Talk:Israel lobby in the United States/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

1947

GH Cool has also reverted a good faith edit regarding the contemporary suggestion that the lobby influenced the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. GH Cool's reason is "MP thing is not representative of the Israel lobby, but of the MP's personal attitutde toward American Jews".

GH Cool, you are correct, which is why the sentence was not worded to suggest representation of the lobby. The sentence is an important piece of history insofaras it was thought amongst influential circles at the time that the Israeli lobby was able to influence US foreign policy. That is notable information and should be in the article

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the sentence was worded to suggest representation of the lobby. Here is the sentence: "In 1947, shortly after the publication of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine which formed the precursor for the Israeli Declaration of Independence, British MP Thomas Reid stated in a long speech to parliament his belief that the partion plan was instigated by the United States as a result of the Israel lobby" (emphasis added). The footnote helpfully quotes the MP as saying that "the Jews" (not the Israel lobby) control American politics and puppet mastered the American government into accepting an "evil proposal" goes through. In short, the MP was spouting an early form of the Jewish-controlled US government antisemitic canard. Again, this stuff doesn't belong in this article for two reasons: (1) it has nothing to do with the topic of the article which is the Israel lobby in the United States and (2) it is racist trash. --GHcool (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi GHcool, I take your points, although i'm not sure I fully agree with your conclusions having read the rest of the two-day parliamentary debate. Either way, I continue to think that the success of the zionist lobby (as the precursor to the israeli lobby) in bringing about the creation of the state of Israel is highly notable. I have made a start from a more relevant angle. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The way it is worded now seems fine to me, but who the heck is Lenczowski? --GHcool (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel and US interests

another editor replaced reference to AIPAC in following text with "a small group of visionary Americans committed to advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East"

In 2011, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a think tank founded by AIPAC) confirmed that the U.S.-Israel relationship is "A Strategic Asset for the United States."

I think this is a biased change that should be reverted.Outofthebox (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite a source for the claim and you may have something worth discussing. Without a source, the claim appears to be unfounded. --GHcool (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Item 2 and 5 below directly claim the link to AIPAC, the others simply help refute the edit you made.

1.)Wikipedia itself:

"The group is often described as being pro-Israel.[3][4][5]" (Note that the edit made to this article by GHCool also quotes WINEPs' own claim from this article verbatim): "It was established by "a small group of visionary Americans committed to advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East" in 1985.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WINEP

Surely any lobbying organizations' own claims about their "visionary" status should be taken at a discount...


2.)the Center for Media and Democracy directly associates WINEP with AIPAC founders http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy

3.)Stephen Walt(see News flash: WINEP defends the 'special relationship'):"the report is precisely the sort of analysis that you'd expect a "pro-Israel" think tank like WINEP to promote" http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/category/one_time_tags/obama_and_the_israel_lobby

4.)Tunisian who spoke at WINEP states his words were misused: http://www.tunisia-live.net/2011/12/20/islamist-leader-accuses-washington-institute-of-zionist-bias-in-publication-of-remarks/

5.) cites WINEP as a creation of AIPAC http://wallwritings.me/2011/11/19/dennis-ross-iran-legacy-continues-at-winep/

Investigate the Martin Indyk career path for further insights. Outofthebox (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if you found a WP:Reliable source that said that AIPAC founded WINEP, it would be easier to take the claim seriously. --GHcool (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

John R. MacGatekeeper and "the Saudis are coming, the Saudis are coming"

Is John R. MacArthur rant in the "degree of influence" section really needed? This gives some sort of perception that the king of Saudi Arabia pretty much runs the show in the US. This is of course, completely comedic. Do most neutral sources claim the "Saudi lobby" is somehow more powerful than the Jewish one in the US? How many Saudi Arabian descended people live in the US and where are they in any positions of power? MacArthur is welcome to his wimpy "opinion" of course, but its questionable whether we should put it here. Rí Lughaid (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Bush

GHCool has reverted a good faith improvement in the history section on the basis that "the way it was worded was better before":

  • Version 1: "In 1844, Christian restorationist George Bush, a professor of Hebrew at New York University and ancestor of the Presidents Bush, published a book entitled The Valley of Vision; or, The Dry Bones of Israel Revived. In it he denounced “the thralldom and oppression which has so long ground them (the Jews) to the dust,” and called for “elevating” the Jews “to a rank of honorable repute among the nations of the earth” by restoring the Jews to the land of Israel where the bulk would be converted to Christianity.[2] This, according to Bush, would benefit not only the Jews, but all of mankind, forming a “link of communication” between humanity and God. “It will blaze in notoriety...". “It will flash a splendid demonstration upon all kindreds and tongues of the truth.”[3]"
  • Version 2: "In 1844, George Bush, a professor of Hebrew at New York University and ancestor of the Presidents Bush, published a book entitled The Valley of Vision; or, The Dry Bones of Israel Revived. In it he denounced “the thralldom and oppression which has so long ground them (the Jews) to the dust,” and called for “elevating” the Jews “to a rank of honorable repute among the nations of the earth” by re-creating the Jewish State in the land of Israel, thereby forming a “link of communication” between humanity and God. “It will blaze in notoriety...". “It will flash a splendid demonstration upon all kindreds and tongues of the truth.”[2]

Version 1 above is more accurate in every way. Version 2 uses weasel words like "Jewish State in the land of Israel" (not used anywhere in Bush's book) to suggest that he was a zionist. Christian Restorationism was a very different thing. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You make a fair point. I'll revert this. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph on George Bush looks like original research. Are there any secondary sources? Do these sources connect Bush's early 19th century views with the 20th century Christian support for Zionism? Jason from nyc (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of material on this subject in Michael Oren's book Power Faith and Fantasy. I don't own the book, so I can't give you exact page numbers. I'll putting in a link to this article, which is the next best thing. --GHcool (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
You've added some excellent secondary sources that talk about Bush's early 19th century views. That solves the problem of supporting Bush's views with secondary sources. There is still question concerning the continuity of Bush's views and the 20th century support for a Jewish state. Halkin's review you sourced ends with "It is no doubt only a coincidence, but one is struck by Oren’s mention of the fact that, among 19th-century American Protestants calling for the return of the Jews to Palestine, there was a “distinguished professor of Hebrew at New York University...”" It seems that the return of Jews to Palestine here is merely coincidental to latter pro-Zionist sentiment. Is there a causal connection between Bush's views and 20th century pro-Zionist views? Or is the talk about Bush, like the pro-Jewish attitudes of the Puritans and low-church dissenters merely mentioned to support the notion that philo-Semitic Protestantism has strong roots in American history? Thus, pro-Zionist views that arise from time to time are on a solid foundation. I worry that Bush's "return talk" is merely coincidental or stems from a common cause, i.e. the historic philo-Semitic sentiment and not the start of a push to help the Jews settle in Palestine that continued to become modern pro-Zionist Christian support. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Bush's views aren't necessarily philo-Semitic (the notion that Jews require "elevating" seems somewhat fatuous, but that's beside the point). The point is that Bush's views are part of the larger history of Christian support for Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel. Bush's book outlines a clear argument for this line of thinking that reaches farther back into American history and extends to the present day. The Halkin and Medved sources indicate this, but Oren's book indicates this very clearly. I don't own the book so I can't give an exact reference, but I read the book cover to cover and its pretty clear that Bush's views aren't "coincidental" to the history of American thinking on Jewish settlement of the Land of Israel. The only "coincidence" Halkin refers to is that Bush the writer is related to the Presidents Bush. --GHcool (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that. From the two articles (Halkin and Medved) I believe the point is that the sentiment existed through out American Protestant history. The way the Wikipeadia article reads left me puzzled. It appears that Bush was part of a proto-Zionist lobby while Halkin and Medved are using him as an example of sentiment--and an example where sentiment actually led to a belief in a repopulation of Palestine with Jews. I think the article could be improved if that paragraph was explicitly about sentiment and not implicitly about activism or lobbying. That's my suggestion as a reader who came across the article and was motivated (with your help) to read about historic sentiment. I don't intend to become an editor of this article (too many on my plate) but I'd thought I'd give some feedback. Thanks for adding those two articles. Good work, overall. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Tight Nit relationship

Gchool said mearsheimer doesn't critique the "tight nite" relationship. In the book it spends quite a lot of text dedicated to saying the relationship was a problem because it is so unbalanced and so dangerously preferential. I would not straw man his argument as saying it was "one way in favor of Israel" And why would an expert on that relationship not be an R.S. But you put a direct link to the Israeli ministry, but that is R.S (joke). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inayity (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing needs an overhaul

I know I'm stumbling into a thicket here, but the way every single statement is attributed in the text of the article ("so-and-so says this," "so-and-so says that") makes the whole article sound like one big debate. This article needs to rely more on WP:RS's and less on opinion pieces. Where it relies on fully reliable sources attribution is unnecessary. Believe it or not Wikipedia is allowed to have a voice, even on controversial subjects, as long as that voice is properly sourced!!! --Nstrauss (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about all the sections aside from the "Debates" and "Criticism" section for obvious reasons. I'll try to fix it. --GHcool (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with this. However, many of the edits that GHCool has just made go far beyond just improving the sourcing. In some areas seemingly important colour has been removed, and in other areas the wording has fundamentally altered the implication of the source. GHCool, in this context, please could you fully explain each of the changes you have made, paragraph by paragraph? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Soitenly! I'll start at the beginning:
  1. "In the 1950s ..." - uncontroversial paraphrase of source.
  2. "AZCPA's Executive Committee ..." - removed unnecessary info
  3. "The relationship between ..." - summarized, paraphrased, and cited to a more neutral/reliable source.
  4. "The 'Israeli (or pro-Israel) lobby' is ..." - removed attribution to Bard and paraphrased.
  5. "Informal lobbying also ..." - removed long, possibly unnecessary blockquote attributed to Walt and Mearsheimer. On a second look, I think this edit was inappropriate and deserved to be paraphrased instead of cut. I also appropriately paraphrased a blockquote from Bard.
  6. "The formal component ..." - Removed information redundant with stuff that occurs later in the article.
  7. "The diverse spectrum ..." - paraphrased stuff that was in the previous version of the article mostly attributed to Bard. If people think I did this inappropriately, I'm happy to hear their arguments and work with them since this was probably the most subjective edit I made.
  8. "Christians United for ..." - I removed the left vs. right leaning headings and just put everything under the same "Formal lobby" heading. If people think this was inappropriate, I don't have a problem changing it back.
  9. "'Jews have the ...'" - paraphrased Bard and Helmreich.
  10. "Objective quantification that ..." - paraphrased Bard.
  11. "AIPAC does not ..." - paraphrased Bard and removed "Targeting" and "Financial Figures" headings. If people think this was inappropriate, I don't have a problem changing it back.
  12. "A summary of ..." - paraphrased Washington Post and removed redundant or out of date stuff
  13. "Israel lobbyists also ..." - removed "According to Mitchell ..."
  14. "Pro-Israel organizations spend ..." - paraphrased all sources under the "Media and public discourse" heading and removed redundant information
  15. "In December 2007 ..." - paraphrased New York Sun
  16. "AIPAC has close ..." - paraphrased Bard
  17. "Naturally, pro-Israel organizations ..." - paraphrased all sources under the "Responses to criticism of Israel" heading and removed redundant or argumentative information. --GHcool (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
GHcool, I appreciate your efforts but most of these edits do not comply with WP:SCHOLARSHIP and/or WP:RSOPINION. You can't simply remove attribution for statements sourced to academic and opinion sources that have not been peer-reviewed (e.g. Bard, Mitchell). The proper thing to do is to find more reliable sources such as news reports and peer-reviewed academic papers. I know that's much more painstaking work, sorry. IMO we should revert GHcool's edits because they do more harm than good. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but seeing as I gave a paragraph by paragraph justification for my edits, the proper thing to do would be to respond paragraph by paragraph rather than reverting all my work. Alternatively, rather than reverting my work, the proper thing to do is find the "scholarly" sources and replace the Bard citations. --GHcool (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, my objection applies equally to edits 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17. Also, the main source for #17 (Zunes) is stale. That's 10 out of 17 edits that are in clear violation of policy instead of merely being poorly written. Those 10 at least should be reverted until the hard work of finding more reliable sources is done.--Nstrauss (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
You can take Edit #11, 13, 16, and 17 off the list since I provided peer reviewed sources. --GHcool (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
You can also take Edit #4 off the list since it no longer includes a citation to Bard. I've turned it into an NPOV topic sentence. And take Edit #5 off too as I've reverted the long quote. The only outstanding objections raised by Nstrauss are Edits 7 (as I wrote before "I'm happy to hear their arguments and work with them since this was probably the most subjective edit I made"), 9, 10, and 14. --GHcool (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
4. ok by me
5. You paraphrased (i.e. removed attribution to) Bard without citing a more reliable source.
7. Still a violation of WP:RS for the reason I already described, should be reverted. No need to hear "arguments."
9. still a violation
10. still a violation
11. Relies on an unattributed opinion piece by Jennifer Rubin. ("Israel can use some real friends" -- this is opinion.) I understand this citation was there to begin with but by removing the Bard attribution the article now appears to endorse Rubin as an RS.
13. Relies on same unattributed opinion piece by Jennifer Rubin.
14. still a violation
16. Now cites TWO unattributed opinion pieces (Bard and Rubin).
17. Now cites a stale citation (Zunes) and an unattributed opinion article (Mead). --Nstrauss (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
5: Feel free to find a more reliable source. It shouldn't be hard. I just don't feel like doing it.
7, 9, 10, and 14: Feel free to revert if you prefer a clumsier article.
11, 13, 16, and 17: I don't know what you want to do about this one. Put Bard's citation back? Be my guest. --GHcool (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
GHcool, please don't take this the wrong way but I reverted all of your recent edits. I am a mere passerby and I have nothing against your considerable contributions except that they create new policy violations. I have pointed out these violations and you haven't disagreed. Because you did so much editing and the violations are so pervasive it would be quite tedious to figure out exactly which edits to revert and which edits not to revert. It's your responsibility to edit in accordance with policy; please do not force others to have to police you. Also, I urge you to accommodate Oncenawhile's concerns (which I haven't evaluated but which sound reasonable). --Nstrauss (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It was kind of obnoxious to revert ALL the edits rather than just the ones you didn't like, but never fear. I'll do the job you should have done. --GHcool (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Your revised "uncontroversial" edits look good (thank you), except for the one starting with "Rumors began circulating..." Now we have unsupported allegations of rumors and unsupported allegations that rumors were false. These can hardly be called uncontroversial, "the sky is blue"-type statements that do not require citation. (P.S. If you're frustrated by work required to file reliable sources, it's appropriate to use the {{Citation needed}} tag.) --Nstrauss (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Spiegel is a world class scholar who teaches at UCLA and whose book is published by University of Chicago Press. The book is assigned reading in university classes on the subject of the U.S.-Israel relationship. No serious person thinks Spiegel's book is not an RS. Its staying. --GHcool (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Three problems, not necessarily insurmountable:
  1. You have provided no evidence of any of that. I don't know who Spiegel is, I'm serious, and I don't know whether his book is an RS. I don't have to take your word for it. I also don't know if the book you're talking about is the cited book. Regardless of all that, the citation must still meet the criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP to be an RS.
  2. The sentence starting with "Rumors began circulating..." doesn't have a citation. If Spiegel is the intended source then it should cite Spiegel just like the following sentence. (Easily fixed.)
  3. Even if Spiegel is reliable the paraphrase uses the same weasel words that the source uses. Spiegel's editors might be able to get away with this but we can't. It sounds awful for the article to read that there were (unidentified) rumors and that those rumors were (inexplicably) false. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. The book I'm talking about is the book that is cited. It is published by University of Chicago Press. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars" (emphasis added).
  2. I don't mind completely deleting the sentence if it so offensive to people. --GHcool (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'm convinced about Spiegel's reliability. The sentence isn't offensive, it's just flagrantly weasel-y. If we're going to include it we should describe who was spreading the rumors and how they were unfounded. Otherwise perhaps a better paraphrase of these sentences is "AZPCA formed a pro-Israel lobbying committee to counter rumors that the Eisenhower administration was going to investigate the American Zionist Counsel." It places less emphasis on these mysterious rumors and de-emphasizes their falsity (which isn't particularly important). Sound reasonable? --Nstrauss (talk)
Yes. --GHcool (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Commonalities between the US and Israel

There is some dispute about whether or not this ref [1] is a RS, or mererly an opinion. I see no valid reason for not accepting this source (Ministry of Foregin Affairs) as not to be valid for inclusion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's about as biased a source as they come. Just because it's a government source doesn't magically make it reliable; just the contrary. The Israeli government has obvious strategic political reasons for making such statements. Such a charged statement must be supported by a /neutral/ source. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
(following up) ... However, I do think that statement about common interests is appropriate as long as it's properly qualified and attributed. See what I've done. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrase tag

I have removed the {{close paraphrase}} tag pending more information. If replacing it, please identify suspected sources or offer explanation of where the issue is or may be. I have spotchecked some phrases outside of quotation (quotation being by definition not "paraphrase") but only found reverse copying so far. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography issue

In the Further Reading section there is a reference to Paul Findley's They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby. The book was published in 1985. It seems deceptive for the book's recent publication date is given, not 1985. This is confusing.Dogru144 (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we rename the page "Pro-Israel lobby in the United States"?

The title is intentionally misleading, deceptive, and suggestive of manipulation, when in fact the community is advancing national interests and international cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddwd (talk • contribs) 06:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

POV/Undue Greek lobby section

This whole section belongs in Foreign_relations_of_Greece.

Sorry, a lot of self=promoting material from a Greek lobby hardly appropriate for referencing; most other sources suspect for all that content. One paragraph in a larger section on Israel lobby working with other nations (Canada and UK particularly; France, Germany, etc.) to influence U.S. policy would be appropriate. Also try filling out the references; bare references quite ugly. However, if Israel wants to give Greece it's $3 billion plus a year foreign aid from the US, that's fine with me and I'm sure there would be lots of WP:RS to put that in the article! Anyway, I'm going to move it there.CarolMooreDC 13:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the whole section needs to be cut out, but certainly it needs to be trimmed, because (a) it is far too wordy for readability of an encyclopedia article, and (b) it gives undue weight to what is essentially a side issue. When I have the time in the next few weeks, I'd like to edit it down. Is that OK? Bearian (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Israel lobby in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israel lobby in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Israel lobby in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Israel lobby in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States/Archive_4&oldid=1136828613"