Talk:The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

Archive1 Archive2

I need your help

I'm dutch and read the book in dutch. i wrote a dutch wikipedia article about it. they want to remove it. they want more critical sources. i can read french english german and dutch. if anyone has an article send it to me

Merge; POV forks

I would suggest that all articles about this subject are merged into one article wich can describe all signficant POVs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the debate around this paper (this article is about a paper entitled, coincidentally "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"), because of its intensity and breath, remain in this, its own, article. This article actually does cover the thesis of the article and the response in an NPOV fashion, at least in my opinion -- there is a long and detailed response and criticism section. --Ben Houston 19:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. Both articles are very long. —Ashley Y 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Don't merge. 1) The article sits distinctly on its own. 2) It is large and complex to merge into the other article. Continue the debate on this page. (How is 'mergin' a word? Do you mean merging?) Dogru144 14:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

why is 2/3 of the article about reception and most notably about criticism? I've never seen an article that has such a huge section devoted to criticism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.232.128 (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Marvin Kalb

Marvin Kalb is a lecturer at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, founding director (now Senior Fellow) of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy there, Faculty Chair for the Kennedy School's Washington programs, and Edward R. Murrow Professor of Press and Public Policy from 1987 to 1999. This on top of his distinguished career in journalism. He is not an "administrator", and his opinion is certainly notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

His criticism in this article refers to the paper and not the book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", however this article on wikipedia refers to the book and therefore should not be there.

Zogby Poll confirms factual Basis

JAYJG deleted the following w/o discussion. I believe it belongs in the article b/c much of the criticism is that Walt & Mearsh have no factual basis for their findings

• According to a scientific public opinion poll by Zogby International of 1,036 likely voters from 10/10/06 through 10/12/06. 40% of American voters believe the Israel Lobby has been a key factor in going to war in Iraq. The following poll question was used.

• "Question: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran?"[1]

• Best Wishes Will314159 15:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Polls pretty much find what they want to find, particularly Zogby polls. In any event, the poll was not about this paper. This article is about Mearsheimer and Walt's paper, it's not a debating board for discussing whether or not there really is a nefarious Israeli lobby controlling America. Please avoid trying to use original research to refute sourced arguments or statements you find listed in articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is merely about the paper -- not about the border subject. I have instead added the poll to the correct article on the general topic: Israel lobby in the United States. Me and Tom harrison adjusted the wording slightly to be more precise. --Ben 18:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks Ben. Will314159 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No thanks,Ben. The Zogby poll ( I bet you have little problem with Zogby polls that you agree with ) states the American public's opinion on the subject - even though I would guess that a very small percent have ever heard of much less read this paper. Shows how little new ground the paper reached, nothing that the majjority of Americans didn't already know. Didn't you know this already, Ben?

"Reaction to the reception" lends unfair weight

The "Reaction to the reception" section reads a lot like another "Praise" section. This lends unfair weight to the POV that the report is praiseworthy and not anti-Semitic. I suggest either removing the "Reaction to the reception" section from the article (while keeping "Mearsheimer and Walt's response" within the "Reception" heading) or adding a section stating the specific refutations of the claims within the article by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America and others who criticize the report. --GHcool 06:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

11 days later and no response? OK. I'm going for it. --GHcool 06:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's all noteworthy, I believe. One could put it all under "Praise", but there's no reason to remove it altogether. —Ashley Y 10:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also sorry for not responding before you went for it... —Ashley Y 10:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I removed it to get somebody's attention. Although I would be in favor of the section's complete removal, I didn't realistically believe I could do that without compromising. So let's talk about how we can reformat the section so that it doesn't give unfair weight to the POV that the report is praise-worthy. As I suggested above, we can state the specific refutations of the claims within the report. This would make the Wikipedia article longer, but more balanced. --GHcool 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong approach. Any source that is notable and comments on the paper should be included, and I believe that's what we have now. The headings are just there to organise it all. If the aggregation of sources suggest that the report is praise-worthy (and it's not clear that it does, given the length of the criticism section), then that's fair weight, not unfair weight. —Ashley Y 19:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I accept your arguments. I hope you don't mind then that I include specific refutations of the specific claims. I imagine a point/counterpoint type of dialogue such as the following:

Point: "Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during (list of wars from 1948-1967) - all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing."

Counterpoint: Israel had 3 tanks, 35 aircrafts, 5 artilary units, and 28,000 troops while the Arabs had 270 tanks, 300 aircrafts, 150 artilary units, and 35,000 troops.[2]

This could potentially be very messy, but I think this information (provided that they are from reliable sources) is as necessary to the article as more praise for the article (provided that they too are from reliable sources). Also, I don't think "Point" and "Counterpoint" are the right words to use because they are too connotation is too devicive (it was the only two words that came to mind). Do you, Ashley, or anyone else have any suggestions as to how we can do something like this, while still keeping the article pleasing to the eye? --GHcool 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the subject of the article is this one academic paper. So we report on what various people say about the paper, rather than taking any given commentary as a credible source to judge assertions made in the paper. Otherwise the counterpoints would give rise to their own counter-counter-points (for instance, that the CAMERA figures are only for the beginning of the war, and that Zionist forces reached 100,000 by December 1948), and the article ends up off-topic. —Ashley Y 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll just add the CAMERA link at the bottom of the "External links" then. --GHcool 07:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already there as footnote 31. —Ashley Y 08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate links

I'm going to remove all the "External links" that I find that are duplicates of references. I assume no-one objects. —Ashley Y 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NYT Magazine article in part on "The Israel Lobby" paper

Could be integrated into the article as it covers the subject at hand:

• Does Abe Foxman Have an Anti-Anti-Semite Problem?, New York Times, January 14 2006.

Also talks about Abe Foxman, Tony Judt, Israel lobby in the United States and Jimmy Carter (in the context of his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid). --70.48.240.99 18:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure there's enough there on the paper to be worth quoting, but looks like it's relevant to the Foxman article. —Ashley Y 05:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a "Jewish Lobby" -- Add List of Jewish American politicians?

This is not about a "Jewish lobby" or Jews in congress, nor is there any reason to suppose that "Jewish American politicians are by far the most ardent supporters of Israel". —Ashley Y 21:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added List of Jewish American politicians back on the page because it is reasonable and entirely rational to assume that these Jewish American politicians are by far the most ardent supporters of Israel, which they quite obviously are (just look at their voting records). The Israel lobby in the United States leading descriptive quote says: "...defined by Mitchell Bard as 'those formal and informal actors that directly and indirectly influence American policy to support Israel'..." -- the key word there being FORMAL (I've bolded it), i.e. the Jewish American congresspeople (and other supporters of Israel in the U.S. govt.) are the FORMAL people that "directly and indirectly influence American policy to support Israel" -- the support of these Jewish American politicians is FORMAL and DIRECT, while the behind the scenes people are INFORMAL and INDIRECT. It is beyond question that they are the most ardent supporters of Israel; in fact, many have 2nd homes there, while others have extensive business and social contacts in Israel. Many of these Jewish American politicians also have relatives that live in Israel, and nearly all of the current Jewish American politicians are members of or contributors to AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, and so forth. Therefore, it's obvious that this link should stay on the page; it's only in the 'See also' section, so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to leave it in. --172.147.51.173 21:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing in the paper that claims that Jewish American politicians are by far the most ardent supporters of Israel, and the issue is certainly not "beyond question". Bear in mind that congress generally is pretty pro-Israel, so I rather doubt that each and every person listed in List of Jewish American politicians is significantly more pro-Israel. A list of, say, contributors to AIPAC in congress would be relevant, but that's not the same as a list of Jewish American politicians. —Ashley Y 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When a large majority of the current Jewish American politicians have relatives in Israel, own 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th) homes there, and have significant business interests in the country, it's fair to say that they are as a group significantly more pro-Israel than your average government official -- it is for these reasons that I believe that this simple link should stay in. Also, Israel is the "Jewish state," and naturally as Jews these American politicians will have close ties to the country. Again, I've only added this to the 'See also' section, so I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to you. --172.165.208.12 00:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem: you're talking about "a large majority" rather than all of them, and "naturally will have close ties" rather than a proven link to them and only them. This is guesswork and mere association. In the paper, M&W are at pains to point out that this the Israel lobby is not a "Jewish lobby", and accordingly there are some very pro-Israel non-Jews in congress, and I suspect some Jews for whom Israel is not a big deal. —Ashley Y 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Specific individuals play key roles, thus we should include them if we have RS to support them. Broad inclusions of just people with Jewish heritage is pretty fuzzy and not really helpful in encouraging a precise/accurate understanding of what is going on. Also this isn't the appropriate article for the addition of specific individuals unless they are cited in the working paper that is the topic of this article. Key individuals and organizations (when backed up with RS) would fit much better in the Israel lobby in the United States article. --64.230.127.254 02:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wardeagle999's additions

I excised a huge portion of material added recently by Wardeagle999 for a number of reasons. First, it was entirely un-encyclopedic, at times completely casual in tone, meandering, and repetitive. Secondly, the tone and thesis of the paper is already summarized quite well in the already extant section "The Lobby" under the heading "Content". Thirdly, his additions contained much unsourced material and were somewhat POV — thus, inappropriate for Wikipedia. Inoculatedcities 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Four times more criticism than praise; article is unbalanced.

A balanced article would give equal airtime to criticism and praise. This criticism section is around four times as long as the praise section. Moreover, almost half of the praise section is devoted to the neo-Nazi David Duke, which further undermines the praise section. I propose truncating the criticism section, making sure all key viewpoints are represented. It is not necessary to feature every single person who has ever criticized this topic. A second idea would be to increase the size of the praise section, but I think that's a worse idea. Organ123 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but it might be argued that the article garnered more criticism than praise. After all, many on the left who are critical of the U.S./Israeli strategic alliance (Chomsky, Massad, et al) resisted the article's attempt to distinguish U.S. interests and motives from those of Israel.

But the emphasis on Duke in the praise section is genuinely ridiculous. If the praise of so marginal a character as Duke deserves mention at all here, it should be mentioned in the "criticism" section, because it was only significant insofar as it became a rhetorical talking point for the paper's critics.--G-Dett 18:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

OK -- so if nobody objects, I'm going to go ahead and remove "the emphasis on Duke." I'm also going to significantly trim the criticism section, being careful to include key criticisms from both the left and the right. I'll create a final bullet point for "Other critics" where I perhaps list and identify other critics without elaborating on their quotes and arguments. Organ123 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object. The section on Duke contains more criticism of Duke than anything else, so it can hardly be considered "unbalanced". In addition, the second the section was "shortened", it was almost immediately deleted as "non-notable". The Duke stuff is notable precisely because it received so much attention; removing mention of that is merely the first step to removing the whole notable section, as I'm sure many would love to do. I note as well that you didn't bother to revert the editor who removed it completely; I find that telling. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, your tone both here and in your edit comments pushes the boundaries of civility, and also does not appear to assume good faith. It's clear to me that we have ideological differences, but we should still try to build consensus. That said -- I am also not sure what implication you're making; it's true that I did not "bother" to revert the editor who removed the Duke section outright, but that is because I agree with him/her that it shouldn't be in there. As I've been arguing on a related page recently, I think references to Duke should be in the criticism section, basically because critics are the only ones who care about Duke and his opinions, the only ones who publicize them. So the reputable sources who talk about Duke do so in the context of criticizing this or that anti-Israeli gov't viewpoint. So yes, it's not a secret that I would like to see David Duke out of the "praise" section altogether. But since I correctly didn't think that that would fly here, I pushed to make the Duke section shorter, something which seems completely reasonable to me, and in accordance with WP policies, since highlighting the Duke controversy serves mainly to call attention to an alleged link between criticizing Israeli policies and anti-Semitism -- something only done by critics. Organ123 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia editors and real-world RS's who are the most keen to give David Duke the largest profile and platform possible, who treat him as an important and notable source, and who assist him in any way they can to disseminate his antisemitic propaganda, are the very editors and pundits who are the most critical of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper; I find that telling. The Duke material quite obviously belongs in the "criticism" section.--G-Dett 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Organ123, I haven't "pushed the boundaries" of either WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. Regarding your other statements, in the section in question it is, in fact, only supporters of the paper who have commented on Duke; specifically, Mary-Kay Wilmers, Juan Cole, and one of the authors, Stephen Walt. In other words, we have support of the paper from Duke, followed by support of the paper from Walt, Wilmers, and Cole. Hardly "criticism". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg does not explain why Duke should be so prominently featured in the "praise" section. Jayjg also does not explain to whom Walt, Wilmers, and Cole are responding. I'll tell you who they're not responding to: David Duke. They're responding to the people who amplify Duke's voice on this topic (and I'm not referring to his own followers), people who would like to link criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, people perhaps similar to those who would like to see David Duke prominently featured in the "praise" section of this article. David Duke is really an incidental character in this whole system; he's a tool used by critics (both on Wikipedia and in the world at large), and it is these critics to whom Walt, Wilmers, and Cole are responding. David Duke himself has no business having his name highlighted in a section sub-heading. If editors are interested in the argument that it's anti-Semitic to criticize Israel, then I suggest the new antisemitism page. Organ123 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the links for Walt and Wilmers, and nowhere do they indicate that they are responding to anyone but Duke. As for the highlighting of Duke's name, I'm actually kind of amused, since I've seen that before in this article and others. First someone simply includes Duke (or someone similar) under the list of "supporters", then an outraged editor comes along and insists that the Duke material be hived off into its own sub-section, to keep it from "contaminating" the "clean" supporters, then a few months later another editor comes along and is outraged that Duke is highlighted by having his own section, which gives him too much prominence. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to make a second mention of Jayjg's disrespectful tone as he expresses "amusement" at my actions, as though I am some sort of clown acting in a predictably and humorously foolish manner. I also think that Jayjg misrepresents my arguments in his last post, and I hope that we are trying to reach a compromise and not just battling. I will note that if anyone, it is Jayjg who was the "outraged editor [that] comes along an insists that the Duke material be hived off into its own sub-section," since that is exactly what happened last night when I put Duke in normally. I am still willing to have Duke "simply included" in the "praise" section, against my beliefs but for the sake of compromise. So if that is OK with Jayjg, then I support it.
• In the Salon piece, for example, Cole responds to the NY Sun and not Duke. "The logical fallacy of guilt by association characterizes many of the more strident responses. For example, the staunchly pro-Israel paper the New York Sun gleefully pounced on white supremacist David Duke's endorsement of 'The Israel Lobby.'" Clearly, Cole is more concerned about the NY Sun than about nutjob David Duke. Organ123 00:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not amused at you per se, but at the fact that two different editors, both theoretically holding the same viewpoint, draw exactly opposite conclusions regarding putting the material in its own section, and each assuming it is done for negative reasons - and even moreso that it has happened on more than one article. Also, I have not insisted the Duke material be hived off; rather, I simply restored the consensus version of the material which had been deleted. Finally, I was quite clear when I specified that, contrary to your claim, Walt and Wilmers nowhere indicated that they were responding to anyone but Duke - it is therefore rather strange that you would bring up Cole instead, as if I had referred to him. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Four times more criticism..... Isn't this what the paper asserts. A loosely organized collection of groups - not all Jewish - join together to fight for Israel's welfare. Even Chomsky, I don't know why I say "even", jump to the rescue - ie mentionig oil companies, etc with their interests - gee whiz, occasionallt Israel and oil companies et al have coinciding interests, wow. Wiki jumps in with its little bit too, wow I bet the Meirsheimer and Walt wouldn't have able to predict this.159.105.80.141 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Four times more criticism than praise; article is unbalanced? Whoever did the heading of this section must be very uneducated and ignorant of the world. Maybe only in America or Israel is that unbalanced praised that you claim true but if you look at the entire world it will be the opposite. The whole world outside of America and Israel knows exactly what is going on and the power of the Isreal lobby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.44.97 (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you can always say quotefarm and NPOV and take some of them out. ;-) Assuming not done already.

Carol Moore 04:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I agree that this article is unbalanced. I think that the criticism section could fairly be truncated in order to give approximately equal space to both sides, and if anybody wants to attempt to do this, I would support them. Also, I think that cutting the length of the article would help generally, as it has become a pretty sprawling piece. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Content" section

The section title "The Content", aside from being horribly written, appears to consist entirely of original research; that is, it lists dozens of cherry-picked quotations from the paper itself. Rather than doing so, the article should list what reliable third-parties have stated are the key elements of the paper. Unless someone can come up with a good reason for including this section, I'm recommending deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone come up with anything yet? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE stop butchering this article and related ones with all of these mass-deletions Jayjg...we need not mention your recent massive deletions on the closely related Israel lobby in the United States page, which resulted in the removal of huge amounts of valid/sourced material and links from mainstream sources and important commentators on this issue. If anything, when it comes to very controversial and touchy topics like these, MORE INFORMATION IS ALWAYS BETTER; the more views that this article can incorporate from MULTIPLE and VARIED sources, the more neutral it will be since it will reflect as many sides of the issue(s) as possible. Also, have you ever tried ADDING info to articles rather than always DELETING stuff? --172.168.157.231 00:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me like the content section is trying to summarize the paper, mainly through the use of quotations, which I'm not sure counts as original research (along the lines of introducing a new theory or defining new terms, or advancing a position by combining information from different sources). It may be selectively quoting to push an agenda in violation of NPOV, but with so many quotes, I currently don't see which POV it's pushing other than the authors'. However, I agree though that listing dozens of quotations is not ideal, and I don't think it's a good way to present the information. I don't think I support simply deleting the entire section and sub-sections, but I would support rewriting the sections in non-quote-listing form, and would support using third parties who have said what they think is important. (Of course, if those third parties prominently feature David Duke and Jew Watch, this could become another rehash of an old issue.) In principle, I do not support removing the content section, or something that talks a bit about the content, because if we remove it all, we'll just be left with reactions, which doesn't encompass the item we're describing. I'm not sure if that's what's being suggested though. Organ123 04:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The specific quotes chosen are without doubt original research, and, in my view, intended to promote a POV. There has been so much third party commentary on this article that surely it is possible to come up with a summary of the major themes, using reliable secondary sources. And, although I'm not suggesting using them as a source, I think you'll find that what David Duke and Jew Watch think are the major themes are not that different from what various left-wing supporters of the paper think are the major themes. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support this so long as opinions other than the authors' are not put forth in the "content" section. The paper itself has a summary section, and I think it would be nice to perhaps also include a block quote from that summary, since that is how the authors themselves summarized their work. I still don't see how the quotes are original research, but I guess that's irrelevant since I agree that the article is ill-served by using a big listing of quotations in the summary. I imagine other editors have thoughts too ... anyone? Or perhaps they will have opinions after changes are made. Organ123 02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The choice of which quotes to include and which to exclude are original research; they aren't chosen randomly, but rather the person choosing has their own point that they which to make or emphasize. That's why we should rely on what secondary sources has said is important about the paper, not what Wikipedia editors think is important about the paper. Do you know anyone who is up to using secondary sources to do this? I'm not, but I don't have much patience for the original research quotefarm that is currently there, and plan to delete it soon regardless. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, please see WP:OWN. You can't just "plan to delete it [all] soon regardless," because this article is a slowly built agreement and consensus among many editors (and not just ONE like you) about what is appropriate here and what is not, what is 'OR' and what is not. If you had your way you would bring this one and many others down to worthless stubs (because you just keep slowly chipping away at SO MANY good article and valid sources). Also, please stop using the invalid 'OR' excuse so much, because it is clear that much of Wikipedia is OR by default. This article merely QUOTES from MULTIPLE sources, including the right-wing, center/neutral, and left-wing -- there is nothing POV about that. --172.168.157.231 00:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the choice of which quotes to include could lead to a particular point of view being unfairly emphasized, but I don't see that as original research. I do not support deleting the entire "content" section without replacing it with something better. I definitely think that the large "quotefarm" section is not helping the article. I think the section would be better served by a narrative-style summary that includes quotes as part of series of paragraphs. I'm also not totally sure how to proceed with getting third-party information on what is important without succumbing to highlighting the POVs of the third parties. (Like, if Fox News says "Here are the highlights," it will be different from if The Nation says the same.) At some level, the editors here will have to decide what is worth including and what isn't, whether we're deciding which third parties to reference or deciding which quotes to include ourselves. I don't think that is original research in either case; I think it's a situation where the editors will need to agree on text that best summarizes the article and which they feel does not promote a particular POV. Organ123 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The content section is not original research and it is quite disgusting, ironic and repulsive that a member trying to push his or her own POV has suggested this and not been thoroughly criticised for doing so. The lobby described in the article is working as we speak to ruin a very well expressed and written article. Reaper7 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

New book

The new book is 496 pages, so is more than just an "an enlarged version" of the paper. I think it deserves its own separate section. —Ashley Y 02:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A new section for the book is appropriate. I suggest that the thesis of the paper, the author's rebuttal to criticism and the book have such overlap that they can be combined into the first major section. A subsection can detail the differences between the initial paper and the book. This can then be followed by a second major section (with subsections were appropriate) on the reaction to the paper. A third major section could cover the response to the book.

Two recent book reviews: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/09/03/070903taco_talk_remnick http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article2348741.ece

Editorial responses: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392502669&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=897116&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

Newswire coverage: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gWxHKqNB_f903kIumTxdblGH9OCA

AIPAC and Israel have decided to ignore the book in order not to give it additional attention: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188128150170&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A past incident: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-israelbook_aug21,1,6109069.story?ctrack=1&cset=true http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/08/07/speechless-in-chicago/

An upcoming protest: http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103917.html

The authors will be on the Colbert Report on October 2, 2007 according to the book's official website: http://israellobbybook.com

--Lucretius 03:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sept 4th FreshAir NPR Interview with Stephen Walt and response: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14154082 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14154089 --Lucretius 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Book's table of contents

I created this table of contents by flipping through the book page-by-page and transcribing all of the section headers. It is more detailed that the table of contents published at the start of the book. --Lucretius 03:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

• The Lobby and US Middle East Policy
• The Lobby’s Modus Operandi
• Why Is It So Hard to Talk About the Israel Lobby?
• How We Make Our Case
• Those We Learned From

Part I: The US, Israel and the Lobby

1. The Great Benefactor
   • Economic Aid
   • Military Assistance
   • Diplomatic Protection and Wartime Support
2. Israel: Strategic Asset or Liability?
   • Helping Contain the Soviet Bear
   • From the Cold War to 9/11
   • “Partners Against Terror”: The New Rationale
   • Confronting Rogue States
   • A Dubious Ally
3. A Dwindling Moral Case
   • Backing the Underdog
   • Aiding a Fellow Democracy
   • Compensation for Past Crimes
   • “Virtuous Israelis” verses “Evil Arabs”
   • Camp David Myths
   • Supporting Israel Is God’s Will
   • What do the American People Want?
4. What is the “Israel Lobby”?
   • Defining the Lobby
   • The Role of American Jewry
   • Unity in Diversity and the Norm Against Dissent
   • The Lobby Moves Right
   • The Role of the Neoconservatives
   • The Christian Zionists
   • The Lobby’s Sources of Power
   • The (Modest) Impact of Oil
   • The Question of “Dual Loyalty”
5. Guiding the Policy Process
   • Holding Sway on Capital Hill
   • The Making of Pro-Israel Presidents
   • Keeping the Administration in Line
6. Dominating Public Discourse
   • The Media is the Message
   • Think Tanks that Think One Way
   • Policing Academia
   • Objectionable Tactics
   • The “New Anti-Semitism”
   • The Great Silencer

Part II: The Lobby in Action

1. The Lobby verses the Palestinians
   • The Lobby Humiliates Bush
   • “The More Things Change…”
   • Unilateralism In, Road Map Out
   • Arafat Dies and Nothing Changes
   • Rice Get “Powellized”
2. Iraq and Dreams of Transforming the Middle East
   • Israel and the Iraq War
   • The Lobby and the Iraq War
   • Selling the War to a Skeptical America
   • Fixing the Intelligence on Iraq
   • Was Iraq a War for Oil?
   • Dreams of Regional Transformation
   • The Lobby’s Role in Remaking the Middle East
3. Taking Aim at Syria
   • The Syrian Threat
   • Israel and the Golan Heights
   • Jerusalem and Damascus after September 11
   • The Lobby and Damascus after 9/11
   • Why Did Bush Waver?
4. Iran in the Crosshairs
   • Confrontation or Conciliations
   • The Clinton Administration and Dual Containment
   • The Bush Administration and Regime Change
   • Rising to Israel’s Defense
   • The Alternatives
   • The Least Bad Option
5. The Second Lebanon War
   • Prewar Planning
   • “The Mighty Edifice of Support”
   • Strategic Folly
   • Damage to US Interests
   • Breaking the Laws of War
   • The Lobby in Overdrive
   • The American Public and Lebanon
   • Doing America’s Bidding?

Conclusion: What Is to Be Done?

• What are US Interests?
• A Difference Strategy: The Case for “Offshore Balancing”
• A New Relationship: Treat Israel as A Normal State
• Ending the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
• Dealing with the Lobby
  • Weakening the Lobby?
  • Countering the Lobby?
  • Fostering More Open Discourse?
  • A New Israel Lobby?

Planned update to "Contents" section

The book contents are much better organized than the contents of the original short paper. I have posted the table of contents of the book above so that other Wikipedia editors can get a sense of it. It is very dense reading and much of it is challenging to summarize in a succinct form. I will in the next week try to summarize the final section entitled "What is to be Done?" as this part of the book, at least in my understanding, has no clear analog in the prior paper. --Lucretius 03:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate section on David Duke's opinion

I found the separate section devoted to the nutjob David Duke amazingly dishonest in its intentions. David Duke has been pretty much relegated to a "nobody", so why does his opinion matter so much that a new section with a picture of Duke's book posted prominently on it? The reason to me seems obvious-- conflate Duke's antisemitism with the Professors' book. When you can't argue with the book's contents, malign the author. And an age-old technique is to keep it simple, stupid by affixing images of bigots and other "villains" to a story to "bend" it a certain way. Guilt by association does no one good and is not helpful in the overall discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abureem (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't need a separate section. Thinking about it, if you are to have a picture of one book you should have other like it, and that would get silly. Professor John J. Mearsheimer and Professor Stephen Walt's book, 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy', is similar to that of Dr. David Ernest Dukes (which is good, despite what people think of him), but their is also the below:

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

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

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

Good points. Abureem 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, having a separate section is a not-so-subtle way to wrongly infer an association between M&W with a loathsome character (Duke). It's unfortunate that someone here at Wikipedia would use this sort of guilt by association tactic, which kind of supports one of the points that W&M were making. The Duke section should go back under the other "support" section, with all the same caveats that are there now. Arjuna 02:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The David Duke comments do not belong here. David Duke is an extremist source, and Wikipedia policy states clearly: "Extremist sources: Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."

I don't understand the generous use (devoid of any "caution") being made here not only of Duke's statements to newspapers, but also of his personal hate site. (Well, actually I do understand it, considering the agendas being tried to push by certain editors.) Whatever point we may want to make, please note that using Duke as a source (except about himself in articles about himself) is a disgrace for Wikipedia, because it promotes him to the status of a reliable source, and this encyclopedia deserves better than that.

So that, if no one objects, I'll delete all comments by the racist and antisemitic David Duke from this article.--Abenyosef 00:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this. The consensus on Wikipedia is that Holocaust deniers are not even considered reliable sources for their own views (see the archived discussions at Holocaust denial). My previous position has always been that if Duke et al are to be quoted here they should be quoted in the "criticism" section, as their support for the paper has been considered notable only by its critics. Duke is an avid batshit-crazy blogger and weighs in on everything from homosexuality to Harvard professor Robert Putnam's latest findings, and a thumbs-up or thumbs-down from him on this-and-that just isn't notable. It should also go without saying that citing his blog or radio show as a reliable source is a no-no. I still think if he is to be mentioned in any depth it should be in the "criticism" section. Reviewing the material, I see that most of it discusses Duke with reference to the paper's critics, which supports my position. I do note, however, that the Washington Post and one other source mention Duke's support in passing, and not specifically or implicitly as ammo for the paper's critics. So I would amend my position to say that a brief mention of Duke's endorsement in the praise section might be appropriate. Something along these lines, after all the longer endorsement blurbs: Walt and Mearsheimer's paper also drew praise from David Duke, further fueling public controversy. Critics pointed to the endorsement as evidence of the authors' antisemitism, while supporters dismissed this as guilt by association. The authors and the publisher of the essay expressed displeasure at the endorsement and rejected its significance.--G-Dett 21:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I haven't read the book itself, I do vividly recall two separate occasions of hearing the authors of this article speak on it. In both occasions, the issue of being closely asscociated with anti-semetic circles was brought up directly and discussed. Because Duke's review or whatever is so heavily referenced alongside of this book (much to the authors' stated dismay), I think that its inclusion is necessary to the fair evaluation of the article. Inclusion as G-Dett suggests seems to be most sensible, and it can potentially be more specific by citing the NPR episode that asked the authors on their piece's criticism which drew the specific response concerning David Duke's praise and reaction to it (which, as I recall, included the influence of the Israel Lobby-- which the authors stated as containing large membership of Christian Zionists-- in finding morally appalling characters to asscociate the article to, hence the line "Guilty by asscociation", which one of the authors uses explicitly). Ye Olde Twit (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The-israel-lobby-and-us-foreign-policy.jpg

Image:The-israel-lobby-and-us-foreign-policy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Farsi translation: fa:لابی اسرائیل و سیاست خارجی آمریکا is only criticism

I was just skimming through the Farsi copy of the article and I noticed that the summary and the positive assessments of the article are missing from the translation. Only the sections dealing with criticism of the book have been translated. That is mighty suspicious. --Lucretius 04:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

deleted external link

Duplicity has removed an external link to my progressive critique [3] of the Walt-Mearsheimer book claiming that I have a conflict of interest in doing so. I can find no Wikipedia rule that prohibits such a link. To be clear, I derive no benefit whatsoever fr. such a link as my website is entirely non-profit.

The reason for the external link to my critique is that very few American Jews have written positively about the book. I have done so. I have a gradudate degree in this field & write reviews for American Conservative Magazine and have published at the L.A. Times, and The Guardian on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Some Wikipedia readers may want to delve further into the book and read the perspective I bring to bear on it in my own critique. The link is meant to enrich the Wikipedia experience & not to benefit me personally.Richard (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "LRB" :
  • [[John Mearsheimer|Mearsheimer, John J.]] and [[Stephen Walt|Walt, Stephen]]. [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html The Israel Lobby], ''[[London Review of Books]]'', Volume 28 Number 6, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  • [[John Mearsheimer|Mearsheimer, John J.]] and [[Stephen Walt|Walt, Stephen]]. [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html The Israel Lobby], ''[[London Review of Books]]'', Volume 28 Number 6, March 23, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

CAIR speech story POV/WP:OR???

This article has a lot of problems, but one thing that seems irrelevant is the CAIR speech section. It seems an attempt to make some POV/WP:original research point or other. They've given dozens of speeches since then. Why this one? It may be amusing to those who like to see the lobby knocked, but how does it increase the encyclopedic value of the article? I think it should be removed.

Also, the OBAMA ad story is totally wp:undue and two sentences are more than sufficient. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Article way too long.

This article is way too long with all too much emphasis on reactions, reactions to reactions, criticisms, reception etc. Do we really need to detail every opinion ever offered about this book, or can we find the most notable 2-3? Ill boldly summarize to kick off the edit cycle. Bonewah (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok ive cut out what I feel is excessive or trivial sections of this article. I think more pairing down is necessary, but id like to wait for other editors to analyze and respond to this first round. I tried to focuse mainly on who was commenting and tried to ignore what 'side' the comments fall, and so removed both 'pro' and 'con' paragraphs. Obviously, if anyone feels that i have introduced NPOV problems, feel free to revert and discuss here. Bonewah (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

bad link - citation 45 doesn't lead anywhere 173.76.152.35 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with David Rothkopf's blog-based attack on Stephen Walt

Hi all,

I notice that someone has added a quote from David Rothkopf's blog that attacks Stephen Walt for responding to the bin Laden endorsement. I am confused as to why a blog is allowed as a source for such a personal attack. I am also curious as to why such a personal attack is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, it doesn't seem at all noteworthy as it only tangentially addresses the topic at hand. I also add that the individual who added this material is insisting on a large quoteblock of text for this personal attack (which makes the personal attack more prominent in the article) while also insisting that Walt's response to the bin Laden endorsement (which given he is the author of the book bin Laden is endorsing should be more noteworth) not be given a quoteblock (I was reverted when I tried to equalize the use of quoteblocks for some reason.) Here is the passage in question that an editor is insisted be included in this article (and is sourced to a blog, albeit one hosted on FP):

David Rothkopf, Walt's colleague at Foreign Policy, attacked Walt's response to the bin Laden endorsement saying:

"Walt's response gets really good when he then goes so far as to suggest that Osama's embrace of his book only proves his point that the Israel lobby ... is used as a justification by terrorists. Blind to the irony all his book did was weave precisely the kind of fabric of partial truths and old biases that are used to dress up the hatreds of demagogues everywhere, Walt actually has the chutzpah to try use the news that the most evil man in the world is reading his work as a soap box from which to once again sell his argument (and books)." [[[David Rothkopf|Rothkopf, David]]. "Walt, Mearsheimer, and why Osama Bin Laden is reading The Israel Lobby." Foreign Policy. 16 September 2009. 17 September 2009.]

Thoughts? I will take this up on Monday on the RS noticeboard as I think it is a pretty clear case of inappropriate personal attacks sourced to a blog and it is also not worthy of an encyclopedia.

--John Bahrain (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the blog attack should be deleted. It does not add anything encyclopedic. Mhockey (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

how can Rotkopf call bin Laden "most evil man" ? Is he pro-Hitler ? very encyclopedic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.151.90 (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are two-thirds of this article criticism??

Not to mention that the one single paragraph that constitutes as the "praise" section is pretty much criticism as well. The way this article is written as of now is completely biast and ridiculous. And why is there a specific section dedicated to "Endorsement by Osama Bin Laden"? I think it´s safe to say the only thing objective about this article is the summary of the book-which, what this article is supposed to be about, is in itself only one paragraph. It seems to me that this article is in serious need of revision/editing for the current state it´s in is absolutely unacceptable. Does anyone else agree with me? 17:01 February 12, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.255.80 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's less than half of the article, and in fact amounts to just over half of the Reception section which is logical since just over half of the reception for the book has been criticism (my personal estimate, but I'm fairly sure it's true). If you believe that the entire Reception section gets undue weight, then you might have a point, and I encourage you to expand the other parts of the article that don't deal with the reception. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Some criticism in the section refers to the PAPER and NOT the book by the same name. I will remove the criticism referring directly to the PAPER as it gives a distorted image of the criticism of the book itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.173.4 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

David Duke claim by ScriptusSecundus

I rv-ed this edit and ScriptusSecudus incorrectly reverted it back. I'm afraid that the claim that "David Duke endorsed this book because of how similar it is to his own views and stances, and highly recommends it to everyone" is either an WP:OR violation (and arguably a smear as well, but I'm not going to argue that here). Duke may claim that the book is similar to his views, but the sentence as currently phrased suggests that this is true when in fact it may or may not be true. To endorse Duke's view of the book as true is POV pushing and/or OR. I am not going to revert again because I'm not going to get into an edit war, but a responsible editor should step in and correct this. I am not arguing that the Duke reference should be deleted, but simply that the wording needs to change to be NPOV and avoid OR issues. Arjuna (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Alex Safian Phd (physics)

The opinion of Alex Safian is currently presented in the article. Currently no evidence has been provided that he is a significant view that has been published in RS on this topic. His opinion should be removed from the article until such time as evidence is provided that he is a notable opinion on the topic of this article that has been published in RS.

Copious mainstream media column inches have been devoted to this topic, as well as broad scholarly debate by significant academics. WP:UNDUE states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.". Given the amount of coverage that this topic has received by RS if Safian's opinion has not even been published by RS there can be no justification for including it. Dlv999 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But that to one side, I've just reverted a highly probable sock who had restored the content in this edit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What is presented is the opinion of CAMERA, a notable organization with a notable point of view. Censorship will not fly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Top of the Tower (talk • contribs) 23:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So much hate.

I plan to introduce this source which discusses claims of Antisemitism. This source may be more suitable for Mearsheimer's actual article. Thoughts?Ankh.Morpork 13:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem relevant to me. The articles are opinion pieces remarking on Mearsheimer's endorsement of Gilad Atzomon's book. Given the volume of coverage that The Israel Lobby and the US Foreign Policy received, I don't see the justification, or any possible benefit to the article of including tangential material. Added to that Geoffrey Goldberg's opinion on the topic of this article is already covered in some detail. Dlv999 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Tell me, please, Ankh: Are you just as prepared to condemn anyone who's endorsed any book by Benny Morris as being an anti-Arab racist? Morris makes many comments that unquestionably show he's one, himself − and more explicitly than Atzmon had done in the other direction − so it's the same principle. For example, Morris characterizes the entirety of Palestinian society as a "serial killer" and says they should be treated as such, put in a cage, at the very least, or just executed. He says, "The Arab world as it is today is barbarian." And he approves of what he calls the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestine.^ref

I'm just curious to know whether that tar brush you want to ply paints in both directions? I'm sure I can find sources that call Morris a racist. In the interest of fair play, are you willing to help me go 'round to the BLPs of public figures who have praised him or praised his books, and call them names for doing so? If you say, "Oh, it's okay to do that with Mearsheimer, because I have sources that make the connection" you're going to add some serious points to your wikilawyer tally in my book. What I want to know is if you think characterising supporters of Israel's interests on this guilt-by-endorsement basis would be right, not whether you think it would be allowed?  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cbc-2004":

• From Osama bin Laden: "Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11". CBC News. October 29, 2004. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
• From September 11 attacks: "Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11". CBC News. October 29, 2004. Retrieved 2011-09-01. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Is David Duke's opinion relevant or significant

To quote the relevant policy: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."

I would argue that David Duke is a fringe source whose opinion is not significant on matters of foreign policy or international politics. Do any other Wikipedia articles regarding aspects of American foreign policy refer to Duke's opinion as a significant viewpoint? I think not. His inclusion here seems like a crude effort to tar by association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eptified (talk • contribs) 08:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Zunes/Massad

Zunes never "took issue" with Massad's assertions. Read Zunes' piece in Mother Jones and you will see that he is simply quoting Massad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.150.186 (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Blatant Bias & Heavy Anti-Book Sentiment in the Article

This issue has been repeatedly raised before. This is another case of article manipulation by few passionate editors, like we witnessed in the Hurricane Sandy article. It is not difficult to realize that this article is heavily biased against the book. Criticism on the book makes up a majority of this article (5,399 out of 9,486 words). This is in stark contrast with the off-Wikipedia reception of this book.

Due to its comprehensiveness and a fresh look at the tabooed subject in the U.S. politics, this book earned praise from The New York Times, The Guardian, Foreign Affairs (the most respected international affairs magazine), the London Review of Books, the New York Review of Books, and the list goes on. Yet, the article treats the book with overwhelmingly negative sentiment.

This issue must be corrected.

-- chulk90/discuss/contributions 19:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Critique section is a JOKE, it seems to list every single human that hates this book to create the impression that the book was poorly reviewed there are WEIGHT issues also. Hedging this nonsense would be an idea. It is 100% evident (and it should not be) that who ever wrote this section is an open detractor and editing to dismiss the work. Clearly against policy. As the user above states (5,399 out of 9,486 words). The section is so detailed it list everyone, by section, who has issue with the book. NOT SO for the positive praise. Strange. The book got such a good review it is odd to think so many people hated it.--Inayity (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus to remove the reviews by Marvin Kalb and Ruth Wisse? Neither of these people are experts on U.S. foreign policy, nor are they even peripherally involved in the relevant debates. Shii (tock) 21:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No arbitrary deletions Please review talk page

Per WP:AGF Before telling people their edits are arbitrary Please review talk page. There is a major problem with this article. We have no Wikipedia obligation to list every single last piece of critique by everyone who has a pen to critique. This has been discussed and we have been doing it. Yet someone accuses me of using no rationale to remove content. I believe between the TK page and the edit summaries all removals have been per a ongoing process. --Inayity (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay I see we are dealing with a problem editor unfamilar with Wikipedia policy. Not to worry I will take the necessary action. This page works by discussion not your reverts and your opinion. You have made no contribution to this talk page, yet you are pushing your edits against what was discussed. The burden is on you to read the Talk page, if you cannot find the discussion ask. Your edits now constitute unconstructive and fail because no rationale has been offered for maintaing the info I deleted--Inayity (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. The burden is on you to prove why two paragraphs of perfectly sourced content should be removed. And remember that WP:I don't like it is not a valid argument.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course I am wrong, that is how they talk in pre-School. I have already given clear reasons why I removed them. Please refer to the edit summary which is in keeping with the discussion above you. Editors already agreed to trim the critique section (can we agree to that)? Now we have been trimming since then. If I have deleted notable content, then please use this talk page to argue why i should NOT be DELETED. It is very simple and does not need too much discussion. Waiting your discussion of why the content i deleted is needed in this article. --Inayity (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And please avoid throwing wiki policy around , that you do not understand, it does not help your case. Re-summarizing my arguments with straw man tactics is weak, discuss the specifics and not the vague. The edit summary is clear, you can go back to it and read my edit rationale. You can challenge it , here it is [4].--Inayity (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

AJC also published several critiques of the paper, many of which were reproduced in newspapers around the world. AJC's Anti-Semitism expert, Kenneth Stern, made the following argument against the paper: Why was this re-added after I stated AJC central criticism was already made a few lines above. What does this have to do with the book? It should be on the AJC page. Is it Notable? Who cares where else they published their opinion. The only thing is there main objections to the book and that is the end. --Inayity (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing things here. You and another editor (what a consensus!) agreed to reduce certain content in July. Unfortunately you did it. Five months have passed and now you are citing an alleged "consensus" to remove two completely different paragraphs. That's not how things are done. So calm down and try to specifically explain why those two perfectly sourced paragraphs should be removed.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have already answered your question. Deal with the one I have already discussed. You keep forgetting something editors here agreed, you are the only one who is outside of the talk page, outside of prior development of this article. Me and another editor is an agreement more than what you have. 2 sec ago you said there was no discussion. So you are new here right? You are the one misquoting policy (I dont like it), hoping it will stick. You cannot revert my edits without challenging my arguments. PLEASE Do that!--Inayity (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me ask you again: In what official Wikipedia's policy are you based on to say that such content about criticism, supported by reliable sources, has to be removed? Please don't go round in circles, cite specific Wikipedia's policy about each specific case. Two users agreeing on something when nobody was looking is not what I call mainstream consensus. So far you have only given your personal opinion, without providing a single wikilink to a particular policy or rule of Wikipedia in order to explain why certain sourced content can't be included.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy, when a discussion is going on you do not force your misunderstanding and edit. I have already left your edits in and there is a discussion, Yet you go and do more harm. I will not reply to your statement because it is clear you are new, and totally uninformed in how to debate, as well as how Wikiepdia works. At least respect this. U must speak in specific terms to the sections I have deleted ON THE TALK PAGE. --Inayity (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but I've read the talk page and you haven't brought a single Wikipedia's policy or rule to properly justify removing specific sourced content (I'm talking about real Wikipedia's policy... like synth, undue weight, original research, unreliable source, cherry-picking, fringe, etc). Your arguments are like this: "This criticism section is too long.... there must be some people who liked the book.... what's X person got to do with Y?..... THIS IS A JOKEEEE" Sorry, not valid arguments to delete sourced content. If you bring me real policy to justify your massive blanket of sourced content one by one, then we can debate. Capiche? After all, you are not proposing to add anything new to balance or create something, you only destroy the work done by other people long time before. This is the only thing you do in Wikipedia: delete, delete, delete (as long as they don't suit your political agenda).--Baatarsaikan (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific objection which deals with the arguments made against the source content. B/c nothing stated above actually consitutes a counter-position. B/c this "your points are personal opinions" is not a refutation but an uninformed observation. I can throw that right back at you. Per Wikipedia standards it is not a counter-rationale to the points made or the entries deleted. But keep still we will see how this works out for you.--Inayity (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please remind me... What are exactly your arguments, based on Wikipedia's pillars or policy, to reject the sourced content?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Follow the objections raised on the Talk Page. But with you, you are right me and other editors are wrong. You can do as you please because you are greater than us and your word and opinions are law. You can ignore the revert warning and still revert while a discussion is going on. Please review. and while you are at it basic good writing styles which require summationa and Due weight. A criticism section should be concise and not over included every single critique on Earth. The article is about the book not how much every single Person loves it or hates it. --Inayity (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And please review WP:ARTN because you keep going on about sourced content. Sourced content is not the only criteria for inclusion. Why not copy and paste everything from BBC into this article and say it is sourced. You have a source does not mean it merits inclusion. --Inayity (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'll ignore your repeated ad-hominem attacks. Nobody said criticism by a "nobody" should be included. But all these are notable critiques supported by reliable sources and I don't see how they can't coexist in the article with people praising the book. Summarizing an idea doesn't mean to censor and erase it completely.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Do me a favor and look at what I deleted from the AJC, I did not delete their main argument. What I did was delete a specific extended objection which was not NOTABLE. The section on Bin Ladin was in support of the authors. I read the Book I support the authors yet I DELETED the supporting comment. We are in the process of a clean up. If you want to delete extended comments in the Support go ahead, no one is objecting but it is disruptive to come and put back in all of that stuff when we already worked hard on cutting it down. If something is deleted that you think should stay then Make a case for why it should stay. Then we move forward.? The article is a mess, it needs to be hedged regardless of where you stand. It is NOT a CENSOR. all the views By Bernard Lewis were not touched. If i could have my way they would have been the first to go. But we already included the AJC (correct me if i am wrong) why do we need to add in all the stuff about where they published their objections? Tell me is that reasonable. ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the AJC is only one paragraph long.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think in good faith you should restore the article to where we left off with the AJC discussion. If an article is too bulky you have to decided what part of AJC to keep and what to drop. Can we agree to that? I did not deleted ALL of AJC i deleted the section which added nothing to this article, it was more about them. Also Wikipedia is Not A quote farm, and all of these Quotes are a problem. Hence why I deleted the supporting Bin Ladin one and deleted the AJC one. One criticism/praise per organization.pick one, --Inayity (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is written in Wikipedia that an editor can't quote an organization twice?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTABLE where we are here to summarize, if you have a better way of summarizing what has no business in the article then tell me, i am solely interested in the quality of this article. Wikipedia is edited by editors, we already see the criticism is a problem, I would like to fix it by summing it up and removing excess nonsense. Why should their opinion be mentioned more than once, why not include their entire article of objections 21 times? and you might want to read What Wikipedia is not, because one thing it is not is an inclusion of every view in the world 10 times over. WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Criteria for inlcusion has to be meet--Inayity (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about this paragraph?:

The American Jewish Committee (AJC): executive director David A. Harris has written several responses to the paper and more recently to the book. His article in the The Jerusalem Post discusses the difficulty Europeans have in understanding America's "special relationship" with Israel and the resulting eagerness of European publishers to fast track the book. "Although the book was panned by most American reviewers, it will serve as red meat for those eager to believe the worst about American decision-making regarding Israel and the Middle East." AJC also published several critiques of the paper, many of which were reproduced in newspapers around the world. AJC's Anti-Semitism expert, Kenneth Stern, made the following argument against the paper: "Such a dogmatic approach blinds them from seeing what most Americans do. They seek to destroy the "moral" case for Israel by pointing at alleged Israeli misdeeds, rarely noting the terror and anti-Semitism that predicates Israeli reactions."

Why would you cut it down? And how?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It is clear you are just wasting my time. --Inayity (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked you a specific question. Is that the paragraph you want to reduce? Why? How?--Baatarsaikan (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Article Balance in Clear Number terms

This articles main content occupies 584 words (excluding the lead) which is 277 words. The Praise is 699 words. The Mix reception and reply is 1700, plain hated it = 727. So we should probably rename the article AlL Opinions of the book, because from Benny to Chomsky I do not think anyone got left out. Per Wikipedia WP:SIZE and a whole host of other concerns like BEING CONCISE, Tel Aviv, we have a problem. Yes I understand it is a controversial book, but then do we include everything? Then a criteria is needed because in terms of someone actually reading this string on nonsense, you must be a die hard enthusiast of this topic. Many editors have already made this observation I am making it in specific terms to highlight a problem. discuss soln to this issue not a run-around or " I dont get the point." as the point is clear .--Inayity (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Mitchell Plitnick, no wiki page but had all of this to say

Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Education and Policy for Jewish Voice for Peace, wrote an extensive critique of the book, while also stating firmly that "The ideas Walt and Mearsheimer present are not comfortable and, in my view, sometimes not accurate. But they are not personally anti-Semitic, nor are they motivated by animosity toward Israel." Plitnick details his view that Walt and Mearsheimer seriously overstate "The Lobby's" role in policymaking, although their influence in Congress is considerable. He also challenges the view that Israel was a prime motivator in the invasion of Iraq, saying "...it was clear that Iraq was no threat to Israel. There was simply no reason for Israel to risk alienating a large segment of the American people in order to push for this war and, in fact, they did not. It was an American misadventure, and the Israeli involvement was by American request, not on their own impetus." Plitnick sees US Mideast policy as consistent with US policy in other places and based on an analysis with which both he and Walt and Mearsheimer would disagree, but saying "The Lobby" is responsible is overstating the matter

How many words is this for Mr. Plintnick, the way I see it, if someone else, more notable already conveyed this sentiment why is he here? Because everything placed on Wikipedia needs a justification. Who is he, why is it important. 189 words, Why bother with a reference just put the rest of his review in the article.--Inayity (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Reviews of book dominant article

I am struggling with this article, it has excessive inclusion of information by what other people think about the book, including excessive quotes from everyone who has an opinion to offer. It compromises the quality of the article and the weight of the article. Other opinions would be nice on how to fix, see talk page on text size breakdown and history of objections [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Inayity (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Inayity: Can we split the article into one relating to the book, and one relating to its reception? This was done with Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

I was --in the back of my mind --thinking about that, and I did see it done with Carter's book and Noam Chomsky in general. I dont know, personally I still think Wiki should not be a compilations of book reviews. But Let me go and check out the split on Peace Not Apartheid.--Inayity (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia need not be compilation of book reviews. However, there is no policy that says praise and criticism must be the same number of words. If more articles of praise are found or vice-versa, it is reasonable that one section may be longer than the other, simply due to their numbers. There is no one-for-one praise-to-criticism ratio. Certainly there should be a bar and we can take it upon ourselves to clean up any article, but removing articles like The New York Times Book Review is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Precision123 (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

Given the article edit restrictions, is there any chance of getting more info about the points addressed by any given critic's refutation and arguments? It doesn't have to be word-for-word but it would be helpful to know something substantial. For example: "Professor X attacked the book on the grounds that the authors used the wrong study from 1976 and misquoted Y."

I would also appreciate seeing why the selected individuals are credible authorities on this issue. For the CIA director and the Secretary of State, that's obvious. But I'm not sure why/how a review in the Denver Post or an author addressing Stanford would constitute authorities on the subject whose opinions should matter to most readers here. This is not an argument to remove any views, only a request to explain their usefulness.

Unfortunately, too many of the points in the criticism section are oversimplified down to generic outrage: accusations of scurrilous lies and "you don't know X/anything about X". That doesn't inform me of what fallacies the book might employ, where its numbers may be wrong, what bad studies on which it may rely, or really disprove anything. It only proves that people have very strong opinions and I could guess that much from the subject. 135.23.43.68 (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

bin laden/duke "review"

I think that is pretty extremely in the undue weight category to include and intend to remove it. A review by a non-expert in an audio tape isnt something we would typically include in an article on a scholarly book. The Duke bit is a. about the initial essay, and b. is contained entirely in one line of a newspaper piece. The Bin Laden piece has about the same level of coverage, with a paper covering a speech in which he recommended a number of books to Americans to read. I dont really see how either belongs in an article covering the book. nableezy - 02:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

removing. nableezy - 19:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)