Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Israel lobby in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename

[edit]

to Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States since that actually describes the content. Most of these organisations are not actually "anti-Israel", they just oppose certain Israeli policies. —Ashley Y 04:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree enthusiastically. We could then take the anti-Israel out of the lead, as well. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. csloat (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Like the pro-Israel lobby, the anti-Israel lobby is defined mostly by its enemies. "Opposition to the Israel lobby" is just a more wordy and euphemistic title of "Anti-Israel lobby." And as far as degrees are concerned, most of these lobbies verge on the side of extremity - i.e, they totally reject the very existence and legality of Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep the title as it is, we would have to remove reference to all organisations that do not explicitly call for the disestablishment of Israel. Mere accusation by pro-Israel sources is insufficient for neutrality (unless we went for "Allegations of anti-Israel lobbying in the United States", which would be unnecessary). —Ashley Y 06:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Israel lobby does not explicitly imply groups that promote the destruction or removal of Israel from Earth. Just as Pro-Israel lobby does not explicitly mean a perpetual erection for all things Jews. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, "explicit" and "imply" are opposites. Which are you going for here? Second, "anti-Israel" means "against Israel" -- against the state, or the entity, not against the policies. Third, there is no "Pro-Israel lobby" article that I'm aware of. Fourth, why would you link to the word "erection" in your comment except to troll? Finally, there is not a clear (third party) body of literature supporting the notion of an "Anti-Israel Lobby" and calling it that, so there is no reason for us to adopt the terminology of a radical fringe. csloat (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Israel means they are against any Israel whatever. Whereas many of these groups merely happen to oppose certain Israeli policies. —Ashley Y 06:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If this article continues to exist it needs a title abiding by WP:NPOV and WP:NC. The current title does not. The proposed one at least offers a proper scope where an encyclopedic article could actually be written, which thanks to Ravpapa is on its way. nableezy - 06:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does anti-Israel mean against Israel 100%? "Anti-" is synonymous with opposition. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point; see above. csloat (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think it should be merged with Israel lobby in the United States, since it would fit perfectly as a subsection there. 105.4.6.54 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifan, I am curious to know why you believe that many of the organizations refered to in the article "verge on the side of extremity - i.e, they totally reject the very existence and legality of Israel." You and Historicist and Carol have all made this claim, yet I saw no evidence of this in any of the published materials of the organizations, nor could I see it implicit in the positions and tactics they adopted. Statements from Israeli lobbyists to this effect were generally unsupported by detailed evidence. I don't know why this claim keeps surfacing.

If you have real evidence that any of these organizations seeks the destruction of Israel, we need to include it in the article. I mean something more substantial than "so-and-so said so." --Ravpapa (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will compile a list of references if Historicist doesn't before me (I'm busy tomorrow). Considering many of these organizations have strong ties to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the gulf states, the rhetoric is very consistent with their morally defective government benefactors. Comparing Israel to Nazis (which is very common in the Apartheid tours), Israel flag combined with fascist symbols, etc...all verge on the side of extremity and can be categorized in the pertinent category. I've seen it personally, though that wouldn't very relevant as far as wikipedia is concerned. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're looking for this article rather than the one you're on. csloat (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I think we do need an article about world wide opposition specifically to the Israel lobbies of many nations (US, Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany, other Euro nations especially). That can be created whatever happens with this article. We also need Israel lobby to change from being a mere disambiguation page to being a page outlining activities of the Israel lobby in those nations. I've been accumulating info but just too busy with other stuff to do it. Guess I could start a stub. Someday...
To be clear I did not say that listed groups want to abolish Israel. Just that obviously many Muslim and Arab and radical groups do (including many One-state solution groups. But they are not the ones attacked by those who use the pejorative "anti-Israel lobby" phrase. One reason because they aren't as easily intimidated as groups that don't mind or even support Israel surviving. Also, perhaps because many aren't lobbyists, but groups that dream of military or demographic success. But obviously the previous list and current list does not contain such groups. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are you talking about groups like Hamas? That's odd, because the article is talking about groups like AFSC and MPAC, about which the claim that they "want to abolish Israel" or that they "dream of military or demographic success" is beyond ludicrous. csloat (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand me. I know there are groups, not a few, that want to see Israel blown away. But they do not have Washington lobbies, and therefore are not relevant to this article. Or, if they do have lobbies, I don't know about them - they should be added and their specific viewpoints included.

This article talks specifically about lobbyists, not about all organized anti-Israel sentiment in the United States. Let's stick to the subject at hand. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carol's change to the lead

[edit]

Carol, your change in the lead that "anti-Israel lobby is a phrase used almost exclusively by pro-Israel writers and organizations" is in direct contradiction to the last paragraph of the section on history. If you want to say this, you have to support it somehow in the body of the article. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me I just moved that up from lower down in the lead - I don't know who put it there but I think it is an appropriate summary, especially since I'm taking out all the sources and info that do NOT label a group anti-Israel, unless someone else already has. But those sources themselves don't count toward the lead if they don't use the phrase. You have to admit it's less wordy. Also, please remove my name from the section title since some could consider that WP:harass. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carol did the same in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and edit-warred out any additions (several others did as well). It's really offense to tag organizations with "Pro-Israel, Pro-Jew, etc.." in such a pejorative manner. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed Wikifan's comment above. I can't even figure out/remember what you are referring to another article in first sentence, so how does it edify this discussion? Second sentence makes even less sense, since it would seem to argue against the very title of this article, which you have voted not to change. Please be more clear in your comments. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massive WP:BLP violations I'm reverting

[edit]

Actually reading sources carefully since your changes, I noticed that there was all sorts of info about groups that NO ONE had labeled with the phrase "anti-Israel lobby." This is a prima facie violation of WP:BLP. Only if someone else explicitly labels theses groups "anti-Israel lobby" can you mention them in this article. If it's not in the summary or a quote, put it in a footnote.

Also please notice when people put up {inuse|90 minutes to go through sources} to show they are editing and don't interrupt. Because of the I accidentally left the old version but went back and got the almost finished version and am putting it back as one revert. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been assuming Lewis actually used phrase "anti-Israel lobby" but reading/search through, he doesn't. So everything he says must be taken out UNLESS another WP:RS labels a specific group anti-Israel. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Search of David Harris book shows he doesn't use the phrase either. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I worte the article in line with it's actual subject matter: explanation of a phrase used largely one narrow group - and BLP since articles which did not use phrase were quoted. I may have missed a couple of those. (See article Jewish lobby where this rule was similarly strictly enforced by User:Jayjg.)
If you want to re-add any group that do so from a source that actually uses "Anti-Israel lobby." THere are some, but I've done lots of work to keep article from being complete coatrack/blp violation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly massive disruption of a better approach also. Please see my comment at the AfD. Thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, couldn't figure out which comment it was. Feel free to share here, especially if article not dumped.
I think it is more deletable in former version where clearly ad hominen attack. On the other hand, it may be kept anyway! If it is, if the users and their POVs are identified (I see one wasn't and needs to be) it makes a more accurate article for those who drift over here.
Also, I'm confidant some source calling whole phrase pejorative will be found - so far only have found "anti-Israel" as pejorative. But I'm sure that's relevant! CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just notice it is being kept - and probably would have in last version as well given the comment. So now we have to gather evidence it is a pejorative used by partisans for the lead and make sure that all the partisans don't try to white wash that fact. Then in few months try again since pejorative nature will be clear and hopefully the partisan POV pushers will have given up. Now, to start the article on the pejorative phrase Israel firster or not - that is the question. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

renaming

[edit]

Since the outcome of the deletion discussion was to leave the article, I suggest we proceed with the steps needed to make it worth something. First of all, I suggest that we rename it as per Ashley's suggestion: "Opposition to the Israel Lobby in the United States". Second, I suggest that we remove the words "anti-Israel" entirely from the article. This is obviously a source of contention that cannot be resolved, at least among the current editors. Finally, I suggest that we restore the content relevant to the subject, that was deleted during the AFD discussion. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

set up a formal rename request below. nableezy - 17:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was no consensus, just like the AfD. GrooveDog (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Note from closing editor: I've read all the statements and counted poll votes here. From the poll alone, support for this move is approximately 56%. This is a majority, but it is in no way a consensus. While polling is indeed not a substitute for discussion, the poll/survey reinforces the lack of consensus in the Discussion section of this request. Arguments suggest that if the move were completed, the article would require a substantial rewrite; this is not the intention of any move. I personally see no consensus to do anything at the moment. Those who want the page moved, as the article seems as if it will most likely require some changes when it gets to that title, I suggest that you begin developing something in your userspace and then bringing it for discussion here. If the userfied version is generally liked, it can be merged into this article and then moved, or simply moved. In conclusion, no consensus. Page remains.

{{movereq}}

Anti-Israel lobby in the United States → Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States — for the reasons given at #Rename and #renaming Nableezy 17:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

LoverOfTheRussianQueen, can you define "opposition to Israel itself" and give an example in which the ADC demonstrated that their activities are opposing Israel itself? Or any of the other listed groups or people? nableezy - 21:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ADC is but one of many organizations and individuals named in the article. It may or may not not be opposed to Israel , but others clearly are. Lobbying the US gov't against recognition of Israel (as the Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land did) is opposition to Israel itself. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a page about organizations that specifically oppose the existence of Israel remove the ones that do not. nableezy - 21:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want such a page. I want a page that discusses what has been called the "Anti-Israel lobby" - a lobby whose actions include opposition to Israel, opposition to Israeli policies, and opposition to the power and influence wielded by the pro-Israel lobby. That is this page. You are the one who is apparently wants to have a page about people and organizations that specifically oppose the Israeli lobby - go ahead and create that page. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you want us to use a definition for anti-Israel to include opposition to policies of the Israeli government on the basis of self-identified "pro-Israel" groups use that definition? And you see nothing wrong with that? Have you read WP:NPOV? nableezy - 22:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want us to use the definition of "anti-Isreal Lobby" as it is used by academic sources and journalists. Kindly refrain from patronizing me. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lest we forget Nableezy, the perception of the "pro-Israel lobby" has been created by its enemies. There are legitimate criticisms of Israel, but these organizations revolve around de-legitimizing the state and promoting detachment. This isn't just about "policies." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that AIPAC describes itself as "America's pro-Israel lobby" and that the ADL says that they, among other things obviously, "defends the security of Israel and Jews worldwide". These are self-described pro-Israel organizations. Do you see nothing wrong with defining a group based on their political adversaries? Should Barack Obama be based on the rantings of Rush Limbaugh? Just take this out of the normal sphere of Israel/Palestine article, where bullshit usually trumps everything else, and tell me you think that an encyclopedia should be defining groups based on what their opponents say of them. I have no problem with including material on so and so said this group is anti-Israel, but saying that groups form an anti-Israel lobby because the self-describe pro-Israel lobby says so is nonsense. nableezy - 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ADL does not describe itself as a pro-Israel lobby (nor is it exclusive to Israel) and many Jewish groups by virtue of promoting relationships with Israel have been couched into this demonized box of "Pro-Israel lobby." See The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you an exact quote from the ADL mission, they do describe themselves as pro-Israel, they may not describe themselves as a lobby. And you didnt answer my questions. nableezy - 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that article is not titled "anti-Palestinian lobby" though I can come up with the same quality sources this article has describing the ADL, AIPAC, and many other organizations as such. nableezy - 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There probably are some lobby groups that are actually anti-Israel (does the Ku Klux Klan have a lobby?) , but a number of the groups discussed in this article are not. Opposing the pro-Israel lobby is not an explicitly anti-Israel stance, nor is opposing the U.S. foreign aid to Israel that the lobbies push for – both are stances towards U.S. foreign and domestic policy, not towards Israel. If I oppose welfare (financial assistance paid to poor people by governments), that doesn't make me explicitly anti-poor people. I can oppose the government giving money to the poor for any number of other, legitimate reasons. ← George [talk] 02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fair comparison. These groups that claim to be representing the Palestinians/Arabs lobby almost exclusively against US support for Israel - which is vital for its continuation as a sovereign nation. They aren't criticizing policies other than the fact that the US recognizes Israel to be an ally. This is extreme, and could easily be qualified as anti-Israel. There are many critics of the country, including myself but it doesn't mean I want it gone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show how the ADC wants Israel "gone"? nableezy - 02:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An extremely large number of people oppose the "pro-Israel" lobby for purely financial reasons (the five billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars sent annually to Israel by the US). Likewise, many oppose US support for Israel's foreign and domestic policy towards the Palestinians or Lebanon (in the 2006 Lebanon War). That doesn't make them explicitly anti-Israel. One can oppose support for Israel for what they see as the IDF committing war crimes, or what they see as racism against Arabs, or oppose what they see as violating the human rights of Palestinians, or oppose what they see as Israeli apartheid, without opposing Israel's right to exist as a nation, which is what the phrase anti-Israel implies. (Btw, those aren't my personal views, but views some have). Anti-Israel has a very different meaning that those other views, and mixing the groups together, and blurring the line between them (as this article does) is highly disingenuous. ← George [talk] 03:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's ~2.5 billion in earmarked dollars, and the opposition to the financial endorsement specifically is never a reason. Ever. We have invested and continue to give far more money to the Arab states (with little to no regulation), and there has been less complaining. Thanks for the rant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The amount isn't import to this discussion, so let's not get sidetracked. My (limited) understanding is that the financial impact of the "pro-Israel" lobby is one of the complaints against it that has no inherent opposition to the existence of Israel. This wasn't a rant, but I'll kindly remind the editor to review Wikipedia's policy on civility. ← George [talk] 05:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unrelated to the topic at hand
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This obsession with foreign aid has to stop. Israel and the United States are military allies that dates back to the the war of independence. Please don't cite civility rules when you couch in obviously POV factoids to promote misinformation.

Since the 1970s, Egypt has received 50 billion in free money with no earmarks. Money is divided into economic/military but the country is not restricted in purchasing US weapons exclusively or limits on how much they can buy. Their treatment of the Sudanese refugees and their complicity in the Darfur war (which greatly surpasses whatever is going on in the territories) plays no role in how much money is given. US also dubiously nullified a 20 billion loan (article says half - it is now 20 billion) it accumulated following its participation in the Gulf War. At the same time, the US has continued to deny Israel arms intermittently while promoting the flow of weapons unconditionally in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Jordan.

Saudi Arabia became a permanent "rivaling" ally during the Gulf War. We went to war on behalf of the country, and now contain a fluctuation base of ~5,000 soldiers.

Saudi Arabia has been allowed to buy 100bill+ of discounted weapons since 1991, which has created an arms race among the Middle Eastern countries. Our relationship with the country has been odd - it seems the oil-rich nation needs us more than we need them resource-wise (we now buy more oil from Canada because Saudi oil is far from predictable), but from a military perspective a relationship makes sense. But it's been compromised. It was discovered that even after 9/11 the Saudi's have been paying protection money - 100 millions+ annually - to Al Queda and other terror groups.

This is not unique, Qatar - another crucial US gulf ally - has been implicated in paying protection money to Al-Queda operations in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has received 6 billion in foreign aid on a temporary basis since 2001. Most of it has been siphoned to various groups that have done little to empower Pakistan's stance against the Taliban - mainly because it government has collaborated with the group for over 20 years.

At the same time, Bleeding-heart Arab countries who criticize Israel have yet to fulfill their promises of aid to the PA, and owe about 700 million - 1 billion. The United States remains the single largest donor of money to the Palestinian Authority - over 560 million in 2008 alone. This a combination of both the UNRWA (which is almost exclusively funded by the US) and UNISPAL. It is not known how much is siphoned off to militant groups or non-humanitarian agendas currently, but under Arafat it was in the low billions. EU cuts aid, finally

Also, a little factoid - but before the Palestinian Authority the PLO amassed 10-15 billion dollar fortune through drug trafficking, extortion, fraud, etc between the 1970s-early 1990s.

Palestinian Authority is expected to receive 7.5 billion in aid between now and 2010, on top of whatever else they are getting now. Like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc...a lack of restrictions has created immense amount of corruption and a large portion of the funds end up paying bloated (but undisclosed) salaries or finding its way into buying arms, bombs, etc.

Israel typically sends about 500 million - 600 million in taxes from East Jerusalem and the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority annually. This is subject to sanctions pending suicide bombings, rocket attacks, or failure to meet certain conditions, etc..etc..

US practically gives unconditional support for the Arab and Islamic governments, either through indifference or free money, which has compromised Israel's security. Whatever money we give them is just enough to contain the arms race and ensure everyone's happy. These countries don't need lobbies, they are given blank cheques without preconditions. But every penny we give to Israel has a price, and it takes millions of dollars in lobbying to keep the money coming.

Oh yeah, and the trillions we're spending on Iraq, of which 300 billion has been lost due to clerical error.:D

I know this is a super long explanation but it is very depressing for people to dubiously bring up the pennies we hand over to Israel while acting totally oblivious to the kind of harsh cash and political influence we give elsewhere. If you believe aid to Israel is conditional on what goes on in the Palestinian territories - I'd assume you will apply that same moral card to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Palestinian Authority, etc..etc..because they've received a whole lot more than Israel ever will and are rarely punished for the people that suffer under them.

Among crisis groups, the Palestinians place 2nd in foreign aid and economic assistance - only second behind Congo. But remember, Congo endured a war that killed 3.5 million people, created millions of refugees, and still 10,000 die every month from disease (down from 40,000 a couple years ago). A sharp, sharp contrast compared to the Palestinians.

So anyways. I like to rant too. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! this is great. I love these arguments on Wikipedia, they are so convincing!
Anyway, I have created a page, Talk:Anti-Israel lobby in the United States/rants just for you guys to slug it out, while we others discuss the merits of renaming the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kick-ass. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in any discussions that sidetrack the one being discussed here – that is, the renaming of the article – nor will I get dragged into any such argument, so enjoy yourself. ← George [talk] 07:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I win then. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not acceptable to claim that various organisations are "anti-Israel", vaguely defined, on the say-so of various pro-Israel groups. Furthermore, there's a great deal of original research and synthesis being used to claim that various groups here are "anti-Israel", for instance the claim that US support for Israel is vital for its survival, therefore a group that opposes such support must be "anti-Israel". —Ashley Y 07:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minus the pathos, it's true. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might think so, but that is no concern of Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 08:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just go ahead and do the rename at this point. —Ashley Y 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor(s) who proposed the rename is/are the same one(s) who opened the recent AfD. My concern lies in the fact that because attempts to delete it via AfD were unsuccessful, a different route is now being attempted to try to achieve the same result; that route being the renaming of the article and removal of content which some editors don't like. --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That happens frequently enough, but here the content has already been removed as OR under this title. Renaming the article, or creating a new one would allow restoration of some of that content.John Z (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. The rename was brought up in the AfD by Ashley Y (I think) and by Ravpapa in the section immediately before this one. The rename was brought up because this is a bullshit name for a bullshit article and a real article could be written on "Opposition to the Israel lobby" that satisfies the <personal attack not typed> editors who are hell-bent on maintaining that anybody who isnt "pro-Israel" (whatever that means) must be anti-Israel. And there is only one of me. nableezy - 06:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::::I offer my apologies to you, Nableezy, as I seem to have missed reading the sub-section discussing whether or not to hold a "vote" on a title change; The discussions on this and other related articles have become so long and in-depth, that occasionally I overlook a comment or two (we're all human, right?). That said, I still have concerns about this article being nominated for a rename so soon after an AfD where a consensus to delete it was not reached. --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy is right, I proposed the rename in the AfD, —Ashley Y 08:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nsaum75, I think part of the reason the AfD was no consensus was because while most people could see the article subject was problematic, some thought it should be deleted, and some thought it should be renamed. The arguments in favour of the current title are very poor and seem to be based on opinion without attention to neutrality. —Ashley Y 09:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are five editors who oppose the rename, versus 11 that support it. That is a clear majority, but certainly not consensus. Because of the somewhat contentious nature of the article, I am hesitant to make a major change like a rename without real consensus.

I therefore make the following suggestion: Since the opposition is predicated on the belief that "anti-Israel lobby" is a different topic from "Opposition to the Israel lobby", I suggest that we start a new article with the new title, and leave this one as it is. When the new article is written, we can then reconsider whether two articles are necessary, or one is sufficient.

Please bash this idea, especially those who oppose the rename. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of those articles would be a clear POV-fork, so bad idea. I say let this run its course and have an admin close it. See where we are then and decide what to do going forward. If a clique of editors is determined to maintain such a clearly NPOV-violative title then so be it. I dont plan on responding by writing an anti-Palestinian lobby article, or anti-Arab lobby, or anti-Islam lobby, or anti-Christianity lobby, or anti-human rights lobby and including groups like AIPAC or the ADL or people like Dershowitz or any number of others based on quotes and opinions calling this people one of these things (and those quotes are easily obtainable), but it would not shock me if somebody else did. nableezy - 06:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While numbers certainly aren't everything, I think it's currently 13 in favor, and 5 opposed. That said, I'm not entirely opposed to having two articles on this subject. However, I just don't think this article will stand the test of time. Article titles are allowed to use POV words, such as massacre or genocide, when those words are the common' word used to describe something, or most reliable sources use that term. In this case, two authors and three journalists for the Jerusalem Post don't form the sort of majority that would be required to use the POV term "anti-Israel", and most sources wouldn't call the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee "anti-Israel". We also have to be extremely careful listing people here, as I think this article will violate biography of living persons policy due to the ambiguous nature of the word itself. For instance, it currently lists Pat Buchanan as being a member of the anti-Israel lobby. To the lay person, this makes him sound like a member of some fringe organization like the Ku Klux Klan, Hamas, or Hezbollah. That's a violation of BLP. In general we shouldn't be using the label adopted by critics of a stance in the name for that stance's article. Take pro-choice advocates. Now, someone who is pro-life might label someone who is "pro-choice" a "baby killer", for instance. Now, does that mean that mean we should have an article titled "Baby killers in the United States" which lists people who are "pro-choice" or abortion doctors? Of course not, we title the articles for those stances based on what the group identifies them self as, and what most neutral, reliable sources refer to them as. ← George [talk] 06:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting idea. I think there would be a stronger case for deleting this article if we have that article. —Ashley Y 08:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be withdrawn now or what? It certainly would complicate things if it was changed to this brand new article which overlaps a new one otherwise created called Opposition in the United States to the Israeli Occupation‎. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Review of the article

[edit]

Being fairly new to Wikipedia, and a complete newcomer to this article... I was wondering if this article has ever had a Peer Review and if not what would regular contributors think of the idea of asking for one? There are a lot of very experienced editors out there who could give very useful and neutral advice on how we could improve this article (and let's face it, it needs improvement!) AreaControl (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read above you can see there has been a big controversy over title and contents of this article and a consensus is emerging to change name and contents. So it is far too early for peer review. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


me - this article is joke. critizism of israel is now considered an anti-Israel lobby? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.16.3.247 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]

There is a discussion about a proposed renaming of the article from Anti-Israel lobby in the United States → Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States, on the grounds that the organisations and individuals do not self-define as "anti-Israel" but rather as critics of specific US policies towards Israel and of specific Israeli policies.

Robofish explained the main concern here, IMHO. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't belong here

[edit]

Wikipedia itself is listed among the organisations that have been accused of being part of the 'anti-Israel lobby'. While the Jerusalem Post did make this allegation, it doesn't belong here, as this page is titled 'Anti-Israel lobby in the United States'. Wikipedia is not a uniquely American website, and the article in question made no mention of the United States. (Wikipedia is not a lobbying organisation either, but that's besides the point...) The Jerusalem Post's criticism of Wikipedia can be mentioned elsewhere (e.g. on the page Criticism of Wikipedia, or in an article on anti-Israel lobbying in general), but it doesn't belong on this article; I will remove it. Robofish (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia is anything it is Pro-Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place Supreme. Considering anti-Israel lobbying is principally in the United States (as is wikipedia - not lobbying), I'd imagine Jpost was targeting US-based org. I'd simply add a small tid-bit emphasizing this is about the "United States" because it's tough sell to remove something like that with such a weak excuse. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is an American organization trying to influence wikipedia in English in America, so obviously it is relevant. The deleted incident/phrase is also used in that WIKI article where CAMERA's infiltration of Wikipedia mentioned. The U.S. remains the country with the largest number of English speakers. Wikipedia originated in and is based in the US. What else does one need? Anyone else disagree or have other arguments before I put it back in? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Infiltrating" wikipedia? Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re infiltration, irrelevant to this issue so striking: you obviously have NOT read the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America wikipedia article which reads in part: A veteran Wikipedia editor, who according to Electronic Intifada, was "colluding with CAMERA, also provided advice to CAMERA volunteers on how they could disguise their agenda."[59]. According to the Electronic Intifada website, an e-mail by one member of the Google group advised that "One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted [sic] articles for one month until they [sic] interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia [sic] editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator."[59] "There is no need to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions," another e-mail recommended.[16] The veteran Wikipedia editor identified, in a 25 March email, another Wikipedia editor, whom he viewed as an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. The veteran editor instructed CAMERA operatives to work with and learn from the editor perceived to be an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. Excerpts of some of the e-mails were published in the July 2008 issue of Harper's Magazine under the title of ″Candid camera″.[60] In April 2008, CAMERA's "Senior Research Analyst" Gilead Ini would not confirm that the messages were genuine but maintained that there was a CAMERA email campaign which adhered to Wikipedia's rules.[61] In August 2008, Ini argued the excerpts published in Harper's Magazine were unrepresenative and that CAMERA had campaigned "toward encouraging people to learn about and edit the online encyclopedia for accuracy".[62] CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zomg!! Electronic Intifada, CAMERAS arch-nemesis (an organization that also happens to publish journals from name-brand holocaust deniers...ooolalala), lashes at CAMERA "operatives." Please Carol, virtually the entire I/P articles are loaded with herdish clans that seek to promote POVs in a group-like fashion. It goes both ways, except some people get caught and others do not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you wrote and it is WP:SOAPBOX and isn't relevant to this issue anyway so don't bother to respond. Why not strike your comments like I did - or we could use that nifty feature above to hide it. Anyway, it is clear that the Jerusalem post labels wikipedia (In English) as part of the anti-Israel lobby and that's the only issue of relevance. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather an accurate assessment in a way - considering wikipedia has been used to frame history by various editors partial to the Palestinian or Jewish narrative. I've seen editors cry out the "Jewpedia" claim quite often, some even prominent and respected users. So while I do agree Jpost assessment of wikipedia is inconsistent with consensus, I would hope there is some way we could flesh out the circumstances involved. You know, Western Europeans have progressively silenced and self-censored discussion about the betrayal of Czechoslovakia and German expulsion after WW2, and its presence in the mainstream has largely been downplayed as a result - replaced by the new Israel debacle. Perhaps I'm thinking out loud here - for the most part I agree with you. this certainly isn't unique, from a truth perspective. Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying there should there be a mention of the Jerusalem Post calling Wikipedia part of the "anti-Israel lobby" or not? Not clear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My friends, I have a dream

[edit]

My dream is that we can work together to produce a fine article on the important topic of this developing lobby in the United States. That we can do this through a process of true consensus, and that we can put aside our deepseated urges to bait the other side, and to reply with umbrage to posts which quite possibly were made with innocence.

To do this requires a tremendous act of will on everyone's part.

I know that the issues here run deep in each of us - myself included. But let us try, this once, to rise above the vitriol. Keep your posts directed to the subject at hand. Don't go roaming off the immediate topic, regardless of how great the urge. And cast your votes for or against with a spirit of cooperation and willingness to compromise for the sake of a consensus that embraces all our viewpoints end to end.

Do this for me. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't worked much on Israel lobby in the United States and haven't even read it lately, just a quick look at the structure is an example of a good way to describe groups that are networked to accomplish lobbying goals - assuming article renamed. Obviously the Israel lobby groups are much more tightly networked and better funded and united on their goals, but the variations can be reflected in a well written article on "opposition." Of course, there also must be an emphasis on what these groups are FOR, being it an even handed policy, getting all foreign lobbyists under control, opposition to specific policies, and supporting various alternatives, including the one that a Jewish state should never have been imposed by the big powers on Palestine, which is a legitimate anti-colonialist view point, as much as partisans might scream about it. (Also legitimate is view that Israelis had a right to self-determine a Jewish state on their justly acquired land, which is of course only a small percentage of what they currently occupy.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now here are the options:

  • Do nothing.
  • Rename the existing article and rewrite it.
  • Leave the existing article and write a new article. When the existing article comes up for AfD in another month or so, decide then whether to keep it or not.

I would like to see complete consensus before doing anything. That means, if everyone doesn't agree, one side has to change its mind. Now vote again, and feel free to change your vote as voting progresses. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could also attempt to improve this article while penning a new article as well; then allow nature to take its course. Or, perhaps, this article could be renamed something along the lines of "Anti-Israelism" or "Anti-Israeli sentiment" and its focus improved, seeing as how that is the nature of the lobbys which are opposed to Israel. There is already precedence for this in the articles on Anti-Americanism, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Armenianism etc..etc. There is an Anti-Zionism article already in existance, however it focuses on the whole of zionist opposition, not specifically the country of Israel and those who oppose her. --Nsaum75 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we already have Anti-Zionism? csloat (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes, and I commented on that above, but Anti-Zionism is opposition to the founding of Israel or a Jewish state, which began in the 1800s. Where as Anti-Israel/Anti-Israeli sentiment is opposition to policy and existence of the current country of Israel. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't see that the latter category makes any sense. It includes two totally different things -- "opposition to policy" (shared by groups such as, say, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, or even Israeli organizations like Yesh Gvul) and "opposition to existence" of Israel (which might include organizations like Hamas, I suppose). Also, what of organizations like Citizens for Global Solutions, who probably opposed the "existence of the current country of Israel" as part of their opposition to all nation-states; would these organizations be included as well? The big problem here, I think, is there really is no organized "anti-Israel lobby" in the US; it's just a political neologism that has been used in certain contexts in a very imprecise manner. csloat (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If existing article is kept, what changes do you think are needed? Do you understand I have carefully sourced only what (just barely sometimes) WP:RS call by the phrase "Anti-Israel lobby"? We can't do an article about any group that is not thusly characterized by WP:RS - and the POV of the WP:RS must be noted. And the fact that most groups don't WANT to be characterized that way means that some general caveats that groups do not describe themselves that way (like my new lead entry on those who deny it) OR actual denials must be included or it's violation of WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned wrote above: Where as Anti-Israel/Anti-Israeli sentiment is opposition to policy and existence of the current country of Israel. Again, according to which WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works by rough consensus, not complete consensus. Also, you don't need any consensus to start a new article. —Ashley Y 07:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant existing categories and articles

[edit]

To inform both keep and change name discussions:

Other Relevant categories currently used:

Need to check if properly categorized

Categories we may need to create

Relevant article: Anti-Zionism (that's where Anti-Israel redirects to.
Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis
from: CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History section

[edit]

I've removed the history section of the article, because it only lists two books from 2002 that discuss the "anti-Israel lobby". I've found sources for the term from as far back as the 1970s, but I can't find any reliable source about the history of the term - that is, I'm unsure who originally coined it. By the way, this article may be a very good source for discussing the history of the term "anti-Israel lobby". It's by William Safire in 1976, and labels Spiro Agnew, "hawks" in the States Department, "doves" among liberals and Jews, the Secretary of State, and anti-Semitic groups as making up the lobby. At the very least, this source can be used to expand the article. ← George [talk] 00:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US lobby against Israeli Occupation

[edit]

I've moved an old version of this page to US lobby against Israeli Occupation where this lobby can be treated in an WP:NPOV way. This permits this article to remain in the way it has evolved, to focus on the use of the "anti-Israel lobby" term. This obviates the need for a move. Caveat: "US lobby against Israeli Occupation" is not perhaps the best title, but it's the best I can come up with which meets WP:NPOV. Better suggestions welcome. Rd232 talk 11:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the new page needs more work reframing for WP:NPOV, away from defining these groups in the words and from the point of view of their political opponents, which had also coloured the emphasis and choice of who to highlight. Rd232 talk 11:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you did this - it seems precipitous. I was hoping for consensus among the editors here before making such a move.
Now that it is done, I believe the title you chose is not successful. The occupation is not the only issue on which these groups lobby. There is also the matter of US aid to Israel, allegations of human rights violations by Israel arms sales to Israel, arms sales to other Middle East countries (which the Israeli lobby opposes), and more. The title which had been discussed was "Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States", which I believe is a more accurate title for the information contained in the article.
But let's continue the discussion on the new page. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually a move of this page because the old version used is so radically different from the current one. It's more of a split (into subject/pejorative label), inspired by that evolution, which also rescues a stack of deleted material. Rd232 talk 13:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material was a massive WP:SYN violation; there was no need to "rescue" it. Now we have another POV fork of questionable encyclopedic content. csloat (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably a WP:SYN violation when it was attempting to construct an image of an "anti-Israel lobby". I don't see how a cleaned-up version of that page will be SYN for the topic it now covers. Rd232 talk 06:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression an Admin decides if name should be changed; I don't know if here is sufficient consensus, but shouldn't we wait and see? Also, I agree against occupation way to narrow. Doesn't include lots of things, including opposition to its nuclear weapons threat (which of course is how they maintain the occupation).
Also just noticed that a sourced definition of the anti-Israel lobby was replaced with an editor's WP:OR definition using this article. A no no!! Reverted it. However, thinking about it, as long as against occuption includes groups that want right of return and end to Israel as a ("colonial") state, it may be sufficiently comprehensive.
However, just searched "US lobby against Israeli Occupation" and got one non-wiki link and "lobby against Israeli Occupation" and got two non-wiki links so the name could be challenged on that basis. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAME is not a core 5-pillar WP policy. WP:NPOV is. Find a better NPOV title if you can. Rd232 talk 06:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify some things: (a) this was not a move. The original page exists. (b) this is not a fork - the content is radically different, coming from a radically different old version of that page, and there is a clear difference of focus (on the subject, vs on the term) (c) "Israeli Occupation" may usefully be construed very broadly, and cover a range of Israeli policies related to sustaining the occupation of the Israeli-occupied territories. (d) US support for Israel in ways relevant to the occupation could be covered here too, or else in a separate article (e) separate articles can still be created for related topics, eg Opposition to the Israel lobby in the US, a move still under debate at Anti-Israel lobby in the United States. cheers, Rd232 talk 06:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the material existed before doesn't make it any less of a POV fork. If you can't find sources discussing this lobby in context, then it's a WP:SYN violation. csloat (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it WP:SYN? Are you saying these organisations don't exist, don't oppose the Israeli occupation, that they do but the sources don't support that, or what? Surely you're not saying that the collective activities of these organisations can't be described unless we give them the label invented by their political opponents in order to disparage them? Please explain your thinking. Rd232 talk 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it's a synthesis of original sources to create a claim that doesn't exist in those sources. The idea that these organizations are part of some overall lobby or movement against Israeli occupation (or against the Israel lobby) does not seem to be supported by these sources independently but only by stringing them together. What's more, many of these organizations have other agendas and goals; picking one of the items on their various agendas and bringing them together under one heading based on that item is suspect, IMHO. csloat (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see your point, a lot of the sources are primary and we need (more) secondary. Id be very surprise if they couldn't be found. Such secondary sources might also help resolve the "other agenda" issue. There is clearly a bundle of overlapping, related opinions/groups on this topic which merit coverage together. Rd232 talk 16:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is the name changed to more accurate Opposition in the United States to the Israeli Occupation. The bad news is it is still a knock off of the old version of this article which was pretty much an attack article. I've cleaned up some of the most obnoxious stuff but more to do. I think the creator should become more involved in making it a better article. Frankly, technically it probably could be AfD'd as a knockoff if it is not substantially changed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a knockof (POVfork?), since that article is about the lobby, and this article is about a particular label for that lobby. And whilst it needs (massive) improvement, it's not an attack article now (thanks for contribs), and WP:DEADLINE. I came across this dispute and was motivated enough to try and help a little, but I'm not about to start getting heavily involved in editing. Rd232 talk 05:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Starting an article as a stub with some good WP:RS is one thing. For future reference, taking a mass of controversial material and putting it a brand new article is something editors only should do if they are committed to helping clean it up fairly quickly. Now others have to do that before they can even do anything constructive with the article, so it's a bunch of discouraging old baggage to deal with. This will be the second time I have to go through the same set of sources to prove most of them do not directly discuss the topic, in this case groups that are opposed to the occupation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated a yawn-inducingly large number of times, the title was an attempt to find a WP:NPOV-compliant way of describing the groups that oppose the occupation, its execution, and US support for that. The sources absolutely support that general topic, so before you start removing everything that isn't "Opposed To The Occupation", consider what we're actually trying to achieve here, which to describe a real phenomenon without using a label coined by opponents. Also much of the controversy related to housing that phenomenon under that label. Rd232 talk 12:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion should wait/remove tag?

[edit]

I don't think you are supposed to initiate a merge discussion in the middle of a name change RFC. Could you please remove that? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the name has changed with "lobby" deleted, this tag SHOULD be removed and I will do so soon, especially given that the tagger hasn't bothered to explain their reasoning, including in light of the change. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition in Lede

[edit]

Carol, if the source being used for the lead definition is Raffel, as your edit summary indicates, let's not use the words he uses to describe the "Arab-American advocacy organizations", because as he notes a few pages later, "It also must be stressed that these high profile Arab and Muslim American leaders represent only a small segment of the anti-Israel lobby in America". (emphasis is mine) Instead, let's use the words he uses to describe the wider segment, which is organizations and individuals joined together "to attack Israeli policies" (p. 142). LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going to the source which allows for more productive discussion. I don't have a problem with lead the way you changed it. The anti-Israel lobby is a term used to describe groups and individuals that oppose Israeli policies. [1] They seek a more "even handed" U.S. approach to both groups.[1] Except you only need one ref from Raffel, not two. (ADDITIONAL NOTE: Oops - failed to note that you had deleted the part about the pro-Israel people labeling others anti-Israel; very obvious summary of article statement! Getting overloaded. More below) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Problem. I had actually put this version into the lede about a week ago, based on Raffel,, and it was removed then by another editor, so I thought some other source has been found. If we are going to talk about "both groups" we should probably clarify who those 2 groups are. Perhaps "They seek a more "even handed" U.S. approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict" would be better. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, actually there is a problem with that definition. The full(er) quote from LOTRQ's preferred definition is: "There is a long history of former U.S. officials and members of Congress joining together... to attack Israeli policies." He's not discussing the "wider segment" of the "lobby" in this definition either, just another segment – that is, U.S. officials and members of Congress. We should probably use both definitions, as those who use the term "anti-Israel lobby" are sometimes talking about one group, something the other group, and sometimes both (and sometimes other groups entirely). ← George [talk] 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, you just reverted to a version that uses only one definition, a definition that the source explicitly uses for what it calls 'only a small segment'. Please don't do that. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that. I'm suggesting a merger rather than a replacement of subset A with subset B. You only added four words to the definition... it shouldn't be that hard for us to merge them. ← George [talk] 23:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well, I don't think that's the right approach. In the next paragraph, Raffel adds a third segment, with its own description - American corporations with economic interests in Arab countries, who engage in "anti-Israel efforts". And in the next section he adds a fourth constituency - African Americans - who are "allies in these anti-Israel efforts for a number of reasons". What's wrong with 'The anti-Israel lobby is a term used to describe groups and individuals that lobby in the US against Israel and its policies, and attempt to influence US policy toward them"? That seems to encompass everything else. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you're wrong per se, I'm just hoping we can take this opportunity to try to create the most accurate definition possible. That's why I've started the discussion below. Those other two groups - American corporations and African Americans - should likely be added to the list in that section. The only issue I would have with your vaguer definition proposal is that it doesn't include groups that oppose U.S. policy rather than Israeli policy. If we can identify who all is included in this lobby, then we'll also be able to write a lead that's longer than a vague, one sentence definition. Cheers. ← George [talk] 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, another (minor) issue with your definition is that not all of the groups & individuals included in the "anti-Israel lobby" actually "lobby". Lobbying is a pretty specific practice of trying to influence government decisions. Simply complaining about a certain policy doesn't mean you're lobbying the government. Some of these groups and individuals are actually lobbying, while others aren't so clear. ← George [talk] 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My definition actually does reference those that oppose US policy - it says the members of the lobby "attempt to influence US policy toward [Israel and its policies]]" - which implicitly assumes they are critical of the policies they are attempting to change. I am happy to make this more explicit: 'The anti-Israel lobby is a term used to describe groups and individuals that lobby in the US against Israel and its policies. They are critical of current US policy toward Israel and attempt to change it". Will that work? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, let me try to give an alternative, and let's see if we can work towards a consensus. "The anti-Israel lobby is a term used to describe groups and individuals critical of U.S. foreign policy that they consider to be too favorable towards Israel, for a variety of reasons." I think that would describe all the possible groups included, and would let us transition into describing the segments..? ← George [talk] 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's close. However, we need ot add thta some of these groups are just against Isreali policy, not US policy. How about
"The anti-Israel lobby is a term used to describe groups and individuals critical of Israeli policies and of U.S. foreign policy that they consider to be too favorable towards Israel, for a variety of reasons.". LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's not too far off. I'm not sure about the "critical of Israeli policies" however. The "hawks" in the U.S. State Department, identified by some as members of this "anti-Israel lobby", aren't "critical of Israeli policies", they just don't want to anger the Arab nations who have oil. Likewise, the corporations identified as being a part of this "lobby" are also worried about upsetting Arab nations that they do business with, without necessarily being "critical of Israeli policies". My suggestion would be to change the "and" to "or", leaving: "The anti-Israel lobby is a term used to describe groups and individuals critical of Israeli policies, or of U.S. foreign policy that they consider to be too favorable towards Israel, for a variety of reasons." Thoughts? ← George [talk] 20:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new section for discussing just who is included in this lobby. I'd encourage all to help try to identify the general groups that are included, so we can create as comprehensive a definition as possible. ← George [talk] 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked this a bit further, citing who uses the term, rather than stating it as a definite label (their critics – a more neutral way than the previous of "pro-Israel writers"). I've also changed the "even-handed" approach sentence to say that the groups/individuals being described state that it's more even-handed, rather than stating it as a fact. ← George [talk] 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I tweaked it a bit further to make it more grammatically and stylistically clear and comprehensible "-) The anti-Israel lobby is a term used by some who criticize those groups and individuals that oppose Israeli policies or United States foreign policy that they consider to be too favorable towards Israel. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why lead must include phrase used predominantly by pro-Israelis

[edit]

It is clear that we only will find strongly pro-Israel people using this phrase therefore the lead should start with: "The anti-Israel lobby is a term used predominantly by pro-Israel authors and writers to describe groups that ...." with some NPOV summary of what Raffel says. (I just took the most NPOV statement from early on.)

WP:Lead reads: The lead section, lead (sometimes lede), or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article, and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article....The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1]

Obviously, we can summarize the fact that our sources are mostly pro-Israel (didn't I see some refs on that fact somewhere?) and obviously the only reason this is notable is because a bunch of pro-Israel people choose to use the term. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no dissent, evidently everyone agrees. :-) The fact that there are no sources that are not obviously very pro-Israel supports having a SUMMARY of the fact that those are largely the sources using the phrase. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the "anti-Israel lobby"?

[edit]

It might be beneficial if we were to try to identify the different groups that are included in the "anti-Israel lobby". I'm going to start a list based on what I've read. Please feel free to expand it. ← George [talk] 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those that oppose Israeli policies.
    • Those who think that Israel violates the human rights of Palestinians.[1]
    • Those who think Israel is intransigent.[2]
    • Those who oppose some Israeli foreign policy (usually towards Iran, Syria, or Lebanon).
  • Those that oppose U.S. policies.
    • U.S. government officials who favor close ties to oil-rich Arab countries over close ties to Israel, in the name of America's self-interest.[3]
    • Those who are worried about how close ties to Israel affects perceptions of the U.S. abroad.
    • American corporations with interests in Arab countries.[4]
  • (Some) African Americans.[5]
  • Those that are anti-Semitic.[6]

WP:original research. The only groups that can be included are groups actually described as being part of the "pro-Israel lobby" by a WP:RS source. Please read previous talk. Editors can't just decide who is and is not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't attempting to add this list directly to the article. I'm just trying to get a general idea of what reliable sources label as members of the "anti-Israel lobby". It's not a bad idea to add citations for items in the list, of course. ← George [talk] 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't think of this as a list meant to list all groups in a given segment as part of the lobby. Think of this more like being possible section headings for the article, with properly source individuals and groups listed in the sections. ← George [talk] 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stict guidelines for including individuals/groups per WP:BLP and WP:Libel

[edit]

Again people are adding stuff without proving that a WP:RS has called individuals/group an "anti-Israel lobby" or at least a "lobby" group that is "anti-Israel." Since being called anti-Israel is pretty much like being called anti-Semitic and most people will deny it, there are strict guidelines. The current sources on Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land does not provide quotes to show that those terms are used. Please provide the information or these will be removed very soon per WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CArol, these people are all dead.Historicist (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a books.google search and neither book included the phrase "anti-Israel," not to mention "anti-ISrael lobby," so the whole section should be deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations#The_article_on_me.2Fmy_organization_is_an_attack.21_What_can_I_do.3F specifically links libel, BLP and organizations, so this is wikipedia policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This hardly applies. The people who founded the Committee, such as Virginian Gildersleeve describes herself as adamantly opposed to a Jewish State in the Land of Israel on any terms whatsoever. She wrote this in her own memoir and in a large number of published articles and statements. Quoting her to this effect can hardly be an attack on her. The same applies to Jermit Roosevelt, Jr. and the organizations other members.Historicist (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that several of the cited books do not appear on books google or only some pages appear
  • that this is a history section, these are sources from the late forties or early fifties and several of these books say "anti-Zionist", a phrase current at the time. sometimes you really do have to go to a library.
  • and that the organization in question, Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land, is documented in these sources as having been founded for the purpose of preventing the establishment of a Jewish state or homeland, and continued for the purpose of opposing the existence of Israel after it was created. In thises conditions, it is a tad, er... arbitrary of User:Carolmooredc to demand that every source cited include the phrase "anti-Israel"
  • I would argue that 1.) if an organization opposes the very existence of a a Jewish State in the Holy Land on any terms whatsoever, we can call it anti-Israel and cite sources that that call the organization "anti-Zionist.
  • I would further argue that as we go along, organizations that lobby to oppose American foreign aid and arms sales to Israel may, with proper sourcing, be included in this article.Historicist (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two books I alluded to do appear on books.google. A search will tell you if a phrase is there, even if it will not show you the page.
  • This article is about "anti-ISrael lobby." If she was an Anti-Zionist (something you have not proved with any relevant quotes), the info belongs in that article. Please move it there; I'll be glad to and let editors at that page decide what to do with it.
  • It is hardly arbitrary. You don't find discussion of "Israel lobby" sources in Jewish lobby, only sources that specifically mention term "Jewish lobby."
  • Your argument for including people who have views you consider "anti-Israel" without a WP:RS so labeling them is WP:original research: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. You would need a source making that argument and applying it to the term "anti-Israel." Do I need to take it to the Original Research noticeboard for outside opinions?
  • Considering that most organizations object to be labeld "anti-Israel," just like they object to being labeled "antisemitic," there are still defamation issues with existing organizations if it is said by an editor as their WP:OR and not a reliable source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Friends Service Committee

[edit]

I object to the removal of American Friends Service Committee, and their rebuttal to the charge.

One of the general problems with this entry is that we have obscure sources calling organizations and individuals anti-Israel, and because they're so obscure, they're generally unnoticed and no one bothers to rebut them.

The American Friends Service Committee is one of the few examples of an organization whose members have rebutted these charges. By the principle of free expression, I'm tolerant of these attacks -- but only if you're equally tolerant and allow the rebuttal.

If, when an organization is attacked, and they come up with an articulate rebuttal, you delete the attack and the rebuttal, you're violating WP:NPOV.

If you won't allow a single rebuttal to these charges of being anti-Israel, and you won't come up with a rebuttal that is acceptable to you, then that gives strong evidence that this article violates WP:NPOV and should be deleted after all. Nbauman (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is framed as being about a term used by pro-Israel groups to denigrate their political opponents, then rebuttals should be reported but their absence matters less. If it is framed as the correct term for a bunch of organisations which do not agree with being labelled in that way, then no amount of rebuttal is going to make it NPOV. So I'm disappointed that people keep removing my lede para which provides this NPOV framing (diff). If we can't agree on this NPOV framing, the article should be deleted or moved to an NPOV title. Rd232 talk 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Your lede was NPOV, and the diff rewrote it to quote Caroline Glick, a partisan.
I think there's a problem with WP:WEIGHT. If these books and articles are so obscure that only 3 libraries in the world have them, and you have to travel to Toronto to verify them, then it's not a mainstream view. According to WP:WEIGHT:
In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
I don't understand how anyone could argue that this article isn't disputed. --Nbauman (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, Nbauman, have you read Talk:Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Stict_guidelines_for_including_individuals.2Fgroups_per_WP:BLP_and_WP:Libel above? That explains wikipolicy quite clearly. Sources must call an organization (or individual) both anti-Israel and a lobbyist or it's WP:OR.
Rd232, as you know I also have removed or supported removal of your putting in Opposition in the United States to the Israeli Occupation, not because it's a bad article (since I'm going to clean it up soon), but because it is just one of many NPOV characterizations of these groups. Others include Anti-Zionist which many groups DO call themselves and Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis. One-state solution is another.
I can't respond the person who's comment ends with "minority view" since they didn't sign - I assume that is not Nbauman? Except to say, that the whole article is about a phrase used frequently by a minority of partisans but rarely used by mainstream sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's Nbauman, who indented a quote from WP:WEIGHT in the middle of his comment. Rd232 talk 10:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Italicizing quotes helps for those of us who read too fast to get the point sometimes. Frankly, I'm confused on what the debate is here. Identifying who said what? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

[edit]

LoverOfTheRussianQueen complained when I replaced the POV tag.

Is there anyone who agrees with me that the neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed?

Is there anyone on this discussion who thinks that neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is not disputed?

Nbauman (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

disputed, unless rebuttals from each of the organizations are listed. nableezy - 15:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
feel free to add such rebuttals. Nbauman also added a BLP tag - what is the BLP issue? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first issue I see is Pat Buchanan. Medoff never explicitly labels him as a member of the "anti-Israel Lobby". He says Buchanan is critical of the "AIPAC lobby", and he says that Buchanan labelled Congress "Israeli-occupied territory" (a reference to the Israeli lobby's influence in Congress), and he even suggests that Buchanan's remarks are a modern spin on anti-Semitic ideas of Jews controlling the government, but he never explicitly says he's a member of the "anti-Israel lobby". I don't think that the current wording about Buchanan passes BLP... ← George [talk] 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Medoff says all that, AND places it in a section titled "Case Study: The anti-Israeli Lobby". I think you are splitting hairs here. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons we can't add rebuttals is that the concept of the "anti-Israel lobby" isn't WP:NOTABLE. The subject doesn't have significant coverage. Books that are only available in three libraries in the world are not significant or notable. Because it's not significant, the subjects have not bothered to respond. So we can't supply rebuttal.
I think we should try for deletion again, on the grounds that the subject of the article is not notable. It's specifically about people and organizations who have had the exact phrase "the anti-Israel lobby" used about them. When I try to find examples in WP:RS (not blogs), the instances are so rare, that it's not notable. When I do a Google search, most of what I find in the WSJ and so forth is vague accusations against people and organizations who aren't even specifically accused by name. --Nbauman (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to have it both ways - claiming that it's POV because there are no rebuttals, and when asked to add the rebuttals, claim that there aren't any because it's not notable. Notability has been established by the recent AfD, so please drop this argument, which has no legs (The WSJ is a mainstream publication, as is the Jerusalem Post, as is an academic book published by a Yale professor, which is found in 158 libraries (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50598153), not 3.) LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the AfD and the requested move above shows me that this article will not be deleted; too many self-proclaimed defenders of Israel will shout too loud for a consensus to be reached. There isnt even a point in trying to get this article to be NPOV, it wont last. Im just waiting for the move request to finish so I can take this piece of excrement off my watchlist. Suggest any other reasonable people who wish to retain their sanity and faith in Wikipedia stop looking at this article. nableezy - 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus your comments on content, not editors. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was focused on content. There was one comment in there about editors. The rest was about the article. For somebody who has only been here a month you seem to have a handle on all the regular quips. makes me hear quacking. nableezy - 21:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not focused on content, but on editors, as is your comment above. Please stop it. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, one line "too many self-proclaimed defenders of Israel will shout too loud for a consensus to be reached" focused on editors (but really also the content of the AfD and the requested move). The rest, like calling the article "excrement" was not. Stop quacking. nableezy - 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That line focused on editors, in an inappropriate way, as did the line "Suggest any other reasonable people who wish to retain their sanity and faith in Wikipedia stop looking at this article.". Just don't do it. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats nice. However, I do wish to retain my sanity and my faith in this place so bye. nableezy - 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<backdent> I think both sides agree with POV for different reasons. Didn't notice Buchanan NOT described as part of anti-Israel lobby and he'll be taken out next time I go through. As I say elsewhere see WP:Libel and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations#The_article_on_me.2Fmy_organization_is_an_attack.21_What_can_I_do.3F (which mentions BLP issues for organizations) for established policies against WP:attack page articles and of course WP:Original research being used to support them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NON WP:RS source for BLP

[edit]
I think a good argument for deletion is that most of the sources are not WP:RS. Just because a book is published by a college professor, or has an ISBN number, that doesn't make it a WP:RS. In order for a book to be a WP:RS, it should at least have been reviewed critically in a non-ideological publication. If somebody made these claims in a book that was reviewed by the New York Times, I would go along with it. I wouldn't mind a legitimate article about the anti-Israel lobby, if they could develop it as a legitimate concept, rather than as a propaganda piece, with arguments on both sides, but that doesn't seem to be possible.
The next time we propose deletion, I think we should pick one strong reason and argue that reason alone. Otherwise we get a meandering debate, with partisans posting dozens of messages. I think what happened last time was that the uninvolved admins looked at it and said, "This is too complicated to figure out, they all disagree, so there's no consensus, forget it." --Nbauman (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that those who want to keep the article should be on fair warning that unless they can find some good WP:RS sources that are NOT obviously very pro-Israel that they've pretty much conceded the point that this is a propaganda term used by partisans and either should not be kept or should have that made very explicit in the lead, with very few examples since we shouldn't be tarring those attacked. (In my researches on it I haven't found any.) But that would make the article dictionary size, and wikipedia is not a dictionary. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CarolMooreDC, While I basically agree with you, Richard Feynman said that we should bend over backwards to try to find whatever merit we can in the other side's argument.
I'm willing to accept obvious right-wing propaganda sources, provided we have rebuttals from the other side. I think that by stating the facts for both sides, it will become clear that the "anti-Israel lobby" is a creation of the "pro-Israel" lobby (which I don't consider pro-Israel at all).
That's why I was willing to accept an attack on the American Friends Service Committee, as long as we include their rebuttal. That's WP:NPOV. But if they delete rebuttals, it violates WP:NPOV and the whole article should be deleted.
My main problem with using obscure books in WP is that nobody (even their targets) pays any attention to them, so we can't find a rebuttal to comply with WP:NPOV.
But the reason these books shouldn't be used in Wikipedia is that they're so obscure, they're not WP:RS. They have no fact checking, they haven't been critically reviewed, and we can't even find them in major academic libraries. They're like self-published books or personal blogs.
I agree with you that these sources are propaganda. But in a request for deletion it's easier to make a case that they're not WP:RS. It's also easier to say they violate WP:NPOV. In the RFD, we'll say, "Look, here's the American Friends Service Committee, when we tried to include their rebuttal, the editors deleted it. Here's an attack on American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; they don't include any response from the ADC." We'll say, "Look at these sources, they're unreliable. This book is not available in libraries. These books have never been reviewed in a major newspaper or magazine."
I don't think Wikipedia even forbids obvious propaganda sources. But it does forbid unrebutted propaganda. And that's what we have now. --Nbauman (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@CarolMooreDC - The Stephens speech was published by the UofChicago Friends of Israel - a non-profit organization that is not, as far as I know, affiliated with Stephens in any way. As such, it is not a self-published source. I am not going to edit war over this, but I don't think you understand the concept of "self-published" sources. @Nbauman - a book written or edited by academics and published by an academic press is a reliable source. take it to the RS noticeboard if you have any doubt about this. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I misread http://israel.uchicago.edu/bret_stephens_speech.pdf as being his personal website about Israel, but when just followed link back to http://israel.uchicago.edu/ see it actually is an organization. So if biased organizations that published attack speeches given to their group are WP:RS... At what point does this all become just overly absurd? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALL organizations are biased, and this is not an "attack speech" any more than the paper it criticizes was an "attack paper". It is the opinion of a notable journalist, and can be used to present his opinion. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How could I forget. Being editor of Jerusalem Post sure makes one WP:RS on this topic - if not NPOV :-) Reverted my change. But remember I did give 24 hours notice I was going to make it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've now put it in the wrong section - Stephens doesn't say all these people are part of the anti-Israeli lobby - he says there's no such thing as an "anti-Israel" lobby, as this collection of people with wildly different political views and agendas, who would be a part of it if it existed, shows. Now that we've gotten past the incorrect "self-published" argument, I'll restore my original edit that introduced this material, in the proper section.LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since your sentence was confusing and didn't make sense, I went to original document and searched straight to "anti-Israel lobby" and missed the full context. Have made the two sentences clearer so others don't get confused. It obviously is a valuable entry, once one clearly understands what he was saying. Though I personally don't agree with what he says since how closely groups work in concert is really the issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic blogs as reliable sources

[edit]

It seems a bit absurd that two academic blog postings -- by noted historian Ronald Radosh whose written a book on Middle East politics and the other by noted authority on Middle East politics Juan Cole -- are deleted. Cole is self-published, Radosh published by an opinion site.

Yet a mere journalist - Bret Stephens - whose speech is published by an advocacy group is considered WP:RS? Sorry, that doesn't make sense. David Rothkopf's attacks on individuals from Foreign Policy blog also would have to go. (I don't have a problem with getting rid of Hirsh who is just an advocate who finds antisemitism under every rock, even if a WP:RS publishes his blog.)

Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources reads: Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution: When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Now Ronald Radosh labeling J Street anti-Israel would be the least defendable. However, Cole merely calls for a lobby and says it would not be anti-Israel, which doesn't defame anybody. And his credentials are more than adequate under standards above, and certainly equal or greater than Bret Stephens:

  • Juan_Cole#Background_and_education
  • Juan_Cole#Appointments_and_awards
  • He has published op-eds on the Mideast at the Washington Post, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review, The Nation, the Daily Star, Tikkun magazine as well as at Salon.com, where he is a frequent contributor.[24] He has appeared on the PBS Lehrer News Hour, Nightline, ABC Evening News, the Today Show, Anderson Cooper 360°, Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Al Jazeera and CNN Headline News.
  • In 2004, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations requested Cole's testimony at hearings to better understand the situation in Iraq.
  • Juan_Cole#Selected_bibliography numerous texts and journal publications.

So do we take David Rothkopf, Bret Stephens and Juan Cole to WP:RSN or put Cole back in?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about "anti-Israel"

[edit]

Some people above seem to believe that "anti-Israel" can only apply to people who deny Israel's right to exist.

It's true that most groups that consistently express strong criticism of Israel and Israeli actions nearly always claim that they are not "anti-Israel" but are simply opposed to this or that policy.

However, I don't see why "anti-Israel" needs to only mean "deny Israel's right to exist". The best comparison I can see is with "anti-American". The page Anti-Americanism says "The term Anti-Americanism, or anti-American sentiment, refers to broad opposition or hostility to the people, policies, or government of the United States." Notice that this does not say that "anti-American" means "wants to destroy the U.S." or "denies the U.S.'s right to exist". If you define "anti-Israel" in a similar fashion, which I think is quite reasonable, then "anti-Israel" means people or groups with consistent hostility to Israel's actions and/or government. By this token, it's quite reasonable to consider groups alleging "Israeli apartheid" or "Israeli war crimes" as anti-Israel. Likewise, people like Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Philip Weiss and others on the far left who are outspoken and consistent in their criticism of Israeli actions are reasonably considered anti-Israel. Same goes for nearly everyone who identifies as anti-Zionist. Benwing (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Israel lobby in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Israel lobby in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States&oldid=1198818229"