Talk:Anti-Israel lobby in the United States

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Rename

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

Agree enthusiastically. We could then take the anti-Israel out of the lead, as well. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. csloat (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Like the pro-Israel lobby, the anti-Israel lobby is defined mostly by its enemies. "Opposition to the Israel lobby" is just a more wordy and euphemistic title of "Anti-Israel lobby." And as far as degrees are concerned, most of these lobbies verge on the side of extremity - i.e, they totally reject the very existence and legality of Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If we keep the title as it is, we would have to remove reference to all organisations that do not explicitly call for the disestablishment of Israel. Mere accusation by pro-Israel sources is insufficient for neutrality (unless we went for "Allegations of anti-Israel lobbying in the United States", which would be unnecessary). —Ashley Y 06:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Israel lobby does not explicitly imply groups that promote the destruction or removal of Israel from Earth. Just as Pro-Israel lobby does not explicitly mean a perpetual erection for all things Jews. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First, "explicit" and "imply" are opposites. Which are you going for here? Second, "anti-Israel" means "against Israel" -- against the state, or the entity, not against the policies. Third, there is no "Pro-Israel lobby" article that I'm aware of. Fourth, why would you link to the word "erection" in your comment except to troll? Finally, there is not a clear (third party) body of literature supporting the notion of an "Anti-Israel Lobby" and calling it that, so there is no reason for us to adopt the terminology of a radical fringe. csloat (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Israel means they are against any Israel whatever. Whereas many of these groups merely happen to oppose certain Israeli policies. —Ashley Y 06:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If this article continues to exist it needs a title abiding by WP:NPOV and WP:NC. The current title does not. The proposed one at least offers a proper scope where an encyclopedic article could actually be written, which thanks to Ravpapa is on its way. nableezy - 06:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when does anti-Israel mean against Israel 100%? "Anti-" is synonymous with opposition. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point; see above. csloat (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it should be merged with Israel lobby in the United States, since it would fit perfectly as a subsection there. 105.4.6.54 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I will compile a list of references if Historicist doesn't before me (I'm busy tomorrow). Considering many of these organizations have strong ties to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the gulf states, the rhetoric is very consistent with their morally defective government benefactors. Comparing Israel to Nazis (which is very common in the Apartheid tours), Israel flag combined with fascist symbols, etc...all verge on the side of extremity and can be categorized in the pertinent category. I've seen it personally, though that wouldn't very relevant as far as wikipedia is concerned. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you're looking for this article rather than the one you're on. csloat (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I think we do need an article about world wide opposition specifically to the Israel lobbies of many nations (US, Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany, other Euro nations especially). That can be created whatever happens with this article. We also need Israel lobby to change from being a mere disambiguation page to being a page outlining activities of the Israel lobby in those nations. I've been accumulating info but just too busy with other stuff to do it. Guess I could start a stub. Someday...

To be clear I did not say that listed groups want to abolish Israel. Just that obviously many Muslim and Arab and radical groups do (including many One-state solution groups. But they are not the ones attacked by those who use the pejorative "anti-Israel lobby" phrase. One reason because they aren't as easily intimidated as groups that don't mind or even support Israel surviving. Also, perhaps because many aren't lobbyists, but groups that dream of military or demographic success. But obviously the previous list and current list does not contain such groups. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you talking about groups like Hamas? That's odd, because the article is talking about groups like AFSC and MPAC, about which the claim that they "want to abolish Israel" or that they "dream of military or demographic success" is beyond ludicrous. csloat (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Review of the article

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

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

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

RFC

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

Robofish explained the main concern here, IMHO. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Academic blogs as reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment about "anti-Israel"

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

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

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

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

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

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

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