Talk:Americans for Middle East Understanding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removed speedy tag[edit]

The article has just been recreated. A couple of days should be given to the creator to establish the topic's notability (or lack thereof). Should the sources not support WP:N, the article can be taken to a regular AfD. Tiamuttalk 09:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Alternative Views[edit]

Made to sound like a sweet ol' non partisan friendship group here. Right? Well not everyone thinks this and it should be in the article. This is an article written in 2008 in the American Thinker magazine. I put it up to point out that there is another perspective on this org.

Americans for Middle East Understanding (AMEU) is an innocuous-sounding group that is actually a harshly anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian organization that has existed for over 30 years . Edward Peck, the former Ambassador to Iraq to whom Wright attributes his "chickens have come home to roost" comment about 9/11 is a member of its Board of Directors.

The group publishes an "educational tool" (euphemism alert) called The Link -- a periodical that is distributed to 2500 churches, 2000 academicians, and 1900 public and school libraries. Teacher packets are provided for free; tours of the Middle East are also sponsored by AMEU.

On its list of books for sale at the group's online store one will find a Who's Who of fierce critics of Israel and apologists for and promoters of militant Islam. These include books by Richard Falk, who most recently speculated about his desire to prosecute neocons for being behind the 9/11 attacks, and who recently accepted a position on the UN Human Right Council where he has the Israel file; Noam Chomsky, a critic of America and Israel; James Bamford, who has alluded to the alleged dual loyalty of American Jews and blames Israel for problems in the Middle East; Paul Findley, who has written a book (They Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions confront Israel's Lobby) that presaged the publication of the Israel lobby book by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, and who attacks Americans who support the American-Israel relationship (Findley now heads up a group called the Council of National Interest that lobbies against Israel and publishes full-page ads in newspapers replete with anti-Semitic imagery; Norman Finkelstein, a failed academic and Holocaust denier; Edward Said, who, as a professor at Columbia University and author of books on the Arab world, corrupted the field of Middle Eastern Studies with an anti-Israel and anti-Western perspective; and a roster of Arab authors who promote anti-Israel views. Controversial Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, who blames Israel for "The Ethnic Cleansing of Israel" (the name of his book for sale) also is represented. Rev. Wright's Middle East Views by Ed Lasky

All of this speaks to the article's notability, but it also clearly speaks to the strong POV of the article with respect to its subject. Stellarkid (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) notes

"AET, in conjunction with Americans for Middle East Understanding (AMEU), Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI), and Black Voices for Peace (BVFP), published the two booklets “Who Will Save the Children?” and “Remember These Children,” and maintains the Web site, http://www.rememberthesechildren.org, to further educate the American public about the realities of the situation in Palestine and Israel.

So it works hand-in-glove with WRMEA as well. WRMEA has been called "the guidebook to the Arabist lobby in the United States," and that it "specializes in defaming Israel," is "a must-read for friends of Israel who want a reliable indicator of the thinking of the anti-Israel crowd."[2]So there is more here than meets the eye at first glance. Not sure how you'all want to incorporate this information into this article. Stellarkid (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, "American Thinker" is not a magazine, it's a "daily conservative internet publication"... in other words, a partisan group blog. So it's criticism doesn't sound particularly notable or mainstream. I note they repeatedly smear Obama with variations on the "stealth Muslim" meme (e.g. [3]); I will treat their other claims accordingly. Factomancer (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
not really. The American Thinker has been mentioned in other media including Le Monde,[3] The Guardian, [4], Inter Press Service,[5] Campus Watch,[6] and the New York Times.[7] It has a huge list of notables that it publishes. The fact that it is conservative means only that it has a different perspective. This perspective has a right to be represented here. Stellarkid (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Larrey Anderson from The American Thinker is not the only one who has less rosy views on AMEU. Laurent Murawiec in his (history) book, Prince of darkness: the Saudi assualt on the West page 123 says: Americans for Middle East Understanding, established in 1969, "evolved into a major organization within the Arab lobby." It also received funds from Prince Khaled bin Sultan and from the World Muslim League.here New York Magazine December 10, 1973 v 6 no 50 page 76 below: Dorothy Rabinowitz here

One of them, The Link published by the Americans for Middle East Understanding, an undisguisedly Arabist propaganda vehicle, explained the Zionist venture in the Middle East in terms that might have satisfied most implacably anti-Jewish Al Fatah theorists. A recent article offers one explanation, among others, of why American Jews have given their support to Israel: "A great pride in the materialistic achievements of Jews in the state of Israel is probably one motivating factor."

Now I certainly don't deny your sources, but nor can you deny these. This view must be taken into consideration with regard to this organization. You-all can edit it in, or I will when I have a bit more time. Stellarkid (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, negative commentary goes to notability as well as positive commentary. Feel free to use these sources to establish notability. Stellarkid (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Sources aren't chosen for Wikipedia articles because they are notable, they are chosen because they are reliable. Some highly notable sources (e.g. Weekly World News) are utterly unreliable and totally inappropriate to use as sources. Factomancer (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Americans for Middle East Understanding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)