Talk:Jews Against the Occupation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I'm a bit concerned about the POV here. I don't want to rewrite it until someone with more experience, particularly in the controversial subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, takes a look at this entry and makes a judgment. The entry discusses the platform of JATO the way that a JATO representative might describe it, but not necessarily the way a nonpartisan observer would describe it.

Contents

[edit] anti-fascist?

Alberuni's original text included the word "anti-fascist". Please point out exactly where did it come from. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[1]--Alberuni 15:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not impressed. Read this link: it's not what they say, and it's not what said about them. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] JAO platform exists whether the objects of their opposition exist or not

If JAO was opposed to Jamaican nuclear weapons that would be their platform whether or not Jamaican nuclear weapons exist. Just because some extremist Wikipedians disagree with JAO's platform does not give them the right to insinuate their POV into the description of JAO's platform by adding qualifiers. It is difficult for some people to separate their beliefs from their editing. It is called NPOV. Try it. --Alberuni 01:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to here; NPOV demands that we list any claims as claims. Also, I don't think your summary of their views is accurate, you should use the terms they use. Jayjg 02:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not a claim. It is their position. They are opposed to police brutality. Doesn't matter if you think there is no police butality to oppose. It's their platform. --Alberuni 03:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
They also claim Israel practices it; that's not a position, that's a claim. Jayjg 04:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't see that claim made outside of quotes or qualifiers. --Alberuni 06:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"opposition to each of the following" is not qualifed, nor are any of the "plank" descriptions. Jayjg 15:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

I am going to add a link to Arabs for Israel for balance. I have cross-linked this page also on the Arabs for Israel page. Newt 00:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arabs for Israel does not "balance" Jews Against the Occupation. They are irrelevant to one another because neither of them mentions or sheds light on the other or even discusses the same issues. The only thing they have in common is support for Israel; one group supports Israel but is against the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territory while the other "group" is an Arab-American woman who makes a living writing articles for right-wing frontpagemag.com by denouncing Islam and waving the Israeli flag for her sponsors. Try again. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia, first-timer. --Alberuni 03:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, speaking of the "group" Jews Against the Occupation, exactly who is its President, Vice President, etc.? How is it structured? What is its membership? Oddly enough, the website is very scanty on those kinds of details. Jayjg 03:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can find the following names of members of Jews Against the Occupation: Steve Quester, Gabriel Ash, David Bloom, Ryan Senser, Ora Wise, Nirit Ben-Ari, Emmaia Gelman, Debbie Sheintoch, Miriam Greenberg, Dena Marger, Darlene Wallach, and Naomi Braine. But for "Arabs for Israel" I can only find Nonie Darwish. Can you do better? --Alberuni 06:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, that's 12 members; 13 when you count the guy quoted on the Dore Gold page. Which one is the president? Where are the headquarters? When was it founded? How many members does it have? These would all be relevant information for this page. As for Arabs for Israel, I don't know anything about them; maybe Newt does. Jayjg 15:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So what's your point? They are a group and they have existed for years. They are active in Israel too. They are not sponsored by frontpagemag and they are not right-wing Jews. Maybe that makes them illegitimate to you. --Alberuni 23:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some people never seem to tire of strawman arguments. Regardless, it seems reasonable that an organization that has "existed for years" might actually have a President, an address, something. Jayjg 23:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are you one of those "some people" again? I don't know JAO's structure or history or membership requirements and I am not a member. Are you? I would prefer to see more transperancy on an "About us" page; their history, membership, etc. Perhaps they have some philosophical (anarchist?) issues about not having permanent spokemen, presidents, etc. I don't know. Perhaps they prefer anonymity due to the harassment they might likely receive from right-wing Zionists. I don't know.I have read enough about them and their activities that it is clear they have some following and very likely their following is many orders of magnitude greater than the organization "Muslims for Israel" - just look at the evidence on their websites. One group has evidence for more than a dozen activists participating in demonstrations and protests over several years the other has one columnist for frontpagemag.com. Of course, trying to discuss anything logically with you is like trying to convince a monkey not to fling feces. I shouldn't even bother. --Alberuni 02:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually they are relevent to each other in that both are organizations attempting peace and resolution in the Middle East, therefore they at least warrant cross-links with each other. I believe it will be helpful to someone who is looking up the issue to get the picture from several perspectives. And btw, I appreciate your separating the "Muslims for Israel" into a separate article, I agree it's more appropriate. I also appreciate your tongue-in-cheek welcome to me a "first-timer". And no I'm not a first timer, since I created this second account to protect my privacy since my first account reveals my name and whereabouts, not something I am eager to advertise if I'm going to venture into controversial subject matter like the Middle East conflict. However, my two accounts are not so-called socks of each other--yes, I at least understand your insinuation. I'm not interested in edit wars or silly games. If your goal is to contribute to this great Wikipedia project by working together with multiple editors to create balanced, objective articles on the Middle East Conflict, then we'll get along just fine. On the other hand, if you merely have an agenda to proseletize or spin things to your viewpoint only, please just let me know straight out so I won't have to bother wasting my time trying to work with you. Thanks. Newt 06:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are many, many groups that have been working towards peace and justice in the Mideast for decades. That's not enough of a reason to link them all here. There are categories for social justice, humanitarian groups, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc. Link them that way. More likely, you think that a right-wing Arab-American for Israel is somehow a mirror image of left-wing Jews who oppose Israeli right-wing policies. That you do not want to expose your identity makes your contribition suspect. If there's nothing wrong with what you are constributing, why hide behind a false identity? It's probably not acceptable under Wikipedia norms that you have created this sockpuppet. --Alberuni 23:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are you really criticizing Newt for hiding under a false identity? Is Alberuni is your real name? Jayjg 23:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What the heck are you talking about Alberuni? Do I know who you are? No. Do you know who I am? No. I'd say that you cannot know for a certainty, even if a person tells you exactly who they are, that a user is who they claim they are unless they are one of wikipedia's top dogs, such as it's founder.--Josiah 00:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You two seem to have a way of reading meaning from words I haven't written. Read the article Sock puppet. They are inherently problematic and suspect because they may be used to give an appearance of consensus or conceal the identity of a user who has been banned, among other reasons. For instance, how do I know that Yoshiah or Jayjg did not create Newt to disguise his/her contributions and then Yoshiah/Jayjg come along and support Newt's edits? It's suspect and not looked upon favorably. That's all I said. --Alberuni 02:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well to allay your fears, no my second identity Newt is not from anyone banned, or a sock of Yoshiah or Jayjg or anyone else. I've never had any schizophrenic conversations with myself, one identity with the other, or even been involved on the same pages as my other identity. My first identity is relatively new also, but I wasn't careful about my privacy, which isn't as much of a problem when editing more mundane topics. There's no hidden agenda, I just don't want to make myself an easy target of real-life harrassment, and that's why I created a second more-private identity so I could get involved in controversial topics that interest me without worrying about some intolerant whacko coming after me. My Democrat kid at college just informed me of a hit list published on the internet containing the names of all the students on campus who voted for Bush. Yeah some people can be dangerously intolerant of others who have idealogy that differs from theirs. Newt 22:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please note: I argue that we have no evidence that Muslims for Israel even exists, and that it should therefore be deleted on grounds of non-notability. If you want to chime in, Talk:Muslims for Israel is there... - Mustafaa 23:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "what they regard as"

Mustafaa, your wording is good. However, please note my edit of Nov 1, which used substantially similar wording, and which was almost immediately reverted by Alberuni on the grounds that it was "insufferable". Jayjg 16:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You made many more edits to the entire article than Mustafaa's single reasonable phrase of qualification. Your many edits to the whole article are not comparable to Mustafaa's edit of a single line. Again, you are being deceptive, completely twisting and manipulating facts to suit yourself, an almost expected level of dishonesty. Have you no shame or sense of personal honor? --Alberuni 02:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You reverted the section which NPOVd that sentence, and my sentence was substantially the same as Mustafaa's. Ask those questions of yourself, where they are far more applicable. Jayjg 15:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You alter the whole page and then claim that your edits were the same as Mustafaa's. They were not. You altered the whole page but now you complain about being reverted in one sentence. I don't have to pick through your biased edits to select the ones that are acceptable. You revert automatically with a heavy hand, abusing your admin privilege, so don't expect to be treated any differently. --Alberuni 16:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What nonsense. I made one tiny edit, in exactly that place, changing the phrase "each of the following" to "what it sees as". Here's the edit in question: [2]. I've never "altered the whole page"; in fact, I've only made one other edit on this page, days later, again a tiny NPOV edit to one small phrase: [3]. Get your facts straight, for a change. Jayjg 17:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are right -- for a change. Sorry. It was one of a series of edits wars you were engaging in. --Alberuni 01:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] So Yoshiah, care to explain your logic?

Why do you think Arabs for Israel should be linked to Jews Against the Occupation? --Alberuni 03:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perspective. Jews for the Occupation is one of a very few amount of Jewish organizations that are Anti-Israel. Arabs for Israel is one of the few Arab organizations that is Pro-Israel. They both shed light on minority viewpoints in this situation--Josiah 02:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perspective? Your perspective maybe. Wikipedia articles are not meant to push your perspective. They are supposed to cover facts and your facts are totally screwed up and your POV is pathetic. First of all, it's Jews Against the Occupation, not "Jews for the Occupation". Secondly, they are not anti-Israel, they are anti-Occupation. Thirdly, what makes you think that most Jews support Israel? Any facts to back up that assertion, besides the propaganda POV pushers inserted into the Jew article? Fourthly, this page isn't entitled, "Minority Viewpoints about Israel" because clearly the minority viewpoint is the Zionist viewpoint. Except for the USA, most of the world is opposed to the Israeli state and its long history of crimes against humanity. These are just a few of your factual and logical inconsistencies. --Alberuni 19:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am not going to discuss things with you as long as you insist on insulting me while doing so.--Josiah 22:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't know how I will live without your insight. --Alberuni 22:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other than being anti-Israel, Neturei Karta has no place here

It is much older than the occupation, therefore doesn't belong here (see the title). But if someone would insist on describing Jewish attitudes towards Israel here, this would only expose another desperate attempt to inflate the importance of fringe clowns. Are we in business of reflecting the reality or distorting it? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

haha, fringe clowns. Of course, "everyone knows" that the only real humans are Zionist Jews. Everyone else is a clown or an anti-Semite. --Alberuni 19:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why "or", some are both. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You must be a fun guy to hang out with. --Alberuni 05:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The other side

I inserted the TotallyDisputed note, since the other side is not represented here, as if it deosn't exist or as if this group is representative of the majority. Removing it without fixing the problem is a violation of WP policy. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You claim we are lying by omission by not representing the "other side". What other side? Jews for the Occupation? Jews Against Jews Against the Occupation? Don't the See Also links do enough pointing to the "other side"? What are you suggesting Humus? Merge the Zionism page into this one? --Alberuni 05:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adding "TotallyDisputed" is inappropriate. You have not disputed its factual accuracy, only alleged that it's POV. - Mustafaa 11:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And, incidentally, what exactly is the supposed problem here? The "other side" is already linked to. - Mustafaa 11:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dore Gold link

Why is there a Dore Gold link here? Aside from the fact that a member of JOA once made one comment about Gold, what is the connection? Jayjg 16:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Also means see also another place where JAO is mentioned on Wikipedia. --Alberuni 16:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I think that since JATO criticizes Dore Gold, there should be a link to the OBJECT of their criticism. By the way, maybe the full quote:
  • "Not only are Israel’s actions illegal acts of war on Palestinians – but they don’t keep Jews safe either. As Jews and as human beings, we demand Israel stop committing atrocities in our name."

...should go here in the JATO article rather than in the Dore Gold article. We could say there that JATO vigourously condemns Gold, his organization (and probably Israel) for "atrocities" and "illegal acts of war" - and then readers could follow the link back to JATO for the rest of the story. Maybe that will stop the edit war over the 'full quote'. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:52, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Lots of superficially related links are not a service to the reader; rather, they are a disservice since they obfuscate rather than clarifying. JAO is about all sorts of things, and their two sentence criticism of Gold is not even a footnote to that. But, as usual, I give in in the face of determined opposition to my attempts to turn Wikimesses into encyclopedia articles. Jayjg 17:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, that link to Dore Gold is a real mess. What a shame. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your pro-Israeli POV. Maybe you should go edit the Yasser Arafat article again and highlight the links to Black September. --Alberuni 18:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jay, if you're just going along (rather than really agreeing) then maybe I'm wrong about the Dore Gold / JATO quote thing. It's not going to be stable, because

A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still
I'm just going along, because it's not worth my while to continually fight the insertion of "See also"s that are either irrelevant or inserted for POV purposes. Though it subverts both NPOV and the usefulness of the articles, I can't fight every battle. Jayjg 19:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar on sock puppetry

Based on discussions with Jimbo which I've been in (or overheard), there is nothing wrong with creating extra accounts provided it's not to subvert Wikipedia as by evading a ban. As long as Newt follows the guidelines, his sock puppet account has my blessings. I think there's even a sock puppet or two that became an admin. Some over-scrupulous users have occasionally 'confessed' their sock puppetry to me or Jimbo; it's no big deal.

Note:

  • voting twice is 'bad' (only one sock should vote, keep the others on your feet!)

That's my 2 cents. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 18:55, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] JAO and www.ArabsforIsrael.com

At a glance one might think the two groups are similar, but they're actually quite different.

Arabs for Israel is made up of Arabs and Muslims who have bravely stood up against the attempts by the Arab and Muslim world to destroy Israel. They recognize the rights of Jews to live peacefully in the Jewish homeland, and their motivations are not in any sense geared towards hurting other Arabs and Muslims.

JAO, on the other hand, is a group of Jews and those of Jewish extraction whose purpose is to undermine the security of Israel, thus making it easier for Israel's enemies to win the "PR War", and eventually accomplish the long stated goal of destroying the state and killing its Jewish citizens. Although not a group directly involved in terrorist operations against Jews, this group stands in the corner of groups that do, cheering them on.

Or you could say that Jews Against the Occupation is an organization of Jews with social conscience who are offended by the crimes Israel commits in the name of Judaism while Arabs for Israel represents Nonie Darwish and her employers at the neo-con right-wing rag, FrontPageMag. --Alberuni 02:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's quite a logical jump there, equivocating supporting Palestinian human rights and an unspoken plot to kill Jews (despite the fact that JATO activists are in fact Jewish). People like yourself need to realize that your irrational racism is no different from the anti-Semitism of terrorist groups and leads to the same bloody conclusions. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I have moved the quote section to wikiquote and added an interwiki.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have removed the link to the Frontpage Magazine article "Inside Duke's Hate Fest". The 8,900 word article contains a total of six words about Jews Against the Occupation; four are its name. This article is not about Jews Against the Occupation and so doesn't belong here.

--Rrburke 11:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text moved to the talk page

I moved the following...

The group has been criticized by mainstream Jewish organizations. According to Wayne Firestone, the director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, an umbrella group for 26 Jewish organizations, "Anyone who is a critic whose intention is to legitimately strengthen an Israel living in secure and recognized boundaries is a legitimate critic. The problem with the position taken by a lot of these organizations is that they only seek to condemn Israel." [4]

The above quote was referring to ANOTHER group/meeting in Ohio?? Can we get some other sourced critisism(sp) of this group maybe under its own section? I'll will try to work on this. Thanks --Tom 16:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/w/Talk%7EJews_Against_the_Occupation_a615.html"