Talk:Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Verify tag

User:Enochlau added a verify tag to this article. Could you please explain which statements in the article you refer to? — Sebastian 05:23, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

I cleaned it up some and removed the verify tag. I took out the motto. Although a google search reveals the quote in connection with ICAHD in several places, I couldn't find where it was stated that this is actually their motto, and I didn't find it on their web site. --MattWright (talk) 07:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I was asked why I tagged it POV. Our article has no info that ICAHD is a controversial org. and no criticism. It reads as a promotional leaflet. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is controversy or criticism, can you cite and add it instead of POV tag? If you were going to get to that and I didn't give you enough time, I apologize. At least provide a cite for the controversy if you haven't had time to work it into the article. Otherwise, we don't know if there are other significant viewpoints on this organization. --MattWright (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian piece

Seth Freidman is a freelance journalist. [1] His op-ed piece appears in the Gaurdian, a WP:RS. Please stop censoring criticism of your pet organizations. Isarig 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The column referenced is entitled "Comment is free". Making it clear there is no fact-checking. Disappointing to see an experienced editor not understand RS. Nor do we have evidence that he is a "journalist" in the accepted sense, your "Common-sense" article is interesting, but that's an op-ed too "We Jews Must Admit It: Today’s Human Rights Abuses Are Just as Bad as What Happened in The Holocaust.".
Furthermore, Halper is alive - we don't smear such people by quoting others calling them sinister. Again, this is something I'd expect you to know and understand. PalestineRemembered 06:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment is free is, as the WP article will tell you, the comment and political opinion site from Guardian Unlimited. It contains the comment and opinion pieces from The Guardian and The Observer newspapers, plus contributions from more than 600 other writers.Material from it is used in hundreds of WP articles, and it is a reliable source. The CommonDreams article was used just to show you that Sf is a journalist, something you were unaware of. Isarig 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It's quite disturbing to hear this from an experienced editor we'd expect to be familiar with policy, and regularily lectures others on policy. The page in question is "comment and opinions" (as you blithely admit). Nothing to suggest any form of fact-checking. Seth may be a journalist, but your "proof" is nothing of the kind. Nor have you commented on the fact that we don't smear living people with words such as "sinister", that is a piece of policy that over-rides BLP - check it with Jimbo. PalestineRemembered 13:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted you and then self-reverted. Sorry. I should have checked up more carefully; I knew from prior sourcing that respected on-staff journalists post at "Comment is Free" but I didn't realize that pretty much random people could, as well. This guy appears to be a "concern troll" who pretends to support a cause in order to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the people involved. In any case, there's no evidence that he has any standing as a notable viewpoint. Eleland 21:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Isarig habitually acts like a very experienced editor only enforcing policy. It takes a while to realise that his edits are exclusively devoted to POV, no consistency whatsoever. Please go to this Community Sanction noticeboard and appreciate he's in deep trouble. Do not put the boot in, unless you're satisfied that he really is obstructing the writing of a good encyclopedia. PalestineRemembered 22:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was the one who suggested taking that issue to CSN. I'm well aware of the history mentioned. Eleland 22:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAMERA is a hate-source

This article is quoting CAMERA, a hate source. We quote from sources that publish "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference" the same day we quote from sources on "Jewish Duplicity". 07:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think calling CAMERA a 'hate source' is a tad over dramatic. It is pushing an agenda but is however reliable enough to be sourced on occasion by groups such as the BBC on the matters to which is pertains. Providing we take it with a grain of salt, it is fine to use. Narson 08:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly serious - we don't use David Irving (despite the fact that he did a lot of good work finding documents etc that would almost certainly have been lost otherwise). And we don't use him because he was caught cheating (though he was), but because he's firmly linked to hate-sources, Holocaust Deniers.
Examine the article above and the first paragraph "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious “massacre”" and it's hate-speech. It's also not true - Israeli Peres first told us there'd been a massacre, and Israeli sources repeatedly told us 100s were dead. Palestinian spokesmen were barely listened to, check the CNN transcripts, Saeb Erekat only gets seconds of air time. Like I say, we use CAMERA when we use sources that speak of "Jewish Duplicity". PRtalk 06:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
And that is why I would say its relevent here. This is a group of Israelis who use the media to push an agenda, obviously a group like CAMERA are relevent to it as its very much 'what they do'. Obviously we need to take it with a grain of salt and represent their views as just that, views, but I do think the article is enhanced rather than harmed by it. Personally I would be suprised if David Irving isn't used as a source /somewhere/ on wikipedia, though his widespread denouncement might affect him somewhat. Narson 08:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm apparently to be dragged through another ArbCom (or a re-opening of my May 2007 "hate-source" case, the one I pleaded should go through to completion). If the old one is to be re-opened, then I want CAMERA included for a definitive ruling. If we reference CAMERA, then we hold our noses and make very sure everyone knows we're doing so. I'd be astonished if David Irving is quoted anywhere in the project, I was faced with a perma-block for supposedly quoting someone called Garauday (I think he's been fined by the French for denial). Wikipedians take this very seriously, as they should. PRtalk 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that CAMERA meets WP's definition of hate sources or extremist sources. What they are is a highly one-sided "flak battery" type advocacy group which exists simply to throw accusations at anyone they find insufficiently "pro-Israel". As Charles Sennott of the Boston Globe puts it, "CAMERA has made itself irrelevant by being hypercritical and shrill ... If CAMERA isn't criticizing your work, you're probably not doing your job." I do not believe we should "pick up" on CAMERA accusations absent some indication that the specific accusation is taken seriously by genuinely reliable sources. We're already including a dubious attack from NGO Monitor, a similar front group - isn't one enough? <eleland/talkedits> 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a similar front group"? How does Wikipedia decide which groups are "serious" and which are not? Does anyone really think CAMERA is a "hate group"? David Sher 20:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely - we should use sources that speak of "Palestinian duplicity" on the same day we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity". I've just contributed to a discussion about another site people seem to think is a "hate-site", but it's far less unpleasant, to individuals and ethnicities, than CAMERA. PRtalk 21:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are saying. Who says they are a "hate-site"? David Sher 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My reasons above still stand, we are talking about a group (ICAHD) that uses the media to achieve its political aims and CAMERA is a pro-israeli group that monitors media groups. It is relevent to the subject and is certainly a source that can be used. Certainly, reversion of cited material, that has attracted reversion clashes previously, without discussion after a month of stability is at the very least unhelpful. Narson 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the point - CAMERA is a hate-source. Most (each of them, individually) of its articles are sufficiently nasty to stop us ever using any of its material, ever. The one I looked at just now is virtually denying the Deir Yassin massacre while it spits its unpleasant hatred at an individual. See what you think and then tell me we should quote it accusing an Israeli professor of supporting terrorism. Of course we shouldn't. PRtalk
Who says they are a "hate-source"? Is there a Wikipedia page on this? David Sher 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think they're a hateful organization, I just don't think they meet the WP guideline for what's a "hate source". Anyway, we judge the notability of viewpoints by their prominence in reliable sources like mainstream newspapers. CAMERA shows up occasionally there, but I'm not aware of their critcisms of ICAHD being repeated by any credible news orgs. More to the point, media discussions of CAMERA, like the Jerusalem Post profile, tend to draw attention to their extreme partisan one-sidedness and their shrill, repetitive accusations, which is a strike against them per WP:UNDUE. <eleland/talkedits> 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you answer my question above? What do you mean when you call them "a similar front group"? Also, what are the rules about what sources can or cannot be used in an article? David Sher 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop playing the same broken record PR. They are not a hate source. They are unpleasant and incredibly biased.
You may have a point on that one Eleland, I am going to do a quick look on the net, see if I can find whether it is duplicated on anything but mirror sites. I still believe in this case that CAMERA is relevent however I shall do some digging with your comments in mind and see if my opinion alters. Narson 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I have looked it over and at the very least I agree that having it as seperate paragraphs is somewhat misleading (As CAMERA and NGO Monitor themselves seem to self-identify with one annother, at least on this issue). I would propose the following, in place of the current two paragraphs:
ICAHD has attracted criticism from pro-Israeli media monitoring groups NGO Monitor and CAMERA for "consistently ignores the context of ongoing Palestinian terror attacks", for Jeff Halper's "baseless anti-Israel charges" and "fringe political views". CAMERA also believe that Halper has made misstatements about Palestinian economic and agricultural growth, as well as citing quotes from Halper that suggest Israel is "politically, and in the end, morally untenable". NGO Monitor puts forward the view that ICAHD is in support of the Durban Strategy.
Does that tickle any fancies? Narson 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I would accept that as a compromise. However, the hate-source business is important and valid, I fail to understand why people seem to have difficulty with it. PRtalk 11:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll put it in then. I think the issue with hate site is that it is a strong label and implies the purpose of the site is to promote hate. That CAMERA is fairly...unpleasant...makes them distinctly ignorant in some regards...but their goal is not to spread hate but to defend some perceived threat to Israel. Narson 11:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
(I have slightly re-formatted this latter part of the discussion - but in a fashion I'm confident you'd wish). I don't wish to bludgeon people, but if use of "Palestine duplicity" is not hatred, then use of "Jewish duplicity" is not anti-semitic. I really shouldn't be having to bang my head against a brick wall in this fashion! PRtalk 12:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Acctually my indentation was correct due to who I was responding to with my post, but anyway ;). Well, context is key in any of that, PR. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in quoting from a site that claims jews are duplicitous, though I would think twice about quoting from the offensive sections purely for the purposes of causing offense. I am sure many other editors would disagree with me on that one, but, I think it is a tad naive to pretend these views don't exist out there among some groups. There is also a difference in being anti-palestinian in support of a goal and just being anti-palestinian just to be anti-palestinian. Narson 12:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're utterly and completely wrong. A claim that there was such a thing as "Jewish duplicity" by an editor in this encyclopedia would almost certainly lead to a perma-block, and quite rightly so. Ditto for web-sites which use (or have ever used) such language, they're hate-sites and will be permanently excluded. Far less serious offenses lead to sources being excluded. Other sources are excluded as being "an extreme minority", eg Jews Against Zionism even though it contains no such language. PRtalk 13:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it would, on its own. A claim that all jews are duplicitous would be. Or Jewish Duplicity in a more hate filled context. As I said PR, context is key, as it is in all things. Narson 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can anyone see what I'm typing?

Can anyone see what I am typing? I'm not seeing any responses to my questions. I don't understand what Eleland means when he says CAMERA is "a similar front group". Also, PR are you serious when you say they are a "hate group" or "hate-site"? Are you comparing them to the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazis? To me that seems not only absurd, but probably libelous. Does anyone besides PR say it is a "hate site"? Is there a webpage I can read about this, or is there a Wikipedia policy that backs this up? David Sher 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • When you're more familiar with Wikipedia you'll understand. There is currently no written policy on "hate-sites" or "hate-sources". I want to see such a policy. When we have one, I'm convinced the encyclopedia will be much improved. ElectronicIntifada, PalestineRemembered.com and JewsAgainstZionism will (perhaps?) be deemed "acceptable" (or at least, not stigmatised as equivalent to Kahane, as they are currently), whereas many other sources currently used will be excluded.
  • Note - by my understanding hate-sites would still be acceptable as evidence of their own beliefs, and might be acceptable for "factual evidence", photographs etc. Second-level, campaigning-type sources would not be acceptable for "surprising results", but their factual reports might be acceptable to flesh out the information apparently accepted by reliable sources. In all cases, the language must be temperate - but that's a qualification anyway - and an obvious reason to exclude CAMERA.
  • The current state of affairs is that David Irving is accepted as beyond the pale by everyone. He's excluded on two grounds - guilty of "gross historical fabrication" and of writing/speaking and inciting ethno-specific hatred. (An alternative sought by a few recently is that he should be excluded on the grounds that he's been convicted and jailed for Holocaust Denial in Austria. But since the English-speaking world doesn't have such laws, and he was excluded from consideration long before 2006, I don't think this argument carries much weight).
  • Over and above David Irving, all Palestinian sources are currently excluded - I've never seen the grounds for doing this explored, which is why I want this discussion (and a policy). I've never noticed hatred from the English-language versions of these sources but then I barely bother looking at them. Parts of PalestineRemembered.com are written to be propagandistic and likely unacceptable to Western eyes (but then many Israeli sources are no better, and articles use them freely). Please note, I have no connection with PalestineRemembered.com, and had a poorly formed opinion of them when I joined WP. My name has caused a considerable amount of controversy, but it's now generally accepted as perfectly proper (if not rather good) for a single purpose account like this one, and not offensive to anyone reasonable. It also appears that Aljazeera is near enough excluded from articles - goodness knows why, every time I've looked (which is not often) it's as good as the BBC and may in some cases be better. (A confusing factor here is that the web-site of the same name appears to be unconnected to the television channel - don't ask me how, or what effect this might have on our policy).
  • As to CAMERA, there are many reasons to exclude it, not just the patently obvious one I've given you. "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is often guilty of David Irving style "gross historical fabrication". But before we go into that, as with David Irving, one test is easier than all the others - do sources engage in ethno-specific abuse amounting to incitement to hatred? CAMERA most certainly does. PRtalk 12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe the relevant policy is under "extremist sources" in WP:RS; I would consider "hate source" and "extremist source" to be functionally equivalent. PR, I agree with what you're saying, the problem is that middle-of-the-road reliable sources like the New York Times treat David Irving as "beyond the pale", while they do occasionally use CAMERA et al. for a critical pro-Israeli viewpoint. PR and I read CAMERA and detect a thinly veiled racist undertone, and a willingness to exploit every anti-Arab or anti-Muslim trope floating around in the psychological ether. However, our personal interpretations frankly cannot be a guide to the admissibility of CAMERA. Insofar as we live in a society where veiled Arab-bashing and Muslim-baiting is considered legitimate, well, we're obligated to hold our noses and admit it on the Wikipedia. In line with NPOV, we should never be adopting the views of the bashers, but we may be obligated to report them in some circumstances.
As to the question of what makes CAMERA a "front group" similar to MEMRI, JCPA, etc, the similarities strike me as pretty self-evident. There exists what the New York Times calls (in a slightly different context) a "cottage industry" of groups devoted to slanderous mudslinging at anybody who deviates from what they consider a "pro-Israel" line. Invariably, they describe themselves simply as neutral observers rather than political advocates ("Committee for Accuracy" or "Research Institute" or "Center for Public Affairs"), and invariably, their founders and senior directors come from the right wing of Israeli politics, and often are retired IDF, Shabak, Mossad, etc.
All such groups have in common a shrill, nearly hysterical tone; a highly repetitive cut-and-paste political message, and a long track record of dubious, exaggerated, tendentious, our outright false claims. A Palestinian 3rd grade textbook shows a map of the Middle East with no international borders, and the former British Mandate of Palestine highlighted in a different colour; JCPA announces that Palestinian textbooks proclaim intent to drive the Jews into the sea. A Lebanese militia's satellite TV station airs a documentary series with anti-Semitic undertones; MEMRI announces that the entire Arab world (sans a few discredited Quislings they call "Arab moderates") believes the blood libel. While Israeli cabinet ministers muse about a "massacre" in Jenin and Israeli Army Radio announce their plan to ship out the bodies to a secret military cemetery via refrigerator trucks, CNN reports that Palestinians say a Sabra-Shatila style bloodbath has taken place. When this turns out to be false, CAMERA ignores the context and constructs a narrative of a credulous international media blindly echoing Palestinian fabrications.
Anyway, back to the specific context. What troubles me most is that there's a legitimate debate to be had over the underlying ideology of groups like ICAHD. The issue of a principled "one state" solution versus a much more achievable "two state" solution is subject to considerable debate within the peace movement of which ICAHD is a part. There is no shortage of thoughtful critiques of ICAHD from fellow leftists, liberals, centrists and moderates, and mainline conservatives, yet the tendency of Wikipedia is to reach for the Netanyahu wing of Israeli politics, an extreme minority if there ever was one. It impairs our objectivity and calls our credibility into question when mainstream views are downplayed or absent, but groups like CAMERA are prominently featured on virtually every Israel-Palestine article. <eleland/talkedits> 17:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been to the CAMERA website, and I agree that the group has a strong point of view, and is selective in what it chooses to publicize, but that's true of most websites I've seen, and calling the group a "hate source" or "hate site" statements make no sense to me whatsoever. Also, saying it is a "front group" implies that there is some organized and secretive conspiracy behind this group, when the vastly more likely reality is that, as with thousands of other groups, these are simply people with similar viewpoints who have banded together to get their message out. There are more than enough distasteful and baseless conspiracy theories about Jews and Israel as it is, I cannot see the value in creating even more. The language used on this page disturbs me; if we start labeling advocacy groups like this as "hate sites" or "front groups", then what do we have left to describe actual hate sites? Also, I don't know what PR is referring to when he says "all Palestinian sources are currently excluded" - what are the policies about which sources can be used? I would like to read more about this. -- David Sher (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
To whom are you attributing this conspiracy theory? Insofar as members of the Israeli far-right with links to IDF intelligence present themselves as a "Committee for Accuracy" or a "Center for Public Affairs", they are a front group. They don't publicize their ideological or organizational affiliations, but they don't exactly hide them (how could they?). No, we shouldn't indulge in conspiracy theories, nor should we indulge in dismissing valid arguments about source reliaibility as "conspiracy theories", and certainly not with gratuitous references to Jews.
Anyway, I object to the use of CAMERA et al. not on the basis that they are anti-Arab, hate sites, or front groups, but that they have very poor reputations for accuracy and fact-checking and represent the views of a very small minority. <eleland/talkedits> 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly who are these "members of the Israeli far-right"? The website says "The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or CAMERA, was founded in Washington, DC in 1982 by Winifred Meiselman, a teacher and social worker. Mrs. Meiselman formed CAMERA to respond to the Washington Post’s coverage of Israel’s Lebanon incursion, and to the paper’s general anti-Israel bias. Joining CAMERA’s Executive Board in the early days were such prominent Washington-area residents as Saul Stern and Bernard White. Win also recruited an Advisory Board which included Senators Rudy Boschwitz and Charles Grassley, Congressman Tom Lantos, journalist M. Stanton Evans, Ambassador Charles Lichenstein, Pastor Roy Stewart, and Rabbi David Yellin." Which of the people listed there are "members of the Israeli far-right"? They seem to be all sorts of Americans, and none on the "far-right". I'm not seeing any of the connections you claim, so this looks like just another typical conspiracy theory about Jews and Israel to me, but you may have other information I am not aware of. Also, as I asked above, where can I read more about which sources can be used on Wikipedia? Are there rules for these things? -- David Sher (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
In case you missed what I told you, the encyclopedia doesn't currently have a policy on exactly what consitutes a hate-site. I want this fault corrected. I think I can assure everyone that sites carrying articles entitled "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference" will instantly be flagged as unpleasant and undesireable. PRtalk 20:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, then how can you go about claiming they are a "hate site"? It seems defamatory, and obviously untrue. This is not some neo-Nazi website. Does Wikipedia have no policies about what sites can be used in articles? David Sher (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, most CAMERA members wouldn't be precisely members of the Israeli far-right, since it's a US-based organization. I should have said "members of the American wing of the Israeli far-right" - you got me there. Here's what Boston's Jewish Ledger had to say about CAMERA:
A self-described non-partisan group, CAMERA professes no public interest beyond the promotion of accuracy in news reporting on the Middle East. Critics of the group dispute that characterization, saying CAMERA is a right-wing outfit masquerading as an impartial media-monitoring organization.
"I don't at all buy the fact that what they're looking for is balanced coverage," said Samuel Freedman, a professor of journalism at Columbia University and a regular contributor to the New York Times. "What they're looking for is coverage that subscribes to their view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a pro-Israel view."
That the Jewish "defamers" targeted Sunday were virtually all figures of the political left will do little to dispel that notion.
They also quoted Ha'aretz's editor in chief (Haaretz is Israel's leading newspaper of record, with a centrist-to-liberal editorial stance, models itself on the New York Times) saying he refused on principle to even read CAMERA's letters, let alone publish them, since they are a "McCarthyite" group. The Jerusalem Post, by contrast (Israel's most widely circulated newspaper, with a centrist-to-conservative stance), published a profile on CAMERA, quoting Charles Sennott of the Boston Globe saying, "CAMERA has made itself irrelevant by being hypercritical and shrill ... If CAMERA isn't criticizing your work, you're probably not doing your job." "Critics", the Post added, "often charge that organizations like CAMERA and Honest Reporting are not so much an objective monitor of media misinformation, as they are advocacy groups for a right-wing political agenda."
But my favorite is this Boston Globe piece, which after noting that "To many in the media, however, CAMERA is no watchdog but an advocacy group trying to impose its pro-Israeli views on mainstream journalism," quotes of all people Abe Foxman saying that while "there are problems in the media, [CAMERA has] a very broad brush. . . . They are a one-issue organization, which makes it easier for them to focus with intensity on their issues, and they don't have to balance other issues, other concerns, other sensibilities." <eleland/talkedits> 22:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Look, I understand that they are a partisan source, but that is a far cry from claiming they are a "front organization" or on the "Israeli far right". There's no evidence of either being the case. In fact, they appear to be an American group, and I don't see any links to the "far right" or even to Israelis. You are making serious charges - please back them up with evidence or retract them. I think this is a serious issue. David Sher (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You asked me on my talk page for a response. I don't see anything to respond to. Look at the quotes from reliable sources above - they are the evidence. <eleland/talkedits> 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The "quotes from reliable sources above" don't provide any evidence for what you claimed. You claimed they were a "front group", "members of the Israeli far-right with links to IDF intelligence". PR said they were a "hate group". The quotations you provided only say that critics accuse them of being "right-wing" and "pro-Israel". That's very, very different. The Republican party is right-wing, and arguably pro-Israel, but that does not make the Republican party a "hate group", "front group", or "members of the Israeli far-right with links to IDF intelligence." You have made some very serious charges here. If you don't have anything to back them up, that's fine, I will understand that they were just meaningless rhetoric. But if you do have something that actually backs up what you said, then you need to bring it here. Quote what you call "reliable sources" saying that they are a "hate group", "front group", or "members of the Israeli far-right with links to IDF intelligence." David Sher (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I never claimed that, and I'd like you to stop posting on my talk page in service of an irrelevant discussion. CAMERA is a non-reliable source and highly partisan in service of the agenda of a small minority. We should not be cluttering up every page on the Israeli left with the ramblings of Israeli or pro-Israeli far-rightists. There are plenty of discussions and criticisms - including quite stinging ones - of groups like ICAHD without having to reach for the extremists. <eleland/talkedits> 03:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You said "We're already including a dubious attack from NGO Monitor, a similar front group" on 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC). Here is a link to you saying it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsraeli_Committee_Against_House_Demolitions&diff=171512880&oldid=164310217 You said "Insofar as members of the Israeli far-right with links to IDF intelligence present themselves as a "Committee for Accuracy" or a "Center for Public Affairs", they are a front group." on 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC). Here is a link to you saying it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsraeli_Committee_Against_House_Demolitions&diff=171949741&oldid=171946436 Even in your most recent comment, where you seem to back down a little, you call them "Israeli or pro-Israeli far-rightists". In defense of your statement you brought a piece from the Boston Jewish Ledger that says that critics call them right-wing. That's all, and not that its a fact, but that critics call them that. You and PR have said all sorts of things on this page, and when confronted, have not backed them up with any facts, but with quotations from the Jewish Ledger that say different things, along with new accusations and double-talk. This conversation has been eye-opening for me. I no longer trust anything at all that either you or PR say about CAMERA, and will view everything else you see on any topic with an extremely dubious eye. You say they are "a non-reliable source and highly partisan in service of the agenda of a small minority"? I might have believed you before, but I do not believe you now. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this is shocking. David Sher (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I took my eye off the ball and didn't notice the rest of this discussion. However, I'll back up anything I said with facts. CAMERA is clearly nasty, and (pretty clearly) distorts. NGOmonitor appears to do the same, though I've not seen as much from them. Neither of them appear to have any independent view-point, to do any investigations, or to have the usual ebb and flow of members as make observing real pressure-groups such fun. ICAHD may have all sorts of problems, but lying with intent is not one of them. PRtalk 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
CAMERA is a partisan group, with an agenda, but so is ICAHD. To the extent one has an incentive to distort fact to further an agenda, so does the other. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Find me anything from ICAHD which is as personally unpleasant as what spews from CAMERA all the time. It seeks to blame the victims for the Deir Yassin massacre. It makes thoroughly nasty, denialist claims such as "the vast majority of Arabs fled of their own accord". To say of Halper "his support for Palestinian terrorism is undeniable" is an atrocious thing to do. A few of CAMERA's work and publicity could be useful, scotching faked (or at least, inaccurate) quotes from prominent Israelis - but even there it lets itself down badly, attempting to decieve us that Moshe Dayan refered to buying land, not ethnically cleansing it. PRtalk 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)