![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Turkish Research Program was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 09 July 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
|
|
Henry Kissinger and George Shultz are both dead.
A text by le monde diplomatique about the drift into the right which Israel&this think-tank make..it includes a little history of influences, cites notes and sources and i don't know whether this is interesting or not. i cant asses the quality of le monde diplomatique, i never participated in the english wikipedia and the rules for sources are very strict in the german wiki
so,well, maybe the text offers some new information which can be implemented into the article?
http://mondediplo.com/2003/07/06beinin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.122.188 ( talk) 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
-- Shamir1 ( talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
In context, we can find: "In September, Israel was abuzz over a speech by an American official that got little coverage in the American news media. Philip D. Zelikow, counselor to Ms. Rice, had addressed the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, considered generally sympathetic to Israel's interests, on 'Building Security in the Broader Middle East.'" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E6D8163EF930A25752C1A9609C8B63&pagewanted=3
That is why I propose in the body of the article: The institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests. It's to the point and can apply to a number of broad issues in context. It does not go against the Institute's stated mission, it is based on a mainstream source, and it is not problematic. It is also neutral in terms of subjectivity, but gives the reader the opportunity to see this view.
It appears as if you are confusing two issues. Discussion of policy orientation on an issue should has its place in the article. Editors agree that "pro-Israel think tank" is not the appropriate description in the lead. The lead should describe it is as what it is, a think tank on Middle East policy, as we agree and as it had been described in basic terms here and elsewhere. If that is the perception of a source, it can be cited as that. It should be included. I never said that because most sources that refer to WINEP do not mention Israel or pro-Israel that it should not appear anywhere in the article or that it trumps all sources that do (which it appears you suggest I am suggesting). I am saying we should be clear about the issue, as mainstream media is, and encompass such a view in the appropriate place in the article. My suggested edit does that, and cites a reliable source that demonstrates the view that the public has of its policy. -- Shamir1 ( talk) 02:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The significance of the correction is that it was nonetheless a misstatement to describe them as "a pro-Israeli group" and they refrain from doing so. I am not saying that policy orientation is irrelevant; I'm saying it should be in context. When reading references to WINEP in the media, and they are cited very often, the vast majority of times they are cited as a Middle East think tank or research center, and our lead should reflect that, just as it had always done before your changes. Their focus is not on Israel. The vast majority of times they are being cited for a broad array of Middle East issues and current events and Israel is not even mentioned, so we should not give a misleading image by bumping up an opinion to the lead. In context, when Israel or Israel's interests are at hand, I have found, per The New York Times that the institute is considered generally sympathetic to Israel's interests. Mainstream newspapers maintain a high standard of objectivity, and this well-worded description can serve as a model for us when we try to encompass the view that their policy toward Israel has been mostly favorable. This way, all views are represented, and as an encyclopedia we live up to NPOV and objectivity. -- Shamir1 ( talk) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a public research organization that seeks "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East." Founded by Martin Indyk in 1985, [1] the Institute supports research on U.S. Middle East policy by publishing research and analysis, hosting policy forums and conference keynotes, and commenting on current events for major newspapers and media outlets. [2] The Washington Institute has a bipartisan board of fifteen advisors, five of whom served as United States Secretary of State. [3]
This is about how the article appeared before an edit war erupted. I am in favor using a descriptive lead that refers to its mission, activities, and notability. I oppose tendentious changes that use the same sentence or phrase twice in the same article, especially if it appears to be twisted out of context. User:George used what would be a rather trivial detail from an old Washington Post article that refers to Martin Indyk deciding to publish research under a new organization he founds, and places it twice in the article. If it belongs anywhere, it's in the background section.
This same article cites Martin Indyk as the founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and that's what Wikipedia stuck with too. For some reason, User:George does not use this part of the Post source and instead added another source that states that the organization AIPAC founded the Washington Institute, but this has not been confirmed by other reliable sources. Martin Indyk writes that he founded it, and mainstream sources other than the Washington Post report that too, including Foreign Affairs ( Council on Foreign Relations), [8], Haaretz, [9] and The Jerusalem Post. [10] [11]
The issue of the founder is not one I am particular passionate about, but I do believe discussion should be opened. I am more concerned about the neutrality of the article.
In an effort to heed the concerns of all editors above, I have compiled a suggested version of the article. I stuck to the straight facts and included verifiable criticism in the proper places.
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a public research organization whose stated aim is "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East." Founded by ( Martin Indyk/AIPAC) in 1985, [1] the Institute supports research on U.S. Middle East policy by publishing research and analysis, hosting policy forums and conference keynotes, and commenting on current events for major newspapers and media outlets. [2] The Washington Institute has a bipartisan board of fifteen advisors, five of whom served as United States Secretary of State. [3]
Background
Martin Indyk, an Australian-trained academic and former deputy director of research for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), helped found WINEP in 1985. [4] In 1982, following his position as Australian deputy director of current intelligence in the Middle East, Indyk started to set up a research department for AIPAC. [5] Because of AIPAC's pro-Israel image, Indyk felt his research wasn't being taken seriously and so started WINEP to convey an image that was "friendly to Israel but doing credible research on the Middle East in a realistic and balanced way." [6] [7] Indyk would go on to become an American citizen, U.S. diplomat and its Ambassador to Israel. [7]
The Washington Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, and derives 87 percent of its operating revenues through direct public support. [8] As of 2005, its list of trustees included more than 600 names, including Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg, managing editor of The New York Times Jill Abramson, real estate developer A. Alfred Taubman, and philanthropist Edgar Bronfman. [8]
Activities and policy orientation
WINEP is focused on influencing the media and U.S. executive branch [9] Its activities include annual conferences, a Military Fellows Program that "brings together senior officers from the armed forces of the United States and key Middle Eastern allies", a Presidential Study Group it describes as a "bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission charged with drafting a blueprint for the next administration's Middle East policy", closed-door policy forums, and various publications and research programs. [10]
At the time it was founded, the institute focused research on Arab-Israeli relations, political and security issues, and overall U.S. Middle East policy. [11] In the 1990s, prompted by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Persian Gulf War, and changes in regional strategy, the institute expanded its research agenda to cover a larger array of Middle East topics, including a "special focus on Turkey and the rise of Islamic politics." [11] The institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests. [12]
According to its mission statement,
“ | The Washington Institute for Near East Policy was established to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East. Under the guidance of a distinguished and bipartisan Board of Advisors, the Institute seeks to bring scholarship to bear on the making of U.S. policy in this vital region of the world. Drawing on the research of its scholars and the experience of policy practitioners, the Institute promotes an American engagement in the Middle East committed to strengthening alliances, nurturing friendships, and promoting security, peace, prosperity, and democracy for the people of the region. [13] | ” |
Former Vice President Al Gore called WINEP "Washington's most respected center for studies on the Middle East." [13]
Criticism
In October 2003, the Zionist Organization of America criticized WINEP for "embracing" a delegation of representatives of "the Fatah terrorist movement". [14]
In a December 2003 interview on Al-Jazeera, Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor and director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute, sharply criticized WINEP, stating that it is "the fiercest of the enemies of the Arabs and the Muslims," and describing it as the "most important Zionist propaganda tool in the United States." [15] Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle East Quarterly and visiting fellow at WINEP, defended the group, saying that it is "run by Americans, and accepts funds only from American sources," and that it was "outrageous" for Khalidi to denounce Arabs that visited WINEP as "blundering dupes." [16]
John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, describe it as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States. [17] Discussing the group in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer and Walt write: "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda... Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks. [17]
Notable current and former scholars
Several current and former members of WINEP have served in senior positions in the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush, [18] [19] Bill Clinton, [7] and George W. Bush, [7].
Board of Advisors
As of November 4, 2009, the Washington Institute's Board of Advisors included: [20]
See also
References
AIPAC also has an active relationship with various elements of the executive branch of government. In this regard, in 1985 it set up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israeli 'think tank,' that essentially served as a proxy.
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
mission_statement
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite magazine}}
: Cite magazine requires |magazine=
(
help)
There should be a list of current and past senior fellows. I noted the absence when looking for information on David Pollack. He is listed on the WINEP web cite. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC10.php?CID=59 I hope someone experienced will add this. Then maybe the redirect from David Pollack(politician) to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pollack_%28politician%29, an entry on the New York State Democratic Committee can be fixed. I fail to see the connection and the entry does not mention Pollack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.216.243 ( talk) 04:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC) edited to correct a link.
In response to Dailycare's good-fath edits:
Although some sources have described the Institute as "pro-Israel" and it has has remained a staunch supporter of Israel, [1] [2] [3] the Institute has earned a reputation for solid scholarship, [4] and rejects such a label, saying "While the institute is not shy about its view that strong United States-Israel ties advance American national security interests, the moniker 'pro-Israel' projects two false impressions -- first, that the institute does not value American interests above special pleading for a foreign power and second, that the institute must be 'anti' others in the region (Palestinians, Arabs)." It adds:
The phrase that was added by Dailycare ("and a staunch supporter of Israel") makes it a run-on sentence, incredibly redundant, and awkward. I see no reason why this ("pro-Israel, ... and a staunch supporter of Israel, ... its view that strong United States-Israel ties...") should all appear in the same sentence--or the same section for that matter. The point is well-made. Please revert. Precision123 ( talk) 06:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
References
Describing itself as a "public educational foundation dedicated to scholarly research and informed debate on US interests in the Middle East," WINEP emerged as the leading pro-Israel think tank in Washington.
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Some explanation:
-- Precision123 ( talk) 19:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: [12] Ubikwit has been topic banned indefinitely except for seven named articles with regard to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly defined." Collect ( talk) 19:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This is long-standing content with consensus for inclusion in the lead. Edit-warring to remove it is tendentious editing. It is also obscene to remove a second source flat out saying pro-Israel and then attribute it to one book. This is tendentious editing and if it continues I will be reporting it. nableezy - 14:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources:
It speaks to the paralysis in the Middle East peace process that the most noteworthy development of the past week came when a mild-mannered analyst at a pro-Israel think tank unfurled three color-coded maps. The analyst, David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank.
as the then newly founded Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This organization, a pro-Israel think tank, was itself a spin-off of AIPAC
Dennis Ross, from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israel think tank closely aligned with AIPAC
It is absurd to claim that it is simply a claim from one book that this is a pro-Israel think tank. This supposed label is widely used to describe WINEP, and it belongs in the first sentence. nableezy - 16:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Im going to restore pro-Israel and cite these four sources for it. nableezy - 17:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there is any doubt that WINEP *was* a "pro-Israel think tank" at the time of its founding. However, the modern-day WINEP strenuously rejects this label. The label "pro-Israel" in the lede is tendentious. There is actually stronger evidence for labeling it a "pro-American think tank," but of course that would also be tendentious. Calling it "pro-Israel" in the first line violates MOS:Label. Zekelayla ( talk) 17:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
"characterization is woefully insufficient", not that it is wrong. Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Some more sources:
By contrast, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy ( WINEP), founded in 1985, quickly achieved a much higher profile and much greater influence. Describing itself as "a public educational foundation dedicated to scholarly research and informed debate on U.S. interests in the Middle East,"9 WINEP emerged as the leading pro-Israel think tank in Washington. Its founding director, Martin Indyk, had previously worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), founded in 1959 and by the 1970s by far the most well-funded, visible, and effective pro-Israel lobbying organization. Indyk and his colleagues at WINEP worked hard to strengthen Israels standing in Washington as the key U.S. ally in the Middle East and to ensure that U.S. policy in the region coincided with the policies and strategies of the Israeli government
During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organizations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)
Similarly, when Martin Indyk - formerly deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute of Near East Policy - is appointed one of Bill Clinton's key Middle East advisors, it strains credulity to exclude him from the "loose coalition" that "actively works" to promote the "special relationship."
For example, Martin Indyk who had worked for AIPAC and was the head of Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank with close connections to Israel, played an important role in formulating US policy toward the Middle East in the 1990s
There has yet to be any source bsides WINEP's executive director even coming close to denying that WINEP is "pro-Israel". All of these sources find it to be a defining characteristic of the organization. nableezy - 02:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
"WINEP emerged as the leading pro-Israel think tank in Washington", and there are no serious sources directly and specifically countering this characterization, then obviously we go with the sources. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
That WINEP is a pro-Israel think tank is by far the most well sourced piece of material in this article. It is a defining characteristic per all of these sources. You may not censor that out, and as widely used as this description is, and as there have been no sources disputing it, WP:DUE demands it be included as a defining trait. nableezy - 15:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
We already have consensus on the inclusion of pro-Israel, and the mass wiping of reliable sources to support that description so that it could be silently removed is not acceptable. nableezy - 21:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be a complete whitewashing of this organization. Think the sources above need to be used to expand the hagiography that currently exists. nableezy - 15:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I have removed some contentious claims in this article that quoted from a book written by a researcher affiliated with Partners for Progressive Israel (the U.S. branch of the extremely left-wing Israeli party Meretz) and claims sourced exclusively to the heavily-criticized book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. It may be that there are different sources for the claims made, but these do not constitute the kind of reliable, secondary sources necessary. (It's also worth noting that since many of the figures involved are living people, the stringent BLP requirements for citations likely apply.) Thmymerc ( talk) 08:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Turkish Research Program was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 09 July 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
|
|
Henry Kissinger and George Shultz are both dead.
A text by le monde diplomatique about the drift into the right which Israel&this think-tank make..it includes a little history of influences, cites notes and sources and i don't know whether this is interesting or not. i cant asses the quality of le monde diplomatique, i never participated in the english wikipedia and the rules for sources are very strict in the german wiki
so,well, maybe the text offers some new information which can be implemented into the article?
http://mondediplo.com/2003/07/06beinin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.122.188 ( talk) 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
-- Shamir1 ( talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
In context, we can find: "In September, Israel was abuzz over a speech by an American official that got little coverage in the American news media. Philip D. Zelikow, counselor to Ms. Rice, had addressed the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, considered generally sympathetic to Israel's interests, on 'Building Security in the Broader Middle East.'" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E6D8163EF930A25752C1A9609C8B63&pagewanted=3
That is why I propose in the body of the article: The institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests. It's to the point and can apply to a number of broad issues in context. It does not go against the Institute's stated mission, it is based on a mainstream source, and it is not problematic. It is also neutral in terms of subjectivity, but gives the reader the opportunity to see this view.
It appears as if you are confusing two issues. Discussion of policy orientation on an issue should has its place in the article. Editors agree that "pro-Israel think tank" is not the appropriate description in the lead. The lead should describe it is as what it is, a think tank on Middle East policy, as we agree and as it had been described in basic terms here and elsewhere. If that is the perception of a source, it can be cited as that. It should be included. I never said that because most sources that refer to WINEP do not mention Israel or pro-Israel that it should not appear anywhere in the article or that it trumps all sources that do (which it appears you suggest I am suggesting). I am saying we should be clear about the issue, as mainstream media is, and encompass such a view in the appropriate place in the article. My suggested edit does that, and cites a reliable source that demonstrates the view that the public has of its policy. -- Shamir1 ( talk) 02:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The significance of the correction is that it was nonetheless a misstatement to describe them as "a pro-Israeli group" and they refrain from doing so. I am not saying that policy orientation is irrelevant; I'm saying it should be in context. When reading references to WINEP in the media, and they are cited very often, the vast majority of times they are cited as a Middle East think tank or research center, and our lead should reflect that, just as it had always done before your changes. Their focus is not on Israel. The vast majority of times they are being cited for a broad array of Middle East issues and current events and Israel is not even mentioned, so we should not give a misleading image by bumping up an opinion to the lead. In context, when Israel or Israel's interests are at hand, I have found, per The New York Times that the institute is considered generally sympathetic to Israel's interests. Mainstream newspapers maintain a high standard of objectivity, and this well-worded description can serve as a model for us when we try to encompass the view that their policy toward Israel has been mostly favorable. This way, all views are represented, and as an encyclopedia we live up to NPOV and objectivity. -- Shamir1 ( talk) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a public research organization that seeks "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East." Founded by Martin Indyk in 1985, [1] the Institute supports research on U.S. Middle East policy by publishing research and analysis, hosting policy forums and conference keynotes, and commenting on current events for major newspapers and media outlets. [2] The Washington Institute has a bipartisan board of fifteen advisors, five of whom served as United States Secretary of State. [3]
This is about how the article appeared before an edit war erupted. I am in favor using a descriptive lead that refers to its mission, activities, and notability. I oppose tendentious changes that use the same sentence or phrase twice in the same article, especially if it appears to be twisted out of context. User:George used what would be a rather trivial detail from an old Washington Post article that refers to Martin Indyk deciding to publish research under a new organization he founds, and places it twice in the article. If it belongs anywhere, it's in the background section.
This same article cites Martin Indyk as the founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and that's what Wikipedia stuck with too. For some reason, User:George does not use this part of the Post source and instead added another source that states that the organization AIPAC founded the Washington Institute, but this has not been confirmed by other reliable sources. Martin Indyk writes that he founded it, and mainstream sources other than the Washington Post report that too, including Foreign Affairs ( Council on Foreign Relations), [8], Haaretz, [9] and The Jerusalem Post. [10] [11]
The issue of the founder is not one I am particular passionate about, but I do believe discussion should be opened. I am more concerned about the neutrality of the article.
In an effort to heed the concerns of all editors above, I have compiled a suggested version of the article. I stuck to the straight facts and included verifiable criticism in the proper places.
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is a public research organization whose stated aim is "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East." Founded by ( Martin Indyk/AIPAC) in 1985, [1] the Institute supports research on U.S. Middle East policy by publishing research and analysis, hosting policy forums and conference keynotes, and commenting on current events for major newspapers and media outlets. [2] The Washington Institute has a bipartisan board of fifteen advisors, five of whom served as United States Secretary of State. [3]
Background
Martin Indyk, an Australian-trained academic and former deputy director of research for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), helped found WINEP in 1985. [4] In 1982, following his position as Australian deputy director of current intelligence in the Middle East, Indyk started to set up a research department for AIPAC. [5] Because of AIPAC's pro-Israel image, Indyk felt his research wasn't being taken seriously and so started WINEP to convey an image that was "friendly to Israel but doing credible research on the Middle East in a realistic and balanced way." [6] [7] Indyk would go on to become an American citizen, U.S. diplomat and its Ambassador to Israel. [7]
The Washington Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, and derives 87 percent of its operating revenues through direct public support. [8] As of 2005, its list of trustees included more than 600 names, including Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg, managing editor of The New York Times Jill Abramson, real estate developer A. Alfred Taubman, and philanthropist Edgar Bronfman. [8]
Activities and policy orientation
WINEP is focused on influencing the media and U.S. executive branch [9] Its activities include annual conferences, a Military Fellows Program that "brings together senior officers from the armed forces of the United States and key Middle Eastern allies", a Presidential Study Group it describes as a "bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission charged with drafting a blueprint for the next administration's Middle East policy", closed-door policy forums, and various publications and research programs. [10]
At the time it was founded, the institute focused research on Arab-Israeli relations, political and security issues, and overall U.S. Middle East policy. [11] In the 1990s, prompted by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Persian Gulf War, and changes in regional strategy, the institute expanded its research agenda to cover a larger array of Middle East topics, including a "special focus on Turkey and the rise of Islamic politics." [11] The institute has been considered to be generally sympathetic to Israel's interests. [12]
According to its mission statement,
“ | The Washington Institute for Near East Policy was established to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East. Under the guidance of a distinguished and bipartisan Board of Advisors, the Institute seeks to bring scholarship to bear on the making of U.S. policy in this vital region of the world. Drawing on the research of its scholars and the experience of policy practitioners, the Institute promotes an American engagement in the Middle East committed to strengthening alliances, nurturing friendships, and promoting security, peace, prosperity, and democracy for the people of the region. [13] | ” |
Former Vice President Al Gore called WINEP "Washington's most respected center for studies on the Middle East." [13]
Criticism
In October 2003, the Zionist Organization of America criticized WINEP for "embracing" a delegation of representatives of "the Fatah terrorist movement". [14]
In a December 2003 interview on Al-Jazeera, Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor and director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute, sharply criticized WINEP, stating that it is "the fiercest of the enemies of the Arabs and the Muslims," and describing it as the "most important Zionist propaganda tool in the United States." [15] Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle East Quarterly and visiting fellow at WINEP, defended the group, saying that it is "run by Americans, and accepts funds only from American sources," and that it was "outrageous" for Khalidi to denounce Arabs that visited WINEP as "blundering dupes." [16]
John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, describe it as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States. [17] Discussing the group in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer and Walt write: "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda... Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks. [17]
Notable current and former scholars
Several current and former members of WINEP have served in senior positions in the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush, [18] [19] Bill Clinton, [7] and George W. Bush, [7].
Board of Advisors
As of November 4, 2009, the Washington Institute's Board of Advisors included: [20]
See also
References
AIPAC also has an active relationship with various elements of the executive branch of government. In this regard, in 1985 it set up the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israeli 'think tank,' that essentially served as a proxy.
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
mission_statement
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite magazine}}
: Cite magazine requires |magazine=
(
help)
There should be a list of current and past senior fellows. I noted the absence when looking for information on David Pollack. He is listed on the WINEP web cite. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC10.php?CID=59 I hope someone experienced will add this. Then maybe the redirect from David Pollack(politician) to here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pollack_%28politician%29, an entry on the New York State Democratic Committee can be fixed. I fail to see the connection and the entry does not mention Pollack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.216.243 ( talk) 04:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC) edited to correct a link.
In response to Dailycare's good-fath edits:
Although some sources have described the Institute as "pro-Israel" and it has has remained a staunch supporter of Israel, [1] [2] [3] the Institute has earned a reputation for solid scholarship, [4] and rejects such a label, saying "While the institute is not shy about its view that strong United States-Israel ties advance American national security interests, the moniker 'pro-Israel' projects two false impressions -- first, that the institute does not value American interests above special pleading for a foreign power and second, that the institute must be 'anti' others in the region (Palestinians, Arabs)." It adds:
The phrase that was added by Dailycare ("and a staunch supporter of Israel") makes it a run-on sentence, incredibly redundant, and awkward. I see no reason why this ("pro-Israel, ... and a staunch supporter of Israel, ... its view that strong United States-Israel ties...") should all appear in the same sentence--or the same section for that matter. The point is well-made. Please revert. Precision123 ( talk) 06:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
References
Describing itself as a "public educational foundation dedicated to scholarly research and informed debate on US interests in the Middle East," WINEP emerged as the leading pro-Israel think tank in Washington.
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Some explanation:
-- Precision123 ( talk) 19:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: [12] Ubikwit has been topic banned indefinitely except for seven named articles with regard to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly defined." Collect ( talk) 19:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This is long-standing content with consensus for inclusion in the lead. Edit-warring to remove it is tendentious editing. It is also obscene to remove a second source flat out saying pro-Israel and then attribute it to one book. This is tendentious editing and if it continues I will be reporting it. nableezy - 14:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Sources:
It speaks to the paralysis in the Middle East peace process that the most noteworthy development of the past week came when a mild-mannered analyst at a pro-Israel think tank unfurled three color-coded maps. The analyst, David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank.
as the then newly founded Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This organization, a pro-Israel think tank, was itself a spin-off of AIPAC
Dennis Ross, from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israel think tank closely aligned with AIPAC
It is absurd to claim that it is simply a claim from one book that this is a pro-Israel think tank. This supposed label is widely used to describe WINEP, and it belongs in the first sentence. nableezy - 16:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Im going to restore pro-Israel and cite these four sources for it. nableezy - 17:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there is any doubt that WINEP *was* a "pro-Israel think tank" at the time of its founding. However, the modern-day WINEP strenuously rejects this label. The label "pro-Israel" in the lede is tendentious. There is actually stronger evidence for labeling it a "pro-American think tank," but of course that would also be tendentious. Calling it "pro-Israel" in the first line violates MOS:Label. Zekelayla ( talk) 17:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
"characterization is woefully insufficient", not that it is wrong. Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Some more sources:
By contrast, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy ( WINEP), founded in 1985, quickly achieved a much higher profile and much greater influence. Describing itself as "a public educational foundation dedicated to scholarly research and informed debate on U.S. interests in the Middle East,"9 WINEP emerged as the leading pro-Israel think tank in Washington. Its founding director, Martin Indyk, had previously worked at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), founded in 1959 and by the 1970s by far the most well-funded, visible, and effective pro-Israel lobbying organization. Indyk and his colleagues at WINEP worked hard to strengthen Israels standing in Washington as the key U.S. ally in the Middle East and to ensure that U.S. policy in the region coincided with the policies and strategies of the Israeli government
During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel organizations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)
Similarly, when Martin Indyk - formerly deputy director of research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute of Near East Policy - is appointed one of Bill Clinton's key Middle East advisors, it strains credulity to exclude him from the "loose coalition" that "actively works" to promote the "special relationship."
For example, Martin Indyk who had worked for AIPAC and was the head of Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank with close connections to Israel, played an important role in formulating US policy toward the Middle East in the 1990s
There has yet to be any source bsides WINEP's executive director even coming close to denying that WINEP is "pro-Israel". All of these sources find it to be a defining characteristic of the organization. nableezy - 02:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
"WINEP emerged as the leading pro-Israel think tank in Washington", and there are no serious sources directly and specifically countering this characterization, then obviously we go with the sources. Iskandar323 ( talk) 06:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
That WINEP is a pro-Israel think tank is by far the most well sourced piece of material in this article. It is a defining characteristic per all of these sources. You may not censor that out, and as widely used as this description is, and as there have been no sources disputing it, WP:DUE demands it be included as a defining trait. nableezy - 15:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
We already have consensus on the inclusion of pro-Israel, and the mass wiping of reliable sources to support that description so that it could be silently removed is not acceptable. nableezy - 21:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Appears to be a complete whitewashing of this organization. Think the sources above need to be used to expand the hagiography that currently exists. nableezy - 15:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I have removed some contentious claims in this article that quoted from a book written by a researcher affiliated with Partners for Progressive Israel (the U.S. branch of the extremely left-wing Israeli party Meretz) and claims sourced exclusively to the heavily-criticized book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. It may be that there are different sources for the claims made, but these do not constitute the kind of reliable, secondary sources necessary. (It's also worth noting that since many of the figures involved are living people, the stringent BLP requirements for citations likely apply.) Thmymerc ( talk) 08:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)