Talk:Israel and the United Nations/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a distinct stub, done by a newbie to writing new pages. Help editing it and expanding it would be appreciated. There are many issues, so I figured the subject could use a page. However, I'm unsure how to expand this. -Penta 01:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Don't worry so much about formatting or completeness. Even brief statements on the various issues (so long as they aren't blatantly offensive or point-of-view) are helpful, because they inspire people to add more. I completely agree, it's a subject deserving of its own article. - Seth Ilys 01:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Penta hates you all

I hate you all right now. I just wandered back to this article, and saw the hell it's undergone. Though nobody's bothered to use the Talk page, I've readded the TotallyDisputed tag. Why I readded it: This article is fairly obviously the object of partisan squabbles. Bound to happen, but still. Right now, it looks somewhat scarred.

What I see as the issues to deal with here, though I don't have the info or the time to do the research:

  1. Israeli position in the UN
  2. Someone try to get data: How much has Israel paid (and how much was it supposed to pay) in UN dues? Try to get both general budget dues and peacekeeping dues; They're separate bills each member state has to pay, and work off of different formulae, I think.
  3. Israeli public opinion on UN - anybody able to get polling info?
  4. Membership actions - has anybody seriously threatened suspension/expulsion? Has there ever been serious thought in Israel to withdrawal?
  5. Chronology of, ah, incidents.

--Penta 04:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You say that "This article is fairly obviously the object of partisan squabbles." I cannot find any such squabbles. I agree that the article could benefit from your proposals, but all of those relate to factual accuracy, not neutrality. You have made no specific or even semi-specific allegations about the neutrality of the article. I would ask that you either make such allegations, or remove the NPOV dispute.

Furthermore, as for your objections to the article's factual accuracy, I don't think that a lack of evidence should be enough to dispute the factual accuracy of a page. If you followed that standard, you'd literally have to factually dispute 95% of Wikipedia articles. If you have evidence that appears to contradict what the article states, then it would be fair to change it; and if someone else disputes your evidence, the factual basis of the article could be said to be disputed.

I'll leave the tag for now, but I may remove it if you don't respond within a few days. —Simetrical (talk) 20:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Without spending a lot of time on research, I can say nothing at the moment concerning factual accuracy. However, neutrality is by default an difficult thing to "appear" having on this subject. Given, the long, well-documented history of anti-semitism inside the UN (and the partisanry attached to either topic independantly), it is pretty near impossible for anything written about it to be considered neutral. Sweetfreek 20:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV Tag

I agree with Simetrical. These perpetual POV tags in virtually every article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict are unreasonable. If anyone has an issue with neutrality, then do an edit and/or discuss the issue in Talk and allow consensus building to go forward. Simply complaining about neutrality without offering concrete ways to fix it is neither fair nor practical.--A. S. A. 09:41, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Facts and opinions

In italics:

  • "Palestinian Jews constituted a majority in the areas designated to the Jewish state by the partition and desired self-determination." - This is an undisputed fact, not Israeli partisans claim ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The point of contention is that in the partition plan awarded more land to the Jewish state then the Arab one, even though the Arabs had a greater population. This is legitimate and must be included. Also notice you say "Palestinian Jews" when in fact a great many of them we not indigenous Palestinian but European immigrants.--A. S. A. 11:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
First of all, a fact is a fact. Your (or anyone else's) opinion is just that, POV. The Arab leaders refused to even negotiate, so don't blame the Jews. Had they accepted the Peel Commission's plan of 1937, the Palestinian state would be much much bigger and 68 years old today. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wish you could hear yourself speak. This is not the manner in which neutrality is promoted. Blame it on the Jews? This is an encyclopedia, no blame is placed here. Your ideas of imposing what facts are facts is blatantly POV, my idea is to say "Israelis/Jews claim this" and "Palestinians/Arabs claim that," that's BOTH points of view.--A. S. A. 21:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
1) Stop the intimidation. 2) Please learn the difference between facts and opinions. "Jews constituted a majority in the areas designated to the Jewish state by the partition" is a fact not an opinion as you are trying to present it. A majority is a majority, you can not discard math as an opinion. Whoever may claim whatever but a fact is a fact. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Palestinian Arabs dispute this, and claim that heavy immigration in the years immediately preceding the Partition unfairly tipped the scales in many areas, and that the total territory assigned to the Jewish State exceeded proportionally the land alloted to the Arabs. - it was a UN Plan, the Arabs refused to even negotiate. The largest part of Jewish territory was Negev desert. As for immigration, I guess we all should thank Nazi Mufti & Co. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The fact that it was a UN Plan, and the bitter Arab opposition to it, is neither disputed nor relevant to this discussion. I have no idea what your "Nazi Mufti" comment is about, but I suspect it is deliberately incendiary as per your recent edit summaries, so I shall not engage in them.--A. S. A. 11:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Of course the UN plan is relevant to this article. What is irrelevant though, is unsubstantiated POV. See above. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I said not relevant to this discussion, not the article.--A. S. A. 21:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Again, personal attacks won't help, unsubstantiated POV is irrelevant to both this discussion and this article. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It is noteworthy that no Muslim country holds a permanent seat on the powerful Security Council, and the vast majority of Muslim nations are poor third world countries, and this influence is disputed. Nevertheless, in terms of sheer voting strength in the largely symbolic General Assembly, this block represents about 1/4 of the delegates. - Sorry, I'm tired of this silliness. Show me any country that was as many times condemned as Israel. How does their alleged (see oil) poverty relevant to their voting strentgh? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What silliness? Of course Israel is the most often condemned nation in the UN. Conquering and systematically oppressing an entire race of people, and preventing their refugees form returning, along with the other long list of abuses, does rather tend to upset the world, you know. Now, as for the oil, note that in your POV insert you did not say ARABS but MUSLIMS. Even in the Arab world, the vast majority of Arabs live in third world countries. What's more, for neutrality, I specifically made a distinction in my reply to your POV insert between influence and voting strength which I clearly stated was some 25% and substantial. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that voting strength in the GA is all symbolic, and "influence" is relative. Also, please take care not to word subsections here in order to attack me personally. The phrasing "facts vs Aladdin's opinions" is unacceptable.--A. S. A. 11:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
You forgot to mention that those outrageous vile Jews also mix Christian (is it Muslim nowadays?) blood into matzos and poison wells. Before choosing such predictable and convenient target as Jews, please show similar outrage with Darfur conflict, Syria's and Saudi Arabia's human rights violations, Pakistan's slavery, etc. Where are the UN or the Arab League? Where were they during the Rwandan genocide? It is too easy to blame huge and powerful Israel that encircled Arab/Muslim world. Or is it the entire world? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would again strongly urge you to step back an examine your bitterness here and your choice of words. Anyone reading these responses can have little doubt of your POV biases and predisposition to impute charges of anti-semitism to anyone who disputed your version of the truth. Please refrain from incendiary words and comments [i.e. "outrageous vile Jews"]. As for your comment about mixing Christian and Muslim blood and whatnot, I have no idea what you are talking about but I suspect it is more of the same... deliberately provocative and highly irrelevant to our discussion here. Tragedies around the world are no excuse for the continued tragedy in any one place. Your blind reverts to the legitimate NPOVing of the UN voting strength edits is not acceptable and will not stand.--A. S. A. 21:44, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
The Arab League and Muslim block were allowed to hijack the UN in their quest to delegitimize and destroy the State of Israel. They can hide their attacks under the "poverty" figleaf, or being the "third world countries", or the lack of "a permanent seat on the powerful Security Council" (where Israel is not allowed to hold even a temporary seat!!) but the evidence is clear: the number of Arab/Muslim block-sponsored anti-Israel resolutions is disproportional, especially taking into account real genocides and human rights violations, such as Darfur. "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." (Thomas Friedman) As for the "continued tragedy" of the Palestinian refugees, I and many Jews and non-Jews feel sorry for them and would love to help. Their tragedy cannot be a reason to destroy Israel, however. Perhaps it is time to analyze the reasons behind it?

("deliberately provocative and highly irrelevant" paragraph follows) In 1948, 6 Arab armies chose (as Israel didn't threaten them) to invade - admittedly to wage genocidal war against the Jews. If they would have chosen peaceful coexistence, this year we could celebrate the 58th anniversary of the Palestinian state. Irresponsible leaders, such as Nazi mufti Amin al-Husayni and those who attacked the Jewish state with genocidal goals, and those who kept and still keeps Palestinians in misery and indoctrinates them with hatred (remember Arafat's "millions of shahids?"), should be held responsible. I invite you to work together towards tolerance, peace, prosperity and responsibility. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your partisan rant only proves your deep-seeded bias. You refuse any NPOV balance, and offer as discussion this bitter laundry list of complaints that has little or nothing to do with the disputed edits. Nothing is being hidden under any figleaf. The Israeli viewpoint is made, and the Arab one along with it. You have blindly reverted despite my clear attempts to reach consensus and neutrality. You cannot just exclude points of view that are not sympathetic to Israel. The article will show some balance.--A. S. A. 06:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Again, I invite you to discuss the issues, not personalities. "Balancing" documented facts with opinions perhaps is OK for a blog, but does not work for an encyclopedia. Viewpoints are covered in Arab-Israeli conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Doublecheck the title of this article. Relevant historical facts only. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your invitation is paradoxical considering your previous Talk. What you fail to comprehend is that you are branding your POVs as facts. For example, to say that "during the course of the Cold War it unequivocally supported Arabs against Israel" is a fact. However, to preface it with "By 1948, the Soviet leadership realized that Israel had chosen the Western option" is a POV implying the Soviets supported the Arabs for purely Cold War reasons, as if the Arab cause was without merit. For Neutrality, I added, at the beginning of the sentence, "Many Israelis and their supporters claim" which you have reverted several times. This is clear POV pushing. Likewise, to present only the Israeli view of the UN and the associated perceptions of influence, etc, is POV. For neutrality, I mentioned important facts about the relative powers of the GA and SC, and how most Arab and Muslim nations are third world countries. This is a vital distinction, but you want no mention of this at all. With the Partition Plan and the opposing views, I have compromised and included your mention of the Negev desert, but no, you want only the Israeli view without mentioning palestinian reservations. My edits present both, side by side. You would have only one side, claiming it is undisputed fact. That's not going to happen. I've gone into these issues of POV and balance, specifically relating to the disputed edits, many times. You have replied with rants about other tragedies around the word and charges of vicious anti-semitism and in short anything and everything to avoid accepting the inclusion of both points of view.--A. S. A. 09:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

It seems you don't even read my responses. Your points, 1 by 1:
  • "during the course of the Cold War it unequivocally supported Arabs against Israel" - this is not simply what "Many Israelis and their supporters claim", it's a fact. I happen to know a lot about this. By the end of 1948, Stalin switched Czechoslovakia's sale of WW2 arms from Israel to its Arab adversaries - both in violation to the arms embargo - but the Cold War was already raging and the world split into 2 camps. (Check out for example Benny Morris' Righteous Victims or Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews or any serious source on the subject. Perhaps this can help: [1])

At the same time, he turned against Soviet Jews and destroyed Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and launched campaign against "rootless cosmopolitans". (If you think this is unrelated, remember what happened after the collapse of the USSR: a million of Soviet Jews emigrated to Israel.) The USSR support to various Arab regimes was both political & military, and many Arabs were educated in the SU, BTW Abu Mazen is one of them. Arafat (known in Soviet circles as Uncle Yasha) was a dear guest. Of course the best proof is, Israeli military museums are full with Arab Soviet-made weaponry.

  • "relative powers of the GA and SC", or "most Arab and Muslim nations are third world " - explain why does it matter here? Are you trying to say they are weak? As if they were unable to push (or to attempt) enough resolution against Israel.
  • the Partition plan: the "reservations" started appearing when Jews prevailed in the war waged against them. Before that, there was only "yitbah al-yahud" with no reservations. BTW, where was the UN and all the "reservations" when Jordan illegally occupied and annexed WB and EJ, and Egypt took Gaza? We need to cover that.

And again, your ad hom attacks are duly noted. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is becoming most tiresome and repetitive. You are the one not reading my responses.
  • I specifically said, above, that the statement "during the course of the Cold War it [USSR] unequivocally supported Arabs against Israel" is a fact. It is the preface to that statement, that this was purely a reaction to "Israel chose the western option" that is a POV. Extensive Soviet support to Arab countries is not at all in dispute. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.
  • I have repeatedly explained the importance of the relative strength of the Muslim countries in the UN. Voting strength (more than 50 nations) is important, but not the only measure of influence, moreover this voting strength is in the GA which is much less powerful than the SC. Also, other measures of influence must take into consideration that these Muslim countries in the UN are overwhelmingly poor and third world, another "check" on influence. If you cannot understand this, I am not the one to explain it to you.
  • I have noted and preserved the complete Arab opposition to, and refusal to negotiate, the UN partition plan. Nevertheless, it is vital to include Palestinian viewpoints of what they perceive as injustices in the Plan. The reservations did not appear only after the Jews defeated Arab armies, they were there since the Balfour Declaration and before. You keep referring to "the Jews won this" and "the Jews defeated so and so" as if because they won militarily, might makes right. As for Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Palestinian territories, you can certainly "cover that" if you wish, without prejudice to Palestinian objections to Israeli occupation. You must also remember that the UN is not as likely to take such strong issue with Egyptian and Jordanian occupation, since Palestinian opposition to the military presence of other Arabs which got there as a result of a war with Israel, is not nearly as strong or violent to Palestinian opposition to the hated Israeli occupation.
  • Your weak references to ad homenen arguments are frivolous, baseless, and not worth a reply. --A. S. A. 11:34, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your compromise and in return have removed the piece about the Western option. Regarding "partisan rant" and "deep-seeded bias" on one side vs. "viewpoint... vital to include" on another: I hope our future collaboration will be more productive and less inflammatory. Let's make WP better. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The main divisiveness has been overcome, I think. A lot can be accomplished when one compartmentalizes the editing process on an issue to issue basis. You are obviously very passionate about Israel, and in my opinion that has caused you to interject generalized ideals that are irrelevant to specific editorial disputes. Nevertheless, I also appreciate the compromises reached here, and as for curtailing inflammatory comments, I have repeatedly extolled this, and I will let the above record speak for itself. I did have one or two small edits which I wanted to add, but user Mustafaa has preempted me and done a better job then I had been contemplating. A well referenced job, I might add.--AladdinSE 02:03, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

References

The best way to settle disputes like this is to provide reputable references for any points not agreed upon; and if the references don't agree, then say: Prof A says this, but Prof B says that — so long as the references are scholarly, that will make for better reading anyway.

A few points that jump out as needing references: (1) "Some have argued" that the UN did not take sufficient account of the interests of the Palestinian population. Who has argued this? Others would argue that it was the Arab leadership that failed to take account of Arab interests by refusing to negotiate. (2) "Israeli supporters claim Palestinian Jews constituted a majority." It would be better to name a historian or other credible source rather than "Israeli supporters" because academics other than Israeli supporters have said this. (3) In the section "Palestinian Arabs dispute this and claim that heavy immigration ..." It's not clear what's meant by "unfairly" tipped the scales and that sounds like POV and original research. In fact, Jewish immigration had been restricted in the years immediately preceding partition. (4) Arab leaders refused to negotiate "this principle": which principle? (5) "Many Israelis and their supporters claim" that by the end of 1948, the Soviet leadership realized ..." It would be better to have a source for this (and to the best of my knowledge, it is an undisputed fact). (6) Finally, the part about the vast majority of Muslim nations being poor and therefore uninfluential is POV and original research, because in the context of the General Assembly, which is what the paragraph is about, they exercise influence through their votes. If the poverty point is to stay, it needs a reference.

Hope this helps a little. SlimVirgin 15:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

In addition to your points, which I agree with, the poverty point appears to be entirely an attempt to build a case, rather than an issue on topic, regardless of whether or not it can be referenced. Moreover, it is tendentious; should the article then also note that the Arab countries have great oil wealth, and use this to influence other countries? Where is the end of the off-topic argumentation? Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And that's the problem with introducing original research i.e. introducing points to build a case: there's potentially no end to it. When I said it would need a reference, I meant that a specific, reputable reference would have to be found to make the precise point that Muslim voting power in the General Assembly is not influential because of poverty concerns, and I don't see how such a reference could be found, because it's an odd argument and takes no account of the oil power of some Muslim countries. SlimVirgin 18:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Before I am blown over by my utter surprise [insert wry grin of sarcasm here] at yet another instance of the similarity of Jayjg and Slimvirgin's opinions, let me manage a quick sentence: This highly selective craze of referencing you have championed recently is very curious considering the countless unreferenced opinions contained in this article and many others related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which you follow closely and yet have not seen fit to edit along the same lines.--AladdinSE 02:03, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
You shouldn't be surprised at the similarity of our opinions, since we both understand policy well, particularly Wikipedia:No original research, a policy whose meaning appears to elude the majority of Wikipedians. Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "insert wry grin of sarcasm." As for the references, it's usually the only way to settle a dispute. It's also not a recent craze: it's policy and has been for some time. See Wikipedia:No original research. SlimVirgin 02:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is policy. It is also one which you may want look into applying much, much more uniformly in order to avoid the taint of selective application for the purpose of POV advocacy. I mean seriously, have you seen the sheer number of unreferenced opinions in articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? They are practically beyond count. At any rate, as regards this particular edit which we were discussing, it seems to have evolved into a decent consensus.--AladdinSE 08:15, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
The way to solve what you perceive as too much original research isn't to insert more original research. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd still appreciate an explanation for "insert wry grin of sarcasm." I agree with you about the number of unreferenced articles generally. My contributions show, I believe, that I'm pretty consistent in asking for references, regardless of the subject matter or POV. SlimVirgin 02:19, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Gracious, was it really so obscure? It was inserted to ensure the sarcastic meaning of the previous sentence, in case anyone failed to note it as such (i.e. I was not at all surprised by the similarity, it was expected). As regards your consistency, I'm not sure I entirely agree. You were so adamant about policy but you chose to selectively apply it in the case of the editorial disputes listed above, which just happened to support Israeli advocacy by requiring Palestinian claims and opinions to be given scholarly sources while ignoring the vast multitude of other unreferenced opinions. It is of no pressing significance now, as consensus has been reached, thankfully. --AladdinSE 02:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, for future reference, if you are concerned that a claim isn't properly sourced, the way to fix the problem isn't to "NPOV" it by putting "Israelis claim" in front of it. This, in fact, just compounds the problem; adding a second unsourced claim on top of a first. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you'll notice, it was Slim who was concerned that claims weren't properly sourced (Palestinian claims, as it turned out). What certainly compounds the problem is to selectively apply standards. --AladdinSE 09:06, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Come now, Aladdin, are you trying to put this all on Slim? You're the one who inserts the unsourced "Israelis claim" statements whenever you feel something needs to be "NPOVd"; that has nothing to do with Slim. Jayjg (talk) 09:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By no means. Nothing is being put all on Slim, or anyone. I was responding to your statement that I was concerned about unsourced claims, when it was Slim who raised the issue, in order to justify, I might add, the removal of a Palestinian unsourced claim without any concern for the uncounted unsourced claims that litter this article and many others in the Arab-Israeli sphere.--AladdinSE 10:39, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I focused on the sections that were being disputed, that's all. SlimVirgin 07:22, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Anne_Bayefsky

Read her Biography - she has in fact been awarded a Fellowship at the Hebrew Uni of Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Bayefsky

That was last in 2004; she's not a fellow there any more. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See the article - "In her June 21, 2004 speech" - so exactly when she prepared that report and gave that speech then. It's a piece about Israel for heavens sake - if it's not relevant that she was an employee of an Israeli Uni at the time then what is? Do you want to change it to "at the time of the preparation of her report ....."?
Overall though there is a LOT of coverage of "anti Israeli" bias on this page. There is a whole bunch of opinion here in the UK that the UK has a _pro_ Israeli bias. Why is that not covered in the article?
She is all sorts of things; please review poisoning the well. And if you revert again you may well be blocked for violating the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's pretty much an abuse of your power as an admin in projecting YOUR POV. I'm going to call "Disputed NPOV" on this article then.
The three revert rule is not POV. As well, you have no idea what the Fellowship means, and when it ended, and when she wrote that report in relationship to it. Furthermore, you left out all sorts of relevant information about her expertise in international law and the U.N. You're very choosy about exactly how you want to poison the well. I've included all the relevant information now. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So - approximately as selective as you then. She looks like a serious scolar - for anyone who's motivated to read the whole lot then they can make their own mind up.

Do you really not think her being an employee of the Israeli Govt when she wrote her report is relevant? I have to say I find that surprising.

So - what about the line of thought that the UN has a Pro Israeli bais? Separate section?

What on earth makes you believe that being a Fellow at Hebrew University makes her an "employee of the Israeli Government"? Is that how Fellowships work? Is that how Universities work? Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's how Universities work here in the UK. Is it not the same in Israel? If it isn't then I agree it's of marginal relevance. In the UK "Fellow" of a Uni means you get money from that Uni either as a stipend or research grant.

Is the Hebrew Uni not state funded? My real point here is that it's a bit naughty to cite as an authority on a dispute someone who is getting money from one or other interested parties without explicitly disclosing that. I hope you would agree with this? I dont see that as "poisoning the well" at all - it is making a legitemate disclosure of a potential conflict of interest.

On the topic of full disclosure I note that she is an active member of UN Watch - research on their site reveals that they are the Geneva based lobbying arm of the American Jewish Committee (see http://www.ajc.org/Israel/IsraelAndTheUN.asp) - who have a very definite a priori view on UN treatment of Israel (see link) - does this not also call into question her impartiality?

Far from being a dispassionate accademic she seem to belong to at least one lobby organisation and be funded by a party to the controversity on which she is commenting. While this definitely does not invalidate her opinions (indeed having informed opinion is a positive thing) this really should be made clear in the article if we are going to cite her as an authority. (posted by User:BigYak)

Hi BigYak, university fellows in the UK are not employees of the British government, and it's the same in Israel. Also, it would be helpful if you would sign your posts. If you type four tildes after your posts, like this ~~~~, that will automatically produce your name, time and date. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:50, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
They are not direct employees (indeed no one is - if you are eg a Tax Inspector then you will oficialy be employed by the Inland Revenue not HM Govt) but they are employed by a body that is diectly and proximally funded by the state. What is your opinion on the point on disclosure though? For me that's a close enough relationship that it is material to her credability. BigYak 08:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You'd therefore have to argue that academics in countries where there is state funding of universities are unable to produce independent reports, whereas governments often look to academics precisely to produce such things; in the UK, which you mentioned, I've never heard of the independence of its academics being seriously questioned by the mainstream media, and there's no reason to believe things are any different in Israel. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would make a few points about this. 1. You are so used to seeing (hearing) Professor XXX of the University of YYY as part of the buy line for quotations that one filters it out (have a browse through the BBC website and see how common it is) - this is an unusual case of the person moving between the report having been produced and us citing her now 2. It's very common parlance to hear "Prof XXX of the right (left) wing Think Tank XXX" - so they even editorialise on the persons politics - especially common if the report is critical to one party politcal side or another - since the Hebrew University was set up with a specifically zionist agenda (see the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) this would seem like an entierly fair disclosure 3. During eg (citing this as the most recent example) the lead up to the Iran Iraq war you _always_ saw non UK academics who were commenting on the situation cited as eg. "leading French academic" or "professor of politics and international from the uni of Nebrasca".

I certainly do not say that her work is baised - I am not familiar enough with the entire corpus of it to know - but I definitely think that some disclosure of affiliation is appropriate here. BigYak 09:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's try an analogy that takes us away from the middle east - if this were an article on birth control and one of the people being cited as giving an "independant opinion" was "Former Mother Teresa Fellow of the Pontifical Catholic University of the Vatican" - would you see that as relevant when citing the report? Answer has to be "yes" surely. BigYak 09:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guys, while you thrash this out, please clean up the paragraphs dealing with Bayefsky, it's a grammatical and organizational fallout zone right now. My opinion on her in the context of this article is this: I think her CV is impressive. I believe describing her as preeminent or at least prominent human rights activist or something along those lines would not be out of line. Listing all her accomplishments and affiliations like an honor role is a bit absurd though, and rather digressive. Her wiki linked bio will take care of most of her CV. That she is Israeli should be mentioned, but her one time fellowship to Hebrew university I think we can live without (in this article), because that is not any sort of an indictment against her impartiality, unless the university in question is some kind of private right wing nut house, which I don't think it is? One thing is certain, the report she presented is very relevant to this article. It is not described in any way as the last word on the issue, and there are some rebuttal points. It seems NPOV to me. --AladdinSE 09:53, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
I dont have any objection to the report which seems to present a good overview of the case for anti israeli bias. Is she Israeli? - if so should be mentioned. She is clearly a pro-Israeli lobbyist (look at her list of publications linked to ther bio page) - this doesn't invalidate her work but is relevant to reraders weighting the comments. I could live with a revert to the original article and changing her description to prominent pro-Israeli human rights activist and dropping her other qualifications (which seem selectively quoted to me - it doesn't mention that she is a prof at Touro College for example). But will that too be described as poisoning the well? I'm also not so happy that it it entirely unclear which part of this section come from the UN Watch report and which come from her Blog / other sources - some of which are entirely less prestigious. The article makes it look like they are from the one report - you see to have thought this - however they definitely are not.
The Hebrew Uni does very well in international academic rankings and seems to be a good way off being a "nut house".
You dont agree with my analogy about "birth control"? BigYak 10:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, very valid points. I wish I had time to research it myself. As it is this week I have barely enough time to work on Talk sections and minor edits. Yes the analogy is valid also, and like I said in one of my edit summaries and in this Talk, her affiliations as far as possible bias or conflict of interest should be stated briefly. Her CV should not be read out like an honor role. --AladdinSE 11:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

She is not Israeli (I believe she is Canadian), and she is not a "pro-Israeli lobbyist". She is a respected scholar and academic who writes extensively on human rights issues. Fellowships are something Universities provide to allow individuals to do detailed research on a topic; it has nothing to do with governments, and Fellows do not promote government policy. One might as well claim that Harvard Fellows are forced to write papers supporting the policies of George Bush and the Republican party. She held the fellowship while holding several other position; she is currently a fellow at an American institution. Moreover, it is not clear that the she wrote the paper while a Fellow at Hebrew University; her position there may have ended months before she presented this paper. Cherry-picking a resume in order to present items which one believes detract from a person's credibility (and in this case, BigYak's misconceptions clearly indicate this was his purpose), is poisoning the well. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If she's not a lobbyist then why is she a member of a UN focused pressure group affiliated to the American Jewish Council? Frankly I do not believe that she is impartial - and the article, by omitting mention of this and citing that one of her bits of work was sponsored by a wing of the UN, does exactly the kind of cherry picking that you accuse me of. There was a whole lot of background info there which makes her look impartial - she may or may not be - but there is certainly doubt.
I'd like to include the phrase "who has written extensively on UN Israeli bias" to show that she is active in this area and is not just some "good citizen" who happened to notice this whilst working in general on UN issues.
if this were an article on birth control and one of the people being cited as giving an "independant opinion" was "Former Mother Teresa Fellow of the Pontifical Catholic University of the Vatican" - would you see that as relevant when citing the report?
How do you deal with my analogy above? BigYak 07:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A "lobbyist" is someone who is paid to advocate for a specific cause; being a Fellow at a University allows one to conduct independent research, which is almost the diametric opposite of being a lobbyist. Which "UN focused pressure group affiliated to the American Jewish Council" are you referring to? As for your analogy, I think it's extremely weak; univerisities in democracies are not arms of the government, or promoters of government policy, and academic freedom reigns at Hebrew U as much as it does at any major American university. Jayjg (talk) 08:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As I said above:
On the topic of full disclosure I note that she is an active member of UN Watch - research on their site reveals that they are the Geneva based lobbying arm of the American Jewish Committee (see http://www.ajc.org/Israel/IsraelAndTheUN.asp) - who have a very definite a priori view on UN treatment of Israel (see link) - does this not also call into question her impartiality?
AladdinSE seems to think my analogy is relevant. I just dont see her as being a disinterested party. If we're going to cite her this should be made plain.
"lobbyist" - A group of persons engaged in trying to influence legislators or other public officials in favor of a specific cause: the banking lobby; the labor lobby. see: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lobbyist no mention of money there. BigYak 08:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Research indicates that UNWatch is a Geneva based affiliate of the AJC, not a "lobbying arm". UN Watch itself seem to take the UN to task for all sorts of things, has been complimented by Kofi Annan. As for Bayefsky's relationship with it, it's not amazingly clear, but she doesn't appear to be on their board, or a lobbyist for them. Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Read here wikipedia biography and you will find Currently, she is a member [...], on the Governing Board of UN Watch, an ECOSOC NGO based in Geneva, [...].
The AJC have this to say about their affiliate: [...] or agenda item condemning Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, holding Israel to a different standard than all other countries. AJC, and its Geneva-based affiliate UN Watch, will continue to struggle to end this unfair treatment.
So it's a body which struggles aganist unfair treatment of Israel by the UN and she is a board member.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; its a duck. She's a lobbyist. BigYak 17:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, she's apparently on the governing board of a UN Watch group, which comments on many different issues, and which has been lauded by the UN Secretary General. What the AJC claims for UNWatch is not what UNWatch claims for itself, she is clearly not "lobbying" in any normal sense of the word. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well the lesson from this is clearly - choose who you decide to be an affiliate body of then. UN Watch clearly signal that affiliation on their site.
Clearly she is lobbying in the accepted English meaning of the word as quoted above. Just because you are not a single issue group does not prevent you from lobbying. If you want to go for a different definition then good luck with Websters - but here is not the place to do that is it? BigYak 23:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your definition is so broad that it could include anything; if I call my representative on city counsel and complain about garbage pickup, I could be described as a "lobbyist on the garbage pickup issue". In any event, monitor groups are not "lobbbyists" under any accepted usage of the word. They monitor, and issue reports. They don't "lobby" the U.N. to do anything. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They don't "lobby" the U.N. to do anything Gosh - I thought they gave speeches at UN conferences urging change and reform. Exactly like the ones quoted in the article.
And yes if you had the same record of publication and high profile article writing over a number of years (look at her online Blog - she has very many articles about this issue), gave speeches at the council offices on the subject, were a member of "Council Watch" an affiliate of "Clean Dumpsters USA" then YES you would be a lobbyist. QED - thanks for a wonderfull analogy. BigYak 06:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Again, someone who makes public speeches on a topic of concern to them is not a "lobbyist"; by that measure every single politician, business leader, and leader of a major organization is also a "lobbyist". Are all board members of NGOs typically referred to as "lobbyists"? The answer, of course, is no. Your attempts to artificially widen the definition of "lobbyist" to include Bayefsky lets in millions of other people who no-one would consider to be lobbyists. Jayjg (talk) 14:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No - despite your accusation I stand by the dictionary definition: "lobbyist" - A group of persons engaged in trying to influence legislators or other public officials in favor of a specific cause: the banking lobby; the labor lobby.
She clearly is doing this. In your example the people either are public officials or performing a one off activity. One speach does not make you a lobbyist. Membership of a "watch group" (whose affiliates say "continue[s] to struggle" for a cause), being a member of a neocon think tank dedicated to "shaping the future of the middle east" (Hudson Institute), writing multiple polemic articles on the same subject for publication and speaking at conferences held by a legislative body to present a specific point does.
I'm starting to wonder, short of having a tattoo on your face saying "I am a lobbyist", what would make you say someone qualifies for that description? 62.255.32.13 18:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) forgot to login earlier - this was me BigYak 19:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Think-tanks are not lobby groups, nor are NGOs. You could equally claim that Noam Chomsky is a "lobbyist", but you'd never manage to get that desription into any Wikipedia article. Lobbyist has a specific meaning and usage, and Bayefsky simply doesn't meet it. In any event, if you can find a reputable source that refers to her as a lobbyist, then we can continue this dicussion. If not, it's just your own opinion, and not citable. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course Chomsky is a lobbist! He fits the description perfectly. So you're basically sayting that unless one can find a "reputable" (who defines reputable btw?) source using a description then it is invalid to apply the ordinary dictionary definition? How very strange. You have just invalidated any sort of deduction from observable facts.
NGO's are very clearly some of the most powerful lobby groups out ther. Oxfam, Cafod, Amnesty International - all huge NGO's - all huge lobby groups. BigYak 19:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see. Your definition of "lobbyist" is idiosyncratic; you will not find these people or groups described this way in the press or on Wikipedia. As for my having "invalidated any sort of deduction from observable facts", it's not me, it's policy; please read Wikipedia:No original research. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No - my definition of "lobbyist" is that found in the dictionary - the one I have now quoted to you twice. You seem to mistunbderstand the term - hence your incorrect statement about NGO's and lobbying.
There are not two forms of english "Dictionary English" and "Wikipedia English". I use the dictionary definition - pure and simple.
You often see this definition used by the press - and very often by people wishing to describe the actions of those wtih whom they disagree (I suspect this is the heart of your dislike of its use here).
Applying a definition is not "research" I look at the sky - I see it is "blue" - I dont have to look it up somewhere to confirm that before I use that description. I see a lobbyist - I call it a lobbyist - no "research" - so please do not refer me to irrelevant "policy". BigYak 19:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have misunderstood and misapplied the definition. As for Bayefsky, she does not refer to herself as a "lobbyist". Her various titles are not "lobbyist", and no-one else (besides you) refers to her as a "lobbyist". You are proposing a novel argument, that Bayefsky is biased in her claims because she is a "lobbyist", even though no-one refers to her that way, but instead use many other more appropriate descriptors. Wikipedia:No original research notes that something is original research if "it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article"; your argument that she is a "lobbyist" and therefore "biased" is entirely novel. If it's not novel, then you should have no trouble finding a reputable source that also makes that claim. Please let me know when you do; until then, I think this discussion has run its course. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No - I think you're making a specious arguement here. Would you object to me describing her as "female"? Yet neither of us could find a reputable source which says "Anne Bayefsky is female" - it is however obvious from mere observation.
For the record I dont think I ever advocated using the word "lobbyist" in the actual article. I proposed describing her as a "pro-israeli activist" - a phrase I would still like to insert - but my main contention was that we should use the entirely provable description "Fellow of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem" which you seemed to object to - prefering to selectively describe her as a "human rights activist", omitting details of her other political actiuvity and affiliations which are entirely relevant to evaluating her comments on this topic.
If after our discussion you seriously still contend that she can possibly be described as impartial then you are right the discussion is over. And the neutral status of the section remains, and shall remain, challenged.
It is as shame you have jumped through linguistic hoops here to avoid a compromise. BigYak 21:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ignoring the specious "lobbyist is as obvious as female" argument, the article never claimed she was "impartial"; rather, it cited her views, and gave you the link to her so you could find out more. The various descriptions of her were (unlike "lobbyist") ones that others have used of her, and could thus be cited. And it astonishes me that you imagine that anyone is truly "impartial" on this subject. Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My description of her "Fellow of the Hebrew University of Jersualem" has been used of her elsewhere. And was no more nor less selective than the one given.
Please dont pretend that every description on wikipedia is a verbatim quote of one used elsewhere - it's an obviously false arguement.
I agree with you that no one is really neutral - except the young. This is why I like to see suspicion of bais solidly telegraphed.
I am happier with no description than a selective one (which we will never agree on I suspect) - are you happy with this?
I do feel the text needs sorting out to separate which parts are from her speech and which from her Blog / other writing. I propose to do this next week when we have both slept on this issue - would you help me by critiqueing this?
In the UK at least there is some pretty robust condemntaion of the UN (and in particular the military action it sanctions) as being pro-Israeli and exhibiting a double standard. I would like to put a balancing paragraph in here on that also - we should discuss first I think.
As an aside our discussion on "lobbyist" started reminding me of "Yes Minister's" irregular verbs: http://www.jonathanlynn.com/tv/yes_minister_series/yes_minister_episode_quotes.htm
"Irregular verbs:
I have an independent mind
You are an eccentric
He is round the twist"

maps nicely onto:

"I have a point of view
You are an activist
He is a lobbyist"
So much of how we use words depends on our viewpoint. Thank you for an interesting arguement.

BigYak 21:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

npov tag

i'm sick of seeing random npov tags everywhere just because someone doesn't like what something says. to me the "current situation" section looks reasonably neutral given the obvious controversy of the topic. furthermore, NPOV tags need *specific* complaints associated with them, and i don't see any such here; in addition, there is no discussion for over 3 months about this. so i deleted it; before adding it again, *give reasons why*.

Benwing 8 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)