Gerald Steinberg gets quoted in The New York Times all the time but without the reporter disclosing his position at NGO Monitor or what that organization does. See examples. (link from a post found on Modnoweiss, which additionally demonstrates that there is no human rights org on Earth which NGO Monitor hasn't censured.)

Shows how problematic Times reporting is more than anything else.

A few facts about NGO Monitor:

CEO=Dov Yarden
communications director=Dan Kosky
founder=Wechsler Family Foundation
funder=Ben & Esther Rosenbloom Foundation
funder=Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust
funder=Wechsler Family Foundation
legal adviser=Anne Herzberg
managing editor=Naftali Balanson
president=Gerald Steinberg

It would be useful to develop a web-based database that data mines the funding sources of all the major political players (persons and organizations) in the world by numerous criteria:

1. sort *person|organization funders by affiliations
2. sort *person|organization funders by age
3. sort *person|organization funders by anti-*issue activism
4. sort *person|organization funders by city
5. sort *person|organization funders by company
6. sort *person|organization funders by ethnicity
7. sort *person|organization funders by funding
8. sort *person|organization funders by gender
9. sort *person|organization funders by industry
10. sort *person|organization funders by interest group
11. sort *person|organization funders by name
12. sort *person|organization funders by nation
13. sort *person|organization funders by nationality
14. sort *person|organization funders by pro-*issue activism
15. sort *person|organization funders by religion
16. sort *person|organization funders by state/province
17. sort *person|organization funders by wealth
18. sort *person|organization funders by zip/postal code

Organizations which conceal their funding should be clearly identified.

Walt,

In the interest of the transparency you call on others to provide, will you please break down your income by source (percentages, unless you are willing to provide dollar amounts too) for the past several years?

I asked you for this in your last thread on transparency, noting that the current breakdown would not accurately reflect any monies you received for your previously published books.

Any documentation you could provide would also be welcome. There is no reason to take the think tanks at their word, since obviously they would likely lie if they had something to hide and knew they wouldn't get called on it. You should be held to the same standard, about which I am sure you would agree.

One doesn't disgaree with Prof.Walt's suggestion in principle, but then again, just as there is a niche for "genuine analysis", that is, IF Prof.Walt means by that, detached, factual and objective analysis, provided by institutions which rely on contribution from various subscribers; individuals, groups, and others, whom are interested for their own purposes, in acquiring information in this nature, there is a niche also, for partisan information for those interested in reading what they like and agree with.

How can the individual discern between the objective and the partizan, well, he/ she doesn't really need to do that, and can pick what they like about what they like. Is Prof.Walt concerned that the average individual everywhere is being duped, well, if he/she are not duped by think-tanks, then they will be duped by thousands of other opportunities. So let's be fair, by leaving the think-tanks their small and even perhaps, insignificant margin of duping the individual. Mind you on this matter, I go with the flow.
khairi janbek.paris/france

Prof. Walt's "marketplace of ideas" is a central and essential component of an effective democracy. When certain ideas are deliberately suppressed, the power of democracies to identify the best ideas is weakened, and with it, the democratic process itself. It is clear that the Israel lobby (as well as many others) attempts to promote ideas/policies that it favors. While there is nothing patently illegal about this, the Israel Lobby's influence is sufficiently great not only to strike fear into those holding (or seeking to hold) elective office, but also those seeking appointive positions in our government, as Prof. Walt and others point out. In the meantime, the American people are being deprived of the full and open debate regarding U.S. middle eastern policy that is so badly needed. We have in effect a perfectly legal lobby which does the bidding of the Israeli government. This state of affairs has thereby subverted the democratic process as it applies to American foreign policy in the middle east. Moreover, our media is filled with Israeli apologists and--while it pretends to be a true fifth estate--it suppresses and/or distorts the other side of the story. What is to be done?

When Professor Walt first discussed this issue last week, a few of his loyal readers pointed out his own hypocrisy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Professor Walt's named Chair, as well as a substantial endowment for the institute at Harvard where he works was paid for by the Belfer Family. This family’s wealth is based almost entirely on oil and the gift they made to Harvard to endow Professor Walt's chair was made at the time that the Belfer Family was one of the largest shareholders of Enron. In a sense, Professor Walt is not the "Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Relations he's the "Enron" Professor of International Relations.

None of this is to suggest that Professor Walt has done anything inappropriate; he hasn't. His integrity is not impugned one iota.

But he is attempting to hold other people to a standard he is not willing to live up to himself.

Was the pledge for his chair paid for by the Belfer Family with appreciated Enron stock?

Was the pledge the Belfer Family paid to name the Institute Walt works for satisfied with appreciated Enron stock?

Professor Walt comments extensively about the Middle East and about the Israel-Arab conflict. Are his views colored by the fact that the chair given in his name was funded with wealth that has its roots in oil and in Enron?

If Walt is unwilling to provide the disclosure that he recommends for others, why should anyone take his recommendations in this post seriously?

I would argue that in a truly democratic marketplace of ideas, every idea (including unpopular ones) should be heard and openly debated. The source of those ideas should in theory be irrelevant to the eventual decision to endorse or reject them. The ideas should stand or fall on their own merits, and a democratic people and their elected representatives should have enough judgment to be able to evaluate them on their merits. (Whether the ideas eventually judged best come from Israeli settlers, Enron executives or hallucinating schizophrenics is irrelevant.)We have a lobby that wants to push (as lobbies do) its own agenda--i.e., it is interested only in the merits of its own pet ideas. In addition, this lobby has the power to intimidate the free expression of competing ideas. This is an anti- or undemocratic situation.

Steinberg's position is the classic pro-Israel double-standard; he happily benefits from the same types of acts which he decries in others.

Why am i not surprised?

Why am I surprised that anyone else is surprised?