Talk:Robert F. Kennedy's 1948 visit to Palestine

Mutliple article issues

• The use of op-eds as sources for statements of fact in Wikipedia's netural voice without attribution.
  • eg. this article from FrontPage Magazine [1], a source of questionable reliability, is used to state: "The textbooks used for teaching Arab children went beyond the worst excesses of the textbooks of German children under the Nazi regime." **eg. This op-ed [2] in Jerusalem World News is used to support this statement: "On that day Robert F. Kennedy became the first American politician murdered by an Arab terrorist." Note that WP:WTA frowns upon uses the word "Terrorist" is Wikipedia's netural voice.
• Other POV statements in Wikipedia's neutral voice, not attributed to their authors:
  • eg. "Robert Kennedy’s support for Israel might be appreciated even more if one remembers that his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, was known to make some anti-Semitic remarks.[6] In spite of his antisemitism, Joseph P. Kennedy probably was proud of his son Robert."
  • eg. "The twenty-two year old former football player proved to be mature enough to recognize that a Jewish state could became the only "stabilizing factor" in the region."
• POV thesis of the whole article, which claims that RFK was assssinated for his views on Israel, when this is disputed claim, as there are mutliple theses as to Sirhan Sirhan's motives.

These are just some of the problems. Until these are addressed, I am tagging the article with POV tag. Tiamut^talk 14:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Well, main article Robert Kennedy states "In a crowded kitchen passageway, Sirhan Sirhan, a 24-year-old Christian Palestinian-American (who felt betrayed by Kennedy's support for Israel in the June 1967 Six-Day War, which had begun exactly one year before the assassination), opened fire with a .22-caliber revolver and shot Kennedy three times." (highlighted by me). There are more than enough reliable sources to confirm the claim, of course, if we will forget about stupid conspiracy theories.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • IMO it is very important to mention that Robert Kennedy was the first victim of Arab terrorist. As it is seen from this Al-Jazeerah article back in 1968 Americans did not distinguish between Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs. It was the very first wake up call of what was to come. The author of the article clearly states:"The Kennedy assassination was the first case of Middle Eastern “terrorism” on American soil ­ decades before the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and before Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda became household names."(highlighted by me.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The articles you are citing are wrong. The first case of Middle Eastern terrorism were the attacks carried out by the Irgun and Stern (Lehi) gangs, including for example the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte. That's why you should avoid using unrelible sources like al-jazeerah,com (which is not the same as Al Jazeera by the way) or op-eds in obscure newspapers. Tiamut^talk 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and other Wikipedi articles are not RS's. If they hve POV problems, we should not duplicate those problems here. Tiamut^talk 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Were any attacks "Irgun and Stern (Lehi" carried on American soil, maybe they were carried against an American politicians? No? I guess I need to repeat it one more time and make it bold the other part of the statement: As it is seen from this Al-Jazeerah article back in 1968 Americans did not distinguish between Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs. It was the very first wake up call of what was to come. The author of the article clearly states:"The Kennedy assassination was the first case of Middle Eastern “terrorism” on American soil ­ decades before the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and before Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda became household names."(highlighted by me.Is this wrong again?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just realized that the sentence is qualified by "on American soil". As long as the info is attributed to its authors, so that the sentence in the article reads "So-and-so said that these were first act of Middle terrorism on American soil", and the source is not aljazeerah (with an "h"), I guess it should be fine. Could you address the other points I raised as well. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, I do not know how to stress strong enough that it is hard for me to write in English, and besides I have no experience in writing such articles. You do. I do not own this article. Please help me to fix it, as you believe it should be fixed. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given you advice on what to do above to bring the article in line with our policies. I'm not so interested in developing this article further, and after your comments about me here and on my talk page, I'm surprised you would even ask for my help. Tiamut^talk 19:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I'll try to address the issues you've risen myself, or ask somebody else to help me.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why those "**eg. "Robert Kennedy’s support for Israel might be appreciated even more if one remembers that his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, was known to make some anti-Semitic remarks.[6] In spite of his antisemitism, Joseph P. Kennedy probably was proud of his son Robert."

• • eg. "The twenty-two year old former football player proved to be mature enough to recognize that a Jewish state could became the only "stabilizing factor" in the region." are considered POV. It is from that source. page 77 the last paragraph.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the BBC,"It is thought Mr Kennedy's well documented support for Israel led to the attack." Stellarkid (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Further, @Tiamut, your statement that you are tagging because of the "POV thesis of the whole article, which claims that RFK was assssinated for his views on Israel, when this is disputed claim, as there are mutliple theses as to Sirhan Sirhan's motives" does not seem to be corroborated by the Wikipedia article, nor have you yourself provided any evidence of these "disputed" motives. There is overwhelming evidence from RS that SS killed RFK because of his views on Israel. I think you should self revert the tag in fairness, or provide some evidence for your claim that there is a dispute involved. Stellarkid (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of Sirhan Sirhan the POV tag is appropriate because the article claims (and in parts, assumes) that RFK's later views on Israel were a direct result of this early trip to Palestine. This is a highly debatable thesis and presenting it as if it were fact and not opinion is a violation of WP:POV. Factsontheground (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Claim that Kennedy said a Jewish state would never become communist

Mbz1 keeps reinserting the following passage:

At that time, Robert Kennedy also dismissed the notion that a Jewish state would ever become a Communist state.

But what Robert F. Kennedy actually said was:

"That the people might accept communism or that communism could exist in Palestine is fantastically absurd. Communism thrives on static discontent as sin thrives on idleness. With the type of issues and people involved, that state of affairs is nonexistent. I am as certain of that as of my name."

(source)

Therefore he is clearly talking about Palestine, not any Jewish state. Factsontheground (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 is absolutely correct. In those days, "Palestine" was still used to refer to the Jewish state. "Palestine" was not generally in use as a name for the Arab region until Arafat. The above quote was preceded by this by the author: "The final piece dismissed the notion, then prevalent, that a Jewish state might go Communist." Kennedy was talking about the Jewish work ethic in Palestine. Stellarkid (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote clearly shows that he was talking about Palestine not any Jewish state. I don't know what to say that will convince you of this, so I will simply repeat the quote, whose meaning is as clear as day: That the people might accept communism or that communism could exist in Palestine is fantastically absurd. Communism thrives on static discontent as sin thrives on idleness. With the type of issues and people involved, that state of affairs is nonexistent. I am as certain of that as of my name. Nothing about Jews. Nothing about Israel. Factsontheground (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources given here, and the historical context, make it clear that Kennedy was referring to the possibility of a Jewish state becoming communist. That was one of the main American concerns of the time, with some justice. Zero^talk 03:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you pleas quote the source? Have you read just above of what was quoted? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Kennedy quote critical of Zionism

Mbz1 has removed the following source quote of RFK with no explanation:

"However, the battle over Palestine was the result of an extraordinary endeavor: an attempt by some European Jewish leaders to implant a large Jewish community in Palestine - which necessarily implied their taking all or part of this land away from the Palestinian Arab people who had been living here for centuries".

(source)

Meanwhile, Mbz1 has kept his cherrypicked pro-Israel quotes. This is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and suggest that Mbz1 is using this article purely to push a certain point of view, not to present a balanced, encylopedic overview of the subject. Factsontheground (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• That is not on that page. Stellarkid (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The above quote is probably not from 1948 Kennedy, as was explained at the deletion request. I doubt very much that Kennedy or anybody else for that matter would have used the words"Palestinian Arab people" in 1948. I will try to get some conformation in the next few days, and, if it is from Kennedy, and, if it is from 1948, it will be added back.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "Palestinian Arab" was commonplace in 1948. Try searching for it at unispal. Zero^talk 03:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote is take from the exact same kind of source that you are using for your quote. To claim that it's not adequately sourced is disingenuous and inconsistent of you, Mbz1. Not to mention that removing this quote because of your own personal skepticism is a classic WP:OR violation. Factsontheground (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you, please stop screaming?

Here's progress of my research so far.

As I explained earlier the quote in question is found only in a single source that is a fiction book.

All the other quotes are found in at least two sources. I just did a search for the quote "The Arab world is made up of many disgruntled factions" and found it in one more book: [3]

I've also contacted LENNY BEN-DAVID, who wrote the article for Jerusalem post.

With his permission I'm disclosing what he wrote to me:"My source were the original Boston Post articles".

He confirmed there was no quote in question.

He also wrote to me: "in June 1998, I gave a copy of RFK's articles to his daughter Kathleen Kennedy Townsend,

then Lt. Gov. of Maryland and she endorsed it fully."

I still will continue my research, and inform about it progress here.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I run one more quote "The Jews with their backs to the sea" in Google books, and found it here.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not "screaming" Mbz1, and that is a very odd thing to say.

Okay if you don't accept that quote, here's an idea, Mbz1: instead of using your cherrypicked, anti-Arab, pro-Israel quotes why don't we use RFK's final word on the matter and the concluding paragraph of his dispatches, which is quite balanced:

But the British have left – and now the issue is to be resolved in a bitter war between Jew and Arab. I do not think the freedom-loving nations of the world can stand by and see “the sweet water of the River Jordan stained red with the blood of Jews and Arabs.” The United States through the United Nations must take the lead in bringing about peace in the Holy Land.

This would fix the NPOV issues with your picked-out quotes. Or perhaps we could note how RFK spent much of one of his dispatches describing the plight of a Jewish girl who was punished by the Irgun:

A Jewish girl in her teens was picked up by some members of the Haganah on the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and, as she was injured, she was taken to the Hebrew Hospital in Jerusalem. They believed that she had somehow been separated from a Jewish convoy which had just gone through and which had had a scrap with the Arabs.

She was particularly noticed because of the strange people who were her visitors and by the fact that she insisted on being moved to the English hospital. Malca was sent to question her. She was turned away gruffly by the girl after the girl admitted that she had in reality been in a British tank with a boy friend and wanted nothing to do with the Jews.

One night the Stern gang followed the tactics of the underground forces in the last war. They shaved all the hair off the girl’s head. Two days after Malca told me the story the sequel took place. The girl’s brother returned for leave from duty with the Haganah up in Galilee and, finding her in such a state, shot her.

What do you think about that? It's also interesting how you present the Jewish POV that Arabs were migrating in to Palestine (an argument that has been thoroughly debunked by scholars) yet do not present Kennedy's summary of the Arab POV.

First let us consider the viewpoint of the Arabs in regard to the national homeland promised to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration. The Arabs by word and deed leave no question in anyone’s mind how they feel. They argue that the Balfour Declaration supports their point that no national state was promised, pointing to the clauses in the declaration that says the national home shall be set up subject to the civil rights of the people living in Palestine at this time. In recent years they have pointed to the United Nations charger and the Article dealing with the self-determination of nations. Let us adhere to that, the Arabs say, and let the people, that is the Arabs who are involved, decide the question by the democratic processes. If this policy of participation was truly adhered to they say, then why couldn’t there be a partition with the “the” partition set aside for the Arab minorities?

The Arabs are most concerned about the great increase in the Jews in Palestine: 80,000 in 1948. The Arabs have always feared this encroachment and maintain that the Jews will never be satisfied with just their section of Palestine, but will gradually move to overpower the rest of the country and will eventually move onto the enormously wealthy oil lands. They are determined that the Jews will never get the toehold that would be necessary for the fulfillment of that policy.

Sourced from here. Factsontheground (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I did mention the story of the girl :"He was mesmerized to learn that a Haganah soldier had shot his sister when he found out that she was not going to leave her British boyfriend." Fine, you may add the quotes you mention as long as they sourced with the blog you're reffering to, Jerusalem Post article, or the book [4]. Thanks for helping me out. You really did a good job.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But do you agree or disagree that the best quote to use to summarize his views is the concluding paragraph of his last dispatch (the one ending "The United States through the United Nations must take the lead in bringing about peace in the Holy Land.")? It seems appropriate because it is literally his last word on the matter and is an overview of his opinion about the whole Arab-Israeli conflict. Factsontheground (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree on adding any reliable info from 1948 Kennedy to any place in the article. Removing any info should be discussed.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Please answer my question. Would you object if the concluding quote I referred to was used as a summary of his dispatches, particularly on say Robert F. Kennedy? Factsontheground (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground gutting original article

There is practically nothing left. The original quotes should have been left in and others added. It should not be gutted in the name of POV. RFK said what he said. His position on and support for Israel (and the Jews) was well documented according to the BBC. No one should be allowed to gut the article because he doesn't like RFK's positions. Stellarkid (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? Even after my changes the article still contained 11k characters. Anyway, perhaps the reason the article is so slim after you remove the original research and WP:POV violations is because the ostensible topic of this article is so narrow and non-notable - a few days of RFK's life as a 22 year old in 1948. Factsontheground (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agreed on adding any new info with reliable source, but I did not agree on cutting anything off. It should be discussed separately. Please stop talking about Kennedy being "non-notable". He was, he is and he will always be. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that Robert F. Kennedy was non-notable. That's absurd. I said a short trip he took as a 22-year old was non-notable. No matter how notable the individual, we don't need to have articles covering every single journey they take or every single topic they talk about. Factsontheground (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if I maligned you facts. Someone has been gutting the article and if it was not you, I apologize. Stellarkid (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the problematic sources to WP:RSN

Please follow the discussion there and accept the consensus that emerges. Factsontheground (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

George major changes

George, I would really appreciate, if before doing such major changes as you did you discuss it at the talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to save this article from getting deleted. There's some interesting information there, but it's covered in all kinds of unrelated crap that makes the article hard to read, and focused most of the article on topics other than the article's title. ← George ^talk 15:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss the changes before you do such a major cleanup.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to discuss? ← George ^talk 15:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to explain to you what IMO is important to have in the article. I would need some time, maybe few hours before I could get to this. May I please ask you to wait?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll return to this article tomorrow. Feel free to lay out whatever points you think are important. ← George ^talk 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe I'll be ready earlier, but you watch it, so you will see.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, are you going to list things you want to see added here, or are you just going to re-add them to the article? I can tell you pretty quickly why the stuff in the article was bad, if it will save you some time and reverting. ← George ^talk 15:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I will list the the things here, I will not add them to the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I'm off to sleep then! :) ← George ^talk 15:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So George is the dude that is making the major changes? Deleting all the quotes and such? I agree with Mbz1 to please give the article some breathing room or new people taking a look at the article will not know what we are talking about at the deletion page. It has been gutted. RFK's opinion of Israel is relevant. You cannot simply remove his opinions in the name of NPOV. Stellarkid (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• (intended) Bellow I will discuss few aspects of the article in separate sections.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Outline of the article

As it is explained bellow the connection between Kennedy's pro-Israeli views and the assassination is well established and well confirmed fact.

That's why the lead should specify this connections.

Robert's Kennedy trip to Palestine in 1948 was the beginning of life-long pro-Israeli view that eventually made him murdered.

That's why the second section of the article should describe the trip, and Kennedy's writings.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Connection between Kennedy's pro-Israeli views and the assassination

It is a very important, and notable connection that was established by Michael R. Fischbach , who is a history professor at Randolph- Macon College in Ashland, Va. His book "Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" was published by Columbia University Press and the Institute for Palestine Studies. He writes:
"Sirhan was a Palestinian whose parents had fled their home in West Jerusalem as refugees during the first Arab-Israeli war, in 1948, when he was 4 years old. Raised first in Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem and later in Pasadena, Sirhan grew up deeply embittered about Israel and the plight of his fellow Palestinian refugees.

Sen. Kennedy, by contrast, admired the Israelis, a feeling that dated from his days as a young correspondent for the Boston Post covering the war in Palestine in 1948. Sirhan's early support for Kennedy turned to hatred after the senator advocated the sale of advanced F-4 Phantom jets to Israel in the wake of the 1967 war in the Middle East, a war that also signaled the growing U.S. support for the Jewish state."

this connection is almost symbolic:
Kennedy wrote his reports in 1948 about the conflict. Sirhan's family fled their home in the very same 1948 because of the very same conflict. Both men met again in 1968.
Another point that Mr. Michael R. Fischbach made is that
" The Robert Kennedy assassination was the first case of Middle Eastern "terrorism" here at home -- decades before the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, decades before Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda became household names." --Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

One more reliable source that establishes the connection is:
Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims JANSEN, Godfrey. Hit the link and read: "Foreword by Abdeen Jabara, member of Sirhan's defense team" and "Sympathetic portrayal of Sirhan Sirhan" . The author and the attorney are establishing the connection between "two victims" Robert Kennedy and Sirhan. The book extensively quotes Kennedy's reports and diaries on many pages. It looks like it has the complete text of everything he wrote from Palestine in 1948.

One more reliable establishes the connection is:
Support any friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance By Warren Bass pages 50 (the last paragraph) and 51.

If there are not just one, but three very reliable sources that made the connection, that connection is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing quotes from the article

As I mentioned above I have no objection for adding any quote from Kennedy's 1948 writings on Palestine as long as it is confirmed by at least two reliabale sources.
I see no reason to remove the quotes already in the article, except the reason I just do not like it, and that reason is not good enough. One should remember we're talking about Robert Kennedy here. Everything that is connected to him is notable enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not every single thing "connected to" Kennedy is notable enough for Wikipedia. Factsontheground (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If I were you I would have added to your statement "In my opinion", and from myself I could only say that you are wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is what Kennedy ate for breakfast on a random day notable? Is every person who ever met Kennedy notable? Doe Kennedy's every opinion on every subject require it's own article? Stop being silly. Factsontheground (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Trolling as usual? I will respond one more time: have you read the section above? Kennedy got killed because of that very opinion. And do not tell me it is only another version. Even his killer's deference attorney believes it is the case. This is not the right place for conspiracy theories. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Trolling as usual?" "Conspiracy theories"? I am being civil to you, so can you please pay me the same courtesy? I am simply pointing out that your statement that "Everything that is connected to him [Kennedy] is notable enough." is hyperbolic and untrue. You've changed the subject to Kennedy's assassination. Yes, Kennedy was assassinated largely for his views on Israel (although Sirhan Sirhan's alcoholism and mental problems were equally large reasons for the attack) however you are claiming without much evidence that Kennedy's later views on Israel as an older man are a direct result of his trip to Palestine as a 22 year old. This seems dubious, to say the least. Factsontheground (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The connection between his 1948 trip and his assassination was not being laid out or well sourced. The article just talked about both, without drawing any connection between the two. ← George ^talk 00:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by George

I'll try to reply to the above concerns here. First, and foremost, I'd ask editors to remember that the current title of this article is Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948).

• Regarding Stellarkid's comment that "RFK's opinion of Israel is relevant": The article gave no reason given why Kennedy's opinion of Israel was relevant to his 1948 visit. I'm not saying it wasn't, but none of the text in the article, nor any of the quotes that were included, made any explicit connection between the two.
• Regarding Mbz1's statements in the "Connection between Kennedy's pro-Israeli views and the assassination" section: The first quote you gave wasn't in the article when I began editing. None of the quotes made any connection between Kennedy's 1948 visit to Palestine (the topic of this article), and his pro-Israel views. This quote does that, and belongs in the article. I don't think anyone dispute the connection between Sirhan Sirhan and RFK's pro-Israel view, but that is not the topic of this article (and a detailed discussion on it would belong in the Sirhan Sirhan article, or the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy article). The entire second paragraph of quotes about his assassination, which has its own article, and has zero relation to his 1948 visit. Those should be moved to his assassination article.
• Regarding Mbz1's statement in the "Removing quotes from the article" section: Wrong. Not "Everything that is connected to [RFK] is notable enough." Only things connected to his visit to Palestine in 1948 should be included in this article. Most of the quotes included in this article are connect to RFK, but this isn't RFK's article, and have no connection to his 1948 trip. I can't stress that point enough. Keep the information in this article relevant to the topic of this article. ← George ^talk 23:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I was talking only about the ones that he wrote in 1948 while in Palestine, and which are supported by at least 2 reliable sources.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with his dispatches being included, and most of the quotes from those. But the quote from the BBC, his daughter, and that other guy in the second paragraph aren't about his 1948 visit. They're about his assassination. There's already an article about his assassination, so those quotes belong there, not in the article about his 1948 visit. Doesn't that make sense?

P.S. If you look at the end of the first paragraph, I wrote the connect between his like for Israel and his assassination as a fact. I think we can just say there was a connection, and cite it to the BBC, without including all the quotes. ← George ^talk 00:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree about BBC. What do you think about mentioning pages 50 (the last paragraph) from this source? Support any friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance By Warren Bass. It is not just a connection, it is a symbolic connection. BTW George, you are spending lot's of time working at the article, yet you voted to delete it. Aren't you afraid that your work will be lost in vain :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what you want to include from that source? And are you okay with removing the direct quotes from Fischbach and Kennedy's daughter, in favor of just the flat factual statement about Sirhan Sirhan's hatred for Kennedy because of his pro-Israel leanings?

If this article can get good enough to keep, I'll change my vote to a keep. As I said in my comments on that discussion page, I felt it would be easier to delete it and start over from scratch than to save the existing version. But if we're going with the existing version, we might as well try to fix it. ← George ^talk 00:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. In general, that book you linked would probably be a good source to use in this article, though I'm unclear specifically what from it you want to include. ← George ^talk 00:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the quote from Fischbach should stay IMO. It is one very important quote. Not only the article is establishing the connection between Pro-Israeli view of Kennedy and his assassination, but it also states that it was the first case of Middle Eastern “terrorism” on American soil. You may remove the quote from Kennedy's druthers, if you want to. I meant including into article not even a quote, but a one sentence about Kennedy and his killer being together, just few block away from each other in Jerusalem in 1948. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with including the quote that the assassination was "the first case of Middle Eastern 'terrorism' on American soil" is that that this isn't the article about the assassination. That quote belongs in the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy article, or in the Sirhan Sirhan article, but it's not related to Kennedy's trip in 1948. At most, Kennedy's trip to Palestine in 1948 is significant because it made him more likely to be pro-Israel. But you're several steps removed from the assassin's reasoning for the killing twenty years later, and trying to link the two is synthesis. ← George ^talk 01:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the quotes from Kennedy's daughter and the BBC. The exact same sources are cited in the first paragraph for proof that Kennedy's pro-Israel stance was a reason that Sirhan Sirhan killed him, so it was just a bit repetitive. Thanks for being open to this change Mbz1. ← George ^talk 01:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

George, why are you arguing for excluding good content based on the title of the article, when a simple move could resolve that problem without removing the content?

The real problem here is that too many users assumed bad faith and the article was nominated for deletion as soon as Mbz1 created it. She has not been given the time necessary to make the adjustments that best reflect her intent. I understand you are trying to be helpful, but all is must be very confusing for Mbz1. She has very little experience in writing WP articles, and writing in English is still difficult for her. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't include a random assortment of content, regardless of how good, if it's not related to the topic of this article. If you think this article should be moved (and I don't necessarily disagree), I think you should move it, or at the very least propose what to move it to. If we move it to a title that is more appropriate to inclusion of some of the information that was in here, we can re-add that info (it doesn't just disappear, it will always be in the article's history).

Also, I think Mbz1 above agreed to the removal of some of the unrelated (or unnecessary) quotes you tried to re-add. ← George ^talk 13:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it would be helpful to give Mbz1 some time to resolve the problems of the article herself. In other words it might be more helpful if you stop (for a reasonable amount of time) being so helpful. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Why is Mbz1 a better candidate for resolving this article's issues than myself, or any other editor for that matter? ← George ^talk 14:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Because, you said (in an edit summery) you do not understand what the article is about. Presumably Mbz1 does. So why not just stop being so helpful for a few days? You can always jump back in later if you still feel the call.

I suppose the best approach, if article is in an area that is as disputed as I/P articles, would be to get the content into a more developed state before actually creating the article. In less disputed areas, editors seldom run into this much flack, or this much helpful re-writing of the article, so early in the writing process. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when I first read this article it was so poorly written that I couldn't even tell what it was about. It discussed people, events, and topics completely unrelated to Kennedy's trip in 1948. Thanks to reading through the sources cited herein, and working through the article, I now have a better sense of this topic. Whether or not editors run into AfD nominations, assuming that's what you mean by flack, is based entirely on the article's own merits. I'll admit that this article probably saw more than its fair share, due in large part to its poor English, but that hardly seems like a reason to discourage other editors from improving it. ← George ^talk 14:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I speak only for myself, and I could be mistaken. It is quite possible that Mbz1 would disagree with me, and that she might actually prefer that you continue to edit this article uninterrupted. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

She's free to let me know if that's the case (she requested I give her some time earlier in this discussion, and I obliged her). I'm going to be taking a break from editing for a bit anyways - it was just the request that struck me as odd. Speaking of moving this article, do you have any thoughts? I was thinking something like "Robert F. Kennedy's dispatches from Palestine" if we keep the scope narrow, or "Robert F. Kennedy's opinion on Israel" if we want to broaden the scope to that whole subject area. I'm of course open to other ideas though. ← George ^talk 14:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NB: I did not ask that you stop editing the article, and making such a request would probably be a violation of WP:OWN. What I did ask was that Mbz1 be given just a little time to work on the article, to better get it into the shape she intended. Please re-read what I wrote above. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:TALKNO. The comment was posted to intimidate the editors, and has nothing to do with improving of the article.

I think we both know the answer to that question. Factsontheground (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful. ← George ^talk 14:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:TALKNO. The comment was posted to intimidate the editors, and has nothing to do with improving of the article.

Ah, the ol' talk to your sock trick. Works every time. Factsontheground (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I very much doubt that they're the same person. The IP editor's English is quite approachable, something Mbz1 is (admirably) working on. The IP editor is likely to be a former (or current) Wikipedia editor, based on their edit history, but hopefully not a banned one. ← George ^talk 14:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How does the IP editor know so much about Mbz1 without having had any interaction with her? It seems quite mysterious. Factsontheground (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that they are meat puppets, or communicating off-wiki, but I hate to speculate when there there are non-nefarious possibilities too. They could have worked together on the Hebrew Wikipedia for all I know. A check user might help solve the issue, but unless the IP editor is (or was) another editor here, I wouldn't hold my breath. ← George ^talk 14:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Intended)factsontheground I've never seen anybody here as low as you are. To call you a "troll" is not good enough anymore. you are the meanest user at Wikipedia. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Plase stop personalizing the debate by attacking th chracter of those who disagree with you. Tiamut^talk 16:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Hi, George, Please do continue to edit the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing POV tag

All issues raised by Tiamut were addressed. There's no single POV, no single original research is left in the article. I am going to remove POV tag now. If somebody disagrees please discuss the issues before putting it back.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be addressed Mbzi: [copy-edit of mine from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948)]: "...June 5, 1968 was the day Robert F. Kennedy was murdered. Michael R. Fischbach wrote: "The Kennedy assassination was the first case of Middle Eastern 'terrorism' on American soil ­decades before the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and before Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda became household names."[1] This is the newspaper "Commentary" author's POV. Further there is no reason to name Fischbach (a footnote cite would have been better) and using a direct quote. There is no need to promote him directly, using this article as the springboard. Now it is true that Sirhan, in his mind, thought RFK was too pro Israel. You should check out the book, "RFK Must Die" it fills out more information. Kierzek (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Kierzek bout the undue prominence given to Fishbasch's opinion. There is also the issue of cherry-picked quotes, emphasizing only one POV, that needs to be addressed. As stated above, there are quotes from RFK that indicate that the rights of Palestinian Arabs were being usurped by the Zionist project and Jewish immigration. This should be included and some of the quotes currently included should be pared down (particularly the two at the end that are not contextualized by any analysis or text. The POV issues remain unfortunately. True, the list above I made has been largely addressed, but some fundamental problems remain. Tiamut^talk 16:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote in question is not by Robert Kennedy see here. The only quotes that were included in the article are the quotes that were confirmed by at least two reliable sources. The quote in question is not confirmed by any reliable source. Please feel free to add any quotes of your choice that could be connected to Robert Kennedy reports and/or diary from 1948.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've tried to find the quote, and only found copy in this fiction book: [5]. I still think the quotes are cherry-picked nd there are too mny of them expressing the same kind of POV. They should be more varied, and limited to those people have commented on and placed in the proper context. Tiamut^talk 16:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, please trust me on that. I tried to find quotes to make the article more netural, but I could not. I did include the mention of the Jewish girl, who was killed by her brother for having a British boyfriend. If you could point me to any quote you'd like to be included, I will be happy to include them in the article. The quotes were not cherry-picked. As a matter of fact I tried to soften some (I am not sure I had the right to do it). For example, Kennedy said: "Jews have "an undying spirit" ". Do you know what he said next? "The Arabs would never have". I cut Kennedy off because Wikipedia should be neutral, but once again did I have the right to do it? Please see page 76. Kennedy also said about Arabs: "I just wish they did not have that oil" (the same page). I did not add that quote to the article.I believe the POV tag should be removed now.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to whitewash Kennedy's quotes. Please do include the full context (such as his onesided belief that only Jews hve an undying spirit). This article is not supposed to make his views softer than they are, so by all means do include his wish that rabs didn't have oil (its one I share actually, but that's another story). I see though, that you did manage to find quote where he discusses Arab fears a little more sympthetically. I'm grateful for that, but I think all the quotes, ut those there and thosse added, should have prose to introduce them based on what reliable sources have to say about them. The article should not be a quote farm. In any case, you seem anxious for the article to be free of the tag (having removed it twice in couple of hours today), and you've made an effort to improve it, so I won't replace it for now. I may return to the issue with more specific concerns in the future though. Tiamut^talk 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact the quote I included was found by Factsontheground. I did not include it at once only because I thought that the only source was a blog site, which is not allowed. Today I've done another search, and was able to find the same quote in a reliable source. Therefore I included it with a proper reference. Now, after you read what I said about Michael R. Fischbach just below, do you still believe the quote by him could be considered POV?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

@Kierzek, Fischbach, is not just any author. Michael R. Fischbach is a history professor at Randolph- Macon College in Ashland, Va. His book "Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" was published by Columbia University Press and the Institute for Palestine Studies. He is an expert on the subject.He is a reliable source. Do you still believe the quote by him should be removed? I believe the quote should stay, but please change it as you suggested yourself. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fischbach is at a very small private collage but I see he has been respectably published. Certainly, quoting a published book by someone who has some credentials is better then a "Commentary" article for a newspaper. BTW- many authors and even some historians (who are all secondary sources) write with a certain amount of POV imbedded in their statements or writings. One must therefore look for balance and consensus. I would suggest something like this: "Some historians and authors contend the Robert Kennedy assassination was the first act of Middle Eastern 'terrorism' on American soil". Then cite the book and go on to state the connection to the article through good book cites for reference, if you can. Kierzek (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I included the quote that Factsontheground wanted in the article, and which is confirmed by a reliable source. I'm removing POV tag now.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS applies to the publisher, not the author. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that from, but no, it applies to both, as well as the article itself. Per WP:RS: "The word 'source' as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability." ← George ^talk 20:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It comes from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The emphasis is always to have published sources, and the more reliable the publisher the better. Occasionally an author is so notable that his/her self-published work (blogs, etc) is acceptable as a source, but WP does not really like that type of source even in cases of very notable authors. Perhaps you are confusing WP:RS with WP:N. Of course they have overlap, but are not the same thing. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The quote I included above was from WP:RS, not WP:N. True that sometimes an author is so notable that even their self-published works can be cited, but likewise not everything published by a good publisher can be considered a reliable source - most obviously, editorials. Likewise, whether a source is reliable also depends on the work. A fiction novel written by a notable author and published by a well regarded publisher is obviously not a reliable source (by virtue of it being a work of fiction). So really it's a combination of the three that's important, though the publisher is often the easier & quickest to evaluate. What source is being discussed here anyways? ← George ^talk 21:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What source? Apparently, Alice in Wonderland. - 173.52.134.191 (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Later support of Israel

Is there any evidence from reliable sources (the credential-less Lenny Ben-David does not count) that Kennedy's later support of Israel was due to this early experience? This is an underlying assumption of this article that is never proved or supported by reliable sources. The mention of Sirhan Sirhan in the lede is completely irrelevant otherwise.

Also, when were the actual dates that he was in Palestine? Factsontheground (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There sure are: Please see that pro-Arab book page 651. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a very interesting source. Factsontheground (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorials are not reliable sources

How many times does this need to be stated? Factsontheground (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Signed editorial opinion is WP:RS allowed as a statement of opinion, as long as the author is cited, and not just the source. The author of the opinion must be given in the content of the article along with the opinion, not just in the citation. 173.68.240.19 (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Book sources should include URL to google books

I notice that the book sources only have page numbers, but considering that the author of this article did not actually read the quoted books and accessed them via google books it seems strange not to include a link to google books in the references. Factsontheground (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you know what she read?

You have filled this talk page with similar condescending comments, which is disruptive. And this is not the only I/P conflict article talk page that you have filled with disruptive edits. Aggressively verbal attacks are, it seems, your standard practice on your blog. But this talk page is not your blog. Neither is any other WP talk page. 173.68.240.19 (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the quotes, and you could too. They are in Google. How else could I have got them? Please stop removing reliabale sources.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I got the the original refferences back, so I hope you could read the quotes now, and would at least stop removing well sourced material.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please. Both of you should become more accommodating. The point of WP:V is that people can check the source, if you are reading it from google books then there is no reason to not give a link so that other editors can check context with a minimum of fuss. No, it is not strictly demanded, yes that would be the courteous thing to do. Unomi (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, may I please ask you to spend some more time in studying the subject before making unhelpful comments as you did above or at least have a courtesy to retract it, when the situation was explained to you? The links to the sources are and were provided in the article. Everybody could read it.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay here's what happened: Dravecky tried to clean up the references Apperantly the changes made the sources invisible. I put my old references back, and here are the sources copied from the article

page 658;Page 103--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The references were restored by Dravecky. Please see here for feature explanations.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A URL for a printed book is merely a "courtesy link", not a required part of a proper book citation, but the Google Books links are present for all four of the books that had Google Books links before I fixed the references. It's quite simple to flip to the exact page you need (most of the cited text is on adjoining pages) using the left and right arrows. - Dravecky (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

POV problems - crossposted from T:TDYK

Since Ucucha removed my objections from the T:TDYK page, I am obliged to post them here instead. Gatoclass (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Start of crosspost

• The article consists almost entirely of statements from Kennedy's articles, which in this case are a primary rather than secondary source. Secondly, it entirely excludes the commentary about these articles from the available secondary sources. Thirdly, the commentary about Kennedy's assassination is WP:COATRACK. Finally, secondary sourcing for this article is extremely thin. Gatoclass (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• There's no WP:COATRACK in the article. The connection between Kennedy visit to Palestine in 1948 and his association 20 years later is confirmed by two reliable sources page 103 and page 658. The connection between Kennedy's support for Israel and his assassination are confirmed by external links as well, for example Bobby Kennedy and the history of pro-Israel candidates. Once again, if there are some problems with the presentation of the article, everybody is welcome to help me to fix them as btw Gatoclass said he might: "Should the article survive the AfD, I may indeed propose some changes on the talk page or even make some changes myself". Instead of improving Wikipedia articles the administrator has chosen to spend his time to vigorously campaign against promotion of the article by all means including violation of the polices. I am not exactly sure what "secondary sources" mean, but I invite everybody to check the sources that were used in the article, which include the book by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who was a Pulitzer Prize recipient and American historian and social critic whose work explored the liberalism of American political leaders including Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy. The bottom line is: there's no any valid reason do not promote the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What you fail to mention is that both of your sources repudiate the link between Kennedy's 1948 visit and his assassination, on the basis that Sirhan had already expressed his determination to murder Kennedy before he saw the TV special about the visit. Yet you have presented this factoid in the article, front and center, without any mention of that - just one of many POV problems in this article.

As for the meaning of "secondary sources" - please read WP:V and WP:RS. In this case, as the topic is Kennedy's 1948 visit to Palestine and the pieces he wrote for the Boston Post, they are in effect a primary source because they are the topic of the article. To put it another way, if secondary sources hadn't written about these pieces, they would not be considered notable - certainly not notable enough to justify a standalone article. But instead of quoting what the secondary sources have to say about the pieces - namely, that they were the work of a callow youth, interesting only as a yardstick of Kennedy's prose skills,[6] or that they showed "black and white thinking - Jews good, Arabs bad"[7] to paraphrase another of the sources, you have completely omitted this secondary source analysis in favour of presenting cherry picked quotes from the Kennedy pieces themselves with no commentary at all. That is also a major POV deficiency. If you want to write articles about political events, it is incumbent upon you to present all significant points of view, not just those which you happen to favour. Gatoclass (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It is too much for me. Please let do it step by step, shall we? Where did you get that "the link between Kennedy's 1948 visit and his assassination, on the basis that Sirhan had already expressed his determination to murder Kennedy before he saw the TV special about the visit." It is just the opposite of what the murderer himself said at the trial. He said that he loved Kennedy, and wanted him to became the president before he saw the documentary that Kennedy has supported Israel even in 1948. The info is in now three sources. Am I missing something?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know how you could have missed this, as it's in your own sources. For example, page 104 of this link clearly states that Sirhan's statement about deciding to killing Kennedy after seeing the TV show "doesn't make sense" and doesn't fit the chronology. Your other source makes exactly the same point. Gatoclass (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have never read that page. So what are your suggestions? Would you like me to add those doubts to the article? Did you find the same mention in the other source as well?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The article needs a complete rewrite. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• End of crosspost. Gatoclass (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• • The info I have missed on before was added to the article here.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits do not remotely begin to address my concerns. The article needs a total rewrite in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• • About that statement "that they were the work of a callow youth", the article does say that Kennedy was 22 years old, when he wrote the dispatches.
  • The article also states that Kennedy support for Israel has started since his first visit to the area in 1948.
  • About cherry-picked quotes. I did include the quote that was suggested by factsontheground here. So to call the quotes "cherry=picked" is an overstate. I am ready to include any other quotes which are found in reliable sources and are connected to Kennedy trip to Palestine in 1948.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As a matter of fact it was factsontheground (the nominator for deletion), who posted the cherry-picked quotes here. I just made them softer.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Question, why does virtually the entire lead focus on Sirhan Sirhan's assassination of Kennedy twenty years later? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Answer: Kennedy's support for Israel has started in 1948, when he first visited then British Mandate Palestine. Quite a few reliable sources that are listed in the article are confirming that Kennedy was killed because of his support for Israel. That's why it is notable fact, and that's why it is in the lead. Please see what writes Michael R. Fischbach, who is a history professor at Randolph- Macon College in Ashland, Va. His book "Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" was published in October by Columbia University Press and the Institute for Palestine Studies: "The Robert Kennedy assassination was the first case of Middle Eastern "terrorism" here at home"--Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed's question is perfectly reasonable. The sources state that Sirhan's claim that he only decided to kill Kennedy after seeing footage of his 1948 visit is not credible, since he had already recorded his decision to kill Kennedy in his diary two days before the footage was shown on TV. What then is this dubious claim doing in the intro? It is at best a case of WP:UNDUE, at worst WP:OR. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Problem: it would be ideal to see information on Kennedy's trip to Palestine in an article on Kennedy's trip to Palestine. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

***The problem removed. Let's move to a new one please.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Well, I removed that part, but I changed my mind and added it back. I feel that connection between the trip and the assassination is very important to miss to. The murderer testified he killed Kennedy, when he learned Kennedy has supported Jewish state from the very beginning. I know the entry of the journal was made at the wrong date, but how do we know, the killer did not make mistake, when we wrote that date? After all he was mentally sick. Why should we believe the journal more than his own words? At least there's no doubt he watched the documentary before the murder, and he remembered watching it, but he did not remember writing journal. I do not say he did not wright the journal, of course he did, but he remembered and testified about the thing that made the biggest impact on his decision - Kennedy's support for Israel since 1948.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)