Talk:Israel lobby in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

High profile criticism of Lobby

Professor John J. Mearsheimer and Professor Stephen Walt's book, 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy', is similar to that of Dr. David Ernest Dukes (which is good, despite what people think of him), but their is also the below:

• Professor James Petras's The Power of Israel in the United States
• Former Representative/Congressman Paul Findley's They Dare to Speak Out
• Professor Kevin B. MacDonald's Understanding Jewish Influence and The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
• Professor Norman G. Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry and Beyond Chutzpah
• Former US President Jimmy Carter's Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
• Professor Tony Judt's A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy
• Jonah Jacob Goldbergs Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment

Are their anymore written by academics, professors, scholars and government officials? I ask because British Labour MP, Sir Tam Dalyell and Representative/Congressman James P. Moran are all saying the same thing.

Even Ariel Sharon has said Israel controls the US Government: "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.". Robert C Prenic 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't WP:SOAPBOX. Thank you. --GHcool 21:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read it again. I have asked a question and to illustrate what I am asking I have given references to exactly the subject matter (and its authors) that I am requesting further information on. Thank you. Robert C Prenic 06:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I read it again. In four complete sentences and short bibliography, there is only one legitimate question. The rest constitutes WP:SOAPBOX including an endoresement of the work of Ku Klux Klan member and Holocaust denier David Duke.

To answer your question, have you considered The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? It satisfies your criteria of having been written by "government officials" (although these were Russian government officials in the 19th century). Many of the books and scholars listed above borrow heavily from this one. If The Protocols isn't your cup of tea, perhaps you'd prefer a WP:Reliable source.  ;) --GHcool 07:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you have some issues and are taking what I am writing as some sort of attack (I am unsure whether it be on you or the Jews but either way it is incorrect). I have read and own the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and whilst it is undoubtedly a fake and forgery many of the things in it are becoming true of Zionists and Neocon extremists especially, as the above scholarly books show. However, I am currently reading Abraham H. Foxmans rebuttal of Mearsheimer and Walt's book, entitled The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control as I like to have both sides of a story. That way is the only way one is able to make a sound, educated and unbiased opinion about any subject matter. Regardless of what you many think of certain people, you should really hear their side of the story, even if it is just to then wash your hands of it. But do not do so blindly. I do not like Dr. David Ernest Duke, nor what he stands for, but I am not so blind as to not appreciate a scholarly and well written work, as is Foxman's. Have you read Dukes book? Have you read Foxmans? I have.

And as for you referring to Duke as a Ku Klux Klan member and Holocaust denier. Well, you obviously havn't read his works because he does not deny the holocaust, but has legitimate questions, as does the Jewish revisionst David Cole in his The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz (and the death total query). Why always refer to him as this? Why not his proper title that is "former Republican member of the Louisiana House of Representatives" which is the norm to refer to anyone that has been a representative, as with former Klansman Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd is refered to a Senator and representative and never Klansman (in a biased by like the Media do with Duke) No-one, even the media, refers to him like you have, only with Duke.

Always he has the monicas bigot, facist, etc and other terms of derision preceeding his name. If their was any fairness in the media, or from people like you and Wikipedians then he would be referred to as Representative David Duke as he was a former member of the House of Representatives in Louisiana and once you hold public office thats generally the title you are given for the rest of your life. If thats not so then why is Teddy Kennedy routinaly referred to as 'hero of Chappaquiddick? Why is Senator Robert Byrd referred to as 'Former Klansman Robert Byrd'? Why is Representative Bobby Rush not referred to as 'Former Black Panther Bobby Rush'? Why is Ariel Sharon not referred to as the man responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre? Why is George Bush not referred to as former Alchoholic or coke head George W. Bush? Why the double standard?

All I ask is that both sides of a story be equally reviewed, as I am doing with Foxman's book and others like it. You can read both free online. Robert C Prenic 07:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we can agree that all of the above was anti-Semitic WP:SOAPBOXing. Not only was there a second endorsement of the work of David Duke, but also a flirtation with Holocaust denial, an implication that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have merit, and an allegation that I never read Foxman's book (I also own a copy). Please don't post again without a specific intent to improve the article. Thank you. --GHcool 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we don't agree. Petras is avery valid opinion, a left-leaning humanistic international analist who doesn't fear to result controversial if he thinks he's telling the truth. I haven't read about the rest but I find it incredible to pretend to silence the most critical voices, including a former US President, on grounds of WP:Soapbox.

Please read Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia Consensus and Wikipedia ownership of articles. That Duke klansman can surely be skipped for the sake of consensus - and, I alredy said that I am not sure abut each of the suggested high-profile cirtics. But Petras, Carter and Ariel Sharon's opinions should be mentioned.

I would also ask you to avoid using the "anti-semitic" slur for any criticism of the Israel lobby, Israel or Zionism in general. Anti-semitism as it's normally used (in the reductive sense of anti-Jewish) implies being against Jewish people in general and regardless of political stand, as a form of racism and not being against Israel, Israeli genocidal policies or the arguable subservience/connivence of much of the Western World reagrding Israeli interests. As such cannot be used for people who, for instance, respect or even admire Noam Chomski, as most anti-Zionists do. --Sugaar (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel may or may not be anti-Semitic. The anti-Semitism of the critic (or lack thereof) must be evaluated on a case by case basis. However, when criticism of Israel is coupled with endorsements of David Duke, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Holocaust denial, then there can be no doubt that the motives are illegitimate. --GHcool (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the anti-Semite accusations are being used unjustly and to liberally in many instances, mostly to silence discussion on a topic the opposing person doesn't want to discuss. Therefor this tactic needs to be watched closely instead of just accepted absolutely.--Equilibriummike (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To GH: I fully agree that the examples you mention are clearly antisemitic/neonazi/racist. But mixing everything together is misleading and often an abuse that can only be counter-productive. Often one wonders (and worries) if people with Zionist ideas is not abusing of the anti-semitic tag by placing it on anyone that opposes Israel in one way or another and, by means of this abuse, deprecating the value of such tag and favoring the interests of racist and truly antisemitic people.

In any case, using that pretext to erase legitimate criticisms is not acceptable.

On a side note, maybe someone of truly antisemitic ideas can argue that it is necesary to include them as per WP:NPOV. I am not personally/idelogically interested in that (actually the opposite) but that hypotetical racist wikipedian could have some reason. --Sugaar (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To Equilibriummike: right on the nail. The abuse of the "antisemitic" tag as slur against antizionists and their discourse is becoming more and more common and indiscriminate, what is quite worrying and actually could end up disqualifying the very term "antisemitism" because of that abusive indiscriminate manipulative usage. Antisemitism is to be aginst all Jews (as a form of racism), not to be against Israel or the Israel lobby. --Sugaar (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Old information too late?

The page has been too quiet for too long as things ebb and flow. A somewhat similar message has been posted on the Jewish lobby talk page.

I happen to be sitting with my personal copy of Edward Tivnan’s The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy. Touchstone Books, 1988. ISBN 0671668285. I sadly note it is only referenced once by inference here and dismissed on it’s talkpage. It doesn’t occur in at all on the M&W article or it’s talk page, even though they ref it, I believe.

Some things seem to be missing in these discussions. Really, no one else has this book? I hope this helps.

In the Preface, p8, Tivnan is discussing how he started to write the book and his early research. He states:

’The answers were not as obvious as either the critics or fans of the Jewish lobby would have it. Even the title “Jewish Lobby,” I quickly discovered, needed some fine tuning; what was most at issue, as the lobbysts themselves insisted, was the influence of the “pro-Israel lobby.” Indeed, how the Jewish lobby had become primarily a pro-Israel lobby, one so aggressive, omnipresent and influential on matters relating to the Middle East that the denizens of Capital Hill refer to it simply as “the lobby,” became a focal point of my research.“

Throughout the introduction he discusses the internal debates and differences within Zionism itself. Stuff not in Wiki. He stresses the Zionist influence as opposed to Jewish influence in general. The opening para of the ‘Introduction’, p13, says.

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

In the first chapter, The Pro-Israel Lobby comes to Washington, Tivnan states (p39)

’Nineteen fifty-four became the year of the pro-Israel. TheAmerican Zionist Council of Public Affairs* (AZCPA) was formed with an annual budget of $50,000. In 1954, Israel needed all the lobbying help it could get to counter the growing annoyance toward the new state in the Eisenhower Administration.’ The * at the bottom says, ‘In 1959, Kenen’s lobbying operations would be renamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, thus coming to terms with the reality of the largely non-Zionist nature of Jewish politics in the United States (and depriving the “Zionist conspiracy” theorists among the nation’s anti-Semites of an easy victim).' The 'Kenen' refers to Isaiah L. Kenen.

I believe this source, might provide some RS and NPOV to something that now seems like a 'lobby according Bard'. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an Alternative definition/description [1] of the Israel lobby. Written by Robert Hazo (Chairman of the Middle East Policy Association and senior political consultant of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.) in Aug,’85 and appropriately entitled The Israel Lobby in America. The whole article is worth a read, but these two sections, copied directly, are particularly informative.

Genesis of a Lobby

The Israel lobby did not emerge full blown on the American scene. American Jewry was not receptive to the Zionist movement until the late 1930s and, even then, largely in reaction to Nazi persecution in Europe. By 1942 Zionism in America had largely overcome most of its opposition, though a substantial remnant remained unconvinced, most significantly the 20 percent or more of the American Jewish community represented by the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism. This remnant was neutralized after the 1967 six day war. There was a mild upsurge of a movement of reconciliation, Breira, in the early 70s but it was targeted by the Jewish mainstream and was crushed. From that point on American Jewish opposition to Zionism has been extremely limited, confined to individual Jews or small movements.

As a result, the lobby is monolithic in its political stance towards the Middle East. It has consistently supported Israeli policy to the extent that mainline organized Zionism in the United States—as opposed to prominent individual Jews who have spoken out clearly and forthrightly—has never expressed any reservations about, much less opposed, any Israeli policy.

It was no secret, for example, that many in the American Jewish community were shocked and depressed over the election of Menachem Begin in 1977, because of his terrorist past and image as a fanatical ideologue. Yet, within a few days, Jewish organizations in this country were issuing statements about Begin's potential as a statesman.

Thomas Dine, the Executive Director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, went even further. Having jumped the gun and expressed favorable comments about the Reagan peace proposals just after they were announced in 1982, he abruptly reversed his position when Israel reacted negatively to the proposals. Indeed, the Israel lobby's record of strict conformity to Israeli policy makes it the functional equivalent of a foreign agent of Israel.

Its record is spectacular, the kind that Washington legends are made of. From engineering instant recognition of the state of Israel in 1948 to—most recently—forcing the Reagan Administration to withdraw a proposed arms sale to Jordan, the lobby has rarely suffered a major congressional defeat.

That Israel does what it wants and usually gets what it wants no matter what it does is confirmed by the fact that Israel often has used American subsidies to implement policies condemned by the U.S. government, e.g., the building of settlements in the occupied territories. In this respect America can be said to be the political and economic captive of its own client.

What are the elements of this awesome power? One of them is the historical event that transformed Zionism into a serious movement: the Jewish holocaust in Europe during World War II. Every effort is continually made to keep the memory of it alive and, as a corollary, to keep the intimidating charge of anti-Semitism as effective as it can be. Another is the relentless zeal of the American Jewish community in pursuing its political objectives. Still another is that community's financial and human resources. Though numbering only six million, the overwhelming majority of American Jews stand in the middle to upper classes economically. No other ethnic group has as high a voting quotient.

No other ethnic group is even within reach of its per capita political contributions. At last count almost $6.5 million was contributed by identifiable pro-Israel Political Action Committees in the 1984 elections. There is no exact figure for combined PAC and pro-Israel individual contributions in 1984, or in previous election years, since no public record is kept of the religious or ethnic origins of individual political contributors and since pro-Israel PACs are often disguised with generic names. One frequently heard, but unverifiable, contention, however, is that pro-Israel political contributions from all sources come close to a third of the amount given to Republican candidates and well over half of that given to Democratic candidates.

Anatomy of a Political Colossus

The manipulative artistry of the lobby is rivaled only by its organizational genius. There are three principal foci in its current organizational network. One is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the principal vehicle for contact between the American Jewish community and Israel as well as the principal agency for pro-Israel activities in Washington. AIPAC's lobbying efforts are primarily, though not exclusively, directed at the Congress.

The second focal point is the elaborate infrastructure of about 200 national organizations-38 of which belong to the Council of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations—each with regional and local chapters supplemented by independent regional and local organizations. The third focal point is the intellectual apparatus of the American Jewish community, exemplified by the Lehrman Institute and Commentary magazine in New York, among others.

As important (if not more so) as these three institutional foci are the outreach networks which extend well beyond identifiably Jewish organizations to most American groups, fields of endeavor or institutions. There are few areas left in American life where the lobby does not have a foothold. Judging by the results, the lobby is effectively at work in the Trade Union movement, in the various Christian churches (especially the evangelicals), in the entertainment field (most notably in motion pictures), obviously in the media, in colleges and universities, in many branches of commerce, in the field of social service, among minorities, in all levels of government, etc. It is nothing short of amazing how the Israeli line on a particular issue appears quickly, virtually simultaneously, almost unchanged and endorsed in so many quarters of American society.

NB: The ‘Lehrman Institute’ mentioned in the article above is the one briefly noted in Lewis Lehrman. It also should be noted that the first wiffs of smoke from the Iran-Contra Affair were being sensed at that time (Aug'85). Mr. Lehrman also links to specific (neo) conservative think tanks included in M&W as part of the Israel lobby. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Any good quotes/info on Israel_lobby_in_the_United_Kingdom

The new page there evidently wasn't set up too well without enough good quotes and is now heading for speedy deletion. If someone posts some WP:RS quotes saying there is such a thing, to start, or otherwise relevant --especially with REFS ready to go - on Talk:Israel_lobby_in_the_United_Kingdom I might take an hour to clean it up. THANKS! Carol Moore 19:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It's only anti-semitism if you attack leftwing jews as comprising a cabal?

That's how this article seems to synthesize things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.56.87 (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Petras' criticism

After being discussed and apparently consensensuated above that the Criticism section had undue weight in favor of mild ethincally Jewish criticisms and that Petras' viewpoint should be included, along with others probably...

... GHCool has tried to begin an edit-war with me on the issue, deleting my contribution on "undue weight" claims, never discussed here. I have told him/her that that's WP:OWN and WP:Tendentious editing but he's evidently trying to push me to an edit war and to breach the 3RR rule by reverting my legitimate edit once and again without discussion.

Diffs: [2], [3].

What is unbearable is that he's not discussing, just trying to rule on this article as if it was his property by means of causing conflict. I hope that he reconsiders his destructive atitude. --Sugaar (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not discussing my reverts before. My reason was that I simply didn't have time yesterday to get into an argument. A poor excuse, I realize, but now I have more freedom and will happily discuss my edits.

The reason I reverted Sugaar's paragraph on Petras views is because it gives undue weight to Petras' view. Petras is not a notable academic nor a particularly reliable source of information. His book, The Power of Israel in the United States, does not even have its own Wikipedia article, nor does his publisher, Clarity Press. In conclusion, an entire paragraph on Petras gives undue weight to one non-notable, unreliable critic of the Israel lobby. I hope this clears things up. --GHcool (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you have changed your attitude. I was getting quite annoyed at such changes without discussion, specially considering what has been discussed above.

I must say that, if you have an arguable point for "undue weight", it is only because other critical viewpoinst are not actually expressed. Only names are listed and overall the section looks weak, specially considering how controversial the Israel lobby is.

I placed Petras' paragraph after the other text, as not to make it appear more important than any other. But it's impossible to squeeze that criticism to a smaller space.

What should be done is to expand the viewpoints of other authors. And in any case, "undue weight" guideline does not support deleting it. It is not a "flat earth" case.

I'll be glad that other critical viewpoints are expanded. Personally, I was thinking that Noam Chomski's views could be particular useful to give due weight to that section. --Sugaar (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw, why can you claim that James Petras, one of the most international US intellectuals of all times is "non notable"? That's your point of view but for nearly any non-US reader he is, along with Chomski the only name on that section that may result somewhat familiar.

I can definitively gather enough data to demonstrate that Petras is very notable. Worry not.

The book may lack an entry. But maybe it should have one. A stub is easy to write and, if that's a problem, I can write that kind of article myself (in fact I was thinking it was maybe necessary after all). Still, not having an entry (yet) in Wikipedia is not any valid rationale, as Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself.

We are talking of criticisms: you can't classify criticisms by "reliability". They are opinions after all, not peer-reviewed studies on cosmology or whatever. But anyhow, Petras, being an academic and a globally recognized analyst, cannot be dismissed as you are trying to do.

I get the nasty impression that you are trying just to bury anything that is critical in this entry and that is definitively not in accordance with WP:NPOV, nor so many other policies. A short pragraph for Petras' view is not any exaggeration. I admit that other critical views should surely be expanded somewhat in order to make the section more representative anyhow. But that's not achieved by eliminating them, but by adding them. --Sugaar (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am not trying to trick you or censor you. I'm trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my ability.

If you intend to add Petras into this article, you must prove that he is notable and reliable. So far I am unconvinced, but I am willing to keep an open mind if evidence turns up that goes against my preconceived notions of the man and his work. Furthermore, a paragraph like the one you propose probably does not belong in this article. Instead, I suggest you add it to the article on Petras himself. This would be more appropriate and more productive. --GHcool (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You could assume good faith with my edits too - ahem.

What is your relation with possible sockpuppet User:Little Stupid, which just came to existence today and was used to except you from the 3RR? "He" seems to be playing your game.

As for notability, have you tried a google search, 251,000 entries look quite notable to me (roughly double than Mearshimer, Walt or Finkelstein, five times that of Findley, 60 times that of McDonald, and almost 100,000 times the Google-relevance of Goldbergs, who has only 7 entries, most of them in Wikipedia or mirror sites - that is non-notable!). Reliability in matter of opinion is hardly arguable but he is a professor emeritus of Sociology, if that's worth something and has a large array of published books and articles worldwide, being one of the most relevant intellectuals of the anti-globalization scene and without doubt the fiercest critic of the Israel lobby.

He may be less Google-notable than Chomsky or Carter, certainly - but he's still quite more notable than any of the others. I do think that Chomsky's opinions should be more widely explained certainly, specially, as Petras' main argument is in conflict with Chomsky's (who believes that the Israel lobby is like any other and that US policies in regard with Israel are mostly self-interested). As for Carter, I have not yet found any clear relevant comment (but that's surely my ignorance).

I have yet to make a whole review of all the article (there's some duplicity between the sections "Debates" and "Criticism", right?) but it's clear that the Criticisms section need a well pondered expansion (not too large either but enough to include the most relevant viewpoints, including Petras'). It's clear that there is people, apparently including Ariel Sharon (see above), who think that the Israel lobby "owns" (or at least exert much more than normal influence) on US policies. Those views cannot be silenced much less under technical pretexts like the ones you are trying to use.

Under WP:NPOV there's no way that such views could be ignored. And under WP:OWN there's no way that you can single-handedly dictate the contents of any Wikipedia article. --Sugaar (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume good faith in you, but I fear that you do not assume the same good faith in me. You accused me of having a sockpuppet (which is entirely false) and then further accuse me of censorship and owning the article, which are all demonstrably false. I would appreciate it if you spent more energy on providing proof of Petras' notability and reliability and less energy on making unfounded, false allegations against me.

That being said, when I do a Google search for "James Petras," I mostly find self-promotion material such as Petras' own books and websites, interviews with him, and collections of his essays published on extremist websites that do not satisfy WP:RS. Therefore, to say that Petras is notable based on his Google search is a false premise combined with begging the question. Even if I were to stipulate that the his Google search test is compelling (which I cannot grant), it would not make it right to violate WP:Undue weight by inserting a paragraph detailing Petras' views in a 3 paragraph section. I hope this clears things up. --GHcool (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Two reverts against consensus and without discussion. Disruptive throwaway account that reverts again to prevent you from breaching the 3RR. And attitude of ownership of the article. Show some good faith so I can believe in your good faith again. One thing is assuming good faith a priori and another thing is to do it after you have been slapped several times. So show good faith and I'll believe in your good faith. Keep behaving against the spirit of Wikipedia and I will not be able to assume it anymore, sorry.

What you call "extremist websites" are perferctly normal sites to me. I doubt 250,000 entries are only from what you could call "extremist sites" and I'm pretty sure that he has material in the mainstream media (that can also be percieved as "extremist" by others). Let's see:

Atlantic Free Press describes him as:

He is the author of 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, TempsModerne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. His publishers have included Random House, John Wiley, Westview, Routledge, Macmillan, Verso, Zed Books and Pluto Books. He is winner of the Career of Distinguished Service Award from the American Sociological Association's Marxist Sociology Section, the Robert Kenny Award for Best Book, 2002, and the Best Dissertation, Western Political Science Association in 1968.

Is that irrelevant? 62 books published in 29 languages?! You are just being disruptive. You want that Petras' view (or for the case any view that could be excessively critical of Israel and the Israel lobby) not to appear. You even deleted the declarations of Ariel Sharon!

I guess that the Center for Research on Globalization, World Press, the Monthly Review, Amazon.com (123 hits), the Baltimore Chronicle, The Telegraph (that classifies him as one of the most influential US liberals, right after Joe Liebermann and Ralph Nader), the University of Michigan, Hartford Press, the mainstream Mexican newspaper La Jornada, the Univeristy of Utah, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Conference of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Peace, Israel News or the University of Toronto (that awarded him a prize) are all "extremist" sites. And I have only chosen entries from the first 200 hits. There are still 252,000 more to check.

Please, be serious. You are trying to find out any pretext to censor Petras' (or any other strongly critical view) of the Israel lobby. And that is against both the spirit and the letter of what Wikipedia is. --Sugaar (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sugaar,

Thank you for demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that Petras is a notable source. I stand corrected on that issue. Unfortunately, the paragraph you want to add is still a gross violation of WP:Undue weight. I recommend that you reread through the undue weight guideline before trying to add your entire paragraph again. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You could have saved me a lot of work by checking that yourself.

It has due weight. What happens is that other criticisms are underweighted and therefore I call upon you and whoever wants to collaborate to expand the section and give due weight to other wiews, like Chomsky, Carter, Sharon or whatever.

You have before contributed to decimate the section on all sort of peregrine pretexts (if not this, then that) but you are ignoring the whole issue in WP:NPOV and you are definitively all the time succumbing with very bad style to [[WP:OWN].

I ask you to stop that belligerant style right now and to start being constructive. --Sugaar (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Petras' criticism, a singular good quote from his work, should be included but the larger section around which a number of users have been fighting about is too long and over glorifying of Petras. I would suggest something half as long as the current section and one that includes mostly a direct quotation from Petras' work. To forcibly exclude any mention of Petras work is not appropriate and smacks of censorship. --Lucretius (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think something half as long would be a good compromise. The "singular good quote from his work" approach would probably be acceptable. --GHcool (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to expand the whole section. Something as controversial as the Israel lobby cannot be just the apologist article it's now. That is indeed undue weight.

I suggest that you propose an alternative quote or synthesis of Petras criticism and once we agree on it, let's replace. Do not delete until we have come with something better.

I also suggest to add other relevant critical opinions. Sadly I've been so stressed by this petty conflict and it's unexpected and really odd ramifications that I have not been in the mood to make more research. But I am open to suggestions, of course. --Sugaar (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Maybe fusing it with the section In relation with special interest groups where Chomsky's position is explained, could make it look more balanced. The section's title is very odd and makes no sense to me. It would be better if we fused both in a single section of some entity and plurality. --Sugaar (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Petras sentence was sourced to a highly questionable source: RINF Alternative News Media, a website that has no recognized legitimacy as a reliable source by a 3rd party. Because the site includes articles on bogus conspiracy theories such as 9/11 conspiracy theories,[4] allegations that the assassination of Hrant Dink were carried out by the CIA and the Mossad,[5] the New World Order (conspiracy theory),[6] and too many other equally ridiculous falsehoods to list here, I would argue that RINF Alternative News Media is an political extremist source "with a poor reputation for fact-checking" (Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources). --GHcool (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Little Stupid's comments

Sugaar, I think we can see who's being belligerent and who's being constructive here. Worse: you keep saying that my account came into existence the same day I edited this article--March 7--and was therefore a "disruptive throwaway account". Curious claim! In fact, a barefaced lie, as anybody can see by clicking on my contributions: I started editing on February 14. By repeating this falsehood about a "newly created" "throwaway" account several times on ANI, you actually got an over-hasty admin to block me (briefly, until I explained the realities of the case to him, and he quickly unblocked). But I'm sure you're all set to apologize to me for getting me an unreasonable block. Aren't you, now? And of course to apologize to GHcool for accusing him--without evidence--of using a disruptive sock to evade the 3RR (a very serious charge)? Yes, I'm sure you are. --Little Stupid (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC).

You are right in that one thing: I overlooked that that account under which you write was created a little earlier, not in March 8th, but some weeks before. I sometimes go too fast over things and I really saw clear that LS had made very very few edits (4 or 5) and that all were from 2008 in any case. (2008, March 8: I mixed up things). I don't think that substantially changes the real issue: who is Little Stupid (talk · contribs) and why a new user would act as an experienced user in his/her 4th or 5th edit. Why would he/she intervene in an undesirable but real edit war.

Look: I have called for no one's help. I have never ever created any sockpuppet or any other kind of "alternative account" and I believe I don't need that to edit Wikipedia normally and seriously. I believe in truth, collaboration and fair play. And you? --Sugaar (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious!

American Jews recognize the importance of support for Israel because of the dire consequences that could follow from the alternative.

I know I'm responding to a quote, and not the article itself, but this slays me. Because the official stance of the ultra-Orthodox Israeli bureaucracy is that most American Jews are goyim, because they can't trace their family back to Orthodoxy. If it weren't for the fact that Israel always needs more soldiers, they wouldn't let most of them even qualify to enter under the Law of Return. Most American Jewry certainly wouldn't qualify for a Jewish marriage license in Israel. They consider Reform Judaism to be Non-Judaism, and even the Conservatives are looked down upon. So I guess what I'm saying is that Mitchell Bard is a sack-of-shit shyster, glossing over the fact that US money is going towards supporting a de facto theocracy (the rabbinate is an arm of the Israeli government!), when most Jews in the world (verifiable by migration statistics) prefer to live under secular governments like the US government. --70.131.116.52 (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote from former Gov. Sununu Sr. on generic "Israel lobbying"

"It's like a handful of pebbles in the shoe. It's there all the time, and this process of not permitting anything that's trying to tug in the other direction, to gain root and thrive, is almost automatic. And it's not just AIPAC, it happens all the time, everywhere. Every congressman, every senator, before they win, is being soft lobbied on the issue. Whether it's their friend that owns 40 acres down the street whose grandfather happened to have come from Kiev, goes in and talks to him about helping him, developing a social relationship on an issue that has nothing to do with the district, begins to communicate their interest. And rightly so-- pulling on their end of the rope. It happens almost invisibly. But across the board. There is nobody who has run for office in this country who has not been soft lobbied the day they announce that they are going to run and not been hard lobbied after they win." [7]

This is from The Much Too Promised Land by Aaron David Miller, a new book coming out on the I-P conflict. The above is a quote from former Gov. Sununu Sr. (not the current Governor John E. Sununu, but his father, I think.) I think some part of this quote or a summary of it should be included in this article. --Lucretius (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New Israel Lobby group

PAC To Offer Pols A Dovish Mideast View - Aim of ‘J-Street Project’ is to counteract AIPAC lobbying on Capitol Hill." While the structure of the new group is still in flux, sources say it is expected to raise money for congressional candidates who advocate a stronger U.S. role in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Describes fundraiser next week. I don't have time to take on this effort but here's a heads up. Carol Moore 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Out of place Benny Morris criticism

This edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States&&title=Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States&diff=202830724&oldid=202804381

I don't understand why Benny Morris' criticism of the general book by Mearsheimer and Walt deserves to be here. The criticism, partly sourced to a blog, is general and not specific to the particular point in the above paragraph that is sourced to Mearsheimer and Walt.

I can understand claiming WP:CENSOR if I was removing such criticism from the article dealing with Mearsheimer and Walt's book, because there general criticism makes sense, but here Benny Morris isn't dealing with the specifics being brought up. In fact, there is a lot of agreement within the community at large that AIPAC and a few related organizations are more hawkish than the majority of US Jews. There is a movement now to create a more left-leaning PAC to AIPAC. See here:

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c39_a5882/News/International.html

“For too long, the loudest American voices in political and policy debates have been those on the far right — often Republican neoconservatives or extreme Christian Zionists,” according to the invitation. “J Street aims to change that. We are the first and only lobby and PAC (political action committee) dedicated to ensuring Israel’s security, changing the direction of American policy in the Middle East and opening up American political debate about Israel and the Middle East.”

Several activists associated with the project say the goal is to offer lawmakers an alternative perspective that they say is closer to the consensus positions of American Jews than that offered by major pro-Israel groups like AIPAC, which they say have not supported aggressive U.S. peacemaking in the region.

I would like to know specifically why Benny Morris' general criticism of Mearsheimer and Walt book deserves to be in this particular paragraph. --Lucretius (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Lobby is good

lobbying is a necessary part of american democracy. lobbyists in general and jewish groups were are responsible for connecting politicians to their people.such lobbyists are responsible for getting the usa out of viet nam, the blacks the right to vote, cutting down on car emissions and getting noriega.Lobbyists pushed the usa to enter WW2 to stop the german army.lobby is not a bad word.Aipac j street even the church are lobbies as is the military industry .In fact aipac is the 6th lobby and the church is number 3 Jewish lobbies have been behind the usa leaving vietnam,public housing efforts,veteran administration rights and the development of internet.Lobbying needs a defender here.its not a bad activity and Ill stand up as its defender. The Jewish lobbies are big strong but the church lobby is even bigger and in favor nowadays of the same things aipac wants: entering iran for example.jewish Lobby is in step with americas way of public involvement in feedback to the gov. aipac or j street have interests in the middle east but these are on the heels of general usa democratic expansion. raquel samper comunidad judia murcia jewish community murcia spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murcia fluent (talk • contribs) 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Undid paste of book jacket blurb into article.

This edit was basically an uncited paste of a book jacket blurb [8] into the article. Reverted as copyvio. --John Nagle (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Public Opinon Toward Israel (re: "voting power")

I just removed this from the "voting power" section of the article:

Broadbased Pro-Israel sentiment is seen by many as the key to the success of the Israel Lobby. In 1948, a Gallup poll showed that almost three times as many Americans "sympathized with the Jews" as "sympathized with the Arabs," and the public's support has increased since then. Therefore, according to Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations, "a pro-Israel foreign policy does not represent the triumph of a small lobby over the public will. It represents the power of public opinion to shape foreign policy in the face of concerns by foreign policy professionals."

The above cites a 1948 Gallup poll which is pretty irrelevant to the current situation. Although if one wants to bring up Gallup figures, here are the numbers every year since 1967:

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

In contrast to this particular take on the issue by Walter Russell Mead, according to the The Jewish Virtual Library 75% of Americans prefer if the United States didn't take sides in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, although there is continued larger sympathy for Israelis than there are for Palestinian Arabs:

"Since 1998, roughly three-fourths of respondents have said the United States should take neither side in the conflict, but those who do pick a side overwhelmingly choose Israel (27% vs. 1% for the Palestinian's side in 2001). More than three-fourths of Americans also believe Palestinian-Israeli peace is somewhat or very important to the United States."

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

I think that the above should be added to this article and it would present a more accurate picture than the distorted and dated take on things provided by Walter Russell Mead.

One last note: one needs to differentiate between "support for Israel" and "favoring Israel over the Palestinians." These are different things. Most people who support peace in the Middle East support both the Israel and Palestinians.

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --GHcool (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A new poll on world public opinion including the US. The results surprised me with regards to how equally both Israel and the Palestinians are viewed in most countries (except for a few understandable exceptions.)

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/503.php?nid=&id=&pnt=503&lb

Again this survey reinforces that the majority of Americans (71% in this specific survey) advocate that the US take neither side in the conflict.

--John Bahrain (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Voting Power

I added a paragraph in voting power about American public's support for Israel, but this was removed by another user. I think it should be retained because
1) Overall support for Israel is (obviously) crucial to understanding the success of pro-Israel policies.
2) The section includes Jewish support for Israel, but gentile/overall support is obviously important also
3) It includes the point of view Russel Mead in his article on the subject. This reduces the overreliance on Bard and M&Walt. In addition, Mead is probably considered more authoritative then the others.
Unless someone responds to this in the next few days, I'll put the paragraph back in. I'd appreciate help in merging it better.

I wrote about why I removed this section below (usually people post at the bottom of talk pages, not the top.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Public_Opinon_Toward_Israel_.28re:_.22voting_power.22.29

--John Bahrain (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"roughly 89 percent [of American Jews] live in twelve key electoral college states"!? Does this number seem implausible to anyone else? Is the source using the term "key" very loosely? Anyone have that source and want to check the sources it references? The general point of the section is not disputed, but the situation is exaggerated and unless the numbers are far outdated (quite possible), they don't seem right.--Zachbe (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 2006 - 2007

I want to avoid getting involved in this article for a lot of reasons. (It took me 20 minutes just to clean up non-controversial problems in one little section this am.) But it does seem that these two years should be archived since it is confusing to see these old issues still hanging around; (though some perhaps not resolved, like over reliance on self-published Bard - just bring them up again as currently relevant). Hearing no objections, if no one else does it, I'll do it next time it comes to mind :-) Carol Moore 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Are there any lobbies that support the viewpoint of, "Let's just make it the 51st state and get it over with"? Rise and Decline (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New book on efforts to register AIPAC/Israel lobby as a foreign group

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=3033 --John Bahrain (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wall Street Journal too
• and ABC affiliate quoting PR Newswire??
• [blog.thehill.com/2008/09/05/aipac-biden-spat-comes-at-an-interesting-moment/ The Hill blog]

I'm sure there's more. Someone be bold and put it in there :-) Carol Moore 01:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Good Source dozens of article about Iraq war and Israel Lobby articles

Chanced upon [iraq war and israel in my yahoogroup travels which is about 80 full articles from mainstream sources on this topic by a neutral party "for historical research purposes." So there are dozens of WP:RS there. Carol Moore 19:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] {talk}

My feeling is that long coverage of this topic doesn't belong in this article as full coverage of the topic is multi-sided. I would suggest it have its own article, although it should be linked to from this article, Israel-United States relations and the 2003 Iraq War articles at least. It is a complex and contentious subject be warned, although if you restrict yourselves to quality sources, it be possible to write such a thing. I would suggest an article title such as Israel and the 2003 Iraq War or something to that extent and such a title would allow for an encompassing perspective on the various groups and individuals who pushed for that war. --John Bahrain (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional info and I take your points. I’m ready to make the (at the moment blanked) subsection on the Israel lobby and the Iraq war in to its own article. That’s fine by me, but I think there should at least be some reference in this article to the debate around the Israel lobby and the war.

Colombo Man (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Of course right now it might be more important to do one for Iran war, but that one is so much on the top of the news your average person can't miss it! So many wiki articles, so little time! Carol Moore 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

What is the difference between this article and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

What is the difference between this article and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy? This article appears to be mostly original research culled from that book, and stated as fact (in contravention of WP:NPOV). Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The M&W content of this article has increased four fold in the last few days. It may be best to move some of that content into the article on their book.

For example, compare the M&W content in the references section today to the amount in this version from a few days ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States&oldid=239081410

--John Bahrain (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think M&W's book (and the controversy around it) is worthy of its own article. However, I do agree with Jayjg that perhaps this article cites info from M&W's book too liberally. Perhaps over the weekend, we can trim some of the fat. --GHcool (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Or just move it around. There is extremely poor and disjointed coverage in the other article of the book's actual contents. --John Bahrain (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I’m keen to play a constructive part in improving the article. If you think it’s got too many citations from M&W I’m ready to work with you guys to reach a consensus to decide what to remove and what to include. I’d be grateful though if you could cite where in the guidelines it says on limiting particular sources – that’d be useful as a rule of thumb to proceed. Then at least we know what we’re working to.Colombo Man (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added the onesource tag to the top of the page. There are a couple of paragraphs that I would suggest trimming from the article:

1. The paragraph that begins, "The lobby’s drift to the right has been reinforced by the emergence of the neoconservatives."
2. The section labeled "Targeting" under the "Campaign donations" section.
3. The sentence, "According to Mearsheimer and Walt, Commentary, the New Republic and the Weekly Standard 'zealously defend Israel at every turn.'"
4. The paragraph that begins, "Former spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York said that the result of this lobbying of the media was ..."
5. The section labeled "Coordination with Israeli officials"
6. The sentence, "Mearsheimer and Walt, who focus on the right-leaning component of the Israel lobby, write that 'the Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide" to Israel.'"
7. The section labeled "The Israel lobby and the invasion of Iraq"
8. The paragraph beginning, "According to Morris Amitay ..."
9. The section labeled "Political allignment"

Many of the points covered in the above passages are covered elsewhere in the article. I am confident that the integrity and neutrality of the article as a whole will not be affected by trimming the fat. If I do not hear any objections within the next couple of days, I will begin with this plan. --GHcool (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority "targetting" section doesn't rely on W&M. Why is it on your list?

The majority of the "Coordination with Israeli officials" also primarily relies on non W&M individuals, although the initial third party quote is sourced to W&M, but we can just find the original source for that as it isn't W&M opinion. (And it is the over reliance on W&M opinion that is the problem, not citations of others who are quoted by W&M.)

Half of the "Political allignment" isn't sourced to M&W.

The paragraph that starts "Former spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York said that the result of this lobbying of the media was ..." isn't sourced to M&W's opinion obviously as the sentence clearly indicates. Why do you consider the "former spokesman for the Israeli consulate" to not be appropriate for this article?

"According to Morris Amitay..." also again is a high quality third party source that belongs in this article.

Let's remember that the issue is with over reliance on the analysis of M&W, their opinion, but sources that they cite who are credible on the topic at hand are still relevant (as long as the sources are not anonymous, etc.) We can address those usages by tracing to the original sources that they cite.

I do believe that the opinion of M&W is excessive in this article (as I said before), but the above list of issues above seems strangely arbitrary and doesn't really address the specific issue with this article that we agree on exists. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the primary sources, rather than relying on M&W, then you are doing original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

John Bahrain makes a fair point (although I believe the excerpts he mentions can/should be trimmed for other reasons, but let's focus on the topic at hand for now). I would suggest that if the sources cited by M&W can be found on the web, then they be footnoted rather than M&W's book. Here is an update list without the excerpts John Bahrain indicated:

1. The paragraph that begins, "The lobby’s drift to the right has been reinforced by the emergence of the neoconservatives."
2. The first paragraph of the section labeled "Targeting" under the "Campaign donations" section ("AIPAC does not ...").
3. The sentence, "According to Mearsheimer and Walt, Commentary, the New Republic and the Weekly Standard 'zealously defend Israel at every turn.'"
4. The sentence, "Mearsheimer and Walt, who focus on the right-leaning component of the Israel lobby, write that 'the Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide" to Israel.'"
5. The section labeled "The Israel lobby and the invasion of Iraq" --GHcool (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello GHcool, in response to the above I'd say:

1. I’m ok with deleting the paragraph, but I think if we’re discussing the left and right wings of the lobby, there should be a reference to the role of the neoconservatives in the drift to the right.
2. Target paragraph "The lobby's..." - this is integral to how the lobby operates and can't agree to its removal.
3. No objections to removing "According to Mearsheimer and Walt, Commentary, the New Republic and the Weekly Standard 'zealously defend Israel at every turn.'"
4. Mixed feelings about deleting the sentence, "Mearsheimer and Walt, who focus on the right-leaning component of the Israel lobby, write that 'the Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide" to Israel.'" If there's consensus on this I'm ready to follow it.
5. The section labeled "The Israel lobby and the invasion of Iraq". Agreed. I'm going to start a new article on this using the text so it can all go from here. What I’d propose in its place is a short one paragraph subsection on it, noting some of the views for and against with a link to the new article.
6. GCool, re your original proposal to remove the political alignment subsection, I don't have any objections to that.

Colombo Man (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no objections to removing the paragraph that begins, "The lobby’s drift ...," I'm removing that one. I'll wait before removing others for a consensus to develop. --GHcool (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've noted that you deleted all of the trend to the right stuff and I seemed to have missed that consensus building. I believe, since the distinction between the right and the left wings of the lobby are a stated basis of the description, maybe we should try to define what the right and left are within the lobby. It certainly seems better to do that first, lest we leave out some informative points. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've gotten started on what was discussed. There seems to still be discussion on the following sentences proposed to be removed:

1. The first paragraph of the section labeled "Targeting" under the "Campaign donations" section ("AIPAC does not ...").
2. The section labeled "Political allignment"

If there are no objections within the next couple of days, I will be removing the above from the article. --GHcool (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss how you intend improve the paras on "AIPAC does not ..."), and "Political allignment". I dont think a quick delete will suffice. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggested the quick delete. Feel free to make a better suggestion. If no better suggestion is made, I'll assume deleting the paragraphs is the best course of action. --GHcool (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello GHcool, I can't agree with the delete of the paragraph you've taken out on "Targeting". What's your specific objections to it? If we know these maybe we can improve it. Colombo Man (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Iraq war section

Jayjg,

There’s an odd lack of specifics in your blanking of the entire section on the Israel lobby and the Iraq war by merely marking it all ‘WP: original research’. You’re an admin, you know the rules so I’m sure you can do better than that. Let’s have some details: What? Where? How? Let's see some specifics to support the blanking.

As for your point about lack of the term Israel lobby in the section, the institutions listed in the section have been cited as part of the lobby by various sources, including M&W.

Colombo Man (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "blank... the entire section on the Israel lobby and the Iraq war", nor did I "merely mark... it all ‘WP: original research’." You can see what the edit summary said, and the actual edit I made, so I’m sure you can do better than that. As for your comment that "the institutions listed in the section have been cited as part of the lobby by various sources, including M&W", please review WP:SYN. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I take that back.

Colombo Man (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should collect various citations from multiple sources on the connection between the Israel lobby and the Iraq war and maybe make a page within your userspace with the eventual aim of moving it into articlespace. I think a good article to model such a new article on would be the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel as it is about the relationship between two similar topics and it is highly contentious. --John Bahrain (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John. I think that's a good way to proceed. Colombo Man (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

AIPAC's right-wing aggressiveness with Iran

The Israel lobby can very much be separated into right-leaning components and left-leaning components with AIPAC clearly on the right. Just today, an article by MJ Rosenberg of the left-leaning Israel Policy Forum appeared in Haaretz criticizing the aggressiveness and general out-of-step with American public opinion AIPAC with regards to its positions on Iran.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1027754.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure I agree with you here, for instance isn't Peace Now a member of the Presidents Conference? Or what about the Meretz's guys on Iraq? And J-Street's views on issues like Jerusalem are to the right of US policy. I'm not saying there's not a difference, but often that difference seems most akin to the relationship between the neocons and the liberal hawks.

Colombo Man (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the right/left sides can be described and can be documented, but not easily by groups, probably easier on an ideological basis What can be documented are specific events that lead to/caused the aggressiveness and allowed the drift to the right to be so accepted as good for America. Rosenberg’s article noted by John is a land mark loss, which harkens hope. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good cite regarding AIPAC's position on Iran.[9]: The AIPAC meeting also featured bellicose anti-Iran statements. Leading neoconservative Richard Perle urged that Iran be placed on the terrorist hit list. Senator McCain told the AIPAC audience that, if elected president, he would drastically ramp up financial pressure on Iran’s rulers by targeting the country’s gasoline imports and imposing sanctions against its central bank. Senator Obama presented an equally firm position concerning Iran. According to The Wall Street Journal, “AIPAC and other Jewish-American organizations have identified Iran as a threat to Israel’s existence". McCain's actual speech is here. Obama's is here. --John Nagle (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bret Stephens in the Media and public discourse

I think we need to have a proper discussion about the inclusion of Bret Stephens' quote in the Media and Public Discourse section of this page, specifically in the context of this proposed paragraph:

The sensitivities of covering Israel in the press was addressed by academic Ian Buruma in the New York Times in an article, “How to talk about Israel”(How to talk about Israel, New York Times, 31 August 2003). Buruma’s piece prompted Bret Stephens, then editor of the Jerusalem Post and now columnist and editorial member of the Wall Street Journal, to write an open letter asking Buruma: “Are you a Jew?” According to Stephens the answer was important because “One must at least be a Jew to tell the goyim how they may and may not talk about Israel.”(refMearsheimer and Walt (2007), p174</ref)

It's most certainly notifiable - it directly relates to the activities of the lobby, part of which is about influencing the public discourse. Indeed, Stephens' quote is itself in response to an article in the New York Times dealing with the sensitivies of discussion of Israel in the US media. Stephens is in an influential position in the United States as an editor with the WSJ. The quote itself has been highlighted by a study on the lobby by Harvard/Univ Chicago academics.

I can see no reason for it not to be included.

Colombo Man (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont have any particular problems with the para, depending where it goes, but the link provided to the NYT article was empty. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Try this link. [10]. New York Times links are getting frustrating, because they allow free access from some referrers, and refer you to a login page for others. --John Nagle (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Phew, that's a long article. Didn't read it all, but seemed to have other stuff also; all of which is opinion. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You "see no reason for it not to be included"? It's a random quote, chosen solely to make Stephens look bad, found in only one secondary source. When you couldn't push it into the article on Stephens, you canvassed John Bahrain to have him insert it randomly in here. Even, Carolmooredc, who disagrees with me about everything, says I am correct.[11] Review WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, thanks for your reply. We're talking about this page and the quote isn't random, but relates directly to the subject of the subsection: the media and the public discourse. Moreover, it follows on from the previous sentence about the difficulties discussing Israel and the work of the lobby in the US media.

Colombo Man (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

According to whom does this quote "follow on from the previous sentence"? This is just another means of inserting WP:BLP-violating material. Please find multiple, reliable secondary sources tying this quote to the subject you think it is relevant to. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No opposition groups to Israel lobby section?

Heavens, no mention of such anti-Israel lobby groups and publications as American Council on Mideast Policy, The (Jimmy) Carter Center, Council for National Interest, CounterPunch.Org, Electronic Intifada's Israel Lobby Watch, IfAmeriansKnew.Org, Middleeast.org, Middle East Research and Information Project, StopAIPAC.Org, etc? Not to mention brief note on the various Arab lobby and pro-Palestinian lobbying groups. This article is seriously lacking! CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy Cow, there is such a thing? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, in response to J's question on Israel Lobby in UK about where to put opposition to Israel and its lobby,I just took my first look in a while at this article. I realized both articles needed such a section.

But see a lot of POV problems in this article which would be a big job to deal with, for no pay.

Ojn the other hand, I think we need an ISRAEL LOBBY main article to talk about the concept in general with short overview of lobbies in a number of countries, with links to "Main article" of those which have their own. Maybe that's a way to use all those fact filled books shunted into the "Criticism" section when most of the deserve a sentence or two. Two countries that could easily get their own articles are Canada and Australia. WP:RS galore. Those who like the idea and have a better overview of all the more general and broadly international sources than I do might start consider doing that and I'll jump in and support you all :-) (Disambiguation should be easy to figure out.)

And if you have any good sources that talk about "Israel lobby" and "UK" do tell. Need for problems at Israel lobby in the United Kingdom.

Right now I've started researching the issue of SYNONYMS in leads per WP:Name and WP:Lead. I think "Israel Lobby" and "Zionist Lobby" clearly are synonyms. "Jewish Lobby" technically isn't always an exact synonym since there can be Jewish lobbying NOT about Israel, but as one of those policies says, NPOV means reporting how phrases used overwhelmingly, not what a few discerning people know is the truth. (Per a controversial statement in WP:V or WP:RS, can't remember which.) Though of course those who point out Jewish lobby CAN be different than Israel lobby should be quoted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the "Israel lobby in the United States" article. If you want to create an "anti-Israel lobby in the United States" article, feel free, but don't put anti-Israel lobbies in an Israel lobby article. Would you put information about the pro-life side of the abortion debate in the article concerning the pro-choice side? --GHcool (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I was bouncing off another discussion where the solution was more appropriate. On the other hand, "controversy" or "criticism" sections can at least list GROUPS opposed, just like it lists authors opposed (most of whom look like they should be quoted in the article on factoids.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)