Talk:American Israel Public Affairs Committee

New Revelations About AIPAC

New documents debunk a great deal of the assertions made on this wiki entry. I propose that we correct it over the next week making the following changes:

1. That AIPAC did not exist as a separate entity before 1965. It was really just a committee within the older American Zionist Council, as supported by Senate Testimony.

http://irmep.org/ILA/Senate/default.asp

2. That AZC was created under the direction of David Ben Gurion in 1952 as a point of contact for Israel to give lobbying direction to supporters in the US (NYT article).

3. That AIPAC was the product of a 1965 shell company reorganization after the DOJ ordered the AZC to register as an Israeli foreign agent in 1961. The AZC had to shut down in '65.

http://irmep.org/ILA/AZCDOJ/P6100127redorder/default.asp

4. That AIPAC serves as a US outpost for the Mossad.

(this news hit just recently.) http://www.alalam.ir/english/detail.aspx?id=86623

Please let me know if there are any objections to these modifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NonResidentFellow (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist Organization

There should probably be a section about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.184.3 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? --193.1.34.2 (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Update a link in the endnotes

{{editsemiprotected}} There's a link in the endnotes to an article in The Nation ("American Jews Rethink Israel"). That link no longer works. It should be replaced with this: http://www.thenation.com/article/american-jews-rethink-israel David Umpteen (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Also, note that if you make just two more edits to anywhere - e.g. WP:SANDBOX - you will be able to edit semiprotected files yourself. Chzz  ►  01:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Done

Footnote 4 doesn't have the information required to get to the paper. That can be found here: http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=3670 Walt, Stephen and John J. Mearsheimer. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP06-011, March 2006. 24.126.196.6 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits by User:MUCHERS22

I have reverted[1] edits by User:MUCHERS22. As far as I can see, those edits are non-neutral and contain WP:OR and do not accurately reflect what the source cited says. The source[2] does not mention anything about the "huge imapct" of AIPAC or about AIPAC having been "the driving force behind the sanctions from the start". Nsk92 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How is non-neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The "huge impact" part is not neutrally worded; per WP:NPOV, strong language is best avoided at all and when used, it must be supported by particularly convincing sourcing. The part about AIPAC being "the driving force behind the sanctions from the start" is not supported by any source cited here. Nsk92 (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the article itself state in atlest 3 places the power this lobby have on foreign policy. But primary, why did you remove all? Including the sentence which had the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained in my original post above why I reverted your edit - a part of it was non-neutral and another part was not supported by the source cited. With a significantly flawed edit like that, the proper thing to do is to revert it and discuss it at the talk page, which is exactly what I did. Nsk92 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you didnt have a reason for removing the sourced stuff. But everyhing is ok now, the current sentence about the sanctions seems to be satisfied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The last edit you made introduced a malformatted and grammatically incorrect sentence "And have been one the driving force behind the sanctions from the start." Even if one fixes the grammar here, the source cited[3] does not support this statement. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You missunderstand. Some stuff werent sourced which of course could be removed. BUT you removed also the sourced stuff which you have no right to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You are quite wrong here. In case of a seriously problematic edit, like yours was, the correct thing to do is to revert the entire edit first and then discuss it at the talk page rather to try to salvage it on the fly. Nsk92 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, just remove the bad parts and it would be all fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

3456truth's edits

I have reached my limits for reverts (see WP:3RR) but I feel that 3456truth's edits are introducing non-neutral and badly-referenced material into this article. Specifically, I'm concerned that 3456truth is adding the text "AIPAC traces its history back to 1951, the date its founder left the employment of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in New York." into a citation to the AIPAC website, although this fact does not appear on that website. I also feel that 3456truth is replacing material that is appropriate for the lede in that it provides a general summary of two opposing positions about the organization and its critics with information about a very specific instance that occurred 25 years ago and is covered two paragraphs later. I don't understand why we need to quote the FBI stating that they received an "unsubstantiated allegation". GabrielF (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

AIPAC's founder, Isaiah L. Kenen, worked for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, until he founded AIPAC. According to his biography, he colluded with his former employers who were looking for a front man to lobby Congress as an American, rather than an Israeli dealing with the Department of State. This is the origin of AIPAC, a stealth foreign agent. At one point, this wiki had important information about AIPAC's true origins and Kenen. I guess we need to beef that history up, because this page has been going down hill as far as facts are concerned. 3456truth (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

AIPAC has been under investigation almost constantly since it split off from the AZC. Therefor it is an integral part of its history to show and repeat specific examples of investigations and allegations of criminal activity from the time it emerged from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3456truth (talk • contribs) 01:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• • You are writing this material based on your own synthesis of primary sources. This is original research (please see: Wikipedia:No original research. In addition, the "Israel Lobby Archive" is hardly a neutral or mainstream source (please see: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

Actually, each bit of information can be substantiated, and has been by AIPAC's own founder. If it is original research, it is Isaiah Kenen's. A reference can be placed in the piece, much more useful to informing readers than the previous content calling critics "anti-Semites".

Also, the Israel Lobby Archive is mainstream enough to be cited by the Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/03/israeli_spies_our_constant_com.html

As a collection of primary source documents, calling the ILA "non-mainstream" (as if that were even a problem given the state of mainstream media) is not a credible exercise. You'd really need to discredit the FBI, GAO, IRS, and all the other government agencies that provided documents to the Israel Lobby Archive collection. Better to take down the National Security Archive or Jewish Virtual Library. Not really worth arguing about. 3456truth (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, please don't mark changes that effect the meaning of an article as minor. See Help:Minor edit. More significantly, you haven't explained why these changes belong in the lede of the article. Here is what Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) tells us: "The lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..." The details of the organization's legal status 50 years ago seem completely insignificant to me. An "unsubstantiated allegation" is certainly not appropriate for the lede of an article. You're also removing sourced information from one side of the debate. Please see WP:NPOV. GabrielF (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

AIPAC's origin belongs in the lede. The context of AIPAC as a front for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a critical part of its history. In your POV history may seem insignificant, but it is not. The allegation "Israeli intelligence at AIPAC" was part of an espionage investigation. It provides continuity to the idea of AIPAC as an Israeli front, which is the core theme of the organization to all new literature that uses real (often recently declassified) primary sources. Please don't remove this sourced material, including the founder's statement on the genesis of AIPAC lobbying for the Israeli government. 3456truth (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

When you say: "the idea of AIPAC as an Israeli front, which is the core theme of the organization" - that's your opinion. You need to demonstrate that high-quality secondary sources see it this way. Even if you could demonstrate this, which I doubt, it still wouldn't excuse removing another side's opinion from the lede and it wouldn't justify clogging up the lede of the article with minor details - particularly when you are doing original synthesis by drawing conclusions from these primary sources (Kennan's book and the FBI document) without citing secondary sources that also draw those conclusions. GabrielF (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fact, not opinion. AIPAC has been under constant investigation for operating as a foreign agent. It was the subject of an entire senate investigation. http://irmep.org/ILA/Senate/default.asp and several FBI investigations. If you want to edit Alan Dershowitz broad brush accusations of antisemitism into the intro, feel free. There is another book called "America's Defense Line" that can be cited with declassified 2008 Justice Department documents on AIPAC's emergence as well, but primary sources are all online.3456truth (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The ILA is certainly not mainstream. Have you seen its website? It has no address (only a post office box), and doesn't even list any of the people involved in it. Its analysis does not meet the requirements for Reliable Sources. But more to the point, the documents it claims to be posting are primary sources, which you are summarizing into your own analysis; That is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

If ILA is good enough for the Washington Post, it's good enough for wikipedia. As you may know, there is an organized effort to attack, smear, discredit, defund and defame any who write critically about the Israel lobby. If you don't believe that, carefully review http://irmep.org/ILA/AZC/default.asp Given that reality, primary source documents are not only acceptable, they are necessary in this case.3456truth (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow original research, even in cases where someone feels very strongly about a topic. Your summary and synthesis of primary sources is original research.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

I haven't submitted any original research. I'm not sure what you mean by "even in cases where someone feels very strongly about a topic." Who is that? Also, the entire intro is a synthesis of different bits of sourced material. It may not be known to many that AIPAC sprang from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but erasing that fact with various dubious edit claims isn't improving the entry.3456truth (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No Original Research

3456truth, you have submitted original research. And Yes, you seem to feel very strongly about this topic; you stated above that "Given that reality, primary source documents are not only acceptable, they are necessary in this". Unfortunately, Wikipedia's prohibition on Original Research does not include exemptions for certain realities or cases. But back to the main issue, you have taken primary sources and comprised your own summary based on your own interpretation. This is original research.

Again, please read Wikipedia:No original research more carefully; it states that:

• "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

More to the point, Wikipedia specifically states:

• "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.".

You are violating both of this rules by inserting the material in question.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

I have not engaged in original research, I've entered some primary sources. This is allowable, the guidelines you reference specifically state "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia."

I have offered links to a program that shows the reality of decades of heavy handed Zionist attacks on media outlets, academics, and others that publish critical information about the lobby. This has undermined free speech and diminished output in that domain, since nobody likes to be called an "anti-Semite" for criticizing (as the current intro also does). So that's not me feeling strongly, that's me putting in the key information that's still available.

But since we're now ascribing motive and emotions here (and not assuming good faith) this whole thing appears to boil down to, you don't want AIPAC's true origins from the Israeli government in the entry. I do. You say its irrelevant history. I say its vital for readers to know about. You selectively cite policy, I carefully source every reference.

All of the supporting information is also in the book "America's Defense Line." I could reference that, but then I supposed you'd then question whether that book, for years cited as a reference on this wiki page, is an acceptable source, rather than the real issue: the true origins of AIPAC. Using technicalities to fend off the truth. So sad.3456truth (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeat: No original research

You are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote conspiracy theories from a unreliable website and then accusing those of want you to respect Wikipedia's polices of having alterior motives. I will advise you to review Talk page guidelines.

You claim that you are trying to demonstrate "the reality of decades of heavy handed Zionist attacks" and "the true origins of AIPAC." Aside from the fact that this is extremely POV, you evidently failed to read this: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal or advocacy outlet that is used to advance political opinions or theories derived from primary sources. In Wikipedia, Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Regarding your claim that you are not inserting Original Research, I will point out that Wikipedia clearly states that:

• "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
• To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented."

Finally, the rule against Original Research in Wikipedia is not simply a technicality: ""No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability." If you have a problem with this rule, I suggest you contact wikipedia and ask them to change this rule.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC))

This is all blather. If Alan Dershowitz of Harvard wrote a book called "Confessions of the Israel Lobby" which referenced the obvious online documents, that would be accepted. But linking to the source documents, and a book written to them are unacceptable. Key difference? Zionists don't like this information to be widely, publicly available. Sad, but true.Apollo Steel (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

April 26 2011

I continue to be concerned with these changes. If you want to add information on the formation of the organization and its initial request for tax-exempt status, using Kennan's book as a source I don't object, but it should in the body of the article and not in the lead paragraphs, which should be reserved for summary material. My preference would be for you to include more context - what was Kennan's stated motivation for forming the organization? What did he say he hoped to accomplish? I object strenuously to the addition of an "unsubstantiated allegation" to the lead section. This is not encyclopedic material. GabrielF (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Israelis began looking for a lobbyist to promote the necessary legislation…would I leave the Israeli delegation for six months to lobby on Capitol Hill? There were other questions. Should I continue my registration as an agent of the Israel government? Was it appropriate for an embassy to lobby? Embassies talked to the State Department, and American voters talked to their congressmen."

Si Kenen, "All my causes"

It's now glaringly obvious why Kenen started AIPAC - to skirt the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. It's one of those "inconvenient truths."

Apollo Steel (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

New information about AIPAC

I propose that the AIPAC wikipedia entry be expanded to include the following subjects:

1. Early Donors. According to new research, people involved in organized crime and Israel's nuclear weapons program provided significant amounts of start-up capital to AIPAC. AIPAC apparently tried to coverup the Israeli nuclear weapons program in the US media PR campaign:

http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2010/08/29/ground-zero-mosque-aipac/

2. Pornography @ AIPAC. According to recent court files cited by Jacob Heilbrun and others, a significant percentage of AIPAC employees use the nonprofit's tax preferred resources to view pornography and arrange sexual liaisons at work.

http://nationalinterest.org/node/4439

3. Tax Status under investigation. According to Accounting Today, AIPAC's tax exemption was alleged to be granted based on a fraudulent application. There appears to be a lot of content about that available.

http://www.accountingtoday.com/debits_credits/Group-Asks-IRS-Revoke-AIPAC-Tax-Exemption-56450-1.html

4. Former director alleges classified US government document circulation. A former employee, Steven J. Rosen, swore to a DC court in 2010 that AIPAC trafficks in classified US government information. He told the Washington Post "I will introduce documentary evidence that AIPAC approved of the receipt of classified information."

Any objections to adding all of this sourced material? Just wanted to check before getting down to work...3456truth (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

whoops, i think I accidentally erased previous discussion. can an advanced user fix that? thanks!3456truth (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh! None of my sourced changes to the page seem to be taking, anyone know why?3456truth (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This kind of stuff really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. You write the accounting today thing as if that publication is making the accusation, when in fact its an outside group that's doing so and accounting today states: "The IRS has increasingly been on the receiving end of letters from various groups demanding that the tax-exempt status of groups opposed to their ideology or political or religious leanings be investigated or revoked. As the IRmep filing shows, that trend shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon." Points 1, 2 and 4 strike me as basically gossip. Rosen is a disgraced ex-employee who made some claims. We already have plenty of serious criticism of AIPAC in the article, we shouldn't be piling on rumors and non-events. GabrielF (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Mob money in AIPAC seems relevant. Nuclear funding coordinator Abe Feinberg's donations and AIPAC's coverups of Israeli nukes seems pretty suspicious. And actually, Rosen placed a ton of internal AIPAC documents into the public domain to back up his claims about AIPAC information trafficking. Seems worth mentioning other US government classified docs held by AIPAC. According to court docs, "Rosen documented a two-decade span of AIPAC intelligence collection to back up his claims. AIPAC obtained a 'secret National Security Decision Directive #99 calling on the Armed Services and Secretary of Defense to explore the potential for stepped-up strategic cooperation.' AIPAC gleaned classified annual reports of secret U.S. arms transfers. AIPAC skimmed classified law enforcement files about North African financial transfers to African-American political activists, which it then used to discredit Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign. AIPAC suctioned up classified U.S. intelligence about Khartoum. An AIPAC board member funneled classified raw U.S. signals intelligence into a lobbying effort, while another AIPAC employee solicited and received classified information about secret U.S. understandings with Saudi Arabia."

I wonder if there's another allegedly American nonprofit lobby that trafficks in so much stolen classified government information. Seems to distinguish AIPAC from the others, while calling into question its claimed purpose/configuration. Oh, I forget. Nobody likes that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3456truth (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Good point

History

I notice that the original info "Founded in 1953 by Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, AIPAC's original name was the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs." has been removed. Why has this been removed, other than the obvious? Vexorg (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Even http://www.aipac.org/en/About%20AIPAC itself states it was founded in the 1950s, and the following line in this article states 1953

AIPAC's Founder worked for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Please do not vandalize the entry by deleting that key information.

http://irmep.org/ILA/Kenen/IOI/IOIreg/Registration/default.asp (AIPAC founder registration as a foreign agent) Apollo Steel (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's original research because it is a primary source. Wikipedia relies on Secondary sources.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

It is also in the book "America's Defense Line" so I'll reference that as well. But it is more powerful to see the signature of AIPAC;s founder as an employee of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Primary or secondary, it is sourced. So please stop editing history.

Apollo Steel (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonpartisan

It's important to mention in the lead that AIPAC is a nonpartisan lobbying group. I'll try to find sources to establish that, but maybe someone else who's more adept as such things can help out.—Biosketch (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)