Talk:AIPAC/Archive 1

Why has this been removed? Sure, it's their POV, but it's notable nonetheless. —Ashley Y 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was a notable POV. Ashley, what are your thoughts about the title of the AIPAC espionage scandal/Franklin, Rosen, Weissman section? Given that there exists a page entitled AIPAC espionage scandal I would have thought that would be the logical title for the section as well as the widely accepted name for that series of events. Thanks. ANW 09:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe what they are reporting would be notable but the report itself is not especially notable for a news report, and since the conclusions are so hotly disputed it would be inappropriate to include it in the article as fact.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really see how it was presented as fact.

The Economist magazine claimed AIPAC's political power is the one of the main reasons for America's support of Israel. "Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right." ^[1]

1. [1]

   "To Israel with love". The Economist. Aug 3rd, 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

It seems to be presented as an opinion by the use of the verb "claim". Thanks. ANW 10:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinion isn't the overall tone of the passage.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How would you suggest changing the tone of the passage, so as to appear less as fact and more as an opinion? Thanks. ANW 10:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Economist is a well-respected newspaper (magazine if you prefer) that is not even known to be particularly biased against Israel. Their opinion on AIPAC is relevant.

As for the section heading, it should match the article, though one could optionally drop the word "AIPAC". Perhaps one could put in "espionage accusations" if one were concerned that the title implies that the espionage charge is definitively true. —Ashley Y 10:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "AIPAC" is redundant in the title of the section. The problem with "espionage accusations" is that at least one of the accused has admitted guilt in transferring classified information to foreign officials, so it's not just accusations. Maybe "Espionage investigation" or "Espionage indictments"? Thanks. ANW 12:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

AIPAC hasn't admitted guilt, though, have they? How about "Espionage allegations"? —Ashley Y 21:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just added a link to the "See also" section but it was removed with barely a comment. The new article, which is still under development, is here Israel lobby in the United States. It attempts to provide an overview of the Israel lobby that is distinct from any particular lobby group (such as the AIPAC.) The term Israel lobby is used a number of different places in Wikipedia without sufficient explanation. It isn't accurate to link it to AIPAC directly. Also the AIPAC article is not the place to discuss the more general lobby. Thus the article.

I also created an Arab lobby in the United States. --Ben Houston 17:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence a presidential candidate's choice of staff, to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals."[citation needed]

The citation would appear to be at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40711FD39540C758CDDAE0894DF484D81, but I don't have a Times select subscription, so I can't confirm that. (Sorry, forgot to sign) Ealex292 00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Turns out that my school does have a subscription (through an organization called Proquest). The citation looks accurate. The URL I got is http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=956546371&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=3586&RQT=309&VName=PQD (that might be school-specific). I have added the Times Select and Proquest links to the page, and removed the fact-checking template. From the comment in the article, "this quote should be checked with the NYT because it's quoted on a lot of dodgy websites" --- I felt the abstract plus Proquest was enough to justify the removal.

Abstract:

LEAD: After several decades of growth in size and sophistication, the leading pro-Israel lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has become a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East. After several decades of growth in size and sophistication, the leading pro-Israel lobby ...

Ealex292 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, somebody has re-added the fact-check template. Unfortunately, the article is under copyright to NYT, and they've decided not to make it publicly available. Instead, it is part of the premium "TimesSelect" service. I think we should either take the date and link to abstract as enough fact checking, or completely give up on the quote and delete it. I doubt we'll get better evidence until copyright expires. Ealex292 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If the substance can be verified to be accurate from the NY Times source, that's sufficient evidence. Cite the link, or better still the date it was published in print. The TimeSelect thing is basically access to newspaper articles for those paying for an NY Times subscription, it's not that the paper's trying to keep documents out of public view. Right now pretty much all editorial writings require subscription to the paper for access as well. Shams2006 07:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The date has been there for a while. I saw the date, figured it couldn't be hard to verify, and did a little more research. Now to see if it will stick around a little longer with all the <ref> goodness... The quote itself is a two-part thing: the first is visible in the abstract, but the second requires access to the article itself. (I'm guessing viewing the article itself from the link is straightforward if you have TimesSelect.) Ealex292 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There's an odd sentence in the "successes" section:

Martin Indyk former research director at the AIPAC, founded the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think-tank in 1985.

How exactly is this an AIPAC success? There is no sourcing tying WINEP's founding to AIPAC. Just because the founder of one institution previously worked for another institution doesn't mean that the second had any role in founding the first. Without appropriate sourcing, this is original research. GabrielF 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The following was removed from the "Critics" section even though it is fully sourced and obviously critical of Israel's influence in the U.S. via AIPAC and other organizations:

In August 2004 during his presidential campaign, Ralph Nader was criticized for expressing what many saw as antisemitic attitudes when he "suggested that President Bush and Congress were 'puppets' of the Israeli government" . Nader is quoted as saying that: "The days when the chief Israeli puppeteer comes to the United States and meets with the puppet in the White House and then proceeds to Capitol Hill, where he meets with hundreds of other puppets, should be replaced" . Nader's statements regarding the Israeli influence on American foreign policy and American politicians brought him much criticism from the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish organizations. Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, was quoted soon after Nader made the comments, stating that "What he [Nader] said smacks of bigotry" . Foxman, in an open letter to Nader about his comment(s), wrote: "...the image of the Jewish State as a 'puppeteer,' controlling the powerful U.S. Congress feeds into many age-old stereotypes which have no place in legitimate public discourse" . Nader's response to Foxman can be found here, and Foxman's counter-reply to Nader's letter is here.

Here's a transcript of an interview with Nader where he discusses what he said: . Also note that the YouTube video is a clip from CPSAN, where he said this. --WassermannNYC 10:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been explained on the other 4 articles into which you attempted to POV-push this trivia, it was a tempest in a teapot, and the only person who still cares about it is you, the person who is also obsessed with identifying the "Jewish lobby" and all the rich Jews in the United States, along with claiming David Irving is a "Scholar of the Holocaust". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, I don't appreciate your smear tactics; I expect better from an admin. committed to the principle of NPOV -- and PLEASE explain yourself more fully; your ONE SENTENCE does not justify deleting valid, relevant, and well sourced information. Yes the info was inserted in to 5 different articles, but you fail to add that they were all RELEVANT articles and that identical information is copied/pasted and crosslited on Wikipedia routinely if it pertains to multiple articles. Also, anything reported in the Washington Post and investigated by the ADL (along with other reliable sources) that was said by a former presidential candidate (a multiple presidential canidate actually, and well-known national figure) is not mere "trivia." I simply cannot understand why you keep saying that this is "trivia" when that assertion is a blatant falsity; the Washington Post is (as you know) one of the top newspapers in the USA. I am not "obsessed with identifying the 'Jewish lobby' and all the rich Jews in the United States" as you write: they are simply articles that I am interested in and seek to expand/enrich with factual, well-sourced, and relevant information (how many times must I say this?) -- also, must I remind you that around 80% or more of your own edits deal with Jewish-themed articles, many of which you and other admins. fiercely protect and watch in shifts, preventing other good editors from even touching them. However, I would like to ask: isn't the job of admins. to watch/police the entirety of Wikipedia instead of having 80% or even more of your edits (and the edits of some other admins. are close to 100%) on Jewish themed-articles? (as I said, this is not just you: many other high-level admins. edit Jewish articles almost exclusively to the detriment of the rest of the project, which you all seem to conveniently ignore to spend the vast bulk of your time and energy on Jewish-themed articles).

Again, please assume good faith, as you have noticed that ALL of my edits were not vandalism; they were all made in good faith in the interest of furthering the project of an OPEN and FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. I am very interested in Jewish businesspeople in the USA (and the other List of Jewish Americans) and American-Israeli relations, and this is why I spent all of that time expanding that list only to have it unjustly deleted by you in the blink of an eye (and hence my high edit count in regards to these particular articles).

As for your other smear: "...claiming David Irving is a "Scholar of the Holocaust"...that IS NOT what I said. If you had read it correctly, I wrote: "I see that we don't have a 'Category:Independent scholars' here on Wiki. Though I find Irving's views pertaining to Jews and the Holocaust absolutely despicable..." -- I simply proposed to create a 'Category:Independent scholars' (for not only Irving but many others) as pertaining to Irving's history books that were written independently of any university or organization. Such a category would also be relevant for any other scholar or researcher that has published outside of the academic system yet still have valuable and well-researched views on their primary subjects; this had nothing to do with his personal views on the Holocaust, which I immediately denounced (Irving has never written a book on the Holocaust exclusively as far as I can find, only on WWII history). So, if you would please stop misquoting me I would certainly appreciate that. Also, since you canvassed this over my own canvasses on the pages which I added the Nader info that you later removed, I'm going to go ahead and copy/paste this response to the other smears in order to offer a rebuttal to your smear tactics. --WassermannNYC 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Several editors have added rebuttals to the Economists claims that AIPAC and the religious right influence American foreign policy toward Israel. I wonder if this is appropriate. First, the rebuttals far outweigh the original claim in terms of content and, IMO, push the paragraph into the POV realm. Second, this is the "Critics" section: do rebuttals even belong here. Third, though many of the other criticisms are dubious claims or at the very least debatable, none of them include rebuttals. My first instinct is to remove the rebuttals entirely. If that is deemed too drastic a response, how about trimming the list to a summary of the original rebuttal, removing the latest additions. Taft 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: since a decent portion of the article centers around the debate over scope of AIPAC's influence, does this topic warrant its own section? Taft 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Taft, I think the rebuttals are NOT appropriate, and that they do not belong in this section. Mainly because it mixes rebuttal into a criticism section, thereby diluting the criticism. That portion of the paragraph was easily extracted and placed in the previous "Support" section. Since you have had no other response for the last few days, I have made this change for you since I was making other changes. Please move it back if you are not happy with what I did: I moved the text and made it the last paragraph of the "Support" section.

Taft, if you have access to the Economist article (it's a pay site) I would flesh this criticism out some and replace the last sentence, since it is rather thin with the rebuttal moved out and deserves a better statement of the argument in the Economist article.

Other Changes made: I found and filled in some of the CN (citation needed), put back some of Bush's speech which was missing context, and added a paragraph with quotes from Cheney's speech today.

Thanks, Jgui 05:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I also added meat to the bones of the Espionage discussion. This deserves at least to have the characters and charges explained; the previous version was inadequate. Thanks, Jgui 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In 1982, AIPAC was allegedly able to convince the US Congress and President Reagan to veto a French-supported UN resolution condemning the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon, which called for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from Lebanon to allow for the safe evacuation of Palestinians. This series of events caused some critics in the media to argue that the "Reagan administration could not commit itself to concrete action to stop the killing in Lebanon".[4] The United States defended its vote stating that the proposed resolution would allow the PLO to retain its weapons during the evacuation, thus allowing it to potentially carry out attacks throughout the evacuation.

Some users apparently do not know how serious this is, especially when written in such a manner it could be considered slander and/or libel. This is absolutely ridiculous, and the source is worse. It comes from the Institute for Palestine Studies and is written by excessively anti-Israel people like Cockburn. It provides absolutely no evidence for the claim. What you would need to include this paragraph would be something perhaps from the Washington Post that says "AIPAC has convinced several congressmen...", not this boloney. You would need a congressman from 1982 to make that claim. You would need something reputable. The idea that the entire US Congress and the President of the United States were all "convinced" is extremely serious, it cannot be accompanied by such a weak source. It reeks of POV and has no base to support it at all whatsoever. Nothing. It will be removed. --Shamir1 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Consensus. Please try to adhere to these Wikipedia policies in the future. I'm not going to try to revert anymore, not because I agree with you or appreciate your rabid tone -- and certainly not because I appreciate your style of disregarding consensus-building procedures and repeatedly biasing Wikipedia against Palestinians and non-Zionists -- but because I'll let things cool off and allow other editors get involved if they see fit. Just to correct a couple things -- Cockburn is "excessively anti-Israel" in your opinion, but many disagree, and others have argued convincingly that the Washington Post is excessively anti-Palestinian. Also, nobody is being "slandered" or "libeled" in the quote above. Please in the future try to work with other editors to build consensus even if you personally feel passionately about a subject. . Organ123 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That flow chart is AWESOME! I have never seen that before. That sums up Wikipedia to a TEE. What a fucking mess/load of shit! AWESOME! I LOVE it :) Cheers --Tom 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A new editor (TruthSeeker1901) inserted a new section and three paragraphs on the Armenian Genocide. I have removed these, and left a note on this editor's talk page, for the following reasons:

1. All the text added is uncited. It therefore reads as if it is all Original Research. See WP:RS and WP:OR. In order to add this section, it must have citations from Reliable Sources: e.g. newspaper or periodical articles, etc. For example, your first sentence is that AIPAC has lobbied the U.S. Congress against commemorating the Armenian Genocide - but your statement of this is not sufficient; you need to find a Reliable Source who makes this claim or at least show some evidence from a RS that this lobbying has taken place.

2. Text is not written to be NPOV - see WP:NPOV. For example the heading "GENOCIDE DENIAL & SUPPORT FOR REVISIONISM" is taking the point of view that AIPAC is Denying the genocide and supporting revisionism - which I doubt they would agree to. Or the sentence "The Armenian community has attempted outreach to no avail" is argumentative - who is "the Armenian community", who have they reached out to, who has not responded?

3. This "controversy" must be Notable (WP:Notable) in order for it to be included. Finding a number of WP:RS who discuss this issue (needed for the first point) goes a long way towards showing notability. I also checked the WP page WP:Armenian Genocide page, and did not find any mention of this controversy there. If this is significant, wouldn't it be on that page?

4. WP format for header was not followed.

5. Finally, it is strongly advisable to leave a note on this Talk page when adding substantial amounts of text, so you can explain your reasons for adding, notability, etc. Please leave a note here before adding these paragraphs after reworking them.

6. The text I removed is the following. If an editor wants to insert this text, they should rework it, especially by finding citations and rewriting it to be NPOV:

GENOCIDE DENIAL & SUPPORT FOR REVISIONISM

AIPAC, along with other major American Jewish lobbies such as ADL and B'nai B'rith have lobbied the U.S. Congress against commemorative resolutions affirming the World War I Armenian Genocide. The Armenian Genocide (1915-1923) resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians and the forced deportations of the rest. Along with Armenians, other Christian minorities in the Ottoman Turkish Empire perished (including Assyrians, Arabs and Greeks).

The Turkish government has denied the facts behind the genocide; the death toll; and that the genocide was centrally planned. Israel and the major Jewish lobbies such as AIPAC have supported Turkey in this denial.

AIPAC has used its considerable clout in helping to defeat the Armenian Genocide resolutions (either in committee or from keeping it from getting to a floor vote). The rationale used by AIPAC is that Turkey has a long standing history of having accepted Sephardic Jewish refugees from Spain and that Israel-Turkey relations are more important than recognizing the first genocide of the 20th century. Israel also seeks better treatment of its Jewish minority in Istanbul and Turkey's assistance in allowing more Turkish Jews to be allowed to emigrate to Israel and the occupied West Bank.

The Armenian community has attempted outreach to no avail, as it appears that the "realpolitik" considerations (Israel-Turkey relations) trump the obvious irony and hypocrisy of Jewish organizations lobbying against recognizing someone else's tragedy. Many in the Armenian diasporan communities also believe that a motivation is for Israel and the Jewish diaspora to maintain the perceived uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust experience as opposed to other genocides (before or after).

Thank you, Jgui 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor recently removed info from the Controversies related to the Steiner conversation, since he felt that the text was untrue and misleading. I rewrote using direct quotes from that conversation, instead of paraphrasing, which should be non-controversial since the statements are directly from the transcript. Thank you, Jgui 05:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I reorganized the Critics section to improve organization. I put all the US House of Rep quotes at the top, and made flow into following paragraphs logical (instead of random). I added a large quote from the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, since it is a substantial and detailed criticism of AIPAC that deserves to be noted. I kept all citations and left most other text unmodified - just moved it. Jgui 07:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Shamir, you made some deletions and changes without explaining why. I left them all except for the following:

1. You removed citations explaining which Representatives were US Congress (calling them simply Representative). I added these back since this article also refers to a State Rep and it is better to explicitely state which is which to minimize ambiguity. I've left your abbreviation in the subsequent sentences since they have been properly introduced in the first sentence that I added back.

2. You removed a sentence with a properly-cited quote from Obey that I did not add - I only moved it in my reorg. You gave no explanation for removing this sentence so I added it back.

3. You changed the first sentence from "US Government" to "US Congress". AIPAC lobbies the executive branch as well as the congress, so it was correct before your change.

4. You removed properly-cited direct quotes of the Steiner conversation without any explanation. You previously removed text in this paragraph claiming it was untrue and misleading, so as I explained above I put in direct quotes which should be non-controversial. Removing properly-cited text without explanation can be considered vandalism - please be more careful.

5. You also removed a sentence and citation from the Forward; I assume because it was a dead link. Please follow the correct WP protocol, which is not to remove text and citation, but to add a CN to the sentence. I looked up the citation and added it back so it now links properly.

6. You also removed part of Stephen Walt's title. As you may not know, Harvard professors are assumed to be Faculty of Arts and Sciences if you do not specify which school they are faculty for. Stephen Walt is professor at the Kennedy School of Government so I added that back.

Thank you, Jgui 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to get back at you later. I made the info more concise and removed what was not very controversial. While he sounds incredibly boastful, it is not scandalous that some AIPAC members were helping out or working for the Clinton campaign or that they would be promoted in some way. Yes it sounds boastful, but sometimes you have to read it again and think of it individually without the other more controversial points. With the issue of aid, it is partly not controversial. The $3 billion stats is known and can be found on the website of the U.S. embassy in Israel. The more controversial and "juicy" part is the lesser known other goodies. I also removed the "AIPAC-approved" thing because it sounded odd and wasnt very representative of the content, besides the fact its not needed in order to deliver the point.

I did not remove any titles before names. Prior, it said United States Representative for each one, so I removed the United States from it. I then abbreviated the states from which they represent as that is how it is usually written with their name/

As for the "criticism" cited in the Forward, it was not that critical. He claimed that AIPAC's interests are right-wing, which he may consider a bad thing but that it because he personally does not adhere to right-wing politics, not because of the system of AIPAC.

I will re-add the title to Walt (I just found it long), and the Government part which is my mistake. --Shamir1 20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Shamir, thank you for explaining your edits.

1. I vehemently disagree with your edits to the Steiner quote that I researched and added with a citation, which you said you removed large portions of because it "was not very controversial". This is a short paragraph - there is no need to be more concise. Please bear in mind that I originally added this quote because you had removed text fairly similar to the text that you just put back in (which you claimed at the time was "untrue and misleading"). What is scandalous about this quote, and the reason I believe it caused him to resign and the reason it should stay in its entirety, is that Steiner is claiming to have power over the Clinton campaign's Secretary-level appointments, implicit power over the AIPAC workers who will be in Clinton's campaign, and power over the Bush administration's appropriations to Israel. And his stated reason for this power is that "they're looking for the Jewish votes". The trimmed version you put in its place does not convey this, so it is not a suitable replacement for the direct, properly-cited quote. Please do not remove this.

2. I agree that the "AIPAC-approved" statement was clumsy and not well written, so I left that out consistent with your change.

3. I put back the US Representative (and State Representative) titles where called for. I think you will have to agree that just stating "Representative" is ambiguous - I don't understand why you think it is better to be ambiguous? Please note that their titles are only stated in this long form once - the first time they are introduced - which I believe is the correct way to do it.

4. I don't think it was proper to delete the Obey sentence as you did, since he is listed above as one of the AIPAC critics in the first sentence - we need this sentence to know what he is criticizing. Since you thought the Obey sentence was weak, I used a direct Obey quote from the Washington Post article that more clearly states why Obey thinks that AIPAC is not representative of Israeli opinion as a whole, which is what his criticism is about.

Thank you, Jgui 06:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

3. They already have a title. The first one says United States Representative and the rest continue with Representative. That is not ambiguous at all, especially since some have the state abbreviation. It is not ambiguous.

4. I am not sure about the critique of Obey. He says he is left-wing and doesnt like AIPAC because he thinks its right-wing.... I donno how critical that is. --Shamir1 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone update this section? First, Rosen and Weissman were scheduled for trial on June 4. Is the trial still going on or is it over? Second, Franklin pleaded guilty so it should fall under ESPIONAGE rather than ESPIONAGE ALLEGATIONS since it is confirmed that he committed espionage. We must distinguish between Franklin's case which is confirmed espionage and Rosen/Weissman which are just currently allegations since they have not been found guilty. --CommonSense101 20:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I just updated it with recent news: the trial was posponed again to January 08, and AIPAC agreed to pay for Weissman's defense through appeal. Jgui 16:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I also added cited text from Washington Post and Jewish News Weekly to flesh out "Activities and Stated Goals" section. Thanks, Jgui 01:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

More news on the espionage front:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- More than one thousand documents released under Freedom of Information Act filings reveal details of a secret battle that raged between founders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and top US law enforcement officials. The new book "America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government" reproduces and analyzes these files and their troubling implications for rule of law in the United States. "America's Defense Line" also reveals stunning details of a preferential deal engineered within the highest levels of the US Department of Justice over the course of three years and implemented in 1965 -- but kept secret from the American public until today. Old documents and new analysis from the Center for Policy and Law Enforcement raise many questions about the upcoming October 2008 AIPAC espionage trial.

-- Grant Smith (IRmep), "Declassified Old Documents Shed New Light on AIPAC Espionage Prosecution - IRmep" Reuters, 2008-08-20

Propose adding the following:

More than 1,000 documents released under FOI reveal what the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy describes as a "secret battle between AIPAC and the U.S. Justice Department".^[1] The documents will be used in the upcoming October 2008 AIPAC espionage trial. America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government ^[2] provides details of a secret preferential deal implemented in 1965 between the Justice Department and AIPAC.

-- NonZionist (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that one consistent spelling for every proper noun is pretty important overall and necessary within a single page, but our spellings of Hezbollah differ markedly within many single pages including this one. 'Hezbollah' seems to have reached majority in English literature and therefore I think:

• it should receive precedence
• outside quotations, it should be the only spelling we use
• within quotatipn, a '[sic]' should be inserted after all other spellings. Does anyone disagree? Thecurran 19:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do any articles having anything to do with israel or jews are so vehemently defended. They are almost always altered with POV to make israel look like an angel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.80.92 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe AIPAC sprinkles candy on the land of Israel and fights the evil scourge of liberal new anti-semitism. Maybe AIPAC is a conduit for espionage for a foreign power. Whatever AIPAC does, declaring it needs to be backed by reliable sources. We don't say "Scientology helps it's followers do whatever" based on the Scientology website, and we don't say "AIPAC fosters strong ties between Israel and the US" based on the AIPAC website. We find reliable sources to back such statements.

Further to that, in the interest of an WP:NPOV, if we going to put the "strong ties" in the lead as one of AIPACs primary activities, then we can also put "controversial" back, since it's cited by reliable sources.

Thank you. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, we are not going to put "controversial" back for all the reasons above. That deserves no further discussion. THERE IS NO QUESTION that AIPAC's main mission is a strong relationship between Israel and the United States, as repeated over and over again on their website (in addition to press releases). That is not debated, it is a fact that that is what AIPAC's mission is. Albeit some do not like that mission, and argue that such a relationship is not in one or the other's interest, but it does not change the very simple fact that AIPAC works to pursue this goal. AIPAC hosts meetings with leaders and public officials from (primarily) two countries: America and Israel. That's it. As for even more sources (if it even needs one) there are hundreds of quotations from presidents and other politicians who explicitly state that AIPAC's goal is this. (Which again, is not even debated at all.) If we need other objective descriptions of AIPAC: AIPAC's primary mission is to work with America's leaders to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship. and "AIPAC is a registered domestic lobby whose principal mission is to work with Congress on legislation that strengthens the relationship between the United States and Israel." That is what it is described as, that is what it says it is (again, not contested), and that is how it has been originally on Wikipedia. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Added some info from the founder of AIPAC (Kenen)'s 1981 book on the history of AIPAC under his control. I added info on the early history and reason for name change. I then fixed several areas where information has leaked out, so that the WP text no longer matched the cited RS references. I corrected these, and created a new subsection for the Steiner resignation. If you question any of this, PLEASE read the cited references - this is all accurately supported. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would ask editors to refrain from inserting words such as "controversial" to describe an organization and then providing the opinions of a few people who oppose the organization as "proof" that the organization should be described as "controversial". If notable people/groups have voiced specific objections to the organization, the specific nature of those criticisms should be noted. If CAIR does not get the controversial label in the intro., neither does this. Stanley011 (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the sources themselves in no way mention that AIPAC is controversial. So adding "controversial" constitutes OR Stanley011 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC).

Please respond to my latest point. Using your tactic (describing an organization as "controversial" and justifying that label by using articles that have criticized that organization, valid or not) any organization on Wikipedia should be described as "controversial." Why not edit the United States Senate page to read that the senate is a "controversial" branch of government, since I can point you to tons of sources that have criticized it for its ineffectiveness, burdensome rules, etc. Stanley011 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it so odd that an editor would seriously have to justify removing such a clear weasel word. Read the above explanation (under "RIDICULOUS") if needed. Keep an eye out, Stanley011, some editors are just out to compromise the integrity of this encyclopedia. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" is generally a meaningless weasel-word, and in this case is also original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not original research when the very word controversial is attributed by the sources to AIPAC. Scythian1 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources you provided do not describe AIPAC as "controversial"--that is your own interpretation of the sources, and as such, is indeed original research. If you find sources that describe AIPAC as "controversial" by all means include them in the article and be sure to note in the sentence who, exactly, is the one describing AIPAC as controversial Stanley011 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC).

The formatting of the bottom section of this article is very messed up. Nightkey (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nightkey: You've got the same situation wherever a bloc of writer/editors believe their primary duty is to an ideology rather than to the facts - Almost, if not all, of the references are one sided. AIPAC and Israel are not as pure as "pure driven snow", but they're not demonic and the source of all evil. Like most things on this plant, they're not perfect, an admixture of good and bad, with both good and bad intentions. In the case of Israel, Israel's leaders are responding to what they believe is an existential threat - a real threat to Israel's existence and the survival of the Jewish people they believe they are now responsible for.

Unlike what some here would like to publish, the Nazis and other Europeans perpetrated the Holocaust and slaughtered 6 million Jews along with 12 million others - Latvians, Poles, Slavs, Serbs, Romani (Gypsies), Catholics, Orthodox, Masons, Communists and the murdered in this industrial slaughter goes on...

Until the records were destroyed, they filled a city block.

Now that they've been destroyed, Holocaust denial has returned with a vengeance, and for some inexplicable reason, some here want to call it, "Questioning the Holocaust." Not even those who hold the "Holocaust Deniers Conferences" would dare say such a thing! Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows better than to try to claim that what he is doing is "Questioning the existence of the Holocaust" - He calls it a MYTH.

But, those who have an ideology to advance should NEVER let troublesome things such as FACTS get in their way.

The day they do, the sections you're worried about will "clean themselves up".

God Bless, Michael - --Traditional Anglican (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no closed quotes in first point in criticism??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.30.158 (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An anon-ip has made a number of changes that were not discussed here first. Some were good but others were unsupportable based on his edit summaries. I have removed the bulk of those improper changes, leaving the ones that improve the article. If this editor wishes to discuss his changes, he should appear here.

• He changed discussion of Iran so that it no longer matches AIPAC's own website, and introduces unsupported inflammatory allegations. This is OR and does not belong here.
• He added a list of books (sometimes twice) to Further Reading that have nothing to do with AIPAC (instead having to do with terrorism, Al Quada and justifications for the war in Iraq). These clearly do not belong here.
• He altered a discussion of Rep. McCollum stating "Article stated B. McCollum was a supporter of Israel purely on the basis of unnamed, unsourced Jewish activists and "Capitol Hill staffers". Correction was made to reflect the actual record.". In fact the cited reference from the Jewish Daily Forward states: "Aipac sources, senior activists in Minnesota’s Jewish community and congressional staffers who know her well, described McCollum as a strong supporter of Israel who has excellent relations with the local Jewish community."

I also added a Further Reading book written by the founder of AIPAC (which clearly DOES belong here), and moved the Mearsheimer and Walt article to the head of the Criticism section since it is the most prominent criticsm.

Thank you, Jgui (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I also corrected an inaccurate parenthetical comment about Moran to make it consistent with the citation (the same WP sentence had two separate citations to the same article). Jgui (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't know how else to answer...

This is the correct way: bring it to Talk where it can be discussed. Jgui (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The correction on the Article for AIPAC - Section Aims and Activities needs to stand simply because the present statement is inaccurate. Per his own statement, The President of Iran has stated that the Holocaust IS A MYTH and NEVER happened (I provided a Link to a Wikipedia Article). This isn't "Questioning the Holocaust" - This is "DENYING the Holocaust" by any reasonable definition of the word. According to the same article, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the "disappearance" of Israel (most charitable translation of his remarks) or for "wiping Israel off the map"(Most ptobable interpretation given in the Wikipedia Article and in most of the World's Press) ^[3] And, The AIPAC website makes clear that the "Nuclear Activities" they're referring to are the development and construction of nuclear weapons. To claim that the truth is "inflammatory" is outrageous!

Your changes in this section are NOT supported by any citation in the article. These statements are NOT supportable unless you can find and cite Reliable Sources (RS) that state the case as you yourself believe it to be. And please note that citing another WP page is not sufficient. Jgui (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The correction on Pastor John Hagee should stand simply because "Socialists" and "Liberals" are almost never identified by the Main Stream Media or these articles as "Left-Wing" unless their views are "Left-Wing" they make the people of Berkeley or Sweden look conservative. I believe it only fair that those on the Right be treated in the print and speech in the same manner as those on the Left are. To do otherwise is Inflammatory and inaccurate. One can describe Pastor Hagee as controversial and fundamentalist and never use the pejorative "Right-Wing" and be very accurate without being inflammatory or unfair to those who are politically or religiously conservative.

As a former "Funde Christian", I can tell you truthfully that your statement about what Hagee says and believes is completely false. What Anon typed was the what these people believe. Just as Liberals have the right to have what they believe and say accurately represented, so do conservative fundamentalist Christians. Hagee (and AIPAC) believes that the enemy is the ideology of Islamism (the selfsame ideology that drove people to slaughter children at Beslan and to fly planes into buildings packed with people guilty of the crime of going to work), NOT Muslim people - Muslims are prospects for conversion (Just as Christians are prospects for conversion for Muslims). And, Hagee believes that the 2nd Coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is supposed to occur after (1) the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel and (2) the funding of the Nation of Israel with its Capitol in the city of Jerusalem along with (3) the conversion of massive numbers of Jews to the Messiah, Jesus. (Please note - I'm summarizing literally dozens of books, pamphlets and sermons).

Now, I've known literally dozens of Jews, including the secular Jewish woman I owe my physical well-being to. the Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi I owe my Spiritual well-being to and several survivors of the Holocaust. Although NONE would accept Hagee's "generous offer" of conversion to Jesus Christ, None would consider his "offer" or him to be anti-Semitic.

I have no idea why you would insist on calling Him and his "offer" anti-Semitic, esp. in the context of this article.

I agree that some of the language of this Hagee section (which I did not write) should be wikipedia-ized. I encourage you to find RS citations to improve it. Jgui (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the books - they were posted in order to suggest that organizations like AIPAC don't exist in a vacuum, and neither does Israel. The article stated that Israel supported the Second Iraq War. I know that wasn't the case, and one of the books Anon cited supports that.

Senator Mike Gravel (1969-81 Alaska, D), aged 78, Ran for President this year on both the Democratic and Libertarian Tickets, Raised a whopping $476K + $47.6K self-financed (Not even enough to run for State Assembly in California), Received 2 Very Low Level Campaign Endorsements (and 0 Political Endorsements), and never received more than .4% in any primary and .04% in any disputed primary.^{[4] [5] [6]}

Gravel's short citation should include his presidential aspirations, since that is how he has become most notable. Ask yourself this question - had you ever heard of him before he ran for president? Jgui (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor Alan Keyes is a brilliant and decent man, but Republicans don't usually go around calling him a Presidential Candidate (in spite of the fact that he's done better than Sen. Gravel in his runs for the Presidency). Please, remove the "Presidential Candidate" from Sen. Gravel's name - It cheapens the term and its only use is to prejudice the reader.

Same for Keyes - had you ever heard of him before he ran for president? Jgui (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV - this article would have to go a long way before it could accurately be said about it. The changes I've requested are only so WP could live up to that Standard.

Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional Anglican (talk • contribs) 12:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Revised by Michael - --Traditional Anglican (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

About five bogus edits by anons today. Reverted back to last non-anon edit. --John Nagle (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Three more somewhat bogus edits by anons. Reverted back to last non-anon edit. --John Nagle (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last paragraph, from a fringe writer, and I think the whole section needs trimming back, though I don't know what the parameters should be. To open it up, here's a section that is not clearly criticism, is over-sourced (if that's possible) and doesn't seem obviously notable:

• Journalist Alexander Cockburn of CounterPunch and former congressperson Cynthia McKinney maintain that AIPAC was instrumental in helping to defeat Congressional candidates that AIPAC deemed unfriendly to Israel, including McKinney (after her first term as a Representative) and Earl F. Hilliard of Alabama.^{[7][8][9][10][11]}

I'm not even sure it should be reworked and put into another part of the article. Why is AIPAC being criticized for the everyday activity of supporting/opposing politicians? I propose removing it, but I am in no rush, so I would like to see if there is a consensus. (P.S. I am a paid-up member of AIPAC, for what it's worth. My politics are fairly mixed and even liberal in many ways. Just want to be up-front about that.) --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody responded here to disagree, so I've gone ahead and removed it. I've also removed another section I'd taken out before, which another user put back in, though they did add more information to it. This section seems to me too long and out of proportion, it's basically a catalog of various gripes against AIPAC, some fair but some also too fringe. Too much space is being given to various individuals and groups with mostly the same complaints. I think this needs a lot more work, and the best outcome would be just a paragraph or two explaining what the nature of criticisms are, with a couple of examples from what's here now. I don't have time to write one now, but I should have time to work on it over the next day or two. If anyone has thoughts to contribute, please respond and I'll happily work toward consensus. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to the massive deletion carried out on 2008-09-09 14:34. I do strongly object to this peremptory deletion of over 7,000 bytes of good material. Your sense of "proportion" certainly does not accord with mine. Only WP:AGF prevents me from regarding this biased deletion as censorship and vandalism. -- NonZionist (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like you to define "fringe", please, and specify which WP guidelines these quotes would run afoul of. That is, you seem to be asserting that &mdash apart from whether the criticisms are substantial and worthy of mention in themselves — that it is their sources per se (Cockburn, Smith) which are somehow "too fringe" for inclusion in a WP article. So I'd like for you to shore up this "fringeness" assertion you're making, please. Yellow Rain (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My main issue is that it is too long, and that it would be better assembled as an overview of the criticisms of AIPAC. I don't think it is necessary for it to be a comprehensive list of all the various complaints about the organization. I also think it could be merged with the Controversies section. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It belongs in the criticism section - since the paragraphs are criticisms. Moreover, the notion of excluding "fringe" writers' opinions is novelty since I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that pointedly defines a fringe writer.Scythian1 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to refocus this debate on the undue weight section of Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines because that is what I meant before. First of all, I want to be very clear that I am not trying to remove this section, only put it in proper perspective.

The article currently lists many different individuals’ complaints about AIPAC (Reps. Moran, Obey, McCollum and more) that are all essentially the same argument: that AIPAC is too powerful and places allegiance to Israel above the U.S. While I disagree with their views, I recognize that it is the position of a significant minority, and should be represented. However, this can be done with one or two examples. As "undue weight" says:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

This article currently repeats certain criticisms more than once, and there are a couple things in here which are not actual criticisms, such as the Economist quote. This is why I am working on an alternate version, and hope to post it soon. I would like to invite others who have edited this page to weigh in, as well. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As promised, I've been working on another version of this in my spare time. So this version accomplishes a number of things.

I have standardized the citation templates, to the best of my knowledge. I have "wikified" some links. More importantly, it is more concise and it is no longer a list, so it is clearer to readers unfamiliar with the subject. The first section outlines the principal criticisms against AIPAC. The second section offers some detail into the arguments of prominent critics Walt & Mearshimer, while including relevant statements from AIPAC. It preserves text and citations from the longer version, and keeps the language neutral per WP:AVOID. The third section mentions a few prominent politicians who have publicly disagreed with AIPAC:

The breadth of AIPAC's influence has been the subject of criticism, often relating to American and Israeli policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Critics argue that it has distorted American foreign policy in favor of Israel,^[12] and that Jewish-American public opinion is to the left of AIPAC and other mainstream Jewish organizations.^[13]

Among the best-known critical works about AIPAC is The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt. The working paper and resulting book claim that AIPAC is a "de facto agent for a foreign government", whose "success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."^[14] The AIPAC website claims the organization "receives no financial assistance from Israel, from any national organization or any foreign group. AIPAC is not a political action committee. It does not rate, endorse or contribute to candidates."^[15]

We need a major overhaul on all information pertaining to foreign agency. AIPAC founder Isaiah Kenen was a foreign agent for the Israeli Foreign Ministry. I believe we can link to the original registration form online. That would be a great addition. Also, to juxtapose AIPAC's claims that it is not a political action committee, we should link to the internal AIPAC memos published in the Washington Post showing deputy political director Elizabeth Schrayer directing the Gold Coast PAC, the Georgia PAC, ICEPAC, and other political action committees AIPAC created to give to favored candidates. I believe that a high resolution scan of those document will also soon be online and provide interesting context, in line with Mr. Bergstrom's valient efforts at quality control hereRabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AIPAC has been the subject of occasional criticism by American progressive politicians. In Sept. 2007, Representative Jim Moran of Virginia stated that the Jewish community as a whole and AIPAC, in particular, drove the United States toward the war in Iraq. Moran later apologized.^[16] Other prominent politicians who have criticized AIPAC include Representative Dave Obey^[17] of Wisconsin, former Senator Mike Gravel^[18] and former Representative Cynthia McKinney.^[19]

I realize this isn't the final version, if there is such a thing, but I hope this can be the basis for more work and further refinement. If there are no objections to this version, then I will post it sometime tomorrow. If there are, let's talk about how to find a consensus. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please obtain a consensus before you make wholesale deletions to such lengthy articles. People do not check articles on Wiki every second. Consensus does not happen overnight or in a day, or two. The edits that you make grossly water down the criticism. This information was laboriously posted on Wikipedia - and no, the information is not a reiteration of itself. Your deletions also contravene the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Even assuming that some criticism content were similar, that is of no moment. We have just about unlimited space on the internet, and we are not under page length constraints. The same could be said if one were to delete and snip out portions of AIPAC's "successes" and summarize them in 2 or 3 sentences. Scythian1 (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I second this. People come to an encyclopedia looking for information, not "proportion". Using "proportion" as a justification for the peremptory removal of almost all criticism of AIPAC is smacks of censorship. If proportion is a genuine concern, then the solution is to move the information to a separate article. -- NonZionist (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Haaretz, Joe Biden has become critical of AIPAC:

Biden dismissed the prominent role played by the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, saying the group "doesn't speak for the entire Jewish community," and it "doesn't speak for the state of Israel, no matter what it insists on any occasion." -- Mozgovaya, Natasha, "Biden: Israel's decisions must be made in Jerusalem, not D.C.", Haaretz, 2008-09-04

I propose adding the following to the "Criticism" section:

Joe Biden, the 2008 Democrat candidate for vice president, argues that AIPAC has undue influence. Biden said that AIPAC "doesn't speak for the entire Jewish community," and it "doesn't speak for the state of Israel, no matter what it insists on any occasion."^[20]

-- NonZionist (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The 2008-09-17 01:02 update changed "often relating to American and Israeli policies" to "often commenting the group to American and Israeli policies". The latter phrasing doesn't make sense. The explanation given for the update is "(again, POV wording)". No explanation was offered here in the talk page. Making edits without prior discussion simply fosters edit wars. If there is a good reason for an edit, it should be possible to explain that reason here in talk! -- NonZionist (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a simple, unintentional mistake in copying and pasting. There is no reason for to be paranoid about little things like this! I have since corrected that mistake. The Squicks (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My main point is that edits should be proposed and justified here in the talk page. Only then does it become possible to build consensus. If you want us to support your edits, you need to tell us in detail why you are making the edits. We can then agree with you or suggest alternatives. In this way, the article remains stable and volatility shifts to the talk page. I see no good reason for bypassing the talk page.

I notice that you replace "progressive" with "liberal" in one of your undocumented edits -- "occasional criticism by American liberal politicians". I think your intent here is to create the impression that condemnation of AIPAC is limited to a handful of "Treasonous Liebral Politicians". In reality, condemnation extends across the spectrum, with ordinary Americans more strongly opposed to AIPAC than the spineless politicians.

Paleo-conservatives should be mentioned in the "Criticism" section. They are more protective of U.S. sovereignty than liberals -- and are, accordingly, more dismayed when that sovereignty is surrendered to a foreign lobby. See, for example:

• Raimondo, Justin, "AIPAC and Espionage: Guilty as Hell", antiwar.com, 2005-09-30, and

• Desch, Micahel C., "Prophets in Their Own Land: How to go from respected academic to anti-Semite—in one simple step", The American Conservative, 2006-06-19.

-- NonZionist (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked closer at Wikipedia policies, and it turns out there are extensive Wikipedia guidelines covering fringe theories at WP:FRINGE. However, I will not immediately alter the page again, as it is my goal to find a consensus on this section. Instead I present in more depth some of my concerns about this article, and I would appreciate comment from members of the community. I will refer at times to my previous version of this section, which I posted a week ago and has since been reverted.

As I've noted above, this overall article is too unwieldy and confusing, made up of various lists and so is unhelpful to lay readers. Meanwhile, this section in particular gives the impression that some of these views are more notable than they actually are. Worse, it does not explain them very well, it merely cites incidents involving its proponents. This section is the worst offender, but not the only one.

Here's what I propose doing and why:

Remove the claim by Grant F. Smith that AIPAC is a "secretive political intelligence-gathering and covert operations powerhouse." This undoubtedly qualifies as WP:FRINGE in that it "depart[s] significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." It also does not meet the threshhold for inclusion because there are no available statements by second parties. First, it must be noted that his book is self-published and not a reliable source per WP:VERIFY. See Amazon, which lists the publisher as the Institute for Research, and the Institute for Research, which describes Smith as the Director of their media center. Meanwhile, a web search for Google yields Wikipedia, press releases by Smith and blog entries informed by the same. I find no other secondary sources for Mr. Smith's claims. This should clearly be removed.

Revise the section to make the underlying arguments more clear. Currently this section is written as a bulleted list which serves more to highlight particular incidents rather than adequately describe the criticisms contained. A big problem as well is that certain arguments are presented at face value, without any description from second party sources. For example, the section about the Hedrick Smith book is an extension of the argument that AIPAC is too influential. I had removed this before, but perhaps it could be mentioned in an additional sentence on my previous paragraph about the Mearsheimer/Walt book, but it is inappropriate to quote at length. Same goes for members of Congress who have essentially the same criticism of AIPAC. Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) an indiscriminate collection of information, and multiple bullet points about disagreements during the 1990s and 2000s do not add anything significant in and of themselves. It does make sense to describe one or two of these incidents, and the Moran incident is probably the best-known. (It also includes an extraneous source from a blog called Mondoweiss, which should be removed regardless.)

Move the bulleted sections about McCollum and FARA to History or Controversies. They are not presented as criticisms of AIPAC per se, but rather public disputes between AIPAC and its detractors.

Above I was asked whether I would object if someone removed sections from "successes" to summarize them instead, and the answer is definitely no. As I have said, this article needs a lot of work, and if we can find consensus, then I will continue work on this article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be a bit premature to knock off Mr. Smith. His new book "America's Defense Line" references over 1,000 pages of Department of Justice files revealing how AIPAC's predecessor organization was forced to file a secret Foreign Agents Registration Act declaration as the agent of the Israeli government. That would tend to lend some credence to his charges about the spin-off organization, AIPAC. The DOJ is a pretty good secondary source. You'd also know that his book was published by a duly licensed nonprofit corporation in Washington, DC if Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Jayjg and SlimVirgin hadn't had IRmep's page struck from Wikipedia after an administrator reversed all of their modifications on NPOV grounds--Perhaps these types of vicious attacks and smear attempts have caused that organization to put him out front as a lightning rod for all of these guys. Just speculating. Leading_Authority (Leading_Authority ) 08:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Leading Authority, I hope you don't mind me moving your comment out of the middle of mine, just for clarity. Anyway, the fact that IR is a licensed non-profit does not change the fact that the book is still considered self-published; it did not go through a separate, intellectually independent publishing house, as WP:RS specifies. It is also not up to Wikipedia to determine what the book proves, and without additional verification from reliable sources it should not be included. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You saying something is self published, with no evidence to support that charge. It is rather like categorizing Cockburn as "Fringe". That man wrote columns for Dow Jones. He writes and edits CounterPunch? Does fringe that make him? Maybe some person can even find something from David Duke applauding Cockbern's writing. Or maybe this emerging effort is simply not a very valid or acceptable process.

Since IRmep appears to have done several books, with a range of contributors, the burdon of proof you have to prove why their books must appear on Wikipedia citations not. Wikipedia is making no judgements about small publishers. You yes, so you have burden proof. But why time waste?

Matter is becoming moot in this case. Actual document showing that AIPAC was formed because it predecessor was ordered by DOJ to register as the foreign agent of Israel was publicly released and is even linked on the AIPAC wiki page now. That history changes it does.

I proposed replacing all history with "AIPAC's predecessor was secretly forced to register as an Israeli foreign Agent by the US Department of Justice Internal Security Section. AZC lobbying resources were transferred to AIPAC to reinitiate lobbying for Israel. Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, formerly a registered foreign agent for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then assumed AIPAC's leadership."

No objections there are, I assume.Leading authority (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Leading Authority, I have already presented the evidence that it is self-published and its inclusion is inconsistent with WP:RS, especially regarding WP:REDFLAG. I'm not sure what your argument is otherwise. When there are reliable sources discussing whatever those documents say, then let's put that into the article. And I wouldn't endorse that particular version of the History section, no.

If there aren't any serious disagreements with my reading of Wikipedia policies, I'll "be bold" and implement the edits outlined above. If a reversion of my proposal reoccurs without reference to these guidelines, I suppose I will add a disputed tag on the section and seek advice from an administrator. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And finally changed. If you disagree, please discuss on the talk page here first rather than simply reverting my edits. Thanks --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The book, "America's Defense Line" needs to be included in the AIPAC artical. You have not presented any evidence that it is "self published". The Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble listings reveal that several experts on the Israel lobby have vouched for the book, including Tim Llewelyn and John Mearsheemer. The author himself appears to be a leading expert in the field and has begun releasing the original documents in this book for other scholars to review. In light of this, and the most important criteria for inclusion "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia." this important work cannot be excluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.167.113 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've already explained why the book is self-published. From what I gather of site content guidelines, a blurb does not count as verification, and the MarketWatch "story" is also a press release from the same group. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The book does not appear to be "Self published", though that does not matter, since the onus is on you prove that it is self published AND that the cited information is not reliable. Since the primary source is the US Department of Justice, you may have a very hard time doing that. The Reliable Source guidelines specifically state "according to Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances; see above. When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is best to explain how it is being used inappropriately, rather than simply point out that the source is self-published." Again, please explain how DOJ documents are unreliable, and how the book (again after proving it is self published) is not being appropriately used. Rabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have explained that the Grant books are self-published because the listed publisher at Amazon is the same organization where Mr. Grant serves as director. That seems pretty clear. I have also cited WP:REDFLAG as a problem. It says: "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim" including "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources." If these claims are verifiable, why then is Mr. Smith the only source? DoJ documents are primary sources, and their direct use would be a violation of WP:NOR. This argument has gone on for a few weeks now without ever developing and with different user accounts making the same arguments against my edits. If nothing else, this has helped me become much more acquainted with Wikipedia policies, but I didn't start editing to fight about these things. If it is changed again without a sufficient explanation based on a close reading of site policies, I will flag the section and find an administrator to help resolve the situation. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You have not proven anything about self publishing, and don't appear to apply the policies correctly. Repetative assertions do not equal truth. Furthermore, the publisher appears to have peer reviewed by with number of experts on the Israel lobby, including congressment and scholars.

"In America's Defense Line, Grant Smith has penetrated once again into the murky waters that underlie the observable control of US Middle East policy by Israel and its aggressive American support base that have undermined the efforts of successive US administrations, be they Democrat or Republican, to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. In Foreign Agents and now in America's Defense Line, using recently declassified documents, Smith exposes the charade that the 'pro-Israel lobby' is simply a well-organized, overly zealous group functioning within the spirit of traditional American political advocacy. What we see is something far more sinister. America's Defense Line should be required reading for anyone concerned with preserving what is left of the US political process." Jeffrey Blankfort is the former editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and hosts the international affairs program "Takes on the World" on KZYX Pacifica Radio in Mendocino, California.

"Grant Smith renders great service. The secret documents reviewed in this volume will help any reader understand how a small but determined group of zealots for Israel have placed the United States in grave danger. It is a wakeup call that must be answered, if our noble experiment in representative government, which has long proclaimed justice for all people in all lands everywhere, is to survive. I choose those words carefully. This is no time to sit on our hands. Unwarranted fear of Israel has plunged us into an abyss that gets deeper all the time. All that is needed is a civilized discussion, one that this volume must surely bring forth." Paul Findley, Member of Congress 1961-83, author of three books on the U.S.-Israeli relationship, including the Washington Post bestseller "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby"

"This is vital reading for anyone interested in what really guides American attitudes towards Israel. Grant F. Smith reveals how the almost universal misunderstanding of the Israel-Palestine question in the United States, and the blind support for Israel in Government, the media and public opinion are not sentimental accident, but the result of assiduous plotting and planning by Israel, its agents, and friends to subvert the American system and freedom of speech over more than half a century." Tim Llewellyn, former BBC Middle East Correspondent

"The Israel lobby is one of the most influential interest groups in American history. Yet there is insufficient public knowledge about its origins and operations. Grant Smith's new book is a major step forward in correcting that problem. He provides a fascinating—and disturbing—account of how I.L. Kenen laid the groundwork for AIPAC, the most powerful organization in the lobby." John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the author with Stephen M. Walt of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (2007)

"This is an excellent book that brings together declassified material showing how the Israel lobby managed to sow corruption at the highest levels of the US government and even break US law. Like other excellent books by the author (e.g. Deadly Dogma and Foreign Agents), America's Defense Line breaks new ground in research into the destructive role of narrow special interests in US domestic and foreign affairs. This latest contribution is a tour de force and is a must read for anyone interested to understand why we are embroiled in the quagmire of the Middle East and how we might get out of it (thus saving our economy and our global reputation)." Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, Professor at Bethlehem University and author of "Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle"

"Once again, Grant Smith has produced groundbreaking research into the nuts and bolts of how Israeli partisans break U.S. laws and get away with it – decade after decade. This essential reading lays to rest oft-repeated myths about the 'special relationship.' The corrupt essence of that relationship has been kept secret from American voters for 43 years. America's Defense Line provides a declassified and thorough damage assessment." Alison Weir is the Executive Director of IfAmericansKnew.org

"It has been a long honeymoon, but it may at last be coming to an end. The neoconservatives and the Iraq war have had the positive effect of exposing the ways that an ultra-Zionist agenda hurts the American interest (a subject of another Grant F. Smith book). And so today a new debate over Zionism has begun in America: how pro-Israel should the United States be? And how pro-Israel should the American Jewish community be? Given the success and power of Jews in this country, a factor that I.L. Kenen [the founder of AIPAC] and his adversaries would never have anticipated, this is not just an ethnic conversation; it is one that all Americans can join. I hope that the light Smith shines on a period in which Jews were far more ambivalent about Zionism will help to restart that debate." Philip Weiss, writes for The Nation, The New York Observer, The American Conservative and Mondoweiss

The Documents in the book and on the Internet are from the US Department of Justice. Again, the onus is on you to prove the work is self published, and that the US Department of Justice is an inadmissable source. The policy clearly states that it is not permissible to charge "unreliable source" or "self publishing" and delete content. Please do not vandalise my edits until you comply with these guidelines.Rabbi Elmer Darwish Mahmoud Berger (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

A. Sniper: I reverted your deletion of "Jewish Lobby" in "See also" section. It is highly relevant to this article (e.g. it is mentioned once in this article; AIPAC is mentioned twice in the "Jewish Lobby" article; and "Jewish Lobby" is mentioned in Israel lobby in the United States and six times in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy). It is just the "See Also" section. Do you have a compelling reason why it shouldnt be there? Is this article too long? --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do think this article IS much too long, such that it's not helpful to the lay reader and overall needs to be more concise. However, I haven't looked at this particular dispute and so I have no opinion about it as yet. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=3033 --John Bahrain (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

John, see a few paragraphs above for discussion about this book. It has already been added and removed a few times, and fails the reliable source standard, and without some reliable verification or reproduction of its claims, it shouldn't be included here. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Obama campaign people say the way the Repbulicans are using Biden's comments takes them out of context. The story is here and here. Note that, as the page for Biden himself says, AIPAC praised his nomination and speaks favorably about his positions. The Squicks (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

An spokesperson for this group says that “Joe Biden is a strong supporter of the US-Israel relationship. He’s been a staunch supporter of US aid to Israel, a leader in the fight against Palestinian terrorism, and is a vocal advocate of the special relationship between the two democracies. We look forward to continuing to work with him in the senate or in the White House.” The Squicks (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New facts have suddenly emerged about AIPAC's true origins. In the interest of presenting useful, documentable facts to users, I propose the following edits to be made by Thanksgiving Day:

Founder Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen was a *registered foreign agent* of the Israeli government.

SOURCE: Original US Justice Department registration document: http://www.irmep.org/ila/Kenen/IOI/KenenFA-1/default.asp

AIPAC's lobbying and PR was actually developed within the American Zionist Council in a unit called the "Kenen Committee". This fact is known because, contrary to the gist of the introduction, the AZC *was* investigated by both the Senate and the Justice Department and then *ordered* to register as a foreign agent!

http://www.irmep.org/ila/Senate/default.asp

http://www.irmep.org/ila/AZCDOJ/default.asp

Since none of these facts can now be credibly disputed, we can get this entry moving closer to truth and reality on an accelerated basis! (the Isaiah Kenen section also needs a makeover, as I'm sure we can all agree.) Thanksgiving Day approaches!

Copied last paragraph from article page, same still there, for now; let's talk, not revert.

Historic, ref'able instances/personalities exist supporting the basic FARA alegations. The FARA question dates from Kenen's initial involvement, as noted avove, and at other times, the noted hearings, the Chairman, some testemony. It is all out there. The disputed para also points to whether another reference and earlier sentence is currently correct. I will be adding refs and references, and anticipate collaboration, if one wants to include one's two cents. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

US Department of Justice files declassified in 2008 reveal that the Kennedy administration ordered the American Zionist Council to register as the agent of Israel under the Foreign Agents Registration Act ^[21]. A US Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigation ^[22]revealed that AIPAC Founder Isaiah L. Kenen continued to receive funding from Israel for lobbying and public relations into the early 1960's. Kenen himself had been previously ordered ^[23]to re-register as a foreign agent when he left the direct employment of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Included below are the prose and refs for a recent AIPAC-related post. I am not questioning anything, just know it was in the wrong spot, but seems notable enough. So it is moved here for discussion, should that develop.

Prose formerly in lead paragraph:

Scandalously on March 10, 2009 Obama's top pick, Charles Freeman, withdrew his nomination for National Intelligence Council, after claiming overt harassment by AIPAC.

References to subject

Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This wikipedia entry has too many references to AIPAC assertions, some of which fly directly in the face of widely known, documented, online sources. It needs to be completely overhauled to emphasize:

1. The controversial origins of the organization, it was set up by a Foreign Agent of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who was repeatedly ordered to register as an Israeli Foreign Agent after going stealth; 2. Ongoing debate about what it really is, American nonprofit? Stealth foreign agent? The question is still very much open to debate, including by some former AIPAC officials, but only one side is represented here. 3. Two ongoing legal cases, one pitting the DOJ against AIPAC staffers over espionage, the other pitting AIPAC staffer against the Board of Directors are almost completely ignored here. 4. The organization's admitted credo that it does not want to be seen as the responsable party for some outcomes (e.g. the Iraq invasion, Chaz Freeman ouster) even as it works to make policy happen "off the record". This places in grave doubt any information emanating from the organization itself, other than address and other verifiable data. 5. Deception. The organization says it does not orchestrate campaign contributions. The Washington Post published internal AIPAC docs showing it did just that in 1986:

http://irmep.org/ila/AIPAC/PAC_Coordination/1986_PAC_Memo.htm

At best, we might be able to say "AIPAC does not influence funding of political candidates for office....anymore."

Currently, most of the content could be sourced from AIPAC's website, making the Wiki redundant, and therefore of little value.

NonResidentFellow (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think the article needs overhaul, argue it here, do not change it first.

You are giving way to much wight to the issue of "foreign agent". It does not belong in the lead in any cae.

You are also engaging in OR as well as relying on an unrelaible source. To use the documents that were released by the DOJ you need to rely on scholarly articles that processed them, except for the most trivial stuff (dates of events etc.). Mashkin (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the source is Isaiah Kenen's own FARA registration form. Actually, it is of primary importance that AIPAC was set up by a former employee of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since these documents were only released in 2008, there aren't too many articles about it, but that's the point of Wikipedia. Rehashing bromides from 1986 just won't cut it.NonResidentFellow (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you will have to wait until there are scholarly articles that deal with this. The fact that Kenen worked at the Israeli delegation was not unknown of course. In any case, putting the whole issue in the lead is undue weight.

You have violate the WP:3RR which you are very well aware. Please revert yourself to avoid the consequences. Mashkin (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maskin, please stop violating 3RR on my fully sourced edits. I am working on some new PAC contribution sections, and your deletions are making it difficult to add value to this section!NonResidentFellow (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Because AIPAC is such a secretive organization, that takes pride in leaving "no fingerprints", ::::I propose that we have a section up front, so that readers can value the context of any claims ::::originating from AIPAC in subsequent sections. Here are the four I'll be putting into the new ::::"Culture of Secrecy" section:

"There is no question that we exert a policy impact, but working behind the scenes and taking care not to leave fingerprints, that impact is not always traceable to us." The National Journal, August 31, 1992

"Calculatedly Quiet" - Fortune Magazine, December 1997

"Donor Secrecy" - LA Times May 8, 1998

"The Lobby is like a night flower, it blooms in the night, and dies under sunlight" Jerusalem Post, August 24, 2004 quoting Steve Rosen, former AIPAC director for policy, now under indictment for espionage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NonResidentFellow (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. I have 0 objection to including vertifiable facts (facts, not opinions) that belittle or sound bad for AIPAC.

But if there is not a reliable source for this info attributed to them (and the childish attempt by an editor to pass a TILA source off as from another person really was cute!), than that info is not going to stay in this article. The Squicks (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

W&M's opinion, itself heavily criticized, that AIPAC has "has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress" is marginally worthy of mention in the criticism section, but as a fringe minority position using loaded, extreme language, it does not belong in the lead. Millmoss (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a finge position. American policy towards Israel has at all times been influenced by pressure upon successive administrations and Congresses by groups representing nearly 6 million American Jews . . . The lobby on behalf of Israeli causes is dominated by the umbrella organisation, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC is widely regarded as having undue influence over the Congress and the policies of the US. Those exact words, "stranglehold", are not needed, but the controversy surronding their influence should be included. The foreign agent bit could also be reworded, but that is likewise not a fringe theory. See Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal. nableezy - 18:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim that it has a "stranglehold" over congress is indeed a fringe position, which has been heavily criticized. The quote you provided does not support it, in the least. It is fair to say it has an influence over US policy, and it may be ok to state that some groups think that influence is "undue". The "foreign agent" bit is also a minority position, which does not belong in the lead, as is the claim that the lobby itself (vs. individuals who worked for it) was implicated in spying. Millmoss (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence was indicted on "one count of conspiring to communicate national defense information to an agent of a foreign government" and plead guilty to that charge. The "agent of a foreign government" was the AIPAC staffers who in turn relayed that information to Israel. There is no dispute about that. nableezy - 19:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence is a U.S. Air Force Reserves colonel working as a Department of Defense analyst at the Pentagon. He is not,AFAIK, an AIPAC member. The allegations of AIPAC being an "agent of a foreign government" have nothing to do with the Lawrence case. As the article describes in detail, such claims date back to the Kennedy administration. Millmoss (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That is just silly. He plead guilty to passing information "to an agent of a foreign government". That "agent of a foreign government" was in reference to the AIPAC staffers. Nobody said that Lawrence himself is either an AIPAC member or an agent of a foreign government but that those who he did pass that information on to were those agents. nableezy - 19:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article tells us, the charges against the AIPAC staffers were dropped. The only person convicted of any wrong doing in in this case is an American Army officer who is not an AIPAC staffer. All of this is described in detail, in the appropriate section of the article - but to promote the non-conviction of AIPAC staffers to a claim of "AIPAC implicated in espionage" in the lead is not appropriate. Millmoss (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I say AIPAC officials were convicted? No. But the charge against Lawrence clearly refers to AIPAC staffers as "agent(s) of a foreign government". nableezy - 20:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You claimed AIPAC was implicated in espionage, and wanted to put that in the lead, apparently based on a case involving 2 AIPAC staffers, in which the charges were subsequently dropped. Surely you see how this is inappropriate. Millmoss (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They were "implicated", somebody plead guilty to providing them classified information that was passed on to a foreign government. I did not put that anybody was convicted of a crime, but they were clearly implicated. This is not based on the charges filed against the staffers but on those filed against, and pleaded out by, Lawrence. nableezy - 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No charges were filed against AIPAC, and charges against its staffers were dropped. To claim that AIPAC was "implicated" based on this is undue weight, and has no place in the lead. The details can be (and are) discussed in the body of the article, and can be discussed in further detail in the Lawrence article, but this statement does not belong in the lead of this article. Millmoss (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hyperionsteel, WP:LEAD clearly says that the lead should explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The espionage scandal is a notable controversy and should be mentioned in the lead of the article. nableezy - 00:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as it is kept to a reasonable length without undue influence. There is an entire section on this issue later in the article. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

Is the following a "reasonable length"?

A Pentagon analyst plead guilty to charges of passing US government secrets to AIPAC staffers in what is known as the AIPAC espionage scandal. Both staffers were later fired

nableezy - 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The current version seems fine (which is why I didn't revert it).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

That is exactly what you reverted but as we now agree that it is fine I think we can close this discussion. nableezy - 14:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now the lead states "critics state it has undue influence" on the U.S. Congress but this is neither interesting nor instructive to the nature of the "undue influence" that can be verified. In my opinion, the words "de facto foreign agent" explain the nature of the critique. And "stranglehold on U.S. Congress" is just plain more interesting. (In fact, I find the current wording boring, which is basically why I decided to "spice it up" initially with this edit. Thus prompting this discussion section.) Removing it has been explained in an edit comment as "Quotes from critics do not belong in the Introduction (that's what the criticism section is for)" but I do not know where this policy or guideline comes from. I'm going to attempt to conform the article to what I consider WP:LEAD to ask for again. Pecoc (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting. An introduction is supposed to be descriptive and NPOV. Polemical quotes from critics do not belong here. That's what the criticism section is for.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

The sentence was prefaced with "critics" so it prepares the reader for criticism, so I don't understand how NPOV was not maintained. My concern is that the meaning of the criticism—which could be easily summarized—is lost. Pecoc (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There are articles from Jewish sources about how AIPAC is losing its stranglehold on US policy. ("A model to be emulated, the envy of virtually all other lobbies, AIPAC has been at the forefront of the bilateral relationship for decades." - Jewish Telegraphic Agency.) ("J Street, which sees itself as a dovish alternative to the all-powerful AIPAC..." -- Haaretz) ("Not surprisingly, the voices that have until now dominated debate not only among Jews, but also in Congress and much of the media, are less than enthusiastic" - Alterman, NYT.) --John Nagle (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles you cite don't use terms like 'stranglehold'. They say alternatives to AIPAC, such as J street, are appearing and that they see AIPAC's effectiveness as a model for emulation. Millmoss (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)