowed to edit or contribute to this article? I am puzzled. I do not view my edits as malicious nor POV. --70.51.228.208 20:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A number of your edits have stayed, and I'm sure you're editing in good faith; however, editing is a collaborative process, and others disagree with your edits, in part because some of them are obvious violations of Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange how Ha'aretz finally ends up agreeing with Walt et al.

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg Removal of Study

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg just removed the studying claiming "considering that this "study" if you can call it that never referenced the Meashimer- walt and the reliability of its source is in question, this shouldn't be here"

Hmm... Okay. The actual study clearly mentions the Measheimer and Walt paper -- such as question "Question #6 What is the likely long-term impact of the Mearsheimer-Walt report?" from [4]. The quality of the study is directly relevant to the quality of the source -- the institute is somewhat new and above someone does try to address this. How about we add that it is produced by the relative new research institute? This hedges our position and lets us start work on an article about this research institute. What do you think? In the meantime, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and put it back in. --70.48.69.93 01:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the study's press release was also reproduced in US Newswire, a mainstream news organization (with offices across America) - Israel Lobby Exposes U.S. to Avoidable Hostility Overseas while Smearing Academic Critics as 'Anti-Semitic', Says IRmep Poll; Mearsheimer and Walt Study Accurate. This proves that the study results are notable and significant and IRMEP is a reputable enough source for mainstream newspapers. Deuterium 01:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, US Newswire is just a newswire service to which anyone willing to pay for a subscription can use to distribute press releases. In my other career I've used these services for product release PR notices. I think the study is valuable but the fact you bring up above doesn't convey as much notability as you make it out to be. --70.48.69.93 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous that you suggest that IRmep is a reliable source. Here is a excerpt from their website describing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.-

"The Quartet's call for the Israelis to withdrawal from ill-gotten territories and allow the Palestinian leadership to flourish is a great improvement over the AIPAC dictates of violence and ethnic cleansing via "separation fence."

I am once again removing the study. Please read WP:RS before you even consider adding more references.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe: is your definition of a reliable source one that endorses your world view? Those that do not endorse your world view do not qualify? Let's put together an article on IRmep together (so that it reflects everyone's point of view) and then get a third opinion since I think that we are both partisan and agreement may not be possible. --70.48.69.93 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely IRmep is at least as credible as David Duke? —Ashley Y 07:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not using David Duke as a source, we are simply saying he supported the paper's findings.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Duke is included not due to his credibility, but due to his notability. Pecher ^Talk 07:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

" Moshe: is your definition of a reliable source one that endorses your world view? " very good!

How about one that actually is reputable and reliable enough to trust their claims.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ruth R. Wisse mention

Did you know that she is a professor of "Professor of Yiddish Literature, and Professor of Comparative Literature" as per her page: [5] -- it appears to me that she is making a comment far outside of her domain of expertise. I do not think her opinion on the article is worth including if we want to have a high bar here. --64.230.127.239 03:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Eric Alterman and Ruth Wisse have both written articles, columns, and books on politics. One wouldn't want to exclude Alterman just because he is professor of English.132.239.145.83 01:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ruth Wisse has a long history as a Likud mouthpiece anti-peace activist. She can generally be counted on to publish opinion pieces opposing whatever peace initiative is being proposed inside or outside Israel. For example she wrote in 2003: "Unfortunately, the Arab war against Israel is no more a territorial conflict than was al Qaeda's strike against America, and it can no more be resolved by the road map than anti-Americanism could be appeased by ceding part of the U.S. to an Islamist enclave." She then goes on to repeat that tired old right-wing chestnut that Jordan is Palestine. I don't know why she is quoted on the page. All these right-wing nutcases (plus Chomsky, Dershowitz, Pipes, Kramer and CAMERA) undermine what would be a stronger arguement without them getting in the way.

David Duke prominence

I have moved David Duke beneath the other praise: he's not normally considered a serious source, rather, he's only mentioned here because so many of the paper's critics mention him. As Pecher and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg point out, he's here because of his notability, not his credibility. The credible sources should be at the top. Indeed I think he's only notable in this context because of his use by critics in a reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy. —Ashley Y 08:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the chronological sort to the praise section. Duke's "praise" came before Levy's, regardless of his credibility; chronology does not imply credibility. When attributing and asserting controversial facts, we do not discriminate based on the credibility of the claimant, but on the actual citations used to represent the assertions of the claimant, which in this case appear to be mainstream, reliable sources. —Viriditas | Talk 10:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary to have it first -- it really does appear as a reductio ad Hilterum -- although I feel that it should stay because he is notable. I'm going to move it back down to where it was -- please do not move it back. --64.230.127.239 16:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that David Duke gets a separate section is a clue. —Ashley Y 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing that articles should not be written chronologically because you personally disagree with the content? If so, and if my change is reverted, I will add the NPOV tag. —Viriditas | Talk 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is not written chronologically: it is sorted by issue: "Praise", "Mixed reviews", "Criticism". David Duke is a separate issue, since he is there not because he is a credible source, but because he is controversial. And accordingly he gets his own section. If there were two such sources worthy of their own section, you'd have trouble sorting it all chronologically if there were intervening sources. —Ashley Y 20:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Honesltly, I have a hard time understanding why his views are included at all -- or at least given any prominence whatsoever. Within the scope of this issue he is pretty negligible (the fact that he's mentioned by others in their criticism or has become the subject of some bickering doesn't mean much in itself) and I think this article should reflect that. The only purpose this seems to serve is to, yes, create guilt by association. That's the net result of his inclusion. I know Wikipedia isn't in the business of crafting specific impressions that an article will give off, but it is its business to be responsible and not misrepresent an issue. I just really can't understand why his views are deemed so worthy of inclusion. It just seems to distorts the entire issue. --Clngre 16:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cole's "guilt by association" viewpoint contrasts with Dershowitz's viewpoint that the working paper is "David Duke with footnotes". Rather than promote one side or the other, Wikipedia could simply add a sentence in the Praise section: "For comments of David Duke, see David Duke" and then transfer the David Duke section to the page David Duke. 204.210.35.48 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

David Duke is at least as credible as Dershowitz.

page-move?

As it is now, this article is completely wrongly named. When one looks for an article about a paper, then one should at least get a summary of the main points in the article. Not so here. Here we get a "summary" which is shorter that the average news-article which only make a passing mention of the paper.

What we do get is every critisism of the paper that has been made, the more disreputeble the source (=David Duke etc) the better. The article as it is now should be moved to something called "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"-Controversy (or something like that). Then we could start afresh here, making a summary of the article. Regards, Huldra 03:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A more sensible idea would be to simply add information about the paper to the beginning of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have followed your suggestion and started to add inf. (a summary) of the paper in this article. Much more is needed, but just now I have done for now. Regards, Huldra 05:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: all I have added (under "Summary") is a, well, summary of the inf. in the downloadable version of the paper. I have not added citations (as to which page(es) is/are summarized); if other editors think that this is needed please don´t remove all the text; insert "citation needed" instead. Thanks. Huldra 05:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW Huldra, not every criticism is included in this article. I think the article actually is strangely decently balanced for such a controversial topic. Although I am with User:Jaygj that this article should include a better summary of the paper -- yours is a good start, although I am sure it will be throughly refined/rewritten in the next few days, like everything in this article. --64.230.121.230 04:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

CIA official agrees with Walt-Mearsheimer Study

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

For years – even decades – U.S. citizens have been the subject of a political action campaign designed and executed by Israel. Currently, Israel's campaign is part steady-as-she-goes and part improvisation to neutralize an unexpected and – for Israel – worrying development. So far, Israel's covert political action is succeeding hands down. Americans are gradually being indoctrinated to believe Islamists are today's Nazis and that there is no "Israeli lobby" in America. [6]

Simply put, Israel is conducting a brilliant covert political action campaign in the United States, a campaign any intelligence service in the world would rightly be proud of. [7]

Michael Scheuer [8] served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the once anonymous author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" and "Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the future of America". [9]

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

Scheuer's virulently anti-Israel. He's widely considered a quack. -- FRCP11 01:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Scheuer article is off topic. That said, while he may not be "a strong supporter Israel", he isn't a quack and he isn't specifically anti-Israel. --64.230.120.229 14:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Scheuer must have noticed that more Iraelis are deported for spying than all other nationalities combined - what a bastard to mention it.

Martin Kramer would be delighted...

If someone here would include my very specific critique of the Walt/Mearsheimer claims about Israel and the Iraq war. (I will not add it myself.) -Martin Kramer

Such an addition to the Criticism section could be counterbalanced with the addition of Juan Cole's Salon article Breaking the silence to the Praise section, and Michelle Goldberg's Salon article Is the "Israel lobby" distorting America's Mideast policies? to the Mixed Reviews section.204.210.35.48 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Like the person posing as Martin Kramer above, I'm not going to make these additions myself 204.210.35.48 07:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Juan Cole's analysis is published in a reputable source (Salon). Tony Judt has a great piece in the NYTimes today as well. Martin Kramer's piece is a self-published piece on his personal website. --64.230.120.229 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but Martin Kramer is apparently notable enough to have an article here. Since it's an opinion piece, notability of the author is probably more relevant. I recommend mentioning Kramer's piece (criticism) as well as both Salon pieces (on praise, one mixed). —Ashley Y 19:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com is an online tabloid; it hardly qualifies as a reputable source per WP:RS. Pecher ^Talk 20:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Pecher and me like to do the standard partisanship battle here, but its getting old. I acknowledge that Juan Cole and Martin Kramer are opposing partisans -- pro-Arab vs pro-Israel. Salon.com itself isn't disreputable as claimed by User:Pecher -- he should support that with references. Martin Kramer's continued self-promotion in Wikipedia continues to bother me, he should let others decide when his work is notable, but what can I do about it -- see: Talk:Martin_Kramer#Is_Martin_Kramer_link_spamming_Wikipedia?. But either way, the New York Times editorial by Tony Judt is clearly notable and presents a fairly nuanced argument which attempts to explain the varying interpretations of the paper. --64.230.120.229 20:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt the obove passage was actually written by Martin Kramer, I also doubt that Kramer's website would be on geocities so I think we can assume it doesn't qualify as self-promotion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Much of the content for Kramer's website is hosted on Geocities (check the links on this page: http://www.martinkramer.org/pages/899528/index.htm) and the anon who keeps claiming to be Kramer did confirm that he has control of the martinkramer.org website via modifying its contents. Read Kramer's talk page -- what you are claiming above is not in dispute. --64.230.120.229 03:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They're opinion pieces, not sources, so notability is more important. Indeed we include David Duke for the same reason. —Ashley Y 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

atlantic monthly

The following has been excised:

"After the article was completed, it was first approved for publication
and then rejected by the Atlantic Monthly." 

As far as I can tell, this misinformation is due to Antony Loewenstein [10]204.210.35.48 06:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the source for this being misinformation? I can find multiple sources saying it, but I can't find anyone saying that it isn't true.

See the Goldberg reference [2]. Please provide here your reliable source.204.210.35.48 07:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the relivant text in the Goldberg reference is "The magazine turned down the piece they submitted -- editor Cullen Murphy wrote them a letter explaining why, though none of them will comment on what it said.". Goldberg's article is not proof that its misinformation, but there are no longer multiple sources for Loewenstein's claim either. The Atlantic isn't saying anything. So the text should stay out.

the lobby

This newly added section, instead of describing the paper, consists almost entirely of quotes that function to defend the paper against charges of antisemitism. One could just as easily taken quotes from the paper that promote the opposing point of view (as numerous journalists have made clear). 204.210.35.48 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The new section was created by going through the paper and finding quotes where the author's define what they meant by "lobby". It is neither meant to attack or defend the authors. It is certainly not meant to be a general description of the paper (which would be many times more subjective) or to promote any sort of view.

Here is an example to show that "The lobby" section is not neutral, but rather serves to whitewash the paper's provocations. The following three passages occur in propinquity in the working paper, in sequence:

(1) It is not meant to suggest that 'the lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.

(2) The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant

effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests.

(3) Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them.

Passages (1) and (3) were chosen for Wikipedia, while the less friendly passage (2) was passed over.

Playing a similar game, one could create a section of quotes called "What the Lobby does", suggesting a sinister, controlling cabal whose core is American Jews:

(a) "The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide. "

(b) "The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach."

(c) "Were it not for the Lobby’s ability to manipulate the American political system, the relationship between Israel and the United States would be far less intimate than it is today."

(d) "The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress."

(e) "The Lobby also has significant leverage over the Executive branch. That power derives in part from the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections."

(f) "Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States."

(g) "Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses is the effort by Jewish groups to push Congress to establish mechanisms that monitor what professors say about Israel." 204.210.35.48 09:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is by definition an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. If you feel something is missing in the article, why not insert it yourself? Pecher ^Talk 08:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Items (a) thru (g) were listed to prove a point about selective quoting, not because they belong in the article. If it were up to me, the entire section "The Lobby" would be deleted, but I prefer not to make deletions sans discussion. 204.210.35.48 09:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would you like to delete the section entirely? It seems to me we must describe what the paper's authors see as the Israeli lobby. If think feel the title is inappropriate, feel free to change it. Pecher ^Talk 09:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

One could change the title to "A selection of the working paper's most unprovocative quotes characterizing the Lobby", but that seems too long. One could append further quotes, as was suggested earlier, to provide a balanced point of view, but it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to characterize the subject of a paper with a long list of isolated quotes. 204.210.35.48 10:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the section was to attempt to characterize what the authors were saying through direct quotes rather than interpretation since most interpretations (see criticism) are unencyclopedic. Extra quotes have been appended and if those quotes are seen as balancing the other quotes out, I don't see that as a problem. I do see changing the title as a problem because the alternatives so far are clear POV.

Skewed interpretations can result by choosing only the particular quotes we like. 204.210.35.48 21:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But that is why your quotes are now in the page isn't it? 168.127.0.51 21:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

content of the paper

This section ends as follows:

They also make heavy criticism of efforts they describe as being by the lobby against academic freedom. They specifically point to the efforts of Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer to collect dossiers on suspect academics through the website Campus Watch. Daniel Pipes later wrote to the London Review of Books denying that his activities were party of any Israeli Lobby.

Comments:

(1) The last sentence does not serve as a description of the paper's content. It does, however, serve to correct an error about Martin Kramer (in the penultimate sentence) that Wikipedia should not even be propagating. See [11].

(2) The first sentence could be made more precise as follows: They also heavily criticize the Lobby's "campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses". 204.210.35.48 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Kramer regularly "criticizes" Middle East professors who are are opposed to him ideologically -- and since Kramer is pro-Israel his targets then to be pro-Arab. Thus while you can technically claim an error in specifics, the general claim that Kramer "criticizes" or "smears" (depending on your point of view) pro-Arab Middle East academics is true. Here's the support: While Martin Kramer is not officially part of Campus Watch he did endorse it (see your link above). Kramer belongs to Daniel Pipes's think tank, the Middle East Forum, which is the parent organization of Campus Watch. Kramer also wrote the book "Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America" which is a "critical look" at the whole school of Middle East studies in the US. It generally claims that much of the field rests upon the theories of noted Palestinian Edward Said and that this focus "enshrined an acceptable hierarchy of political commitments, with Palestine at the top, followed by the Arab nation and the Islamic world. They [Palestinians, Arabs and the Islamic world] were the long-suffering victims of Western racism, American imperialism and Israeli Zionism..." Kramer argues for change in academia away from the current state. Also Kramer has at least a dozen "critical" essays of various Middle East academics -- his critics have referred to these efforts as "smears" on more than couple occasions: [12]. --64.230.120.229 23:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments: (1) Martin Kramer's delusions about his relationship to Campus Watch are not worth even mentioning on Wikipedia. Its almost sad to watch him and Pipes attempt to disown their own organization. The Middle East Forum IS Campus Watch. But it is reasonable that the information should not be in the description of the paper's content. (2) The quote should not be presented in such a way as to strip it of all context to create a POV impression. Or else there should be a new section descibing the details of what the paper is saying and who it is specifically critical of with regard to colleges. 64.12.117.12 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalizing "Lobby"

The following should be excised:

According to Juan Cole, it was the publisher, and not Mearsheimer and Walt, who capitalized the word "Lobby".

Reason: Mearsheimer and Walt themselves capitalize "Lobby" in the KSG working paper [13] 204.210.35.48 08:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not sufficent evidence to call Juan Cole a liar or to disregard what he has said. Your conclusion that they "themselves" did anything in the KSG working paper is a overreaching conclusion.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.12 (talk • contribs)

You missed the point. LRB has the power to insist on capitalizing "Lobby" for the LRB publication, but LRB does not have that power for the KSG working paper--therefore one cannot assume that the capitalization in the KSG paper was imposed on the authors.204.210.35.48 15:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing "proof" with supposition. You are making a set of assumptions and conclusions that you cannot sustain by the sources available. There is no evidence beyond what Juan Cole has written about the editorial process involved in the publication of either the KSG working or the LRB article.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.12 (talk • contribs)

The burden of proof is on you to show that it was NOT Mearsheimer and Walt who capitalized "Lobby" in the KSG working paper. Since no such proof has been offered, I'm excising the sentence. It should be obvious from Peter Beaumont's article in the Guardian (see current reference #39) that Cole was referring only to the LRB publication, not the KSG paper. If you know of someone who imposed the capitalization on Mearsheimer and Walt in the KSG paper, please provide the evidence. 204.210.35.48 23:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it is you who are making a claim, the burden of proof rests with you. Neither the guardian piece nor the Juan Cole piece has anything to say about the capitalization of the KSG working paper. There are no facts in either piece to make encyclopedic statements on regarding the capitalization of the KSG working paper. If you have a problem with the pieces as published by the Guardian and Salon, please pursue a correction with those publications. As of now, there is no basis to make a conclusion (on facts) one way or another on the capitalization of the KSG paper at this time. If you wish to make a conclusion, you must provide sources or a case based on facts that supports that conclusion. Whatever you present must also not qualify as original research. If you are correct in your claims, there are far better and more relivant places to be making your claim that Wikipedia.64.12.117.12 01:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Juan Cole, it was the London Review of Books, and not Mearsheimer and Walt, who capitalized the word "Lobby".[4] The reasons for capitalization of "Lobby" in the Kennedy School of Government paper have as yet not been explained. I hope your new entry is not reverted for a while, because it will stimulate intriguing speculation. How do you suppose the capitalization was snuck into the KSG paper under the authors' noses? Say, d'ya think it was ...AIPAC? 204.210.35.48 06:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

LRB letters, M & W Reply

I've added links to the letters pages of three LRB issues. But please note the message from the LRB editors half-way down 28.8, where they note that in general they deliberately don't publish letters of simple praise, even though they received a lot in this instance.

They also mention that M&W will be responding in the next issue, so "heads up" whatever your POV. —Ashley Y 02:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[14] Precis 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

poisoning the well in the "Criticism" section

Here is a classic example of poisoning the well. This description of CAMERA was inserted on April 19.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a pro-Israel media watchdog group which in the past has been very critical of National Public Radio and Steven Spielberg, published a detailed study of the paper,....

Here is a second example, also inserted on April 19.

British journalist and Frontpage Magazine contributor Melanie Phillips called the paper a ...

Note: She is a columnist for the Daily Mail, but it serves to create more bias by identifying her as a contributor to FrontPage.

The passage about Melanie Phillips ends as follows:

Contrary to the claim by the paper's authors that critics of Israel stand "a good chance of getting labeled an antisemite", writes Phillips, "they stand instead an excellent chance of being published in the London Review of Books". Phillips had nothing to say about the rejection of the paper by the Atlantic Monthly.

The last sentence above is the Wikipedia editor's own rebuttal of Melanie Phillips's criticism. It promotes the point of view that the Atlantic Monthly rejected the working paper because of the Lobby, rather than for other reasons such as poor scholarship.

If this kind of bowdlerization of the Criticism section is to be allowed, then it should be permissible as well to append snide comments rebutting quotes in the Praise section, such as "Professor X had nothing to say about Hamas's call for the destruction of Israel." Or one could poison the well: "Tony Judt, who is on record as having called for the effective elimination of the Jewish State [15], said..."

On April 24, a Wikipedia editor has completely distorted the passage on Herf and Markovits. The editor rewrites it in a way that creates bias against these authors, even managing to begin a sentence: "Herf and Markovitz defend the Iraq war..." . It would at least have been more polite had this extensive "revision" been put up first for discussion. 204.210.35.48 07:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it.  ;-) Controversial Wikipedia articles are regularly attacked his way. If it makes you feel any better, someone else has repeatedly removed key parts of themixed Ha'aretz editorial to convert it to straight claims of anti-Semitism -- I've added back these removed passages twice so far. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 11:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the CAMERA well poisoning and the Melanie Phillips one but... the Melanie Phillip comment is just a self-published blog post from a general opinionated UK journalist who doesn't seem particularly notable in this field. If she deserves to have her comment included here can you make an argument for it? There have been thousands of blog posting related to this issue but we have not yet included one of them. I have put the removed portion here:

"Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips called the paper a "particularly ripe example of the ‘global Zionist conspiracy’ libel". According to Phillips, "[t]he fundamental misrepresentations and distortions in this LRB paper are quite astonishing." For example, she dismisses the paper's assertion that Israeli citizenship "is based on the principle of blood kinship" as "totally untrue" because "[a]rabs and other non-Jews are Israeli citizens." Melanie Phillips based that statement on the quote "Israel was founded as a Jewish State and citizenship is based on a blood kinship. Given this, it is not suprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citzens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a neglectful and discriminatory manner towards them". Contrary to the claim by the paper's authors that critics of Israel stand "a good chance of getting labeled an antisemite", writes Phillips, "they stand instead an excellent chance of being published in the London Review of Books". Phillips had nothing to say about the rejection of the paper by the Atlantic Monthly."

--LuckyLittleGrasshopper 12:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Philips is a regular contributer to BBC radio and various other news organizations, she seems as notable as any other journalist. I fail to see why she would not be admissable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

CM: The main issues are where she published this and she doesn't seem to have any notability in the field where she is making this comment. Unlike every other pundit included in the article Melanie published her comment on her blog. But if the only requirement is notability then I can live with that and apply the rule evenly. Thanks for the clarification. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Best.

Obviously notability is not the only qualification, however your specific reasoning for deleting it was that she was not notable, I was disputing this. Also since she is a journalist working for reputable sources and is not for being bias then her blog is acceptable as a source in this circumstance since she is representing a viewpoint, one of the few situations where a blog can be.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 12:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I accept that she is valid. My addition of the brand new NPR article is not an attempt to make a point -- the Scheuer is not equivalent because (a) he is an expert on the area in the eyes of NPR, (b) his views are published in a mainstream reputable source. I understand where your confusion could be coming from though since these edits were closely related. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 13:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some other factors to consider for Melanie Phillips. Beyond her journalism, she is a political activist. She shows up published in David Horowitz' FrontPage "magazine" and more troubling for me she showed up as a panelist in a pro-censorship forum in New York sponsored by CAMERA. [[16]]. There is nothing on the web to back my statements about the subject of the panel discussion other than its sponsorship and that the participants were not exactly people with different views on the subject. The title was "ISRAEL AND THE MEDIA: A GLOBAL CHALLENGE". CAMERA also links her blog [[17]] in a long list of sites with a distinct political advocacy point of view. The combination of quoting her blog and presenting her as a mainstream journalist when she seems to have an off-hours career going as a political activist with a distinct point of view would seem to me to require something be done beyond whats currently on the page.152.163.101.12 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Like you said there there is nothing to back your statements about Philips, I will admit I don't know much about her, but the info that we can verify is that she is a journalist or contributer for multiple mainstream news organizations, since we don't have real evidence that suggests she is as POV and as controversial as you say, we have to assume that she is acceptable enough for the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 03:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Correcting you, what I said was that I cannot give thirdhard verification of what she said at the CAMERA panel in New York. Every other fact can be verified (see the citations above). She may be a journalist, but she is also a political activist. The material from her sourced on the page is not from her work as a journalist, but her politically-oriented blog. If her professional work were being quoted, that would be one thing. But its not. The combination of her being published by David Horowitz in his race-baiting online "magazine", her ties to CAMERA and that CAMERA links directly to her blog says all the wrong things about her. 64.12.117.12 06:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

David Duke's website links directly to the M&W paper. 204.210.35.48 07:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage those with strong views on Phillips to edit her Wikipedia article -- it doesn't belong on this page. We have linked her name to her article so that people can read about her background and activities allowing them to make up their own mind about her. This is how we are treating most of the individuals referenced in this article. Almost every single individuals mentioned in this article who have commented on this M&W paper are semi-political activists -- thus Phillips is not unique in this respect. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the quotation to clearly reflect that she is speaking for herself on her personal blog rather than as a journalist or as a contributor to the Daily Mail. The previous material was worded to suggest otherwise.

I don't think we should be quoting a blog at all. But can't you see that your addition is repoisoning the well? 204.210.35.48 02:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole first paragraph of the "Criticism" section is very non-neutral and poisoning the well. Neither of the other sections have an intro questioning the motives for praise/attack, nowhere does it state who are what organization highly respect the authors, "smear campaign" as a phrase is non-neutral in itself, and it is not the place to speak of foreign aid.

NPR interview of Michael Scheuer

Moshe just removing the following addition I made with this comment ""rv, we've already gone over this please see WP:Point, it is considered disruptive":

Michael Scheuer, a former senior official at the CIA and now a terrorism analyst for CBS News, says that Mearsheimer and Walt are basically right. Israel, according to Scheuer, has engaged in one of the most successful campaigns to influence public opinion in the United States ever conducted by a foreign goverment. Scheuer said to NPR that "They [Mearsheimer and Walt] should be credited for the courage they have had to actually present a paper on the subject. I hope they move on and do the Saudi lobby, which is probably more dangerous to the United States than the Israeli lobby."

Please note that the above addition is completely based upon a NPR article of April 21, 2006 and the description given of Scheuer and his position is exactly as how NPR describes it. Moshe earlier made some comments about a more biased addition related to Scheuer by another editor but this is a more neutral presentation of his views. The NPR article is a general review of the controversy around the "Israel Lobby" paper and they clearly feel that Scheuer is a valid commentator. What do others think? --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the fence on this one. The NPR article also featured Paul Findley. Both Findley and Scheuer sound reasonable at times, but they strike me as questionable sources. For example, Findley writes that the 9/11 tragedy would never have occurred were it not for Israel (as if Desert Storm, US bases in Saudi Arabia, etc. were not even factors). At antiwar.com, Scheuer makes egregiously sweeping statements such as "From Marvin Kalb to David Gergen to Max Boot to Alan Dershowitz, these folks have brazenly defied reality by insisting there is no 'Israeli Lobby'... " I think we have to be careful about quoting questionable sources even if the quotes selected happen to be reasonable (as in this case). As for Melanie Phillips, a respectable journalist, there would be no problem quoting from, say, one of her newspaper articles. However, I don't believe she is sufficiently notable that we should quote from her self-published diary. In the end, I'd support the excision of both Scheuer and Phillips. 204.210.35.48 14:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's separate out these issues to avoid violation of WP:Point -- as Moshe suggested. RE Phillips: I think that moving to quoting blog entries is lowering the bar on this article, but I will assume good faith on the part of Moshe and leave it in. RE Scheuer: A few days ago I actually said that Scheuer's Antiwar.com article was relatively off topic and shouldn't be included -- in part because Antiwar.com isn't that reliable of a source. NRP though is a very reliable source and since they talked directly to Scheuer and describe him as reputable I feel his inclusion is very warrented, especially given his unique viewpoint and background -- he's no soft lefty. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 14:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I will substitute Findley for Scheuer in your argument above: NPR though is a very reliable source and since they talked directly to Findley and describe him as reputable I feel his inclusion is very warranted, especially given his unique viewpoint and background -- he's no soft lefty. Do you agree? -- User:204.210.35.48

Hmm... I believe that Scheuer has significantly more credibility that Findley -- just look at Scheuer's regular contributions in the mainstream media where as Findley is more relegated to fringe leftist commentary and the odd inclusion in racist right circles. Findley reacted badly to the attacks on his character from pro-Israel pundits -- it seemed to make him jaded and more radical. Scheuer hasn't gone through this and probably won't because his expertise is so much wider than just Israel, he comments more generally on the War on Terror, Saudia Arabia, Islam, Counter Terrorism, Intelligence and Osama bin Laden -- Findley is pretty restricted to just the Israel-Palestine conflict. Also Findley is just a politician turned activist where as Scheuer rose up the ranks of the conservative institution of the CIA. That's my two cents why Findley and Scheuer may appear equal at face value but differ significantly in terms of the general credibility within mainstream media. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree about Findley, but still find Scheuer's credibility questionable. His conspiracy theories are more extreme than most. He suggests that the existence of the Holocaust Museum in the United States is a covert plot to guilt the US into doing Israel's bidding. See [18]. 204.210.35.48 07:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel as if you portraying Scheuer in the worst possible light based upon one sentence (n a debate featured in a very prestigious magazine, Foreign Affairs, no less -- this magazine isn't the usual outlet for crack pots you know) because you disagree with his current views on this article. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your presumptions are wrong, especially the part about "one sentence". That was just one example of why I find him questionable--I could give more, but what's the point? And the prestige of the magazine is irrelevant when judging the nature of his views. 204.210.35.48 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you feel strongly that he is mischaracterized in his Wikipedia article you should make the case there. This way it is centralized (you won't have to keep making the same case over and over again) and it is open to scrutiny of those who have general interest in Scheuer -- I made the same suggestion to the individuals arguing about Phillips above. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 15:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

responses to criticism section

Criticism of the paper has itself been called "moral blackmail" and "bullying" by an opinion piece in The Australian: "Moral blackmail - the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism - is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views...Bullying Americans into a consensus on Israeli policy is bad for Israel and makes it impossible for America to articulate its own national interest." [40]

This is funny--those who claim the Lobby stifles debate are themselves trying to stifle criticism of the M&W paper with charges of moral blackmail? By the way, this Australian reference should not be passed off as a separate piece, as it is a reprinting of the Financial Times editorial that is already referenced in the Praise section. 204.210.35.48 08:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference to be FT. To be honest, I think your claim that "those who claim the Lobby stifles debate are themselves trying to stifle criticism of the M&W paper" isn't that correct. I find that very emotionally laden charges of "anti-Semitism" in response to the paper stiffles debate -- it is to easy to view this type of response as just a form of ad hominem. But that debate around the issues is a good thing and many have engaged in this type of response. It is true that we haven't separated out the emotionally laden and generalizing criticisms from the more substance based ones -- which could be viewed as a disservice to the more serious critics or WP:OR. What's your thoughts? --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 13:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being honest :) You misunderstood me. I was pointing out the humor in the fact that the passage was incorrectly phrased, thus sabotaging itself with an unintended meaning. That's the reason for my question mark. What you said above is obviously what was intended.

204.210.35.48 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

More Notable Articles

Washtington Post: "It's Not Anti-Semitic" by Richard Cohen -- a response to Eliot Cohen: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401396.html

I feel this one is clearly notable.

Molly Ivins: Pro-Israel 'Nutjobs' on the Attack http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20708

Molly Ivins is very notable -- see her article: NRP, 60 Minutes, etc.... The article itself is strident but that is also the case with Melanie Phillips's article. The current source on this article isn't great at the moment but it is actually a syndicated column from the Creators group. It is likely to be published in a number of sources in the next few days.

--LuckyLittleGrasshopper 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added the WP one. I agree that Ivins should go in if Melanie Phillips is in, but haven't added it. —Ashley Y 03:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Molly Ivins' syndicated column just appeared on CNN see: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/26/ivins.israelilobby/. It is featured on thier main political webpage: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/ as of the time I wrote this comment. Each news organization has the ability to turn down a syndicated column but since it is being accepted by mainstream organizations it is fair to include it in this article. I was incorrect earlier when I said it was strident -- its more down to earth than I initially thought because of the article title WorkingForChange has chosen. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 18:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Molly is interesting - on all issues. However occasionally she gets tangled up - being pro-Israel and anti at the same time. Israel wont stand for it, dual loyalty is the myth she hasn't grasped yet.

Herf and Markovits

I've restored the full-version description of their letter to the LRB which presents point-by-point their arguements against the paper. The previous versions of the quote try to ignore the entire letter and only focus on the accusation made in the first paragraph. It is not acceptable to reduce a piece of criticism to an accusation. The reasoning for making the accusation needs to be presented as much or than the pure accusation needs to be given. I'm open to reworking the paragraph if people don't consider that it accurately reflects the case the authors make or if other content needs to be included. Herf and Markovits went to the trouble of making all those points in response and they should not be swept under the rug to get a cheap attack quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.127.0.51 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for at least putting your explanation here this time before changing the quote. If you continue removing critical quotes that you think are unfair, soon you'll be removing quotes from Eliot Cohen and others. The "accusation" you refer to is one of the chief reasons for the intense controversy. The way to defend is to counter in the Praise section, and this has been done quite a bit already. See also the section "More Notable Articles" on this page. We don't want to start a precedent where someone alters the Praise section by removing countercharges of "stifling debate" and intimidation. 204.210.35.48 21:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The original coverage of their letter stripped out all its content and reduced it to a shrill one-note response that removed all the substance that carefully went into the letter to the LRB by Herf and Markovits. If anything, I went out of my way to greatly elaborate their real concerns and criticisms of the article. I have not touched the quotes from Eliot Cohen and "others" and have no intention to. There is no "defend" in this. The purpose of the criticism section should be to accurately reflect the contents of the criticism. If you want the one-note response back in, as I said previously go ahead. But please do not remove all of the other content because that tends to look like someone wants the accusation of anti-semitism but is unconfortab le with how Herf and Markovits come to that conclusion.64.12.117.12 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Like Hitchens, Herf and Markovits obviously think that the M&W paper overstates Jewish power. That's clear from the quote. It is touching that you are desirous of elaborating on the concerns of Herf and Markovits, but what you are effectively doing is poisoning the well and diffusing the criticism, burying it in a jumble of words. You have misstated the purpose of the Criticism section. Its purpose is not to accurately reflect the contents, but rather to give a representative quote or two and to allow the readers interested in knowing more to follow the link. If we tried to explain how Dershowitz came to his conclusions, our description of his contribution would be way too long. (By the way, since you oppose shrill one-note responses, why don't you want to similarly explain to readers how Eliot Cohen came to his conclusions? Why just pick on H&M?) 204.210.35.48 01:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

wikiquote

I have removed some the quotes taken directly from the paper and added an interwiki to wikiquote. Whenever there are that many direct quotes it is appropriate to move them to wikiquote.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits to restore those sections. The purpose of those sections was to describe the actual contents of the paper rather than have a POV discussion of the paper with no context at all. In certain cases the quotes became excessive in the name of neutrality. To then use the excessive nature of the quotes as a justification for their removal is not acceptable. Please in future discuss radical changes to the page first before making them. The effect of your changes is to hide most of the content relivant to what is in paper in favor of discussion of people talking about the paper. 64.12.117.12 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not a radical change. Quotations are usually only used if they are well known, and even then there should not be near as many as was on this page. And its not like I deleted them, I moved them to wikiquote, just like I am sopposed to.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the paper and as such it should contain a fairly decent summary of the paper's contents. For the moment this summary consists of quotes from the paper. It is honestly not an optimal solution -- these quotes should eventually be converted into a well worded summary that is easier to understand. Moving these quotes to a WikiQuote page before such a summary is created is inappropriate because of the temporary purpose these quotes are currently fulfilling. Although copying some of the quotes from various commentators to their WikiQuote pages would be appropriate if you really have a need to be doing the WikiQuote thing. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 03:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have already created the wikiquote article. You say that the quotes a just a stop-gap measure but if that is the case why have they not been summarized by now?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't originally add the quotes but they do serve a real purpose here to summarize the contents of the paper. I think they are fairly concise and it would be controversial to rewrite the summary while still conveying the precision that these quotes offer. I don't think we should lower the informational content of the paper just because WikiQuote exists. How do others feel about this? --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

People often argue that the quotes help to convey the message of the article's subject, however is is clear that lengthy quotes are not sopposed to stay in wikipedia articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a "lengthy quote" but rather a series of short quotes. I would welcome the opinion of others on this matter. If you want to try summarizing it go for it. I would suggest copying the quotes to this talk page while your at it to ensure that the important aspects are captured appropriately in the new summary. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Copied from the Guide to Layout:"Quotations Under this header, list any memorable quotations that are appropriate to the subject...........

This header is somewhat deprecated. Usually, the most relevant quotes can be placed directly into the article text in order to illustrate the topic. Lists of quotes are generally moved to Wikiquote and the Quotations section as a whole is replaced with a

badge, usually placed at the top of the external links section." 204.210.35.48 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

removal of "Cole nonsense"

The second sentence is admittedly nonsense, but not everyone would say the same about the first, since "Lobby" looks more shadowy than "lobby", and the M&W fans would love to deflect some of the conspiracy criticism, while the M&W detractors want to play up the conspiracy aspect. If, as I suspect, the capital L was inserted with M&W's blessing, then this whole argument is truly nonsensical. On the other hand, if the capital L were imposed on M&W against their wishes, there might be something to discuss. The word "not" in the first sentence suggests that the capital L was inserted without the acquiescence of M&W, and that's simply unsupported by the Cole and Guardian references. Hence to put the passage back in at this point would serve to mislead. Please keep it out unless there is new information. 204.210.35.48 11:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a distraction and neither the authors or the LRB have made any comments about it -- thus we only have third parties commenting on it. The central "controversy" about it is a tempest in a teapot anyhow: because while one can possibly imagine darker inferences from the capitalized term "Lobby" than the lowercase "lobby" that is all superfluous because the authors spent the time to define it explicitly for the readers of their paper. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I turned it into a parenthetical clause. But also this is the first ref to Cole's paper, so if anyone does take it out, they should move the citation details. —Ashley Y 22:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Vague parenthetical remarks don't belong in an encyclopedia. What is this mysterious question we are referring to? Are we asking if LRB had permission from M&W? Are we asking why the capitalization occurs in the KSG working paper? Are we asking why LRB chose to capitalize in the first place? The reader can only guess, and will get no help from either the Cole or Guardian references. If you revert, I suggest at least using the Guardian reference (Beaumont), as it has more information about the capitalization than Cole. Also please put a note here why you don't find LLG's argument above compelling (tempest in a teapot). By the way, I thought the "own blog" compromise was brilliant--but the present effort is, shall we say, not quite up to that standard. 204.210.35.48 08:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Molly Ivins

Why such a huge paragraph for mere syndicated political commentator? How she describes herself is not notworthy, nor the entire list of her arguments. I've shortened that paragraph a bit. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added back one key sentence of the summary of her piece and shorted it further. It is now shorter that the summary of Melanie Phillip's views -- who is also a journalist and political commentator. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of "shorted it futher", you meant to say, "reverted to include all the previous arguments", [19] correct? And you unlinked the Protocols of Zion because...? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ivins' section is currently the same length as Melanie Phillips' section, which seems reasonable to me. —Ashley Y 22:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Except in this case, nothing was removed that wasn't already stated multiple times earlier in the article. I am removing the passages once again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for unlinking the PoZ, I used a previous version (i.e. I was reverting.) I claim ignorance -- its already linked a good number of times in the article anyways, thus if I was trying to covertly pretend that this anti-Semitic fraud didn't exist, I was doing a pretty horrible job of it.

I am going to change which passages are included since right now Molly Ivins' claim that the paper is at least somewhat correct in its thesis has been removed -- which is more relevant that just including two claims of her that the critics purely focusing on anti-Semitism on the part of the authors can look "silly". --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 13:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cole on "Dual Loyalties"

From User talk:LuckyLittleGrasshopper who took issue with my edits re: Cole

Hi Armon, I have to comment on this addition you have put twice into the "Israel Lobby" paper with regards to cole:

"Cole frequently attacks 'Likudniks' in the Bush administration, and has accused them of dual loyalties. [20]"

The way you keep adding it to the article makes me think that to you this phrase is very damning. In essence it isn't probably as damning as you think. Charging all Jews outside of Israel with dual loyalty is obviously racist, imflammator and unfair, but that does not prevent specific individuals of having dual loyalties and making a restricted charge of dual loyalty is not anti-Semitic in and of itself if it can be shown to have basis in fact and not motivated by racial prejudices. It may be because it involves Jews that it is so emotionally charged for you. Try this example: it is clearly racist to say that all Blacks are crack users but just because this gross generalization is inaccurate, inflamatory and racist doesn't mean that any specific claim that an individual, who is black, is using crack must be incorrect or motivated by racism -- Whitney Houston for one really does appear to be a crack user and it is not racist to say so. Just because the racist generalization is obviously false does not necessarily mean that applying a specific categorization to a specific individual(s) is false.

I am not saying that Cole is clearly right nor am I saying you can't disagree with Cole but rather that just repeating Cole's restricted claim without showing why it is false is fairly meaningless in terms of trying to make a case that Cole is disreputable, anti-Semitic, or otherwise -- at least if you approach things logically rather than emotionally. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Hi LLG. Actually, you're working from an incorrect assumption. If my edits don't change anyone's mind regarding Cole's "Anti-Semitism" that's absolutely fine because that's not why I made the edit. It's there simply to disclose that Cole's defense of the paper is a clear case of him attempting to be both player and referee. Members of Cole's fanclub will, as you say, use Cole's self-serving rationalization that if he hasn't included every single Jew in the universe as having "dual loyalties" (but only the bad Jews who don't agree that Israel must to return to its 1949 borders) then he is somehow insulated from the charge of Anti-Semitism. That is a logical fallacy. To use your Witney Houston example -if someone referred to her as a "druggie" who is probably on crack because she is black and from the ghetto AND has provided no evidence to back up that claim -just an "I think so" and a "I don't trust her to stay off drugs", then we'd have no problem identifying that person as a bigot even if they claimed "some of their 'best friends' are black". That is precisely what Cole does with his ad hominem assumptions on his blog regarding Firth, Eli Lake, and other Jews. In any case, it's cited, it's from the primary source, and it is presented without commentary, so it's up to the reader to decide. What I object to is Cole's fanclub attempting to either suppress Cole's own words, or injecting his ridiculous conspiracy theories into the article, such as the capital "L" in "Lobby" business. Armon 02:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)"

This is your own POV. We don't say that the L really was capitalised by his publisher, only that Cole makes that claim. Cole may accuse Likudniks in the Bush administration of dual loyalty, just as he calls AIPAC an agent of a foreign power (both quite fairly in my POV), but this is hardly relevant and suggests an attempt to smear him with the notion that all American Jews have dual loyalty, which is quite something else altogether. Finally, your removal of Cole's central complaint against Dershowitz is bizarre and unhelpful. —Ashley Y 03:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well of course it's my POV, I've given him my opinion on this article's content. What's pertinent here, however, is not whether we state that Cole's is an anti-Semite (I haven't advocated that) but whether we should be suppressing relevant information in order to inhibit the reader from coming to their own conclusion on a controversial subject. I object to Cole's (and yours) POV presented in such a way as to misrepresent reality. A) The "L" business is typical Cole conspiracy theory which was just an aside in his Salon article, and not notable to anyone other than his fan club. It simply does not warrant inclusion in this article unless the authors of the working paper themselves have taken issue with it for some reason. B) The quote I provided from the same article is actually the central thesis/complaint Cole had of the Dershowitz piece. I've actually read both, and what you are attempting to present are Cole's self-serving misrepresentations of Dershowitz (he wrote at great length in the article that criticism of Israeli policy is NOT in itself, Anti-Semitic) as a "fact". This is simply not true, and easily verifiable as such. Armon 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Armon, it almost seems as if Cole if using "Likudniks" to refer to any Jews that support Israel's actions, which I think is kinda a ridiculous statement.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Likud's been in power until recently, so Israeli policy on the territories has followed the Likud platform at least until Sharon's disengagement plan. Do you have an example of Cole calling someone "Likudnik" when they were in fact closer to the Israeli Labour party ideologically? In any case, I don't think it's much relevant to this article. —Ashley Y 06:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your basically asking me to prove a negative. Anyways who they would possibly vote for if they were in Israel is irrelevant. Cole is basically suggesting that any Jewish American that supports Israeli policy has Dual loyalty. This statement boarders on outright paranoia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Israeli policy" Cole speaks of is anything other than a return to "its 1949 borders, which are its only legal ones". I'm not up on internal Israeli politics, but I kind of doubt that would have much political traction there. This why I consider it pretty obvious that "Likud" is code for "Israel" period. The "fascist" policies he objects to occured under Labor govs as well. Armon 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the blog entry in question (which again, I think is irrelevant to this article). Which statement? —Ashley Y 08:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"One of his charges is that I am accusing the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon of "dual loyalties." That is true, but not in the way Lake imagines. I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties to the Israeli Likud Party and to the U.S. Republican Party. He thinks that their interests are completely congruent. And I also think that if he has to choose, he will put the interests of the Likud above the interests of the Republican Party. I don't think there is anything a priori wrong with Feith being so devoted to the Likud Party. That is his prerogative. But as an American, I don't want a person with those sentiments to serve as the number 3 man in the Pentagon. I frankly don't trust him to put America first."

Three questions Ashley. 1. Given that Cole provides absolutely no evidence for the claim that Feith is inordinately devoted to "Likud" (read "Israel") upon what basis other than his ethnicity are we to assume that Americans can't "trust him to put America first"? (hint -read the very next paragraph) 2. Given that Condoleezza Rice has much more to do with creating Bush's policies than Feith -is that supposed to mean that she's also guilty of somehow "putting Israel first"? and finally 3. Why does the same assertion regarding Rice not resonate so well? Armon 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, no, for "Likud" read "Likud". In answer to all of your questions, I refer you to the quote in this section of his article. —Ashley Y 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow -a rumour from Antiwar.com that Rice characterized a Feith position as "Israeli". I guess that'll have to do when you lack actual evidence but, I admit, it's still better than anything Cole managed to dredge up. Brings up another question for you to avoid though -so if that report is true, how does the "fact" that Feith is getting the boot make Cole's (or M&W's) case? Armon 10:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Acually, it was published in Jim Lobe's syndicated Inter Press Service column which is reprinted by AntiWar.com and many other news sources and websites (here is a google search for other mentions: [21].) More importantly, Lobe's article and Rice's explicit Feith quote was referenced by the Mearsheimer & Walt paper that this article is all about. To characterize this as a "rumor" from the unreliable AntiWar.com in simply incorrect. --70.48.70.121 13:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Dual loyalty - hmm must be your wife, not mine I hope.

the lobby compromise

The new lower case version might cause some confusion, because it is sometimes used to refer to AIPAC alone. Also, since the capitalized version occurs in many of the quotes, some confusion could result from the newly introduced inconsistency. These may not be real serious objections, but I thought I'd bring them up to see what others think. 204.210.35.48 09:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an asinine side-issue and we should capitalize "Lobby" just as it appears in the published paper. Armon 13:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

poisoning the "response to criticism" section

I know it's frustrating that the M&W proponents get two sections (the other is Praise) while the opponents get only one (Criticism). But that's the current state of affairs, and criticism of Cole, which would be clearly out of place in the Praise section, is equally out of place in this section. Try the Cole page. 204.210.35.48 13:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think you've hit the nail on the head. Unless we're going to keep adding "responses to responses to criticism" ad infinitum granting the M&W proponents twice the space is a) not a true reflection of opinion on the controversy, and b) a clear case of POV creep. We should simply remove that section and let the pundits make their best case, pro or con, in the appropriate section. Armon 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's still the same pundits, though, so you'll still have the same number "pro", "anti" and "mixed" regardless of how you arrange them. —Ashley Y 16:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The current article structure is unwieldly. It would be good to have a summary that preceeds the expert summaries that describes in brief the response. Currently the criticism is sort of buried in middle/bottom of the article. --70.48.70.121 13:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mearsheimer interview and context

Ferment Over 'The Israel Lobby' Philip Weiss, The Nation, April 27, 2006

It says a lot about the why and the how. It mentions more about the Atlantic rejection. I've already added one quote from Walt to his WikiQuote page. --70.48.70.121 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

hypothetical question on findley

According to the Paul Findley page, PF seems like a pretty respected guy. The Council he cofounded took out a full page ad in the NYT , containing some praise for M&W. Would anyone object to the addition of Paul Findley to the Praise section? Or is that guilt by association? :) 204.210.35.48 06:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Paul Findley article illustrates an inherant flaw with wikipedia. Often somebody like Paul Findley is presented as mainstream because of one or two willful POV pushing editors. In reality, Paul Findley is about as far away from mainstream as you can get.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to mention Paul Findley in this article at this moment but I would encourage you to cover adaquately what he does on his page -- and on the CNI page. --70.48.70.121 13:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

contest

Instead of trying to write a coherent and fair account of the paper, the editors here are engaged in a p*ssing contest; the two sides do nothing but try to outdo each other in finding experts supporting their biases. I'm embarrassed to be part of this whole endeavor. By the way, I just added Freedman and Morris to the Criticism section. :) 204.210.35.48 10:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What should we do? I guess the problem is that initially, especially early on, the coverage of the paper focused mostly on other people charging the authors with anti-Semitism or their support that David Duke offered, see [22]. I guess we are at a stage of accomdiation rather than just assimulation in the language of Jean Piaget. There are WP:NOR guidelines that have to be followed. Also this is a current event and thus it is hard to describe the "tragectory of history" when one has no perspective or clue as to how it ends. In a way we are just providing without commentary a summary of the debate between intellectuals -- which is fine by me. --70.48.70.121 13:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Morris agrees with some points and disagrees with others is precisely what he predicts people will do - unrightfully so, in the beginning of his essay - "some of this is correct, and I realize as I write this sentence that it will henceforth be trotted out by the Mearsheimers and Walts of the world, as by their Arab admirers, while they omit the previous sentence and all that now follows." --Israelish 19:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Benny agrees with some facts but admittedly he disagrees with the inferences on which they are based. Your revision, on the other hand, had quotes that were repetitive in content. I've replaced it with an alternative passage. Precis 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why no "Oil Lobby" or "Arab Lobby" articles?

One imbalance here, and it is implicit, is the singling out of the "Israel lobby" for documentation in wikipedia. It is clear that there are also an "oil lobby", an "Arab lobby", a "Christian lobby", a "Hispanic lobby", etc....

It would be interesting to document how these lobbies affect public discourse in the US as a whole -- their standard techniques, etc. For this purpose, it may also be useful to create a meta-article called "Lobbying in the U.S." (or something similar) which brings all of these lobbies together so that people can understand that while in isolation the "Israel lobby" can be made to look "suspicious" with its "attempts" to influence government, but put in proper context it behaves very similarly to other foreign-entity, religious or ethnically-based lobbies. --64.230.126.192 18:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing or at least paraphrasing content

I really think it is time to just summarize the content instead of taking up half the article with quotes. I would do it but I figure there are other people who may be more capable. As it currently stands it is not only tedious to read, but also may constitute a copyright violation. I really don't see how it is in any POV's interest to not change anything. Does anybody else agree with me here?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Mearsheimer and Walt's expose' on the pervasive influence of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on American politics, policy, and institutions resonates today as never before. With careful documentation and specific case histories, they demonstrate how the Israel Lobby helps to shape important aspects of U.S. foreign policy and influences congressional, senatorial, and even presidential elections. Described are the undue influence AIPAC exerts in the Senate and the House and the pressure AIPAC brings to bear on university professors and journalists who seem too sympathetic to Arab and Islamic states and too critical of Israel and its policies. In addition, the lack of open debate among politicians with regard to the U.S. policy in the Middle East is lamented, and AIPAC is blamed in part for this censorship. Connections are drawn between America's unconditional support of Israel and the raging anti-American passions around the world-and ultimately the tragic events of 9/11."

If this sounds familiar, see [23] . Precis 12:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Moshe that a summary would be better than a list of quotes (not this summary, of course). —Ashley Y 18:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to start it, and then the rest of us can collectively edit it? I would understand if you don't though, since I really don't want to start it either, it feels more like a school assignment I suppose.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

removing quotes

As more and more start weighing in on the paper (the latest is Fisk in the Independent), the Praise and Criticisms sections get more and more onerous. It might make sense to send all quotes in these sections to Wikiquotes, keeping only the names of the authors and the links to their articles. A summary of the main disputes should be written before removing the quotes. 204.210.35.48 07:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

john fund quote on cole

Isn't Tony Judt a notable US academic? 204.210.35.48 02:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

He was born in London. Precis 06:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Response from Writers in London Review of Books

Yep, you can see the response at the link. [24]--Jersey Devil 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Massing in NYRB

"Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations?" in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with such force as "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," by professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government"

"The nasty campaign waged against John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt has itself provided an excellent example of the bullying tactics used by the lobby and its supporters. The wide attention their argument has received shows that, in this case, those efforts have not entirely succeeded. Despite its many flaws, their essay has performed a very useful service in forcing into the open a subject that has for too long remained taboo."

From Michael Massing: The Storm over the Israel Lobby, New York Review of Books, June 8, 2006. --64.230.127.33 18:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Massing belongs in both "mixed reviews" (where he has been put) and "responses to criticism". —Ashley Y 22:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole's petition

I think it counts as a development, doesn't it? I think we should mention it. —Ashley Y 05:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was that big of a deal. We should only use blogs in rare cases. Since Cole has commented on the paper in places other than his personal blog we shouldn't have to use it as a source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we remove Melanie Phillips as well? —Ashley Y 05:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, my reasoning would be that she has not commented on the paper anywhere else besides her blog, we wouldn't be able to mention her at all, but since cole has commented other places his response could still stand.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Petition" is not a "development" it's soapboxing -exactly what control is COPOMAJO supposed to have over "baseless charges of anti-Semitism" anyway? In any case, my intention was to remove the blogged chaff like that, not the Salon content. --Armon 06:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that removing this detail leads to balance problems. Al 06:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, there still many critics from both sides present, and its not even like we are removing any reference to Cole, just a loaded petition from his blog meant to mischarcterize his oppenents. It doesn't affect the balance one bit.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Essentially, you're allowing a blog in one place but not in another, with the goal of silencing someone you disagree with. See why I object? Al 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Once again I am not "silencing" Juan Cole, his paragraph still contains more info than most other critics. His "petition" is not particulary relavent to the article and it only comes from his blog. The only place Melanie Philips commented on the paper is her blog, so if we want to include anything about her we have no choice but to use a blog as a source, to include something from Juan Cole we can just as easily use other more reputable sources.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The petition is a reaction to the paper's reception, so it is indeed relevant to this section. Moreover, the petition has made international news, thanks to Eve Fairbanks's piece [25] in the LA Times (reprinted even in Taiwan's China Post). Precis 10:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That article seems to indicate that the petition isn't very noteworthy or important.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The petition itself may be unimportant, but Fairbanks points to it as a noteworthy example of how academicians are circumventing the core issues in the debate. The medium is the message. Precis 11:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips has no particular qualification on the subject, and she is posting in her own personal blog. Her only claim to notability is that she also writes articles for newspapers, but this is not that. Cole, by contrast, is a professor specialising in the Middle East. In addition, if anti-Semitism is a serious charge, and I think it is, then developments relating to that charge are noteworthy. —Ashley Y 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My view is that for the most part anybody who claims "expertise" in modern politics is using imaginary criteria. The only thing that one really needs to know to be just as capable of formulating an intelligent opinion on politics is to be familar enough with the history of whatever region is being talked about. As much as some people want to believe there is nothing that makes someone "better" than others at political science, it is not math, to get attention all one needs is some kind of academic position, a view that shows the smallest example of novelty, and the will to draw attention to yourself. As innovative as people like Noam Chomsky are in their respective fields, when they try their hands at political commentary they are no more innovative than anyone else.

Anyways I guess I will accept the removal of all blogs including philips'- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Administrators, please alert to : User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg is persistently censoring/vandalizing this site and AIPAC site, exercising POV bias in stripping out references to pertinent, factual books by former Congressman Paul Findley. Dogru144 02:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

IRmep in external links

We went over this a long time ago. IRmep does not meet the criteria for reputability and reliability as per WP:RS. It is obviously excessively bias boarderling propaganda. I am once again removing it from the external links.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We went over it, but not all of us agreed with you. Unfortunately, you do seem to have the habit of removing items that you happen to disagree with, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. As a result, this article is now biased. Al 16:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed, even if it were true that IRmep was a completly neutral website which it isn't, it is not being directly used as a reference for any above claim, the only thing that results from its removal is one less link at the bottom of the page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect neutrality is not a requirement for external links. Likewise, it is not necessary for that site to be directly referenced in the article. You appear to be using criteria of your own creation. And, yes, I did notice your snippy little remark before you remvoed it, but I'm going to take that removal as an apology. Al 16:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Criteria of my own creation huh? Sorry buddy but the guidelines are clear that we are not to include such bias websites anywhere in the article except in very limited situations. Please read WP:RS before accusing me of making up rules.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, external links are governed by WP:EL, not WP:RS because they are external links, not sources. Of course, WP:EL appears to incorporate WP:RS by reference, at least in part, so I'm not sure where that gets you. TheronJ 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that only time that an external link can be as biased as the one that is being argued over is in special circumstances, like when the bias website is the subject of the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

AIPAC defenders & censorship / vandalism

Readers/ editors should be aware of vigilant censorship/ vandalism:

An editor (al Siverburg) has just vandalized/ censored a reference on AIPAC article on a book by former Congressman Paul Findley. Editor made unsubstantiated charge that Findley is linked with Holocaust deniers. Editor is exercising POV censorship of reality of this book and its revelations. Dogru144 19:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not slander other editors, with charges involving censorship and vandalism. Read WP:VAND to learn the difference between vandalism and content dispute. As for the issue at hand, Findley is far from mainstream, but so are some of the sources already there. In my opinion, you have every right to put links to Findley in the EL section; see WP:EL.(Note that Findley is even mentioned in the main article.) Precis 21:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will not use those terms in a personal manner.

But please explain how this is not censorious to to delete books. He has stripped out AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby. Yet he has left intact a reference to a group that is acting to bar Israeli interests from Washington. I am being a gentleman and am not stripping out that reference. I hope that we can follow Voltaire and Diderot and allow for free access to information. When one erases reference to a book one is censoring. When one erases a cross reference one is censoring. Please look up the definition of censor. I appreciate that you agree to my right to include Findlay as a link. But please note that in the past 16 hours Al-Silverburg has engaged in an edit war on this matter. One should not conduct disputes in this manner. It is for this reason that I used the term 'vandalism'. He should address his concerns in this manner. Dogru144 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Precis, cool name BTW, I checked and I did not find Findley mentioned in this article. (I'm responding to your reference to his appearance on the 'main article.') Being in or out of the mainstream needs more explanation. Al-Silverburg has been repeatedly making his accusations, without authoritative, verifiable citations. Dogru144 03:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the burden of proof is on the person who is advocating the inclusion of what is being discussed. It is your responsibility to explain why it is necessary to incorporate more external links, particularly ones that have such potential to turn into divisive and inflammatory issues as anything that involves Paul Findley does.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of vandalism when my edit was nothing of the sort. I removed your links because I did not think they were particularly relevant. In fact I think that much of Findleys work is quite unencyclopedic. I understand he was mentioned in this article, so I suppose I would agree with the book that most talked about the M & W paper, but in further inclusion would be inappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright MCHAS, please explain how

• The Council for the National Interest, a Washington lobby working for restrictions on the power of the pro-Israel lobby.

is not a POV reference; and AIPAC is. Your conduct, and stripping/deleting (how can this not be recognized as anything but censorious?) without explanation on discussion page is what prompts me to make my charges. As I said above, please act allow for free discussion. I am not stripping out CNI. Have I accused you of POV for including it? Dogru144 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise I will keep the the AIPAC link, but I am removing the Paul Findley books from the external links. While you never said I was being "pov" you have accused me several times of vandalism and censorship which is even more unwarranted.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Dogru says above "I will not use those terms in a personal manner". Seventeen minutes later on the main page, Dogru repeats the false accusations of censorship and vandalism. (And referring to an edit as "vandalized" is personal when it is clear who made the edit.) Removal of material during a content dispute is not censorship or vandalism, otherwise many of the editors here would be censors and vandals. Judging by Dogru's attempts to rationalize continued accusations of vandalism, it appears that advice to read WP:VAND has been ignored.
• I disagree with the reverts of Dogru's external links at AIPAC. As I pointed out earlier, Findley is mentioned on the main page at AIPAC, but that is not my only rationale. The EL section there is allowed to express points of view both for and against AIPAC. Since Findley's book directly attacks AIPAC, it is relevant there. As for EL for The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, it is proper to remove external links that don't relate to the M&W paper . (Does that mean I support censorship? ) On the other hand, Findley's published remarks directly praising M&W could properly go into the Reception section of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Admirers of M&W might not welcome such an addition, because, as I've said, Findley is far from mainstream. This is a man who, in a filmed interview for a neo-Nazi organization, expressed agreement with the slogan "America rules the world, but Israel rules America." See CNI. Precis 10:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the descriptive note next to CNI, since parties above have removed descriptive notes for AIPAC. Also, I have restored the AIPAC reference. The above parties have not given a rationale for stripping out AIPAC and including CNI. It is not fair and consistent to have a descriptive note for one lobby and not the other lobby. It is simply a fact that both of these are lobbies. They are both most pertinent to this article. So, please account for (a) stripping out one of these, and (b) providing a descriptive note for one, and stripping out a note on the other. Findley has no pertinence to the current discussion of whether or not to include either of these references on the see also note. Dogru144 21:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See Also section

I added a "See Also" link to the Wik article on The Council for the National Interest [26], a Washington lobbying group taking a position similar to the paper's, and which regards the pro-Israel lobby's influence as excessive. Maybe other See Also links might involve articles on Lobbying in general. --Roger Skye 15:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

duplication in external links

The Massing article, currently reference #25, has just been inserted as an external link. Why the duplication? Precis 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

editorialising

I just removed a passage from an offending editor that ends with: "Most of the critics are in fact Jewish or descendents of Jewish parent." While this may be true, it doesn't belong in this article any more than "Most of the approbation comes from non-Jews." This editor repeatedly violates WP:OR by providing his own analysis, and his remarks are misplaced and off topic. Precis 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the entire thing consists of original research; he is attempting to present a novel thesis regarding the reaction to this paper. If he wants to include this material he needs to do it from a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I only stated the obvious since most of the listed critics in the criticism section are in fact Jewish. An encyclopedia is based on facts and I cited facts, or what people and newspapers have cited around this research paper. I have provided facts relating to the paper and its perception, since 75% of the page is about the perception and reception of the research, and not about the paper itself. And "offending" is to delete other's contribution to the page, which is described as Wikipedia:Vandalism. Akolsrud 03:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I´m afraid that I´m partly to blame for Akolsrud wrong perception of "Vandalism" on WP. His first edit here (removal of the whole critisism section) was reversed by another editor with the edit-line "Reverting vandalism". I reversed his second, similar edit, giving the edit-line "rv vandalism by Akolsrud, to last version of MER-C". I also placed a Template:Test2a (Second level warning) on his (new) talk-page. I apologise for this..that is, I do not apologize for reverting his edits, but for calling them "vandalism". I now understand that they were indeed a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia", and therefore not "vandalism" as WP defines it. Regards, Huldra 16:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Removal of original research is far from vandalism--in fact, it is encouraged by Wikipedia. Please read WP:VAND again and again until you understand it. The (unsigned) charges of vandalism you are leaving on my user page are completely inappropriate.
• You seem to think you should be immune from criticism if you simply state facts. But your choice of facts demonstrates an extremely biased point of view, one that violates WP:NPOV. Let's say that almost everyone in the auditorium cheated on the SAT exam, and Mr.X writes "Every Muslim in the auditorium cheated on the exam." Mr.X should not be excused, even if he is being factual. Precis 07:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You also need to re-read WP:RS, which allows for use of self-published sources when is it written by a "well-known professional journalist" whose "work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications" and who is "writing under their own name". Melanie Philips certainly qualifies. By the way, that Philips section you deleted was another editor's "contribution to the page"; do you plan to post a vandalism notice on your own User page now? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This section needs a "neutral" overhaul.

Critics of the research paper are using this page to continue their smear-campaign against the two scholars. Right now the Critics page is drawing attenation away from the paper and its content. Citing sources that says "entitled to their stupidity", "obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews", "dishonest so-called intellectuals". In addition, introducing Ku Klux Klan as source is way out of Wikipedia's line of policy. This is not a battle ground for Jewish fanatics and White Supremacist to battle out their opinions.

The Praise and Criticism section should be combined into one paragraph saying: the paper received mixed responses both condeming and praising their research".

Administrator: I urge you to seriously apply Wikipedia's policy to this topic. Akolsrud 16:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Which policies do you think are being violated, and how? I must say, so far you haven't shown a very good understanding of policy, which is entirely understandable, given that you are a new editor, but I think you need to get quite specific. It's hard to understand how removing relevant, encyclopedic and cited sources, and replacing them with a brief paragraph filled with unsourced weasel words is in line with policy. Also, which "jewish fanatics" are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Akolsrud wrote: In addition, introducing Ku Klux Klan as source is way out of Wikipedia's line of policy. Once again this shows a misunderstanding of policy (let alone facts). David Duke's support of M&W was highly publicized in the press, and Wikipedia reported on coverage of this controversy by reliable sources. That's perfectly within policy. Precis 22:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator, I add my request for neutrality oversight. I do not concur with the emotional and charged phrases (such as the offensive "jewish fanatics" [sic]) included above. However, it is apparent that there is significant disagreement and there is an ungentlemanly edit war going on, in this site. Some continuing oversight by administrators is definitely warranted. Dogru144 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

ori nir and martin peretz entries

This edit is a vast improvement over your previous edits, from the point of view of POV, but it is unsatisfactory for other reasons. In the Peretz entry, the English is so convoluted that it's not even clear what is being said. It may be advisable to avoid paraphrasing and use direct quotations. The Nir entry is misplaced--it belongs in section 3.1, not 2.1. Precis 09:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the directions. I moved the Nir entry and decided to delete the Peretz entry since it seems to go on a tangent to the topic. If I am wrong on this entry please feel free to revert my decision. Sincerely 70.112.169.71 16:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, I realized that I wasn't signed in when doing the changes. Sincerely, Akolsrud 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think the Nir entry is misplaced, because it has now been added to the list of points M&W were making in their letter to the LRB. Perhaps put it at the very bottom or top of 3.1 Precis 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)