While I tend to agree with most statements here, I see a majoir deficiency in providing examples and peer-reviewed sources. Many of my comments are Devil's advocacy.
There is a problem in saying, on one hand the Israeli lobby (organizations like the AIPAC, J Street, and the ZOA) "are so divided on them [peace process and settlement policy – major areas] and, on the other discussing "the lobby" as if it were a monolithic group (e.g.: "when the US has been heavily involved in the peace process, these pressure groups have often hesitated to go to the mat for the Israeli negotiation position.").
As to sources, I'd shy away from using newspapers and their commentators, save for reporting an actual news event or a person's opinion. Too, always question the opinionator's credentials. Are they peer-reviewed, or are they just ideologues?
Overall, the manuscript is worthwhile as a good summary and introduction to those needing such to the Israeli lobbying organizations.
(No, I am not a prufreeder and I have -35 degree parallax problem in my eyes. I bow to the grammar and nitpicking police.)
There is a problem in saying, on one hand the Israeli lobby (organizations like the AIPAC, J Street, and the ZOA) "are so divided on them [peace process and settlement policy – major areas] and, on the other discussing "the lobby" as if it were a monolithic group (e.g.: "when the US has been heavily involved in the peace process, these pressure groups have often hesitated to go to the mat for the Israeli negotiation position.").
As to sources, I'd shy away from using newspapers and their commentators, save for reporting an actual news event or a person's opinion. Too, always question the opinionator's credentials. Are they peer-reviewed, or are they just ideologues?
Overall, the manuscript is worthwhile as a good summary and introduction to those needing such to the Israeli lobbying organizations.
(No, I am not a prufreeder and I have -35 degree parallax problem in my eyes. I bow to the grammar and nitpicking police.)