Talk:Israel Shamir/Archive 2

On a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
I'm moving this section to Talk because it is misleading and POV: he does not propose "a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", but rather the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" as he admits himself. The lone paragraph in this section is clearly antisemitic and is so bewildering that I don't think any serious scholar would even bother to respond. Do we want to be seen as uncritically promoting this:
 * Shamir proposes a religious rather than a political solution to the Palestine conflict. In The Marxists and the Lobby II he writes "There is no ‘tainted blood‘ - acceptance of Christ is the Final Solution of the Jewish Question, . . .the families of the revolutionaries often utilised the prominent status of their relatives and displayed certain ‘Jewish behaviour‘ (clannishness, Jewish supremacy, financial criminality, disregard of Russian culture) and they were indeed attended to by Joseph Stalin, while properly behaving Jews mainly retained their position. . . the Palestinians are fighting not only for their homes; they are keeping at bay the antichristian forces from their age-long dream of subjugating Edom and Ishmael."

To call the contribution of Isaac Levitan, Léon Bakst, Isaac Babel, Osip Mandelstam, Boris Pasternak, Maya Plisetskaya, Sergei Eisenstein, Dziga Vertov, Anton Rubinstein, Isaak Dunayevsky, Leonid Utyosov - to name a few - "disregard of Russian culture" is abomination. I.S.'s other points are equally wrong. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 20:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Shamir replies: there is no reason (but a racist one) to call Boris Pasternak and Osip Mandelstam - 'Jews', as they were Christians, and Pasternak was born to Christian parents. Ditto Eisenstein, ditto Rubinstein, while Plisetskaya and Vertov were not of Jewish origin, either.

"Not only is the quote wrongly constructed, you misread it as well. The eclipses suggest that the conclusion is derived from the quoted text preceeding it, but it really derives from another argument altogether. The quote also makes clear to whom Shamir is referring ' ... properly behaving Jews retained their position ...'. i.e. those that exhibited certain 'Jewish behavior' (scare quotes in original), OTH were presumed to be improperly behaving Jews. Shamir is saying in this piece that he believes that 'Jewishness' is ideological, not biological. The question is what purpose this quote serves? Is it merely produced to demonstrate the (incorrect) POV of the editor, as borne out by the inclusion of the internal link to Final Solution of the Jewish Question? What Shamir says in this piece has absolutely nothing to do with the mass slaughter of Jews. Does selective quoting to bolster tenuous POV not violate the NPOV requirements of an enclyclopedia? - Joh Domingo" Clearly Shamir sees Jewishness as an ideological and not a biological fact. He urges Jews to get rid of this ideology preferably by conversion to Christianity but he also allows for a Jew simply to start behaving according to the norms of those around him. This use of "final solution" is odious, misleading, an appeal to emotion rather than a use of facts.Eugene Weixel 09:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Right Wing Russian Journalist
Joh Domingo has created the wiki accounnt JohD

'The biographical information given by Shamir is disputed by others. Roland Rance has written that Shamir "also writes under the names of Schmerlin, Robert David, Vassili Krasevsky and Jöran Jermas."'  Shamir is apparently a right-wing Russian journalist, who pretends to be an Israeli Jewish leftist. He claims to live in Jaffa, and may well have a home there, but he also seems to live in Sweden. He uses a Swedish email address, and his website used to be hosted there. His son was deported from Israel to Sweden....[4]

This quote is moved to the talk page on the grounds that contains wild allegations published in a disreputable source. Shamir was known in Israel as a Russian Language journalist long before Roland Rance had ever heard of him. Widely circulated on several pro-Zionist online publications, a quote taken from the Jerusalem Post article published on Aug 14th 1991 appears to be correct:

The article is full of allegations that Sakharov was a harmful Zionist agent. Robert David is presented as an Israeli. His identity is well known. As Israel Shamir (Shmerling), he came to Israel in the late 1960s from Novosibirsk and soon became an extreme leftist.

He acquired an excellent command of Hebrew and published many articles in Ha'aretz, Al Hamishmar, and also The Jerusalem Post. He was also a Knesset spokesman for Mapam for some time. At the end of 1980 he published a violent article against Russian nationalism in Ha'aretz, accusing supporters of Solzhenitsyn of being the Jewish people's worst enemies. What was not known to Mapam and to other Israeli leftists and liberals was that Shamir also had close contacts with the Western and Israeli right.

The archive page is We Mustn’t Shun the Russian Right

It is by no means the only evidence of the existence of an Israeli Journalist by the name of Robert David a.k.a. Israel Shamir, before his exposure to English speaking Western readers.

"The Same line of argument can be found in an article by the Israeli Journalist and communist party memeber Robert David. Jewish Intellectuals he claims, instigated a conspiracy of silence about all aspects of the Khazar theory because it deprives Zionists of misusing the argument of antisemitism, since the jews are not really semites. See Robert David - 'Veshii Oleg i velikaiia step', vesnik evreiskoi sovetskoi kulturi no. 13 (1989)" - reference footnote page

Russian Intellectual Antisemitism in the Post Communist Era ISBN 0803239483 (You will have to register and log in to view the page.)

Robert Davids is again reference on page 131 in association with Yuri Vaslov. - " Robert David and Uri Vaslov are two well known Authors who drew on Ostrovsky’s Expose’

 Seems this pro-Zionist Author has no difficulty remembering the ariticles and books of Shamir and places no significance to his use of the pen-name “Robert David”. Robert David appears to be a pen-name used by Shamir during his stint as a Russian Correspondent for Hare’etz and a columnist for the the Russian Paper Zavtra during the period 1989-1993. There is more evidence of Israeli Israel Shamir. The quote is just wild shooting from the hip by a fringe publication. The evidence also suggests that much of Shamir’s biography can be verified, and the term ‘disputed’ should be removed pending evidence to the contrary.


 * Please don't re-instate this passage until you at least try to address the objections raised above. An encyclopedia is no place to air wild allegations by a nobody.I have reason to doubt the report of Manfred Ropshitz as well. He claims anybody can get a copy of Shamir's passport, but the Swedish consul says it is protected by Sweden's privacy laws.JohD 11:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro - and false quoting of unacceptable sources.
This article is not about Jermas, who is unknown, except as an identity of Shamir. The subject is adequetely dealt with in the body. It does not deserve headline treatment either in the intro, or the conclusion. Using dubious secondary sources in the intro is unacceptable.

I have moved the issue of using Expo and Socialist Viewpoint to talk. They are unacceptable sources for wiki, and make wild claims that could or just as easily be devoid of truth. The subject has not been deleted from the material, and Jonathon Pollard is still quoted as a source, although quite clearly, his source is Expo and Socialist Viewpoint. JohD 16:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote:

"According to Swedish authorities, Shamir lived in Sweden from 1984-1993, when he emigrated to Russia. In 1998 he again became a permanent resident of Sweden and still remains so. He became a Swedish citizen in 1992/"

is a false representation of the allegations contained in the Expo article. It suggests a fixed and permanent fact, confirmed by the 'Swedish Authorities' that Shamir is living in Sweden. The articles themselves merely state that 'according to the Swedish Census', Shamir is registered as having lived in Sweden between 1984-1993. It is not impossible to register with the Swedish Census andnot in fact be living there. Clearly he was also elsewhere according to the evidence presented here; Israel as a publically politically active individual and journalist, and Russia as a correspondent for Hare'etz and Zavtra. Please don't re-instate this quote without discussing first.JohD 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Indymedia as a source?
This is really scraping the barrel. We have refrained from including quotes from ANY pro-Shamir source, and relied solely on anti-Shamir sources to date. Still you have to scrape the barrel? Find another source for this material, or it is going into the bin. JohD 16:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't start revert wars.
Please don't start revert wars. I gave my reasons why the edits were done. I have noticed that you avoid talk about the issues. Is this because you have no grounds for your reverts? I am editing this page beacuse I think it is a sewer. I will give you an opportunity to edit the last page before reverting. JohD 23:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If they refuse to engage you and simply try to heavy you with constant reverts, i suggest you report it as vandalism. Reverting without explanation is bad form, especially so for a moderator.

No, it is probable that Jayjg simply got carried away. I have reverted to the edits to give him a chance to edit what he objects to. JohD 08:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've already edited this page - you keep removing properly sourced information, and inserting apologetics. I object to all of that. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologetics? I suggest we rename the article 'How Israel Shamir changed his name and acquired Swedish citizenship'. It is all you and Diderot believe is important. It is included no less than three times in the article: The intro, His bio, and ‘Other Information’.

I have a lot more material, but am only concentrating on providing those with a more negative slant right now because it seems that Diderot and yourself are hell-bent on maintaining the lop-sided POV that is evident even in the my last edited version of the article. I suggest you do some research instead of acting like a gatekeeper for a particular POV. JohD 00:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Not about Shamir's alias
Diderot – Is this article about Shamir’s ‘disputed’ bio? The bio now has three banner headlines about these ‘disputes’; which are in fact a strawman ‘dispute’ about Jermas, which Shamir does not even seem to be ‘disputing’. Why don’t we simply include it as a fact; even mention that it is ommitted in Shamir’s own bio if you want? Unless you can point out other facts that are ‘disputed’, the repeated inclusion of of ‘many disputed facts’, seems to me to be a fanatical pushing for your POV. Is that the sum total of your knowledge of Israel Shamir? That he is Jermas, that he is anti-Semitic, and that he is controversial?

The category of the article is Swedish/Israeli Writers I am reinstating the intro I edited. You are pushing a POV by constantly re-instating the intro. The intro should contain pertinent information that explains why Shamir is included in wiki in the first place; and that is not because he changed his name to Joran Jermas, which is a minor detail that is more than adequetly covered in the body. Please abide by wiki's NPOV policy.

Also the use of the word ‘many’ in characterizing the disputed material in his bio, is misleading. It is not neutral and imparts a sense that the entire bio is questionable. There is not a single fact in his own bio that is disputed, except for Rance's unbelief of the entire CV. The dispute revolves around the ommission of his Swedish connection in it. ‘some’ is more accurate and neutral.JohD 00:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is about the person who calls himself (sometimes) Shamir, his expressed views and the controversies concerning him. Several of the cited sources point out (what they perceive as) inconsistencies, ommissions, or odditites in Shamir's/Jermas's CV. It's clear that they stongly doubt it's veracity ( "Israel Shamir lies about his background"). The lead should preferably be kept very short and include only some very basic information. His membership in the two organizations clearly belong under the more detailed description. These are not major organizations by any standard and Shamir's role in them appears not to be very prominent (i.e. he is not president or official spokesperson etc)


 * The only independent sources of information about Shamir's background comes from the Swedish authorities and the article in Jerusalem Post. This is pretty thin. Unless some journalist does more to check on his background, I guess we're stuck with this.


 * As for me "pushing a POV". What exactly would constitute that POV? That he is a writer and journalist who is opposed to Zionism and supports Palestinian rights? That he is a Swedish citizen? That his name is Jöran Jermas? That critics accuse Shamir of anti-Semitism and of misrepresenting his background and career? All these statements merely summarize what the sources say about Shamir.
 * --Denis Diderot 07:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The guidelines for the introduction state that:

1.	The introduction defines the term and topic and context, and

2.	The introduction prepares the reader for further detail.

By insisting that the introduction give prominence to Israel Shamir’s identity as Jermas, you are implying that it is a prominent detail about Shamir. It is not. Your suggestion that Shamir is ‘sometimes’ known as Shamir, is absolute baloney, and only important if you believe it vital that Shamir’s identity be discredited. It is pushing a POV, is not neutral, not the topic of the article, but a detail.

The article does not contain only three references to the same material, the same sources, and the same allegations, as I believed earlier; it is repeated FOUR times.

1.	The Introduction – “He is a citizen of Sweden, where his legal name is Jöran Jermas. Critics accuse Shamir of anti-Semitism and of misrepresenting his background and career.” (source : Expo &Searchlight/ SV)

2.	Shamir's account questioned - "his CV ... reads like a work of fantasy -... I don't believe a word of it." (source Roland Rance in Searchlight – same source material used in Expo, Searchlight/ SV, and Jonaton Pollard’s article in The times of London) 3.	Shamir's account questioned - "Israel Shamir first appeared on the Swedish census in 1984 (when he claims to have been in Israel)." (source indymedia derived from Expo & SV, a link I cannot access to verify that the quote is accurate)

4.	Other information about Shamir – “According to Swedish authorities, Shamir lived in Sweden from 1984-1993, when he emigrated to Russia. In 1998 he again became a permanent resident of Sweden and still remains so. He became a Swedish citizen in 1992.” (source Expo & Searchlight/SV)

Until you can explain why this piece of information is so vital as to make it practically the entire focus of the article, do not revert to it again. Unless you can show that Jermas is an alter ego designed to present Shamir’s viewpoint under another guise. It is a detail, and deserves to be aired ONCE. Expo & Socialist Viewpoint/Searchlight are not considered to be suitable secondary sources; and if their material is to be included, it should be substituted by using a reputable secondary source. I suggested Jonaton Pollard in the Times of London (who also sources his material from Expo & SV), but you deleted that for some reason.

None of the sources you cite contain ‘inconsistencies’ or ‘oddities’ in Shamir’s background; except the Jermas identity. The information about his ties with the two organizations provide us with basic information about his political/ideological affiliations, nothing about his Jermas identity provides us with information about his ideas.

You are pushing a particular POV by insisting on making the focus of the article about Jermas, since it is your POV that it is of vital importance. I am going to delete all but one reference to Jermas, and will leave it up to you which one you choose. I suggest you omit using fringe lunatic sources that have a bone to pick with Shamir, who shoot from the hip, and who are suspected of making obviously false accusations. I also suggest you omit fabrications about the contents of even these dubious sources. “Swedish Authorities” confirm nothing; the Swedish Census records that Shamir is registered as having lived in Sweden – big difference.Your 'several sources' boil down to one source - Socialist Viewpoint, which is published almost verbatim by Expo, and the same information regurgitated on Indymedia. Your 'inconsistencies, ommissions, or odditites in Shamir's/Jermas's CV' boil down to one issue - That Shamir acquired the Swedish identity Joran Jermas. JohD 08:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, no source claim that Shamir isn't Jermas. Thus there is no reason to treat "Jermas" as an alias but more reason to treat "Shamir" as an alias. If some sources claim that he isn't Jermas, then that information should be included. It's not the focus of the article, but someone's name and citizenship is pretty basic information, and it has the advantage of not being disputed. You're simply wrong about inconsistencies and oddities stuff. They point to the fact that he was officially living in Sweden and sending mail from Sweden when he was living elsewhere accoreding to CV and inconsistencies in terms of politics (being left-wing and right-wing at the same time), etc. Many clearly doubt that he was ever of Jewish descent, but believes he was always a right-wing Russian of the Greek Orthodox faith. The article should mention that, whether or not they are right. You shouldn't confuse my personal opinions (which you know nothing about) with those reported in the article.--Denis Diderot 14:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Diderot-

I disagree that when Shamir changed his name to Jermas, he ceases to exist except as Jermas. Shall we call the piece Jöran Jermas? Shall we title a page Charles Lutwidge Dodgson instead of Lewis Carrol? To date, Jermas is only a footnote as a new legal name for the Writer Israel Shamir, he is not well-known for anything. Israel SHanir is well-known as a writer who also uses the pen Name Robert David for his Russian language essays. He may well have been born with another name (Schimeling?) before adopting the Hebrew name Israel Shamir after moving to Israel. Nothing unsusual about that, happens all the time, especially in Israel. We are primarily here concerned about a writer called Israel Shamir. The only other name we know he has used for his writing is Robert David, most of whose essay he has republished under the name, Israel Shamir.

Your evidence that ‘Shamir’ is an alias is paper thin. There is plenty of evidence that Shamir is a real person, and that it is/was his real name before he decided to surreptiously change it, if indeed that was the case. He was being openly accused of ‘indirectly’ calling for the destruction of the State of Israel (Agursky article) – a criminal offense in Israel. His publisher was jailed for three months for publishing an anti-Semitic book (his) in France – a criminal offense in Israel. More than enough reason to acquire another nationality, and change your name I would say. If he was not Israel Shamir, it would not be neccessay to change his name. I have not seen the documentation relating to his change of name, but it probably has his prior name on it. I think we can safely assume that this is how they found out that ‘Israel Shamir’ had changed his name to ‘Jöran Jermas’ in Sweden.

He is ‘well known’ in Israel (to quote Agursky). Well known as a spokesman for Mapam (presumably it included security checks) in the Knesset. He is to be found quoted in numerous books as either Israel Shamir, Robert David, or both. 

Excerpts can be viewed here

"'There are many forces in Russia that are antagonistic towards the State of Israel, a view epitomized by the Pravda correspondent Israel Shamir. His regular...warning of the reader of Israeli plots ... isolate Russia"

Robert David is quoted in a book by Vadim Rossman - "Russian Intellectual Antisemitism in the Post Communist Era"

"Robert David and Uri Vaslov are two well known authors who drew on Ostrovsky's Expose' of the MOSSAD for their own articles."

Israelis seem to have no problem identifying an Israeli called Israel Shamir who also writes using the pen name Robert David. ’Jöran Jermas’ OTOH writes and has written nothing. It is a name belatedly acquired after his pieces became too well known amongst pro-Palestinian activists after 2001.

Some people believe Shamir is ostracized in Israel because of his pro-Palestinian views. 

"few weeks ago he forwarded an e-mail to Yasser Arafat including an article, written by the Israeli author Israel Shamir, whose support of the Palestinian right of return has ensured his ostracism by the Israeli establishment. The article, 'The Return of the Knight' -- the title is a pun on the name of Farris Ouda, the Palestinian boy whose photograph, standing alone, slinging a stone at a tank as it closed in on him became one of the most enduring images of the Intifada -- argues that the Palestinians need neither compassion nor pity but, rather, due recognition of their dignity, and of the chivalry of their fight for independence. - Mahgoub Omar"

Could his being ostracized in Israel have something to do with his acquiring Swedish Nationality, and changing his name?

Nobody says they doubt that Shamir was born a Jew. Quote verse and chapter please. You may be reading an something into an insinuation that may be apparent to you, but mainstream sources are cautious about slander, and printing things that are not true. I don’t even read that in the Searchlight article. It is downright racist and anti-Semitic to suggest that someone is not ethnically who they say they are without any proof. Web sites do not count. Googling “Israel Shamir” produces 76,000 first level hits. There are many thousands of people that are effusive in their praise for him; would we mention that? Wiki is not a forum for people to have their wild and racist speculations aired, even if they do exist. We would not publish speculation that someone who says they are not, is a Jew; simply because of his views, would we? Even if some wierdo actually believes it.

I cannot find it anywhere that Shamir says he is a leftist, do you have a source? It is clear in many of his pieces that he considers the western political left/right divide to be bogus. The accusation seems to be that they ‘thought’ he was a leftist, thereby verifying his opinion of the right/left divide. Left Right Out? The information is of marginal relevance to the article anyway; whatever people thought he is. It is hardly true that he hides his syncretic political views – it is found throughout his pieces. Wiki is not a forum for the left to burn their heretics, nor the Right for that matter. Nevertheless, I do agree with you that certain information is relevant for background:

Shamir changing his name to Jermas.

The pen-name Robert David.

His acquiring Swedish Nationality.

Certain aspects of his bio – his literary record, his Career as a journalist, His origins, His education, His political career, His career as a speaker & the multilingual nature of his literary output. But let us verify things.

Simply because some people believe something, whether true or not, does not make it pertinent to include it. It matters if they know him personally, otherwise not. Many people believe many things about the man, good and bad, but almost all of them do not know him. Speculation is not pertinent. Wiki is not a forum to give voice to wild speculation. If a mainstream source sees fit to publish speculation, then we can assume that they checked it out first. JohD 08:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Bloodcurdling Libel
"In an article titled Bloodcurdling Libel, Shamir advances the blood libel that Jews sacrificed Christian children for their blood, perhaps for use in Passover matzos or Purim hamantaschen. In a September 2004 article titled The Spider Web, he describes Sunday Times articles as 'part of a Judaic conspiracy to besmirch Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims', and suggests that the Beslan school massacre, genocide in Sudan, the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, the terror attacks on Istanbul synagogues, and the August 31, 2004 suicide bombings on buses in Beersheba (for which Hamas claimed responsibility), were all 'False flag' operations carried out by the 'Judaic conspiracy'. Another article titled Poisoning Wells recycles the medieval belief that Jews were responsible for causing outbreaks of bubonic plague by poisoning the wells."

The above passage is made from whole cloth and inventive original research. Nowhere in The Bloodcurdling Libel does Shamir 'advance ' the 'blood libel that Jews sacrificed Christian children for their blood, perhaps for use in Passover matzos or Purim hamantaschen'. The article is an examination of the use of the accusation of 'blood libel' against people who fight Zionism. He contrasts this with the accusation that Palestinians encourage their children to kill themselves in Suicide attacks, which is itself a blood libel. Quote the offending passages, don't invent things.

In The Spider Web  Shamir remarks on the apparent 'conspiracy' by Jews to defame Muslims and Arabs. The link between the various attacks is drawn by Zeev Shief, and Shamir merely mocks him. Representing that as Shamir suggesting that they are false flag operations is a personal POV derived from reading the text with a jaundiced eye. The material is borderline, but it does not mean you can make of it what you will. It is one thing pointing to and quoting such material, quite another to put a spin on it.

It seems that Shamir cannot mention the words 'conspiracy', 'blood libel', and 'poisoning wels, without being selectively misquoted. The introduction makes clear what he thinks of the 'medieval belief' the Jews poisoned wells:

"For over a millennium, we Jews were connected in the European popular mind with well-poisoning, to great chagrin of our ancestors. Now, the fantasies of past become true, as some dark minds turn tales of old into today’s reality"

"Jews are forever innocent" - He points out they are not, citing a real life incident where a Jewish man tried to poison the water supply in central Europe 50 years ago.

Please fix these items, it is not your role to think for people reading the article. They should be capable of making up their own minds If you want people to draw conclusions that Shamir is an anti-Semite and is recycling cannards about Jews, you are going to have to do better than that. If you cannot improve on it, then perhaps it should be deleted altogether. Wiki is not a soapbox. JohD 18:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Shamir points out that there has been ritual human sacrifice even in modern times, and that it is underground, openly sanctioned by no one.He points out that some black people have engaged in this anti social behavior. He asks the question "might not some Jews also engage in human sacrifice?" Nowhere does he say that human sacrifice is acceptable among the Jewish people of today, or even those of medieval times. He does point to the well known Jewish glorification of killing and suicide to avoid conversion. He asks if it is not logical that Christians, knowing that Jews have killed their own young, might believe that Jews might kill Christian children as well? Nowhere does he say that the killing of Christians for ritual use of their blood is or was ever sanctioned by mainstream Judaism. He questions whether the Jews just as others do, may have secret and unsanctioned practitioners of human sacrifice. Eugene Weixel 09:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No Whitewashing Please.
Jayjg, Please don't vandalize pages with curt statements that amount to your POV. If you believe the material is whitewashing, then present the offending passages and we can discuss it. Otherwise, it is plain vandalism.
 * Actually, if you want to change the page, then get consensus for this in talk first please. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well there does seem to concensus that the page is too biased, including from your good self. Look, I am a critic of Shmair, but the reason I edited the page was that there were a lot of claims that were not cited properly, the lead was a nasty personal attack on SHamir, and the criticisms were badly written. Please do not start a revert war in defense of a badly written and POV version of this article.--Cberlet 22:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) If the sources contain no substantiation that could be a problem, but you can't go about writing your own rebuttals of them - please read the original research policy, which specifically forbids what you are doing. Most of your insertions consists of POV essays and defences you have written for Shamir, nothing else. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or personal blog. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC) There seems to be too much criticism of Shamir on this page. Perhaps some more pro-Shamir content could be added to reduce the bias on this page? Andrew_pmk | Talk 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC

Is it now your position that the article cannot be improved in regard to NPOV and balance? Please clarify for us, since you seem to believe that providing the least amount of information, however sourced, that provides a semblance of Shamir’s position is whitewashing. Do you at least agree that some passages quote sources that do not substantiate the claims? Please let me know.I have no problem with rules, so long as they are consistent. JohD 13:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC) I apologise for technically stuffing up earlier, I should have gone to the sandpit first.

I am not familiar with Israel Shamir except to have read a couple of pieces by him, but the article stikes me as being absurdly unbalanced. The guy seems to be a Russian, lived in Israel and also goes by another name and has Swedish citizenship. Interesting. But what is the significance of this information? I don't understand. What is it he has done that is either criminal or unethical? Why does he have so many critics? I have read a couple of the links provided in the paragragh JohD pointed out. One is borderline bad writing, the other extremely poetic. Quite a contrast. He seems to have a bee in his bonnet about Jewish influence and uses Jewish objections to anti-Semitism to great effect. But the way the extract in the article is constructed is misleading in that it suggests he says things he does not - not in these articles anyway. I think the piece needs to be reworked. eJames

I am waiting for your response Jayjg JohD 13:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Repacement Bio.
I think we should work on replacing the bio information as it stands. The present one is a mishmash of innuendo, speculation and unverified facts. I don't propose whitewashing it, but do believe that a proper sense of perspective needs to be adopted. Just because some people believe he is an anti-Semite, and changed his name, does not mean that even the barest of circumstantial case has been esthablished about anything. It simply means that he acquired another legal name. Many Israelis, including the present leader of the Likud party, have two legal names, and two nationalities.

This is an outline for a new introduction. I will not edit it in because I don't believe a revert war achieves anything. I will edit it in if there is no objection to it. I suggest that we adopt a guideline: Speculation is not to be included unless from a legitimate mainstream source. There is plenty of speculation available, good and bad, from pro and anti Shamir sources. They should be excluded. By this I mean magazines that derive from the Socialist Workers Party and affiliated organizations in other countries, and from rabidly pro-Shamir anti-Semitic sources. see Reliable_sources I suggest that the folowing be substituted for the introduction and bio. Israel Shamir is a writer and journalist who is opposed to Zionism and supports Palestinian rights. Shamir is a Strong proponent of the One-State Solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict, and is a founding Director of the Lausanne Based One Democratic State in Israel/Palestine’ [1]. He is also on the current Board of Advisors of Deir Yassin Remembered[2], an Organization devoted to establishing a suitable memorial to the Victims of the Deir Yassin Massacre at the Village of Deir Yassin in 1948. Shamir is a controversial figure due to the nature and his treatment of his subject matter.

Israel Shamir is well known to his Russian Readers as a writer, translator and journalist and, thanks to his books The Pine and the Olive and Travels in Japan, and to his translations of Joyce, Homer and Agnon into his native Russian. He did not write in English until January 2001. His articles appeared on the Internet, were placed on many sites and were reprinted by numerous newspapers and magazines, and translated into many languages. (Taken from Shamir’s website – a primary source)

Shamir was also a well known, if controversial figure, for his writing in the Russian daily Pravda, the weekly Russian Weekly Zavtra, Ha'aretz, Al Hamishmar, and also The Jerusalem Post under the pen-name Robert David, and his own name. He was also the Knesset spokesman for the Israeli political party Mapam. (Source his own bio and Confirmed by the Jerusalem Post – Agursky).

In 2004, a controversy erupted in anti-Zionist ranks when it was alleged that Shamir had concealed that he apparently had also lived in Sweden, acquired Swedish nationality and changed his name to Jöran Jermas. This follows another controversy in 2002, in which Arab American pro-Palestinian activist accused him of evoking anti-Semitic imagery in his writing. (Source Jonathon Pollard in The Times of London).

The bio can be developed from there as we identify verifying sources and material.JohD

I am sorry Diderot, Jayjg, and others; but I am beginning to get the feeling that you only want to obstruct editing of this page. Diderot you previously said:

"...In fact I think the article is too accommodating towards Shamir, since too much information is taken directly from his home page (even if there is now a warning that some of the facts are disputed).Denis Diderot 19:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

What is your position, that the bio is taken from Shamir's webpage? That you are happy to have it there as long as you can try to enforce the 'many', instead of some? Why would you want to maintain an article that is too accomodating to Shamir?

I am editing the page to replace the one that reads like it belongs in a tabloid. If you object, state your case, but cease this obstructionist behavior. (JohD 13:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
 * I've already expained why your edits were unacceptable above.
 * Now you've quoted my comment about an old version of this article. I don't understand what your point is. In that version almost all information about Jermas,Shamir, Smerling,David etc, was taken from the homepage, which obviously wasn't a good solution.
 * It's impossible to respond to sweeping judgements like "sewer" or "tabloid". It doesn't lead anywhere. Useful criticism must be more specific. You also have an obvious credibility problem, since you (or perhaps the person whose name you are using) are one of Shamir's supporters who has published many things on his homepage, including for example
 * "Anyone with half a brain will read the searchlight archives and realize that it is Jewish National Socialist Site masquerading as an anti-Fascist magazine.".
 * Therefore it's easy to suspect that you have an agenda apart from trying to improve this article for Wikipedia.--Denis Diderot 18:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately Diderot, that is not an argument nor a response. I could be the devil incarnate, and it would make little difference. We all have agendas, and bias. My agenda is to prevent the deliberate vilification of an individual here at wiki under the guise of NPOV, that is anything but. I am challenging you, and anyone who cares, to justify their edits and explain why they not in breach of wikipedia guidelines. Fortunately, wiki has clear guidelines about using radical antagonist like Socialist Worker as sources. Searchlight, Expo, Socialist viewpoint and various others are all affilliates of the Socialist Workers party in various countries. They are not suitable sources for this article because they have obviously decided that Shamir is a heretic who should be burned in the public square. I don't like people who burn heretics, and the Expo, searchlight et al articles all stemm from the same source, and obviously have the goal of ostracizing Shamir within the anti-Zionist cause.

'Tabliod' characterizes a publication that makes sweeping sensational claims based on dubious sources - 'Lurid and sensational' per dictionary.com. I believe the corresponding description is 'gutter journalism'- ergo like a sewer. This stylistic approach characterizes this article as it stands. I do appreciate that you, at least, have made some attempt to clean it up, that is why I address myself to you. Although we may disagree about the subject matter, I do detect a sense of fair play in your makeup. I know, you know, the tone of this article stinks.

Every attempt by me to edit the piece has been variously described as 'whitewashing' and 'apologia' and has been reverted. Surely you must realize that Shamir is quite the hero with Arabs, and Muslims, and has a considerable following and his work widely read. I have a stack of material on him that can swamp the pathetic efforts of Searchlight and Jonathon Pollard. I have shown how even using these sources give lie to the innuendo that he does not live in Jaffa, Israel, has not published numerous books, has not worked at Ha'aretz, Ma'ariv, Pravda, and has not translated Homer, Argon and others. This is called credibility, and the purpose of the Searchlight article is to reduce his credibility with innuendo - that he is not born of Jewish parents as he claims, that he does not live in Israel as he claims and therefore cannot credibly comment on local Israeli issues, that he has not worked as a journalist as he claims, that he has not written publically available books as he claims, and that he is not a 'leftie' whatever that means.

As for my politics, be assured that I have experienced and lived under a real-life Fascist government, and loathe it. I would recognize Fascism and Racism in an instant. Shamir is no fascist, nor is he a racist, not by a long shot. I agree that Shamir's use of anti-Semitic imagery would be disconcerting to many Jewish people, It must be uncomfortable. Nevertheless, it does not mean he can be recklessly vilified.

I believe his entry in wiki can written in a balanced manner that takes into account all POV. I have ideas, and think it might be better to include Jewish criticism in particular in a separate section that put forward their objections in aless knee-jerk fashion. I think you can help in regard. If we work co-operatively, we can improve the article, while ensuring all POV's are represented in a balanced manner. I will keep a lid on intemperate anti-Shamir vilification; you can ensure it is balanced with regard to Jewish sensibilities.

JohD

I ask that you examine the intro & bio while bearing in mind that it is not the end of the matter. Once we have a stub of a bio, we can then work through the body. We can include and exclude material by consensus, with regard to balanced, sourced material, (JohD 01:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC))


 * Still no response? hmmmmmm! JohD 09:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is a reponse, finally. (I've been busy elsewhere.) I'll go through your points one by one. First you say that your credibility problem isn't an argument. It was obviously not intented as an argument, but a statement of fact. You, on other hand seem to be very careless with facts. Perhaps you think that facts are subservient to the cause? Neither Searchligt nor Expo are affiliates of the Socialist Worker's Party. Where did you get that information from? When I point out that it's not very useful to give vague unspecific criticism, you respond with further sweeping pronouncements ("Lurid and sensational", "gutter journalism"). Next you proceed to present some claims about (supposed) facts, but you fail to give sources. If you can find notable Arab and Muslim writers who state that Shamir is "quite the hero" or something similar, then please add that information to the article. I don't quite see what the numerous sources are that you refer to that are supposed to "give lie to the innuendo that he does not live in Jaffa, Israel" etc. You also seem to be using strawman tactics in misrepresenting the views of the critics. Who has claimed that he never worked as a journalist? Your politics is no more relevant than mine. Let me just point out that growing up in a racist society works both ways. Yes, one may grow up to loathe racism, especially the one directed at one's own ethnic group, but one may also become accustomed to some forms of racist thinking (we and them, our group and their group) As for your proposal that the article should be "balanced with regard to Jewish sensibilities", Wikipedia isn't politics. It's not about balancing various "voter groups" or "support bases". It's about presenting accurate and relevant information, whether or not it offends "sensibilities". And why do you think I could be some kind of expert on "Jewish sensibilities". I have no better way of knowing what they are than you do.--Denis Diderot 09:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

SIGH!!
I am really dissapointed in that response Diderot, It somehow seems beneath you; I expected better. Yes, my charaterization of the SWP and Searchlight being affiliated is perhaps a slur, on the SWP. I apologize for that, but no beating around the bush gets you away from the fact that Searchlight is a thouroughly disreputable magazine. It is rounbdly condemned by both it’s Fascist enemies, as would be expected, but also anti-Fascists. Read London Class War and pay attention to the section entitled Searchlight for beginners. It is the tip of the iceberg. Among the many specialities of a staff that consist of more than a couple of former members of Fascist organizations, is libel, false flag ‘hate’ crimes (one involving an assault on a Jewish shopkeeper), and burglary. They are known planters of false information on people that they sometimes retract years after the damage has been done. The legal entity is a Two Pound Company front; devoid of any assets, to protect from the risk of a defamation suit. The material is endless. This is the magazine you want to insist is a proper source for wiki?


 * I sincerely hope you are joking. In order to "prove" that Searchlight is an unreliable source, you adduce what? A pamphlet from 1996 written by someone who's been attacked in the pages of Searchlight. And the fact that it's been criticized by Facists. Hmmm...--Denis Diderot 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Come on, there is more than criticism, it is an accusation that the editors and assorted staff indulge in criminal behavior for which some of them have been convicted.

As for Expo, I have no more evidence than that they reproduce articles from searchlight. I cannot speak Swedish, all a translation does is repeat the info in Searchlight. ‘The Socialist Viewpoint’ is a direct affiliate of SWP, although no suggestion is being made that they are in the same mold as Searchlight. The SWP, on a number of occasions have aligned with Searchlight on anti-Fascist and electoral campaign Committees.


 * The article in Expo isn't reproduced from Searchlight. It has a different author and contains different information. The information in Expo and Searchlight comes from readily verifiable sources. It's very unlikely that four journalists would jeopardize their reputation by lying about such things.--Denis Diderot 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well we need a translation then, or at least the relevant parts translated. Expo, Searchlight & Jonathon Pollard all extrapolate from supposition of Roland Rance. Socialist Review brought their expose' becuase they originally ran two pieces of Shamir in their magazine. Roland is not a journalist, and has no journalistic reputation to jeoparize, but his reputation as a anti-zionist activist can be jeopardized. IMV, Jonathon Pollard has the most to lose, and should be considered the sole reputable source for this material.

I think the wiki guidelines are clear about using such sources, in articles that smear political opponents.
 * See above.--Denis Diderot 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * see above. Searchlight makes no bones about their partisan politics - anti Facism. They believe Shamir is a fascist; they therefore are not a suitable source of information about Shamir.

I characterized the material and tone of the wiki article on Shamir as ‘tabloid’. You siad you cannot respond to such ‘sweeping judgements’. I cannot understand why not? ‘Tabloid’ is defined by dictionary.com as ‘gutter journalism’ and ‘lurid & sensational’ reports. I am directly drawing attention to the ‘lurid & sensational’ nature of the article on Shamir as it stands (and deteriorates) on wiki, and the ‘gutter journalism’ that permeates its content. I suggest you don’t want to respond to this criticism, but I can just as easily suppose that you cannot either. Your dancing around the issue speaks volumes about your attitude towards this article.
 * No, that's not what I said. Please read what I said again.--Denis Diderot 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * you said "it is impossible to respond to such sweeping judgements". I can't understand why not? Are you suggesting that a judgement about Searchlight as a 'tabloid' and practitioners of 'gutter journalism' is impossible to understand in light of their record? I think we can safely say they are extreme.

As to the evidence that Shamir does indeed live in Jaffa; Ben Dohr Yemini, an editorial writer in Israeli Newspaper Ma’ariv , in an article that Shamir refers to in one of his newsletters denounces Shamir as a ‘Nazi’. The article alerts Stephen Plaut, from FrontPage mag. to write about it.
 * ” He refers Israel Shamir as an open anti-Semite. Russian-born Shamir lives in Israel, but almost no Israelis have heard of him”
 * Most of the doubt concerns whether Shamir or his parents were Jewish, whether he always held right-wing opinions, whether he lied about his background to seem more important, and whether he has spent as much time in Israel as he claims. As far as I know, nobody has suggested that he's never been to Israel. --Denis Diderot 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please cite where in the sources doubt is expressed about whether Shamir is ethnically of Jewish Heritage? The only one who makes reference to this is Roland Rance, but it is in reference to his religion. Rance himself is not a Jew, according to religious beliefs, yet he describes himself as a Jew. As for Shamir's political leanings, some of them are decidedly Marxist, some decidedly conservative. I don't think that it has been indicated that there is doubt about it, Shamir himself does not claim a purity of ideology. The only doubt is whether Shamir deliberately concealed his connection to Sweden.
 * to wit, the inclusion og the disclaimer 'Many details in Shamir's biography are disputed by others' is a construct that violates wikipedia's policy prohibiting Original Research.

In this message (Cached), circulated via IACEB Newsletter (see 5. Columnist "Israel Shamir" is a Swedish Neonazi Impostor ) Plaut admits that he called Ben Dror Yemini, who had made extensive inquiries about Shamir:


 * ” Ben Dror Yemini, editor at Maariv, just told me that Shamir exists but

converted a while back to Christianity and took on the Swedish name.”
 * Yes, but who has denied that he exists? As for the conversion, what is the source of that info? Shamir himself? His friends, supporters? Some independent verifiable source?--Denis Diderot 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Russian-born Shamir lives in Israel, but almost no Israelis have heard of him."
 * The title of Ben Dohr's piece is "Enemy Within"
 * see below

Plaut knows the story is false, at least in its important aspects (perhaps his argument would be that he hopes it contains some true material), yet he continues to propagate it. But wiki is not FrontPage Mag, here we do not have the luxury of propagating wild accusations; not according to the guidelines.
 * We may report accusations here even if they are wild, if the accuser is notable, and we make sufficiently clear that we are simply reporting the viewpoints of the accuser, not vouching for their correctness.--Denis Diderot 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But the issue here is not whether we are reporting false claims or not, it is about whether we are ACCEPTING false claims as fact. You object to the category being changed to 'Israeli Writers', despite the lack of evidence that 'Joran Jermas' has written anything. You suggest that it is Israel Shamir that should be considered an alias. You use deliberately created false impressions as verification for your insistence to treat Israel Shamir, Israeli, as a fabrication.

In an article that has already been referenced and quoted here in order to discredit Shamir, Noel Ignatiev, editor of Race Traitor Magazine describes how he met Shamir at his home in Jaffa and conducted an in-depth conversation with him – spending about a week with Shamir at his home, for the purpose of finding out and writing about his views in Race Traitor Magazine. Noel is not overly taken with Shamir, but must be bemused that the individual he met did not live in Israel. He does not mention it once, that Shamir does not live in Israel, in fact he reports quite the opposite. He is only one of hundreds of people who have met and interacted with Shamir, both in Israel and abroad.
 * The critics have not denied that he exists or that he's been to Jaffa. --Denis Diderot 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is understated nonsense; they have not denied, they have implied he does not live in Israel; without any evidence. They have suggested that he is registered in the 'Swedish census registry'under the name of Jorãan Jermas. You draw on this implication as fact, now you want to assert that he 'has been to Jaffa'. If I live in Brisbane, I have not 'been to Brisbane' I live there. Israel Shamir says he lives in Jaffa, prove it is not so, don't base you proof on half baked conclusions drawn from half baked evidence from half-baked 'investigations'. It is one thing for critics to make allegations, and for these allegations to be included in the article; quite another for the article to accept them as fact, even going so far as to change the category of the article to 'Swedish Writers'.

I have never met Shamir, so I cannot testify to his residence in Israel. What I can do, is examine the sources, examine the reports, examine the motivation of the protaganists, and make judgement as to the reports veracity. The suggestion that Shamir is not an Israeli, does not live in Israel, and misrepresents that he is a journalist who has worked for Haaretz, Ma’ariv, Pravda and Zavtra, is quite patently false. The accusation that he has lived in Sweden during the period 1984-1993 is quite patently false. There are unverified reports that a Swedish pasport issued to an individual called Jermas, who bears a likeness to Shamir. I say ‘unverified’ because of the reasons stated elsewhere on this discussion page: the report contains a claim that is on its face untrue – that anyone can obtain a copy of a Swedes passport. It also is suspect because the purported photo of Shamir is not sealed with an official stamp, as pointed out to me by a Swedish consular official. But this is not covered by your address to my points ‘one by one’. You simply want to ignore the evidence, and pretend it will go away.
 * The Swedish passport information is public, although a law passed in 2004 now makes it difficult to get the passport photographs. The information in the "Population Registration" is also public. (It's not a "census" that you keep repeating without any evidence. Read more here. ) There are also several other sources they could have used.
 * The words used in the source articles is 'The Swedish Census registry'. It is not publicly available as you suggest, but available to 'authorized people". It is not a law passed in 2004 that first fabade the dissemination of this information, but the Swedish Personal Register Law passed in 1998; well before the suppossed change of name.
 * It is intersting, according to the second link you provided Population Registration in Sweden, issued by Sweden;s Tax Office, it is illegal to cpmpletely change your name, you must use at least one of your previous names. According to the 'Names Act', proglumated in 1982.

"Additions, Changes, or removal can be made by reporting the same to the Tax Agency. This can only be doneonce and one given name must be kept. (Emphasis in original)" So which one of the name Joran Jermas is it being suggested that Shamir kept? A simple question, that I hope you can address – Why did you revert my edit of the bio? Did you think it was biased? Did you think it avoided certain issues? I think it speaks volumes about YOUR motivation, which you claim is irrelevant. And stop giving me lectures about morals and Rascism – your anonymous identity deprives you of that right.JohD 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit because it severely decreased the quality of the article and violated several Wikipedia policies. My motivation is to make this article contain as relevant and accurate information as possible. I have definitely not lectured you about morals or racism. I made a simple observation which had nothing to do with morals and wasn't a lecture. And finally, why do you have a problem with my anonymous identity? If you knew that I was from Brazil or Russia, Moslem or Hindu, what difference would it make?--Denis Diderot 20:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I ask the same question I asked Jayjg. What policies did my last reverted edit violate? What 'relevant and accurate' information was deleted from it? Rascism is about morals, you suggested that people who experience rascism, become racist themselves. I am sorry, but your anonymity deprives you of credibility, as much as you want to discredit me, it is you that have no credibility. Anonymity provides you with the obvious advantage of concealing any hidden agenda.JohD 03:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

When is it done?
Since I'm new to Wiki, I'm wondering how long it takes to arrive at an acceptable bio. It'll be calming for readers when Shamir's bio is finally settled, and not filled with personal attacks on him.--David1313 21:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's actually a fairly Darwinistic process, provided the edit warring is not too violent. Eventually the useful and reasonable information will crystalise out and the bio will be acceptable. With controversional persons this is an asymptotic function - months are not unusual. JFW | T@lk  22:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Links with Fascists
"Shamir has links with alleged neo-nazis and fascist sympathisers in many countries, including Horst Mahler in Germany, Martin Webster  and David Irving   in the UK, and David Duke  in the USA."

I am putting this passage here for review. There a number of problems with it that can perhaps be resolved.

1. What is a 'link'? Is it a relationship, corrspondence, or simply returning a greeting, what?

2. The source that alegedly confirms this sentence is given as the French version of an article by Dominique Vidal in Le Monde diplomatique called France: racism is indivisible. It contains no mention of neo-Nazis and Fascists, in relation to Shamir or anyone else ... except 'the Jewish far right'. You cannot be serious.

3. The term 'neo-Nazi' is bandied about far too freely and used as a blunt weapon against anyone you don't seem to like. Not only is Shamir's tenuous 'links' to these people provided as dirt, they are gifted with the adjective 'alleged' and 'symphatizers'. Shamir is hereby lumped with unsubstantiated charges that he has links with 'alleged' 'symphatizers'.

4.The link that puports to substantiate the charge that he has 'links' to Horst Mahler is a simple reproduction of Mahler's proposed speech (his passport was confiscated to prevent him making it), contains some interesting disclaimers: "It is not endorsed neither considered for endorsement. All the news fit for print - and some that are not!", some substantiation!

5. Another link provided for the same purpose, is correspondence recieved and posted on Shamir's newsgroup from Horst Mahler. Shamir does this regularly, about 1600-1700 people belong to Shamir's list, which is completely opt-in, opt-out; the names of subscribers are not public, but correspondence with subscribers has been published from an eclectic mix of well-known figures from around the world. Is this what is termed 'links' nowadays? If you read the London Times, or a Shabby Tabloid for that matter, and they publish your letters, are you then 'linked' to them?

6. The link to David Irving's webpage is provided as evidence that Shamir is also 'linked' to him. I once tried to sell the Sydney Harbour Bridge to George W, Bush. I almost nailed him but he backed out at the last possible moment. I guess that 'links' me to him. Perfectly good enough for an encyclopedia to write 'Johd is linked to fanatical warmonger'.

7. Another link, purporting to demonstrate a 'link' between Shamir and David Duke is an article, distributed by Shamir, criticizing Duke's performance at the recent Kiev anti-Ziomist Conference. It seems that Shamir, and the author, disagree in almost every respect with Duke: "Which of course implies that our double-faced friend-foe Duke (with whom we ate, together with Israel Shamir, a breakfast in the “Sport” hotel in Kiew), with no repentance whatsoever still works as “politruk” on behalf of the unchanged since the Cold War, Department of State!" - Some 'link! (JohD 11:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC))


 * This passage is deleted in its entirety. This is not an 'anti-facist' forum for you to bash whoever you think is a neo-Nazi or fascist.JohD 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Roland Rance
Roland Rance is reasonably famous (or infamous): ''Roland Rance is an anti-Zionist, socialist Jew with family and work associations in Israel and a track record of over 25 years' campaigning for a unitary, democratic and secular Palestine. He chaired the inaugural meeting of Jews Against Zionism in London on 18 June 2003, a meeting at which the three programmed speakers were Alice Coy, Haim Bresheeth and Lenni Brenner. He also wrote the Jews Against the Occupation petition.'' Given this, his negative view of Shamir is notable. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That may or may not be the case; but I had never heard of him, he came out of nowhere. Does he speak Swahili?


 * Jayjg, I have noticed that you act as some sort of gatekeeper her, reverting any edits that don't conform to a particular viewpoint and restoring those that do. Do you have any interest in improving this article, or do you believe it is fine as it is?


 * I have taken considerable trouble to explain my moving the passage in question to the talk page; it is because I think it need work, not that all reference to Rance's speculation must be removed. Laziness does not excuse sloppiness. Rance's view's can be validly included; however it is not valid to include his speculations in a manner that gives them a seal of approval.


 * I agree that Rance's views, and the views of other higher profile anti-Zionists Jews should be included in the article. But they should be presented in a dispasionate manner, like reporting an occurance, without presenting their opinion dressed up as the report itself. I was giving you the opportunity to rewrite it yourself, but it appears you don't want to do that.


 * Let me then suggest another approach; you read the Rance piece in Socialist Viewpoint or another nominated source, and write up a bullet point list of allegations in it you feel should be included in the passage and how long you feel it must be. I will rewrite the passage and post it here, and you check it and and edit it to version that complies with wiki guidelines. If info is duplicated, i.e. included in another passage, I suggest the passages be grouped and the list coming from the various sources.


 * I did that on the Talk:Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed page with user:Juicifer. You can see the results. She has not responded yet, but with co-operation, such an approach can work to produce NPOV articles that cover all the salient issues. JohD 02:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This what I have in mind:

To edit the Rance passage with a more explanatory report. viz. ---
 * ===Criticism From anti-Zionist Jews===

In a preface to an editorial piece by Roland Rance in the September 2004 edition of Socialist Viewpoint, the Editors comment:
 * We publish this expose of one, Israel Shamir, several of whose articles we had published in this magazine until we had detected more than a hint of anti-Semitic nonsense about his thesis that the “Jewish Lobby” is primarily responsible for U.S. imperialism’s crimes in the Middle East. He had presented himself as a Russian Jew who migrated to Israel and was militantly opposed to Zionist crimes against Palestine.

—The Editors
 * In the Piece entitled Israel Shamir: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing Rance details a number of allegations about Israel Shamir: that he writes under different names including “Schmerlin, Robert David, Vassili Krasevsky and Jöran Jermas”; that he is a “Russian Right Wing journalist who petends to live in Israel”, but who also seems to live in Sweden; that his Curriculum Vitae “reads like a work of fantasy”, and that "he doesn’t believe a word of it"; that Shamir was a Christian long before his announced conversion, but finds it useful to pose as a Jew; That his Christianity is key to his ‘anti-Jewishness’

-- Notice the Headline has been changed. Most criticsm is coming from this group. Other groups criticsm are also valid, and can be included, but this ia more representative of the loose grouping as a whole. I propose we group others under the same section, but another subheading.

A cautionary note:

I know it is important for you to detail every criticism about Israel Shamir, but I would be careful about the use of questionable sources. It provides an imbalance in the perception about Shamir, and there is much that is available to more than balance it. What is good for the goose, is also good for the gander. If you use questionable sources, pro-Israel editors will in turn insist on using questionable sources. I would think about it; it does not serve any pupose, and we should at least agree to abide by wiki guidelines about such matters.JohD 06:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The current version of Rance's criticism is written in a perfectly neutral way which follows policy. It is clear these accusations are coming from Rance. Also, your claims of "questionable sources" has not been borne out in any way. Finally, the proposed headline change is prejudicial, and the people criticising him are not some organized group. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the person responsible for all the editing changes signed with the IP 85.210.59.223. This is not through any inetntion to hide my identity, but because I have only just worked out how to create an account. I did not first introduce my name into this discussion, but was attracted after I saw myself cited. I do not claim to be neutral. None of us is; not even JohD, who earlier this year suggested that I was working with the Israeli Mossad. I do claim, however, that I am objective and truthful. My contributions have all been additions; I have not attempted to remove comments or statements with which I disagree, but rather to complete the picture of a controversial writer.

I couldn't comment on whether I am famous (or infamous). The partial biography on the Cork Student Palestine Solidarity site is very limited and five years out of date. It's certainly not true, as JohD suggests, that I "came out of nowhere". As many Palestinians and others will confirm, I was active in Palestine Solidarity and anti-Zionist work when Shamir was still writing for the right-wing Israeli press and working for a Zionist party in the Knesset. RolandR 19:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well clarify for us then Roland; how certain are you of the Ropschitz evidence, which you base your observations on regarding Shamir being a Swede and not an Israeli? Which part of the bio do you not "believe a word of"? It is, after all, you that is being quoted. Do you stand by your statements?JohD 01:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am certain of Manfred Ropschitz's evidence, but I do not rely on it. Rather, he started from my observations, and made his own enquiries. Not only am I convinced; I thought that this was no longer in question. Shamir himself has never denied that he is also known as Jöran Jermas and has a residence in Stockholm. Indeed, he has threatened me with legal action for publishing the address (which I did inadvertently). I have never claimed that he is not an Israeli or that he does not live in Jaffa; rather, I have simply published the established fact that he has at least one additional identity, residence and citizenship.


 * And yes, I stand by my statements. I accept that the comment that "I do not believe a word of it" is not in itself evidence that Shamir's biography is not true. But it is in itself a true statement, and evidence that -- in common with several other anti-Zionists -- I have very grave suspicions of Shamir's identity and agenda. I have not introduced any of this into wikipedia, where it is not appropriate. It is however, appropriate in an article somewhere like Socialist Viewpoint (which is not, by the way, affiliated to the Socialist Workers' Party in either the USA or Britain). RolandR 12:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Replacement Bio redux
Since it is becoming clear that reverts of my edits are based on noting more than suspicions of my motives, I am editing the bio again and making clear my position. I believe that the article as it stands is highly prejudical to Shamir. It presumes to accept allegations as 'facts'. I believe the emphasis on what is clearly a small and segmented group of people out of the wider Shamir readership creates a false picture of people's reaction to his views. While not an invalid opinion, we should avoid creating the perception that wiki agrees with it, or not.

The article is already being disseminated on websites around the world. Do a simple google search and you will find such refrences to the page.

Answers.com

If this is the case, it behooves us to get the article right, and cease obstructionist behavior.JohD 07:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Reverts of your edits are being done because your edits do not follow policy, as they attempt to remove any information critical of Shamir on the flimsiest grounds, and accept everything Shamir says as factual, when his critics continually call his factualness into account. In addition, you make sweeping claims and generalizations on this talk page which you are singularly unable to back up, then use that as a basis for your deletions and edits.  Please review WP:NPOV and WP:V.  If you want to find and add material supportive of Shamir, that's one thing, but to simply remove material because you don't like it is unacceptable. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not true that I want to remove material critical of Shamir, the material is included in my rewrites. The difference is that my rewrites present it in a more clinical manner, and avoids the perception that it is endorsed by wiki. For instance, the intro accepts the claims that he is a citizen of Sweden at face value, and ignores the primary source claim of Israeli citizenship. In cases where there is an obvious dispute seeTalk:Israel_Shamir about the facts, between primary and secondary sources, it is not wiki's role to so obviously endorse one or the other, but to consider the claims on their merits, and if it is inconclusive, to present both claims in sterile language. The article as it stands presents one view as fact (citing secondary sources Expo & searchlight) while the primary source (Shamir's bio) with a disclaimer. This is so biased, it is embarrassing. Yet, it is continually reverted to without shame, and without any regard to the WP:V rules that are continually cited. I am one my ownsome here, but I will be damned if I let such obvious agenda driven malarky stand.JohD 23:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And no Jayjg, the material is not removed, it is simply arranged in a more NPOV manner. You abuse your editing privileges to revert at all costs. If we cannot agree the a NPOV presentation of critical material, what is the sense of piling into the piece supportive material?JohD 06:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You removed the Roland Rance material entirely; that is removing it. Accepting Shamir's claims and POV is fine for you in real-life, but is certainly not acceptable according to the WP:NPOV policy. I have yet to see you prove that a single thing in the article is inaccurate, and your claims on this page about the sources used have been proven to be wrong. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you being ingenious or are you mistakenly confusing the issues. my last edit (07:33:15.12/05) contains the Rance material. It was not removed, yet it was still reverted. I am not ignoring your criticisms of my edits, but modifying them to take into account your objections. I wish I could sincerely thank you for your asistance in that regard, but that would be like a tortured prisoner at thanking his tormentor for providing a glass of water. Previously I had moved Rance's passage to the talk apge in its entirety so it could be edited and re-instated. I still hold that Expo and Searchlight and for that matter Socialist Review are inappropriate source material in this case to be included without qualification as per wiki guidelines reliable sources; but somebody will clarify that in due course, I am sure. Rance himself believes the subject is inapropos on this page, but I disagree with him because it forms the centerpiece, and is the original source of this material. I am certain the Indymedia source is inadmissible, but it is not so important. You can include any source you want, and any material for that matter, but I will scrutinize the manner of its presentation. Once we have settled the style issues, I will present my own material, subject to the same standards. I have no intention of covering the same ground, with twice the materialJohD 00:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Style & verification edits
I have made five edits that incorrectly attribute OR as deriveing from a source or ahave removed information from a quote to conceal relevant details.

1.	Agursky’s quote contains an important sentence that verifies one of the most disputed claims of Shamir -hat he is not an Israeli. He verifies it as far back as 1991, when most of his critics mention here had never heard of him. Ironically, this passage is included in a section that questions Shamir’s account.

2.	The Rance passage contained Rance voicing doubts about Shamir’s identity, the claims that other anti-Zionist Jews express similar views. This is false, the anti-Zionist Jews in the source material express views unrelated to Shamir’s identity, and about Shamir’s views. I changed it.

3.	The passage including the phrase ‘According to Swedish Authorities” has been introduced again with the false atribution as to the source of this information. I have changed the source of this information (according to the source provided) to “The Swedish Census”

4.	I have made a minor edit to Jewish/Christian Relations to separate the paragraph to provide more clarity

5.	I have included a more explanatory details from the quoted text. The original material made no sense viz a viz the opening sentence and the section heading. The second paragraph, seperated by eclipses actually belongs in a separate para according to the source text and has been edited accordingly.JohD 06:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

JonD is Israel Shamir
His edits on the Lord Ahmed page confirmed my strong suspicion that User:JonD is a sock-puppet of Israel Shamir.

He has only edited Israel Shamir and related articles, his style is strongly reminiscent of Shamirs style. I wasn't certain, so I asked him to edit the Ahmed article as he saw fit. It turned out that he wasn't so bothered by the controversy in itself, but by the response from Ahmed. Previously it concluded Ahmed refused to comment and now it reads Ahmed refused to condemn the remarks. What can be done about this? jucifer 16:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

From: Israel Shamir <ishamir@...> Date: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:12 pm Subject: Wiki  ish314 Dear friend, if you have time, you may help to fight a small internet war over Wikipedia, a popular website with many links. Obviously it is as dominated by philosemites as any other media, and they consistently demonise me in the entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir When I, or some friends correct their most blatant lies, they change it back in no time at all. Afterwards, they refer to their own lies as if it is an objective source. Everybody can add, remove and edit any entry in the Wiki. I call those who has available time to make an effort and to re-conquer the site from philosemites.'' Shamir
 * ''I found this comment on a yahoo group called Shamir readers:

O dear. jucifer 16:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This IP also appears to be Shamir: 68.98.64.244 jucifer 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh for pete sake, I have been open about my identity and pupose here. I cannot see how openly rectifying material is a capital offense. You really should get your tinfoil hat resized, Shamir might be upset at the gross distortion in the article, and issued his appeal, but it does not follow that I, or anybody else for that matter, take detailed instructions from him. Far as I can tell, the only ones that ever edited this page, and have openly declared their identity, have been myself, Shamir and Roland Rance. Everybody else could be a sockpuppet for all we know, including yourself. So stop with the hysterical tone. Whether wikipedia itself is an authenthic and legitimate enteprize, is a question that is up in the air. Clearly it is a vehicle that can easily be abused and hijacked to push an agenda. That someone is a member of long standing is entirely irrelevant, if you don't know who they are. It could mean that they are simply more organized than another group. The 'wiki community' is a construct that is meaningless, without proper scrutiny of the characters involved. At present, I have absolutely no intention of joining an anonymous 'community', a construct that is phony at face value, so I restrict my activities to my interest here, without falsely creating a cover, either as to my pupose, or identity. In that respect, I am infinitely more credible than you are.JohD 23:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Roland Rance, Please Clarify
Dear Roland,

You have made a couple of interesting statements as it pertains to this article:


 * I am certain of Manfred Ropschitz's evidence, but I do not rely on it

Explain why you do not rely on it, yet Wikipeadia, and their readers should? If you have conclusive evidence that Shamir has changed his name, please provide us with it so that the issue can be settled conclusively. That Shamir has not denied it, is not conclusive proof that it has happenend. If you refused to provide evidence, would that be conclusive proof that you do not have it? I don’t think so.


 * I thought that this was no longer in question. Shamir himself has never denied that he is also known as Jöran Jermas and has a residence in Stockholm. Indeed, he has threatened me with legal action for publishing the address (which I did inadvertently).

According to your piece in the Socialist Review, Shamir is divorced, could it be that his first wife, and his children, were exposed to danger by your actions? A lot of people were interested in your article, not because you were famous, but because Shamir was. It includes Searchlight Magazine; as little as I have read about it, it is enough to want to keep such characters far away from my family, estranged or not. It was a stupid thing to do, as I am certain you realize, but you were not the first, David Irving was. It was a thoughtless and vainglorious deed, that has done him a fat lot of good.

Alas, it would make my task easier, if the issue of his Jermas identity was settled conclusively. I restrict my discussion about the private personal affairs of my friends to topics that are freely and voluntarily declared by both parties, and avoid private discussions of them even with third parties. I don’t know about it, it is a sleazy expose’; and I seriously doubt it would make a difference one way or another. Surely even you must be aware by now that the issue is still very much in the air. Not that it is because people don’t believe it, but because they don’t care one way or another, and object to the manner and purpose of the expose’. For this reason, even if it were solely up to me, I would include a mention of it. But its presention should be sterile, devoid of weasel spin doctoring, and it most certainly, should not be included in the intro as a Poisoning the well exercise. To do so invites retaliation.

BTW, have you ever apologized to Shanir for your 'inadvertent' slip?


 * I have never claimed that he is not an Israeli or that he does not live in Jaffa; rather, I have simply published the established fact that he has at least one additional identity, residence and citizenship.

Where have you publish this ‘established fact’? As far as I can make out, you made a totally unsupported statement that “(Shamir) who also writes under the names of Schmerlin, Robert David, Vassili Krasevsky and Jöran Jermas.” I could not find any evidence at all that verified this claim anywhere. Not for a single one of them. I have since established that Shamir did indeed write under the name Robert David in the Russian language and I was the one that first edited in this information. The claim that 'Jermas' wrote anything, is particularly relevant here. Until recently, it did not occur to me that you cite the same passage in your SV article, the complete quote was not there, only fragments. I suspect it was because the full quote contained information that gives lie to the ‘I do not believe a word of it’ phrase. It is not ‘established fact’ at wiki until it is sourced and verified, whatever impression you may have to date. Nothing will stand until we can include all relevant material, including sources. I am asking for your co-operation, it is everybody concerned interests.

Whatever you meant by the ‘I do not believe a word of it” comment, it is the one that is doing immense damage, since it forms the basis of the ‘many details of Shamir’s biography are disputed’ disclaimer. I have tried to get around this by including a sterile version of the undisputed details, and including references to the disputed ones.

It is important for us to know why you believe Israel Shamir lives in Jaffa, and so avoided the accusation that he only 'pretends' to.

Which brings me to the purpose of this message. I believe you owe us an explanation, and an obligation to clarify the issues, that mainly center on your decision to 'expose' Israel Shamir. What evidence do you have for your claims about his identity? What motivates your campaign against him? Why did you deliberately cast aspersions to bring into question Shamir’s biographical claims, which you now want to brush off and deny you said. Of course you didn’t say, but that was the intended implication. Why did it take so long for you to clarify your statements, deliberately allowing aspersions to be cast onto Shamir’s biographical record of his career? Wiki is not the only occasion where it has happened, it is widely reproduced on every rabid, warmongering, Zionist, hate site on the internet. You are a hero at www.littlegreenfootballs.com. Congratulations, It must make you proud. You are famous.


 * I have not introduced any of this into wikipedia, where it is not appropriate. It is however, appropriate in an article somewhere like Socialist Viewpoint (which is not, by the way, affiliated to the Socialist Workers' Party in either the USA or Britain).

Please explain why you think it is inappropriate for wikipedia for this mateial to be introduced, and it is appropriate for Socialist Review. I do accept now that 'affiliated' is not the proper word, would 'aligned' be more accurate? 00:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Shamir has some wacky ideas, and if you take him at face value, he is full of self-contradiction, e.g. his enthusiasm for free speech and Stalin...

But he is an artist and writer, for God's sake, not a politician, not even an ideologue. Let the article discuss his work, ideas and okay, the controversy, but all that smear about his origin is intolerable. I emailed with the guy back in 2001, and he always said he had lived in Sweden for many years, I really see no inconsistencies in his bio, at most a little exageration in his self-publicity, and who is not guilty of that?

I am also surprised the article makes only indirect mention of his core belief: one democratic secular state in the whole of Palestine/Israel for Jews and Palestinians. This may be an impossible dream, but it is also the least racist perspective on offer in the Palestine-Israeli conflict!

Please, let someone neutral edit this article...