Talk:Anti-Israel lobby in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

unreliable source used as basis

nearly this entire article is based on an article by Michael Lewis, the director of policy analysis for AIPAC. The article contains the explicit disclaimer that "the views expressed here are those of the author alone." To use this as the source to say that all these organizations are "anti-Israel" and work towards goals inimical to the state of Israel as a fact is unacceptable. Find a RS backing up the claims that these are anti-Israel lobbies. nableezy - 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

also the examiner source is unreliable, see WP:RS/N#Examiner.com nableezy - 20:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your assertion puts material in an article by Lewis on exactly the same footing as the book by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer on which the article on Pro-Israel lobby in the United Sates is based. All books and articles express the ideas of the author alone except for those (relatively few) books and articles that are sponsored by institutions. We judge books and articles by how well they are sourced. Walt and Mearsheimer's use of sources has, of course, been widely criticized. If you have some well-sourced criticism of Lewis' use of sources you may, of course , bring it. Historicist (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We actually judge sources on whether or not they are reliable secondary sources and how other reliable secondary sources treat them, not on how they use sources. That article is in effect an editorial and is not a RS to make the statement of fact that these organizations are "anti-Israel lobbies" working in ways "inimical to the state of Israel". And no, not all books and articles express the ideas of the author alone, any real publisher who puts their name on a book does fact checking and vetting for the claims of the book, any real news source does the same except for editorials where it clearly only the idea of the writer. If you want me to take this to WP:RS/N I can, but an editorial by the AIPAC director of policy analysis is not a proper source to state as a fact that these organizations are "anti-Israel lobbies" nableezy - 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the basis for claiming that this is an "editorial"? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The line "The views expressed here are those of the author alone." at the very top of the editorial? nableezy - 21:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is heavily-sourced journal article. The disclaimer is boilerplate used to indicate that the author is writing a scholarly piece and not speaking offocially on behalf of the organization for which he works. Historicist (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Plenty of respectable Arab and Palestinian scholar/authors/experts belong to extremely partisan, fringy, and lobbying organizations. Some of these groups even condone "resistance" against Israeli occupation, though others refer to it differently. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece with all the conclusions being the opinion of the author. Unless the author himself is a reliable source this editorial is not a reliable source. nableezy - 00:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but disagree. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you have not read WP:RS. nableezy - 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• User Nableezy is wrong about this. Washingtonexaminer.com is the web site of the daily newspaper that appears in a print edition.Historicist (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The examiner.com article was not from washingtonexaminer.com. What is it that I am wrong about? nableezy - 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

It is obviously propaganda and not based on real wp:rs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Er.... because you don't like it?Historicist (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course if it isn't deleted it means someone can start Anti-Islamic lobby in the United States and Anti-Arab lobby in the United States and [[Anti-Palestinian lobby in the United States using one little article as basis and then just WP:Coatracking all the usual Israel Lobby suspects. Of course, since two of those are not even related to a nation state but a religion or nationality, they obviously would be evidence of bigotry, not politics. I can think of dozens of articles about just such organized bigotry by various pro-Israel groups that could serve as a basis. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Have your also proposed the deletion of Jewish lobby?Historicist (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• This article is about organizations and individuals that lobby against Israel. the article on the Arab lobby in the United States is about orgnaizations that lobby on behalf of Arab causes. The two lobbies may overlap, but they are hardly the same.Historicist (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Arab lobby in the United States but I'm surprised you don't want to change that to Pro-Arab to be consistent. Not that I recommend you do it since Arab Lobby, like Israel Lobby, is the usual usage. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Israel Lobby" is the "usual" usage only in anti-Israel circles. In this I cite [[William Safire". Your bias shows in your false assertion.Historicist (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Israel lobby" is the usual usage in academic and political circles that aren't particularly "anti-Israel." "anti-Israel lobby" is common, well, nowhere. This article should be AfD'd forthwith. csloat (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The content is well-referenced, if the title is your concern feel free to propose a move. There is a strong movement that rides against the US support for Israel, and this has been referred to as the "anti-Israel lobby." It might not be entirely accurate, but that's not our problem. The Israel lobby in the United States image is based on how enemies perceive US support for Israel. The whole concept of this dominant Jewish control over our politicians, government, economy, taxpayers, etc...etc..is bolstered by critics. AIPAC doesn't pass itself off as such, and neither does the Anti-Israel lobby. I'd endorse a move if a reasonable alternative is suggested but at this point I think the article is perfectly acceptable under wikipedia policy. I know Israel is a touchy subject for many so let's try to keep this cordial, trust me here. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the phrase "Israel lobby" is in common usage by a variety of external sources, whereas "anti-Israel lobby" is not. It has no bearing on the "touchiness" of the subject - it's just a matter of confirming with reliable sources that this is indeed a coherent concept in a recognized body of literature. Cheers, csloat (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The movement is recognized as lobby against the state of Israel - hence anti-Israel lobby. We could re-title it Organizations that lobby against US support for Israel but that is just silly. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a better title, sure, except presumably those orgs also lobby for other things? Or are they orgs whose only purpose is to lobby against US support for Israel? If the latter, OK, but if the former, it is a WP:SYN problem to connect them in that way without reliable sources that discuss them in a group like that. There is an identifiable group of reliable sources -- scholars as well as media pundits or left-wing ideologues -- who discuss an "Israel lobby." I have never seen that sort of discussion of an organized "Anti-Israel lobby" outside of a small circle on the far right, and the article does not suggest otherwise. If this is a more substantive concept, we do need to see the reliable sources that substantiate it. csloat (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How article could be NPOV and even accurate

On the other hand, the article could be NPOV if - besides deleting the obviously pro-Israel content, it detailed the reasons that those who are "anti-Israel" are so, including everything from Apartheid in Israel to the Samson Option threat to nuke Arab, European and Russian cities which is used as a threat agains the US (not to mention the USS Liberty incident and the killing of Rachel Corrie, etc.). After all if one is ANTI something one usually has a reason, doesn't one? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That may fit your POV but right now lodging content you don't endorse as "pro-Israel" is extremely bad-faith. Israel and the apartheid analogy is loaded with strictly pro-Palestinian and partisan sources. So is 1948 Palestinian Exodus. This article has only been around for less than 2 days so a sharp assessment like yours is rather suspect. Perhaps it would be better to collaborate and be more explicit in what content you believe does not qualify under wikipedia policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as I wrote on renamed pro-Israel lobby: However, thinking about it, pro-Israel lobby isn't that bad because it makes it clear what nation the Israel lobbyists in the US are most pro- :-)

If anyone bothered to do any internet search they would see there are a lot of articles about the "anti-Israel lobby." How to comply with wikipolicies:

• Only if a WP:RS sources actually call a group "anti-Israel" or if it self identifies thusly can it be mentioned in this article or one is violating WP:BLP.
• And of course to be NPOV/Balanced the main reasons a group is "anti-Israel" must be mentioned, once some WP:RS identifies it thusly. So the article can't just be a WP:Coatrack for making groups look like anti-Semites who want to kill all the Jews, which seems to be the intention of the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The claim that organizations -- even the American Friends Service Committee -- work in ways "inimical to the welfare and continued existence of the state of Israel" is inherently POV. Who says it's "inimical"? Only the WP editor. There are many Israelis and American Jews who believe that many of these organizations are working for the welfare of the state of Israel. It's a reasonable position to say that Israeli militarism and the killing of innocent Palestinians is inimical to the welfare of the state of Israel.

I think this article violates WP:NPOV on its face, because of its open and one-sided hostility to its subject. Unless it can be rewritten to comply with [WP:NPOV]] (and probably renamed), it should be deleted. --Nbauman (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a place for an article about groups that really are "anti-Israel" which explains the concrete political ways they are, including because of actions of Israel itself. But the phrase and the article cannot be defined by people who are pro-Israel or it inherently POV. I don't know if anyone else really will want to work on such an article, so over all User:Nbauman is pretty much correct. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be more explicit. All I see is SOAP about how the article is POV because you happen to disagree with its subject matter. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I just put a post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Middle_East_Quarterly on this very subject. I should have put it here. There I said pretty much what Carol says - that the article is editorial in character, and needs a lot of rewrite.

Take, for example, the lead: "Anti-Israel lobby is a term used to describe the coalition of organizations and individuals who work to influence United States foreign policy in ways inimical to the welfare and continued existence of the state of Israel." It is true that "Anti-Israeli lobby" is a term used to describe a group of organizations, and probably the members of that group would not object too strenuously to being called that. But to say they are "inimical to the welfare and continued existence of the state of Israel"? Isn't that being a little extreme? Many people think that "encouraging a balanced U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East" and "leading Arab-American voice on foreign policy issues, especially by defending the rights of the Palestinian people" - stated positions from the ADC's website - is not inimical to the continued existence of Israel. Nor is protesting military actions by Israel as a violation of human rights anti-Israeli any more than protesting human rights violations in Darfur is being anti-Sudani. There are plenty of Israeli groups that consider actions by Israel in the recent Gaza war as war crimes. Are those groups anti-Israeli? Are they inimical to the continued existence of the state of Israel?

There is an anti-Israeli lobby and it is deserving of an article in Wikipedia. When the MEQ puts forth an opinion about the nature of this lobby, it deserves to be quoted. But it should be quoted directly, and we should make it clear that the opinion is just that. And the positions of the different lobbying groups should also be directly quoted, and actions they have taken - such as publishing an op-ed column in the Boston Globe on Israeli settlements - attributed directly to the websites and publications of those organizations, and not quoted in generalizations from a third party. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Later: I have taken the liberty of revising the lead in a way I think is a bit less provocative. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase "supporters of Israel" is inaccurate in this entry.

The real meaning here is "supporters of the Israeli right," or "supporters of the Likud," or "supporters of the settler movement."

I'm a supporter of Israel (I've done fund-raising), but I'm also a supporter of the American Friends Service Committee, and I think the AFSC is also a supporter of Israel.

I'm a supporter of Israel -- I support a democratic, law-abiding Israel at the 1967 borders. James Zogby and Jesse Jackson would say the same thing. This has to be drastically rewritten or deleted.

I really don't feel like getting into an edit war with the usual self-proclaimed pro-Israel WP editors. So I expect they will keep it POV and it will have to be deleted. --Nbauman (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and, since I wrote it, I feel free to change it. However, I don't like the new version of the lead by Nableezy. Nab, you have removed the fact that these are lobbying organizations that explicitly act to change US policy. They are not ashamed of that goal, why should be be? Also, I don't think the term "anti-Israeli" is used pejoratively. Are you insulted when someone calls you anti-Israeli? Nbauman and I might be, because we consider ourselves pro-Israeli, but I don't think people in general consider the term pejorative. It seems pretty neutral to me in this case.

How about:

Anti-Israel lobby refers to a group of organizations and individuals who lobby to change United States policies favorable to Israel. Michael Lewis, director of Policy Analysis for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (the leading pro-Israeli lobby in Washington), claims that the agenda of these organizations is "injuring the Jewish state, rather than aiding Arabs."(footnote)

I removed something from the lead? Only thing I changes was the wording of "Critics claim that " to Michael Lewis, director of Policy Analysis for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (the leading pro-Israeli lobby in Washington), claims that the". nableezy - 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I see I changed "the" to "thei" and then thought it was a spelling mistake and made it "their", changed it back so the only change to the lead made was explicitly citing the critic. nableezy - 18:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And to answer your question, yes I am insulted when somebody calls me "anti-Israel" as I do not equate being opposed to policies of the government of Israel to being opposed to Israel. But I havent made any real content changes in this article (at least I dont think I made that change in the lead, but short-term memory isnt the strongest for me right now), mostly cleaning up refs and explicitly citing opinion pieces. I personally think this article is garbage so I do not plan on wasting a whole lot of time dealing with it. The very foundation of this article is garbage (we have to define these things as pro and anti-Israel, why not pro and anti-Palestine? why not pro and anti-human rights? and on and on). This article is only going to serve as a coatrack for every opinion that some group is anti-Israel and to label them as such. Are any of the organizations listed in this article usually described as anti-Israel? Or is it more often they are described as pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian or pro-whatever? That last statement from Nbauman (16:08) succintly sums up my attitude towards this article, though I think said self-proclaimed pro-Israel editors will shout loud enough at any future AfD that the result will likely be "no consensus". nableezy - 18:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

is this the change in the lead you were referring to? nableezy - 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. "Anti-Israel" and worse "anti-Israeli" are quite pejorative and non-neutral terms, and I have little doubt that the organizations and people mentioned here would be quite insulted by being called that. Should we change the name of the Israel lobby articles to Anti-Arab lobby? Are black civil rights organizations anti-white? The article blithely ignores WP:NPOV as if it did not exist, and repeatedly asserts highly disputable statements as fact. We currently have an article Arab lobby in the United States. Some of the content here might be appropriate as critique there. The most parallel article to this one is Jewish lobby, which is mainly about the use of the term; if this one stays, it should be drastically shortened and similarly be mainly about language, instead of a coatrack for criticisms of organizations that belong in their articles or in the arab lobby article. I have my doubts about the Neusner quote on the AFSC - it is from a book edited by him, and from what I see on the net, not clearly from an article by him in it.John Z (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Another clear problem is that a leading source of the article, Lewis's article, doesn't even use the phrase "anti-Israel lobby" or suggest the degree of coherence probably implied by the phrase, calling them "Israel's detractors" instead.. So the second sentence of the lead is bad. WP:OR?.John Z (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That particular article does not use the phrase "Anti-Israel lobby", although it includes many sentences like this one "The anti-Israel effort also included organizing anti-Israel protests and letter-writing campaigns; attempting passage of anti-Israel resolutions in state and national party platforms; offering anti-Israel testimony before Congress; attempting to sue Israel in U.S. courts; attacking Congressional supporters of Israel; and mounting assorted efforts against pro-Israel groups." However, I cite books that do use this phrase, and could cite many more. Moreover, the listed organizations self-describe as working to end foreign aid to Israel, to reduce American sympathy for Israel and, in several cases, to eliminate Israel.Historicist (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like OR to me to describe that as an "Anti-Israel Lobby"; if there are substantive sources using that phrase (or making more clear that this is a real concept in a recognized body of literature), that's what should be cited here. I think the OR problem John Z is pointing out is a problem for a large number of the sources in this article. csloat (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Some more points: Conor Cruise O'Brien's The Siege, a history sympathetic to Zionism, says "and granted the no less tremendous financial interests involved, one might have expected a great anti-Israel lobby to emerge. But this has not happened." This book says "There is much reporting of the Jewish lobby, much less so of the active, well-financed pro-Arab or anti-Israel lobby which has been operating on many fronts" - identifying the (pro)Arab Lobby and the "anti-Israel Lobby", and supporting the idea that this is a WP:POVFORK of Arab lobby in the United States.John Z (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

US slant

Is there a reason to limit the scope of this article to US-based lobbying efforts? Clearly such lobbying efforts exist elsewhere - see for example The anti-Israel Lobby in Britain. Will we be creating a similar Anti-Israel lobby in Britain, or should we rename this article and include such material here? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that there should be such an article on every country, and then , perhaps, an article on the international anti-Israel lobby. The politics of this is , after all, both international, and very particular to the culture and politics of individual countries.Historicist (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a lot. It makes sense to have one basic article and include the various countries - of have the US (which is the most popular) and then everyone else. The Arab countries run some pretty heavy-hitting fronts, but they tend to do more than just spread dogma. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attack_page?

I think this really is an attack page, per Wikipedia:Attack_page. It's goal is to make all the named individuals and groups look bad which is vs. WP:BLP. If it is NOT an attack page, then it is perfectly fine to write an article about the pejorative term Israel firster since I see that a number of WP:RS have discussed it and some well known people like Pat Buchanan and Michael Scheuer have used it. And name all the people they claim are Israel firsters. Should it be reported as such? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly in danger of that, and has BLP problems. I think merge of appropriate content to various pages and redirect to Arab lobby might be the best.John Z (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States and opine. I will look again at the list of groups since I've worked on Arab lobby. Some are there. I know someone else removed CAIR which I had up there. Other groups may not be lobbying groups, but certainly want to be accurate! CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Having looked it over I don't think it is an attack page. It needs work to improve neutrality but I don't think deletion is the best solution.Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lewis article

• The article in contention is a heavily-sourced journal article. User:nableezy is in error in believing that it is an editorial because it carries the disclaimer that "The views expressed here are those of the author alone." The disclaimer is boilerplate used to indicate that the author is writing a scholarly piece and not speaking offocially on behalf of the organization for which he works. Moreover, as I point out on the article talk page, all books are only as reliable as their author. Publishers do not use fact-checkers as newspapers do. The Walt and Mearcheimer book, for example, is only as reliable as Walt and Mearshiemer.Historicist (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It itself says its an opinion piece. I dont see how you are disputing that. Even Ghcool agreed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel that this is an opinion piece. Yes he cites the statments that he thinks are anti-Israel, how does that make it less of an opinion piece? nableezy - 15:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And reputable academic publishers actually do fact check books they publish. nableezy - 16:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. What they do is send the manuscript out for review. This means that it is read once, by one academic, who gets paid nothing but who reads it out of a sense of scholarly responsibility. He then sends the publisher a letter a couple of paragraphs long approving the book. There are rare cases in which a reviewer will find s book so wide of the mark that he will alert the publisher with a detailed analysis, and the publisher may choose to return the manuscript for improvement or even to reject the manuscript. This is exceedingly rare. But it is also not fact-checking. Fact-checking is what the Washington Post, Newsweek and the New Yorker do. It is extremely expensive and time consuming. For the news weeklies, it involves paying full-tie, staff researchers to comb through an article and verify the source of every fact. On the papers, the reporters do this themselves, and must vouch for every fact. This is not to say that no errors slip in. They do. But make too many and your job is on the line. Book publishing is an entirely different game. You can make as many errors of fact as you will, but if your books sell, they'll publish more. This applies even to university presses. The only checks are legal and reputational. Publish bad facts and you might fail to get tenure, or fail to get another contract with a prestige press like Oxford and have to go with, say Verso. and some publishers have books on certain topics checked for libel. But, no, Vriginia, book publishers do not check facts. Academic journals are another story, again, but I've got other things to do.Historicist (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't know a whole lot about academic publishing, do you? Fact checking may or may not occur in any particular instance, but the idea that manuscripts are only reviewed by one academic, who rarely rejects the manuscript, is laughable. csloat (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Virginia? But back to the point, how are you disputing this is an opinion piece? The "article" itself says "The views expressed here are those of the author alone." How are you coming here and say this is not presented as the authors "views"? How are you going to come here and say Micheal Lewis, director of policy analysis for AIPAC, is a scholar? How are you going to use the views of someone who sees these people as political adversaries to support a BLP-violative charge? nableezy - 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposals are regularly rejected, manuscripts (which a publisher sees only when the book is completed) are rarely rejected and are, as I said, not fact-checked but reviewed by a single academic reviewer.Historicist (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why you say this is a "scholarly piece" when the author cannot be described as a scholar? Would you mind explaining why when the publisher says "The views expressed here are those of the author alone" you take that to mean something other than these are the authors views? nableezy - 14:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying, I'm really trying

I have rewritten the article up to "Prestatehood era", in a way that I hope gives some sense of reality to this article. I have removed unattributed references to "Anti-Israeli", which Nableezy convinced me is really not a neutral term (I don't know how we'll deal with that in the title). The only thing I deleted was the first part of the quote by David Harris, which, in the way it was presented, was mere demagogery. Otherwise, the material is only reorganized and rewritten (though I did add a few things).

If anyone out there thinks this is a decent start, I will keep working on it. As I have said before, the subject definitely merits an article, though a merger with the article on the Israel lobby is an option. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope it gets deleted, but if not I will do some of the things I mention here Talk:Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#How_article_could_be_NPOV_and_even_accurate. Meanwhile read it if you haven't. I'm sure that done properly the average reader will see that being anti-Israel is no worse than being Anti-Zionist.

Another good source: searching Counterpunch.org for "anti-Israel" I found all sorts of discussion from WP:RS individuals and I'm sure quite a few could be inserted here. Plus try searching other publications with writers critical of Israel and I'm sure MUCH more can be discovered. This article actually could be used to establish the legitimacy of using the phrase and it might start appearing all over in mainstream publications before you know it, especially if it is linked all over wikipedia. Hmmm. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know why you want to establish the legitimacy of the phrase. As it now stands, the expression appears only when attributed to pro-Israeli sources. Nableezy has convinced me that the phrase is, at least in his eyes and probably those of many others, pejorative, and we should simply avoid it wherever we can. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better title for the article, so we're kind of stuck with it.

The point of the article (at least the rewritten part) is that there is a growing lobby which is a counterbalance to the Israeli lobby. We should focus only on that, and avoid any unnecessary rhetoric. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying IF we are stuck with it, we'll have to make it right. The deletes are ahead but there are enough keep and merge that some admins would say keep it.

Also, I did some searching of pejorative and the phrase and think more searching would come up with a direct statement it is pejorative which is needed for WP:RS.

This episode should convince activists have to come up with a better phrase for their activism, however. Arab lobby in the United States, Anti-Zionism, Category:Non-governmental_organizations_involved_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_peace_process and Category:Foreign policy political advocacy groups in the United States are all useful but not memorable. Palestine Solidarity Movements is probably best. There already are a couple articles starting with "Palestine Solidarity" and probably most groups here would consider themselves in that category. Finding a phrase they all use - or getting them to decide to use one - would be helpful. Then we could write the appropriate article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done Ravpapa, there are certainly pieces of this article that should continue to exist somewhere, and maybe even some that could exist in an article entitled "anti-Israel lobby" which I could see being structured similar to Jewish lobby where the content is about the term and not about the oftentimes inane uses of it. I could see a brief overview of the topic and its history forming an article that is about the term and not consisting of a coatrack of opinion pieces using it. But all these bits about x person saying this organization or this person is "anti-Israel" shouldn't be in an article title "anti-Israel lobby". nableezy - 17:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganise

Given that the article rests on opinion pieces, it should be reorganised by the person with the opinion. Thus instead of sections "Structure", "Publication", "Impact" (which can't be considered neutral), it should be organised more along the lines of who is saying. Thus we'd have one paragraph for everything Raffel claims, one for everything Medoff claims, and so on. —Ashley Y 05:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The sections you cite should certainly be blown away. The article has been reorganized up to the section "Prestatehood lobby" (which should also be blown away). It is no longer about the opinions of various pro-Israeli propagandists, but about a group of political action organizations that represent the pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab viewpoints in Washington, in opposition to the Israeli lobby. Therefore, I don't think a reorganization along the lines you suggest would be appropriate. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, though, "in opposition to the Israeli lobby" is certainly not the same thing as "anti-Israel". —Ashley Y 08:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. That is why I have removed the expression "anti-Israel" every time it appeared in the text but twice - and in both those cases it is attributed. So you see, the article is no longer about organizations that are anti-Israel - it is about organizations that oppose US policies supportive of Israel.

The problem of the article title remains, and I don't see how we can easily fix it. Because, for better or worse, this collection of lobbying groups is referred to in the press as the "anti-Israel lobby." As Carole astutely points out, if these groups were to agree on another term, we could rename the article, and have simply a redirect for those who looked for "anti-Israel lobby". But they haven't so we can't. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Opposition to the Israel lobby"? That describes what they're doing, and doesn't require the groups to come up with a collective name. —Ashley Y 09:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Pro-Israel lobby" isn't a collective name either. This is purely semantics, references refer to these movements as belonging to an anti-Israel lobby, or lobbying against US's relationship with Israel. How the Israel lobby is portrayed throughout the media and on wikipedia can be sourced from opposing groups rather than the organizations themselves. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the revision

I have rewritten most of the second half of the article. I have in almost every case preserved the original material, though heavily revised to remove denigratory statements and unwanted slants. Here are the main substantive changes:

• Wherever the Lewis article or other source associated with the pro-Israeli viewpoint was quoted about factual matters (such as the stated focus of an organization), I sought other sources - in most cases the organizations themselves. The quotes are different, but they say the same things.

• I deleted reference to the Islamic Association of Palestine. I couldn't find any evidence that this organization actually engaged in lobbying.

• I deleted the Middle East Policy Council. I couldn't find any information on actual stands that they took, so I couldn't substantiate their affiliation with a pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian viewpoint. I didn't want just to take Lewis's word for it.

• There were a couple of organizations that were discussed twice - the American Friends of the Middle East and the NAAA. I merged the references.

• There were a lot of footnotes that didn't seem to support any particular statement in the article, but were simply there. I took them out.

I put in a line to show where I have edited to. The remainder of the article is the most problematic - I am not sure these Christian churches and organizations like the AFSC can be characterized as pro-Arab lobbyists. I think we need evidence of specific policies that they have supported in opposition to the Israeli lobby. Even then, it doesn't seem that their opposition could be considered pervasive enough to be considered part of the lobby. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Later: okay, I'm done. Others can do their dirty now. The last sentence of the new lead paragraph is unsupported by the article - the quote that appears toward the end of the article does not speak of organization or financial support, but only power. If you want the lead to mention the other stuff, you need to support it.

Regards, and have fun ripping the thing to shreds. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Still has following problems seen on first read:

• Doesn't recognize this is a pejorative phrase and my quick review showed such WP:RS can be found.
• Doesn't recognize that groups do NOT identify themselves thusly.
• Doesn't include quotes from those who object to being labeled anti-Israel.
• Doesn't differentiate between groups that just mad at policies, or have an alternative where Israel has to give up a lot of land, and those that want to abolish Israel entirely. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't recognize this is a pejorative phrase and my quick review showed such WP:RS can be found.

There is no consensus that this is a pejorative phrase - some think it is, some don't. The solution to this problem is (a) to use it as little as possible (it appears, I believe, only twice in the whole article), and, whenever it is used, to attribute it. To label the phrase as pejorative would in itself be POV. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't recognize that groups do NOT identify themselves thusly.

This is probably true, but you would need a quote to establish it. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't include quotes from those who object to being labeled anti-Israel.

Agree. Find them and add them. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't differentiate between groups that just mad at policies, or have an alternative where Israel has to give up a lot of land, and those that want to abolish Israel entirely.

In researching the organizations discussed in the article, I did not find a single one that wanted to abolish Israel entirely. The closest I came was the MCC, and they certainly don't advocate this, at least not explicitly. So I don't see what there is here to differentiate. If you know differently, and can back it up with quotes, by all means (Historicist agrees with you, incidentally). --Ravpapa (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If name remains, sources will be found it is mainly used as pejorative and individuals/groups object - not bothering til see if whole article will be deleted or name changed. As a pejorative used for political purposes it is used against anyone who doesn't support the most right wing expansionist, expulsionist policies, no matter how brutal. Perhaps they don't even bother to use it against those who are truly anti-Israel in wanting no Israel at all, since that's not the group that has any influence in this country. Anyway, if name is changed we won't have to deal with issue at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also if name remains all the original partisan sources must be used AND identified to label any group "anti-Israel" plus a description of how the group labels itself and why it does so. Your attempts to make article NPOV effectively have whitewashed the fact this is a partisan phrase and part of effort to use wikipedia to force people to have only two choices - pro or anti-Israel. But I'm hoping article will be deleted so this work will not have to be done. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)