Talk:A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Propose rename
Articles about specific reports should use the full title of those reports. Thus I propose this article be renamed: I do not use a WP account, thus could someone else do this move? --70.48.243.22 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

I'll see if I can figure out how to do it. --NathanDW 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Looks like this is being used as WP:SOAPBOX. One-sided partisan sources, one-sided analysis. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you read the report? The text is in fact quite shocking. -- Petri Krohn 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A 10-year old 5-page report, big deal. What's so shocking: were the Hashemites installed in Iraq? Was the US Embassy moved to Jerusalem? Did Israel attack Syria? Was Israeli Labor Party or Histadrut destroyed? Are Netanyahu & Likud in power? IMO, open democratic societies that make such documents public for discussion should be commended. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems you are not questioning the neutrality or the factual accuracy of the article, but rather its importance. I am removing the POV tag. -- Petri Krohn 05:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reread this section and try to fix the article (or leave it to others) instead of trying to dismiss the problem. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed it by removing the one-sided "analysis" and "legacy" sections that were merely collections of one-sided opinion pieces without factual evidence to support them. Left the "legacy" section with the actual fact that this document never got translated into actual policy. Drmikeh49 (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What's immediately apparent is that an anonymous user has dramatically re-fashioned the article since December 19. Also apparent are the numerous quotations, sometimes lengthy. For a minor report this seems like overkill, and the quotations should be summarized. In some places it's repetitive. If the report is, as purported, a " neoconservative manifesto" then perhaps we should quote from some neo-cons who endorse it. -Will Beback · † · 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed it by removing the one-sided "analysis" and "legacy" sections that were merely collections of one-sided opinion pieces without factual evidence to support them. Left the "legacy" section with the actual fact that this document never got translated into actual policy. Drmikeh49 (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The new version is a decided improvement as it is about the actual document rather than being exclusively about the somewhat far fetched critiques of it. That is what the document really says - not what Whitaker or Jason Vest or Mearsheimer and Walt claim, and that is evidently the significance of the document. It was absurd to have an article about a document that only quotes the critiques and not the document itself. The neo-cons who endorsed it were those who wrote the report obviously. I suggest 1)Present content should be retained with a reference to the document source, but reformatted so there are less section heads that take up so much space on the page. 2) The real criticism of Clean Break, that is, the claim that it was the basis for Israeli or "Zionist" support of the Iraq war, should be referenced. 3) Article in Forward claiming that Ariel Sharon warned against the Iraq war should be cited as counter evidence. 4. Claim that Israel continues to receive economic aid should be documented or changed. I believe it is not accurate. Netanyahu government shifted the economic aid to military aid. This question needs research. 5. Appropriate reference section should be restored including references to the documents and to critics. An appraisal and discussion you may find useful: http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/clean_break.htm Mewnews (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)]]


 * "A 10-year old report" is no big deal, but an 80 year old genocide legitimizes your entire country and it's all your people can talk about. 71.80.206.3 (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This comment has not aged well. 119.18.0.76 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seventeen years later, I've across this article and this Talk page. Given that most of the things you described in your comment did, in fact, end up happening in form or another, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts as they pertain to the page and the topic. I'm especially interested whether or not this had an impact on your ideological beliefs, even a minor one, in addition to 17 years passing of course. If you don't feel this is the right forum for that, I'd happy to speak with you elsewhere. I'm genuinely interested. Let me know what you think. Jiijonauta (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Unbelievable!
Komaknacon 03:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? That you think it is a great article? ...or that you do not believe in the factual accuracy? -- Petri Krohn 05:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead
I added a sentence to the lead about the report explaining "new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on Western values." Although others may not intepret it this way, this is directly from a quotation in the report which says: "While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform." Criticism should be added to the lead as well, but the sentence I added (and was reverted) is completely npov. Joshdboz 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection
This article has been protected from edits for one week because of the constant reversions I have been seeing on this page tonight.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The protection of the page is IMO not legitimate. One editor was attempting at improving the article and I do not see an attempt at POV, the editor had only started a simple copyedit.--Shuki (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This article was in a bad state
This article looked as if someone has removed half of it without paying much attention to what they were editing. I have reverted back to the most inclusive past revision. We can start editing it from there.

Please when editing do not remove categories and see also links wholesale, that is irresponsible. --John Bahrain (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * almost the entire "analysis" and "legacy" sections are purely speculative, and are really not encyclopedic, but rather a haphazard collection of quotes. Often they are pure speculation by political commentators, in particular regarding the document's effects on US foreign policy.  Is this something that is standard reference for Wikipedia?

IN the meantime, there were numerous errors of simple fact in the article itself--for example, attributing material to the "introduction" that did not appear there. So I will start with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmikeh49 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are not haphazard at all. They represent a propaganda point of view that has no relation at all to the actual document Mewnews (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020902&s=vest
 * In Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs on 2011-05-08 04:54:10, 404 Not Found
 * In A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm on 2011-06-20 01:19:28, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Legacy section
This section is a mess, in my opinion. It contains lots of quotes (some partisan, some prescient, some both). I think it needs to be compressed. Opinions? Bazuz (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Failed to look at talk before doing a more logical organization (Rename to "Influence" section and put "Criticism" section after it, moving some statements to criticism. I don't think it needs compression and could be expanded. However, if some more high quality refs from high quality analytic books were added, a few contemporaneous ones could be deleted. If you search books google you will see that there are 2600 books mentioning the work!  Something for another time when I or someone else is feeling motivated. CarolMooreDC 03:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I mean compression in the sense of rewriting the section to summarize the expressed views, instead of keeping lots of lengthy quotations. Right now it looks like a newspaper archive of sorts. Do you agree with that? Bazuz (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's one example - the Bamford quote (the one in the 'criticism' section). It just restates information that was already given. Why clutter the article with tons of repetitive quotes? We can't add all 2600 books, after all, not to mention every article out there. Bazuz (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Summarizing with shorter quotes that doesn't gut the meaning is fine. CarolMooreDC 13:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a tough nut, this article is. After thinking more about it, and actually starting to edit, I think the jumble of quotes might be a good format after all. What is missing is the reception of the report by Netanyahu himself - I'm pretty sure he never acted on it, and if someone could find a source reporting his evaluation to the report, it would be important to include. So, for nwo, I'll just remove two useless quotes (the Bamford one and the Daniel Levy - they add absolutely nothing). Bazuz (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with shortening the quotes. It's more important to show a variety of criticism by variety of individuals. I'll review the two removed quotes and see if I agree, since haven't really done a systematic analysis of all of them.
 * Excellent point about Netanyahu's reaction. According to a book published by Simon and Shuster, which says that Netanyahu didn't implement the polices in the next three years in office, he didn't disagree with them and added Iran as a threat. Obviouisly other sources may have other opinions/facts. And obviously Sharon did implemented most of them, which needs to be added. Like Bamford's comments that Sharon did just that. Probably lots more if research is done. CarolMooreDC 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to see we are converging here. About Sharon: I think it's very difficult to say he implemented the "clean break" policies. Here's an analysis by Ami Isserof that I found, which treats the whole subject very well and without extra histrionics which some of the sources introduce. We can discuss this in detail, if you like. Cheers, Bazuz (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Douglas J. Faith
Douglas Faith said: "I was not a co-author of the "Clean Break" paper. I neither wrote it nor signed it." (http://www.dougfeith.com/cleanbreak.html)

Did Netanyahu reject the paper?
The newly-added statement in intro that "the polices set forth in the paper were rejected by Netanyahu" is unverifiable given the references provided. On the other hand, many sources already referenced in the article indicate that Netanyahu has embraced said policies, if only during his next administration (2009-present). I've added the appropriate tags in the article. Please advise. Alfy32 (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The books cited are both freely available on Google books; You may find the first one here. Page 299 contains the relevant statement. I've also seen no source in this article claiming Netanyahu or his administration has adopted the paper.--Sammy1857 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140125123844/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm to http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140125123844/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm to http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205200436/http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0725-23.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0725-23.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517091420/http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/08/03/mideast/index_np.html to http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2006/08/03/mideast/index_np.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"TAKI" of The American Conservative
At the end of the "Influence" section, a quote of "TAKI" from The American Conservative is added. The quote is problematic for two reasons: It seems like better sources for the potential influence of this paper can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.197.178.169 (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It just starts at the middle of a sentence, without even starting with "...".
 * 2) The quote itself gets the facts wrong: It is stated that Netanyahu was one of the authors of the paper, which is clearly wrong.

Policy
Enforce WP:SS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:COPYVIO. Preferably by sending the entire thing to Wikisource. Anarchangel (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)