Talk:Alyssa A. Lappen

thanks for "the goods" on Alyssa. I recently read her hatchet job on Joel Beinin, and now I realize that "here she goes again".

Keep up the good work!

Rabbi Jeremy Milgrom

Jerusalem

non-neutral "Rabbi" Jeremy Milgrom
Once again, SourceWatch proclaims its blatant bias, through comments like that above.

specifics
hi bob i am traveling, and dont have time to add the specifics, but will work on it as soon as i am bakc kind rgds Antidotto

-- OK - I'll leave that section until you've had a chance to edit.

I have rewritten the descriptions of the last two Lappen articles. Generally I wouldn't bother but the anon IP contributors seem to have concentrated on these. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the complexities of Lappen, her views and Mid_East politics so would appreciate someone checking that what I've got is accurate and fair. I haven't attempted to describe Steven Emerson beyond writer but he is clearly more than a neutral commentator.

As for the Lappen ref re Hamas/PA - the previous contributor didn't mention the date of the supposed agreement or that Lappen herself only refers to it as a "draft" agreement. I don't know a) if the text she cites was from an authentic document; b) if it was a "draft" who actually drafted it; c) whether there was a final agreement (if there was why isn't it cited rather than the draft?) and d) I'm not sure why a 1995 "draft" agreement is still relevant in 2003. I'm out of time on this for now --Bob Burton 22:07, 19 Mar 2005 (EST)

Bob: the "agreement" is nonsense -- there have been talks between the two, but those have had to do with organizing ceasefires... She wants to suggest that the PA/Hamas are umbically linked, and that is nonsense. Antidotto

--- A user posted this comment to me via email; posted here with their approval where it is more appropriate. --Bob Burton 00:56, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)

Hi--

I have been watching with some amusement the criticism of Alyssa A. Lappen at SourceWatch and find the page on her somewhat inaccurate and juvenile.

Concerning her reviews at Amazon, for example, she has written 365 reviews, of which less than a third concern Israel, Islam or Palestine. In the first 120 reviews, for example, covered on 12 pages of her member profile, a total of 37 reviews concern Israel, Islam and Palestine and none of them are as strident or opinionated as this profile makes out. Muslim Women's Choices, for example, earns two stars, as does a book on the Caucasus. A children's book on Jihad gets only 4 stars as does Fifteen Century War, and Rage Against the Veil gets three stars, while Progressive Muslims gets two stars.

But the main point is that more than 69 percent of the reviews since September 2002 deal with other topics all together, unless of course one is racist and considers Jewish children's books about Israel, even when the subjects are holidays, observances, and fictional stories.

She's got seven reviews in that first 120 on Gypsies or Rom. Why not point out that she seems to be an advocate for Romany human rights? Or mention that she covers a lot of poetry books and some music, games and kids' movies? This is the bulk of her work, not Israel and Palestine or even Islam.

Whoever wrote this page in the first place seems to have a bug up his ass about Israel. And even there, while Lappen seems to support Israel, her reviews are well-thought-out and reasonably deal with the content of the books she covers. You can disagree with her without the juvenile name-calling.

But for heaven's sake, straighten out the representation. She doesn't do hatchet jobs,as the rabbi suggests. She looks at the evidence and draws conclusions that are based on the that and nothing else.

Keep in mind, meanwhile, that calling someone anti-Islam can be dangerous to their physical well-being, so you had better be damned sure the person is hateful before you apply that epithet. Lappen seems to be against hatred and violence, not against Islam, and not even against Palestine.

Best regards-- RH

some replies
Well, the descriptor states that defining characteristic is her zionist bias -- i don't have to read all her other drivel. We aim to hightlight the fact that many of her reviews are simply propaganda pieces to promote certain books and views. Soon we will add the data on the curious correlation of the book reviews submitted by so many zionist sympathizers... stay tuned.

About "She doesn't do hatchet jobs,as the rabbi suggests" By golly, you may want to read the article about Shoebat and the way it is used against the ISM folks. A dubious character says something about the Beit Sahouris -- people who have no respect for Shoebat whatsoever -- and Lappen takes this as a means to smear and denigrate an entire movement... Great standards of journalism!

You state "Lappen seems to be against hatred and violence, not against Islam, and not even against Palestine" Well, this is rotund nonsense. How else can you explain that she writes or submits articles to the anti-islamic websites. If she wanted to retain a shred of credibility on the issue of hatred and bias against Palestine, then she wouldnt be writing all the hateful stuff and submitting it to those websites. She seems to like "jihadist" derogatory/insulting terms -- doesnt suggest a neutral stance on this religion/people.

And does she actually acknowledge that Palestinians exist? She has spent much effort to prove the non-existence, e.g., she loves the Joan Peters book -- that makes that very point.

Simply put: Lappen is not a journalist, but a zionist propaganda hack. The few examples included here aim to demonstrate this, maybe if patience allows more materials will be added in due course.

Sincerely Antidotto

Posting email sent to me that is more app here --Bob Burton 15:25, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

Dear Bob--

Another note:

Alyssa A. Lappen is not a contributing writer to challenging Islam. http://www.challenging-islam.org/contributors/contributors.htm

You will notice she is not listed on the page of "contributors." This would indicate that any work this website has reprinted comes without the authors' permission, exceptin cases of contributors expressly named.

Likewise, you have failed to establish whether she has granted permission to several of the other places you list under "Publishes in." You're not doing too well. It seems the only places Lappen actually publishes are Amazon, Campus-Watch and FrontPage. Everything else seems to be pure speculation on your part.

Surely, you know that on the Internet, people can and do pick up content without ever asking permission of the writers who have supplied it.

This is no reflected on the writer, or shouldn't be. Your tomatoes are quite rotten, indeed.

Best regards-- RH

how do you know?
Mr. RH seems to know exactly which websites Lappen publishes in. Could s/he clarify where is it official and where just accepted by Lappen? The aim is to be as accurate/fair as possible, and thus clarifications are welcome.

I understand Lappen knows Daniel Pipes... is there an arrangement to distribute her articles on Campus-Watch?

We also know of a website where Lappen wanted references to herself and articles removed. If she finds some of the websites that carry her articles objectionable, then why doesnt she complain? I bet the folks who reprint her article must be honorable folks to respect her wishes.

Antidotto

- I relocated this one here - it is a low volume site (80 hits on the front counter when I had a look) that republishes other copyright material such as wire services stories etc. I'm inclined to place greater weight on locations where people are contributors rather than where articles are republished. I'm not inclined to interpret failure to have a site take material down as being removed as direct or indirect authorisation. It may be simply that she doesnlt have the time or only takes issue when material is being used on commercial sites. --Bob Burton 21:51, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

Challenging Islam – (relationship unknown) NB: this is a website dedicated to slandering Islam and an entire people.

OK I went through this article and removed most of the more incendiary language. I'd hate to see SW article match the tone of some of Lappens writings. Most of the deletions should be self-evident but a few queries remain:


 * the statement "She is an ardent Zionist and many of her articles either exculpate Israeli actions or attack what she likes to refer as "jihadists" needs some substantiation - at the moment we are asking readers to take our word on it.


 * I donlt understand the discussion following the "Peeling Columbia’s Middle East Mask (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000377.php), Dhimmi Watch, December 9, 2003" reference.
 * "Yet another explanation of how Columbia professors are using their positions "not to teach but to spread propaganda"." I couldn't find the quote in the original and it is endorsing the polemical claim against Columbia "professors" as being a fact. So I have deleted this section.
 * "(Columbia Univ. has set up a panel to determine if the allegations of a film produced by the David Project have any merit)" I donlt understand this - it may make sense on a reading of the cited article but it should be self-supporting within the SW article.


 * "There are indications that a group of ardent Zionists methodically send positive or negative reviews according to their ideological proclivities. The "clustering" of the reviews of the same reviewers suggests that there is concerted action to use the Amazon reviews to affect perception and uptake of given books." This is speculative and even if true belongs elsewhere unless there is evidence of a direct link to Lappen. As there is no citation on this latter point I have removed it.--Bob Burton 22:27, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

Hamas-PLO relationship
Is a frequent topic of discussion. Indeed it was brought up at a PASSIA Conference: "Working Lunch at the FCO with Mr. Gerard RUSSELL, Assistant Desk Officer, Near East and North Africa Department and Mr. David HALLAM, Western Asia Department, Overseas Development Administration (ODA). (Topics discussed: PASSIA, the EU seminar and the field trip; situation in Palestine; Palestinian elections; amendment of the PNC Charter; peace process, recent bombings and Israeli upcoming elections; Hamas-PLO dialogue; Oslo II Agreement, PNA credibility and economic aid to Palestine; future scenarios for Jerusalem; Palestinian-Jordanian relations and future prospects; human rights in Palestine). " (http://www.passia.org/seminars/95/s1-55.htm ) and also by Azam Tamimi (cenrtainly not a Zionist) in (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1298/9812023.html ).

It thus seems disingeneous to claim that this relationship does not exist when both Hamas and PLO/PA are so open about the fact that it does.

A few notes on changes and reasons for reverting earlier edit
 * I have incorporated the toning down of the second par. It was rather jarring as it was and assumes that readers automatically known what Zionist dogma is.
 * I reverted the notes stating that it is Amazon that re-posts reviews at Barnes and Noble site. How do we know this? (It is a minor point but implies greater knowledge than the current version which is simply stating the fact that they are re-posted but remains silent on who does it - not that I think there is anything wrong with them being replublished by whoever does it).
 * The additional comments re ISM go way beyond the content of Lappen's article which is what the point of the description is.

I think there was another one but can't remember it now - will return.--Bob Burton 22:53, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)


 * Hamas/PLO: Citing a 1995 reference that states only "Hamas-PLO dialogue" doesn't persuade me that they are military colloborators which is what Lappens article was about. And wishing that she had cited certain sources is out of place in a section describing what is in the 2003 article (not what could have been).--Bob Burton 23:00, 23 Mar 2005 (EST)

amazon reposting??
>>Amazon that re-posts reviews at Barnes and Noble<<

This is absurd... Amazon sharing with Barnes & Noble (its competitor) the comments of its customers/readers. Absurd. Not only that, I wrote to someone I know at Amazon, and obtained the same reply -- this is NOT something Amazon does.

Antidotto

Paul de Rooij's smear of Alyssa Lappen
In his article, Paul de Rooij discusses the nature of smears and then smears Alyssa A. Lappen. He complains that on Amazon, book reviews have become a means for people to propagate "their ideological" stances. Well, yes, I (and others) have used reviews in part to state my own views. But I think that is the right and maybe even the duty of a good reviewer. I've read Alyssa Lappen's excellent review of Joan Peters' "From Time Immemorial," a review de Rooij mentions specifically. While I do not see any place where she called it "this monumental and fascinating book," she did praise it, and for good reason. Yes, some people have criticized the portion of this book where she discusses Arab inmigration. But even this portion has conclusions which are reasonable, as can be seen from Arieh Avneri's book, "The Claim of Dispossesion." Still, to call this book a "threadbare hoax," as de Rooij does, insults everyone's intelligence. Next, de Rooij claims that "Lappen issued glowing reviews of dubious texts published by Encounter Books." I wonder which ones he means. I've reviewed a text published by Encounter Books, namely "The Anti-Chomsky Reader." I gave it a positive review. One might be excused for calling it "glowing." And I would not be surprised were de Rooij to attack this book. But I do not remember seeing a review of it by Alyssa Lappen. But now we get to de Rooij's most topical comment: "Lappen's activities undermine what could be a valuable resource of bona fide book reviews; instead her propaganda imperatives transform the book section to just another ideologically debased space. Amazon may well want to implement a more stringent policy to avoid dragging its website further into the mud." That is an interesting thing for de Rooij to say, given that Amazon does have some of his works on its website. But first, please try reading some of Lappen's reviews. Just read them. Compare them with other reviews of the same books. In terms of sheer quality, expression, and research, Lappen's reviews are among the very best on Amazon! de Rooij's comment is indeed a topical item in an article about smears! Now, if some reviews on Amazon were to state nothing but one set of wild opinions, that would be all right (one may want to look at some reviews by people who agree with de Rooij and see if some of their reviews are like that). But Lappen backs up the opinions in her reviews with plenty of hard facts. And she is doing our society a great service by warning us all of a few books that are written to intentionally mislead readers, and by praising well-written counters to some of the more atrocious propaganda we see.

Reviews such as Lappen's are precisely the ones de Rooij wants Amazon to censor, not because there is anything wrong with them, and not even because they include views different from his own, but because they expose untruths in propaganda he wishes to support. Incredibly, de Rooij feels that this attack on Lappen is insufficient. He continues by criticizing her for her dislike of the Columbia University Middle East Studies Department. Well, I don't like that department either. I think it threatens the academic integrity of Columbia University, the alma mater of a very close relative of mine. One would expect de Rooij to find some specific passage written by Lappen that he feels is out of line. And he does! Let's see what he picked as Lappen's Great Sin! Well, she said that the ISM appears "to be driven by the malevolent jihad ideology that Walid Shoebat describes." de Rooij accuses Lappen's statement of being a "scurrilous smear." Actually, I think what Lappen said is reasonable and accurate. Of course, de Rooij puts in a few words of support for the ISM (International Solidarity Movement). But they are quite unconvincing. He says that many of its members are Christians and Jews. Does he really mean to imply that neither Christians nor Jews are capable of supporting terror? Whether he does or not, the truth is that these particular ones do just that. And de Rooij says that quoting Walid Shoebat is the "journalistic equivalent of quoting the village idiot." Of course, that is not only a smear, it is simply a lie. I think de Rooij needs to apologize to Lappen in print. Jill Malter (jillmalter AT aol.com)

-- I reverted the deletion of the above. The purpose of the talk page is to facilitate discussion on the articles and help refine what is written there so it meets SW aim of being fair and accurate. Jill's note is a comment on the article page and raises a nummber of specific points. While strongly worded it does not go so far as to warrant deletion. There are, after all, plenty of postings to article pages that are far more robust than this one but that in the spirit of debate have been left on talk pages. --Bob Burton 17:17, 26 Apr 2005 (EDT) -- Joel Beinin is not Israeli; he's an American Jew. Also, he's not highly respected in most of the world, but is rather a controversial figure. Lappen is not the only one who has raised issues with Beinin. The Stanford Review has a Beinin Watch page. Also, Lappen has not been writing for Campus-Watch and FrontPageMagazine for 20 years. Those publications have only existed for a few years.

accumulated bullshit
there is so musch accumulated bullshit about this slimmy operator... she is a propagandist for Israel, and yet in this biography her awful background is whitewashed. there is nothing nobble about Alyssa, she is simmply a zionist hack.

vitorio venice, Italy

non-neutral commentaries, article and discussion
Clearly, SourceWatch is NOT a neutral-point-of-view outlet as it claims. Otherwise, it would not allow blatant disparaging of Lappen, either here or in the article. And for what? Because she's allegedly a Zionist? Your own page, (through Wikipedia), describes Zionism as "a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel...." What is wrong with this, unless one opposes ALL nationalities for EVERY people, which SourceWatch clearly does not.

Allowing such comments here shows your editors to be, largely, a bunch of hate-mongers and flaming hypocrites.

PrinceCharming

Relocated the following article links by Lappen here as she has authored/co-authored an endless list of articles of which these are a very few (and not necessarily representative of her point of view). Recommend the following list be expanded (without editorializing) or remain here in talk. Artificial Intelligence 18:44, 4 Apr 2006 (EDT)


 * "Columbia U's Radical Middle East Faculty," FrontPageMag/Middle East Forum, March 18, 2003. An attack on Columbia Univ.'s Middle East Departments, and Rashid Khalidi in particular. This article received the "thumbs up" favorable rating in Campus Watch.
 * "Peeling Columbia’s Middle East Mask," Jewish Internet Association, December 14, 2003. This article describes the monitoring of a (Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures) MEALAC conference and many of the statements made by the academics involved are criticized. In particular, Lappen (and her co-author) criticize Prof. Rashid Khalidi. Prof. Jeff Halper, the founder of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions (ICAHD) is also criticized for working against the demolition of Palestinian homes – seen by Lappen and her co-author as merely destroying the houses of Palestinian terrorists.
 * "Hamas and the Palestinian Authority Are One," FrontPageMag, June 19, 2003. This article opposes the "road map" negotiations on the grounds that the Palestinian Authority will do nothing to stop either its own or Hamas violence. The article portrays Hamas and the Palestinian Authority as collaborators. (See discussion on TalkPage)
 * "The Ravages Of The Jihad-Occupied Mind," FrontPageMag, February 17, 2004. This article is primarily about the views of Walid Shoebat, a Palestinian who grew up in Beit Sahour and later converted from Islam to Christianity. Now he is an ardent supporter of Zionism, was interviewed on a radio program by "right wing" Rabbi Tovia Singer, and appeared on tour of the U.S. tour claiming that Palestinians are anti-Semitic and intent on violence. While on tour, Shoebat states the "he is a Zionist". For a list of articles about Shoebat see the Walid Shoebat page, in particular the BBC article and for anti-Shoebat articles see the anti-Israel PIWP database entry on Shoebat, in particular the Electronic Intifada propaganda by Fadi Kiblawi and a CounterPunch article by Will Youmas.
 * "Stanford's Islamist Threat," FrontPageMag, December 21, 2004. Prof. Beinin is a controversial American Jewish professor at Stanford University who is critical of Israeli  policies and Zionism in general. Here is the top section of her article (reprinted on the Challenging Islam website):
 * He denounces American "imperialism" on Al-Jazeera Television. A former Zionist, he refers to jihadist suicide bombers as "martyrs." He praised Mideast scholars for ignoring the issue of terrorism, and he regularly repeats the most twisted and paranoid claims of Islamist regimes as though they were historical fact. He is Stanford Middle East history professor Joel Beinin, and his influence extends far beyond his classroom. If one individual can showcase all the flaws of Middle East Studies in academia, Joel Beinin is that man. A former president of the Middle East Studies Association, Beinin teaches Middle East history at Stanford University. This professor’s politics color his work; the result is mediocre scholarship, baseless conspiracy theories, and partisan classroom instruction.

useless sw
the editing of this article shows just how useless SW* has become. it should be clear that "Alyssa" has been editing this without a pixel of resitance from SW. This is rather dissappointing. Antidotto

princeCharming = Alyssa Lappen
princeCharming = Alyssa Lappen she has a history of expunging materials critical of herself.

zionist or Zionist
Isn't "Zionist" capitalized? "zionist" just looks wierd. Otherwise, interesting entry. I ran into Alyssa A. Lappen at amazon.com and was so struck by how petulant and immature her review was that I did a google search and found this page.

Edit note
I relocated these sections from the article page. Aside from the rather strident tone they are entirely unreferenced. If the core of the statements are true then the key points can and need to be referenced before being added back in.


 * ===American Center for Democracy===
 * Her most resent position is Senior Fellow at the American Center for Democracy – a hardline zionist pressure group based in New York. Her principal activity here has been to write articles with Rachel Ehrenfeld, ACD's director, most of them smearing Islamic personalities or organizations.  NB: the main activities of ACD are to:


 * 1) obstruct the charitable donation to Middle Eastern groups;
 * 2) de-certify the charitable status of Islamic or Palestinian charities; and
 * 3) to assist lawsuits against banks or countries about "terrorist" activities.


 * ===FrontPage Magazine===


 * FrontPage Magazine is a project launched by David Horowitz to provide a platform for hardcore zionists and right-wingers to attack the "left" and "Islamicists/Jihadists". Lappen produces articles for FrontPage on (1) "Jihadists", (2) critical academics in the United States, and (3) occasionally smears academics or leftwing intellectuals with the "anti-semite" slur.

Edit note 2
I removed this from the article page as well. Yes there is a long list of reviews by Lappen but there is no referencing to which reviews support the key points of the assertions about Lappen's pro-Israel slant and anti-Palestinian line. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:References --Bob Burton 02:38, 23 June 2008 (EDT)


 * ===Book reviews!===

A long list of Lappen's reviews can be found here. (Notice that there are some product "reviews" -- which issue glowing remarks for Israeli products...)

Lappen submits lengthy "reviews" which have the following distinguishing characteristics:
 * 1) If a book is critical of Israel, then the book is attacked and denigrated;
 * 2) If the book is favorable to Israel, then the book is praised and receives five stars;
 * 3) If the book deals with "terrorism" or demonizes Islam, Lappen will issue glowing marks;
 * 4) Books that present a Palestinian narrative are denigrated.

In particular, Lappen has written glowing articles about Joan Peter's From Time Immemorial ("This monumental and fascinating book&hellip; "), a book that Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein has exposed as a hoax, a book written for crass propaganda purposes; Prof. Yehoshua Porath also wrote a blistering indictment of this book. In general, many of Lappen's reviews deal with praising books that are consistent with zionist dogma, and providing negative review that clash with her zionist conceptions.

Lappen also has reviewed several books published by Encounter Books, a publishing enterprise affiliated with David Horowitz and Peter Collier. Her reviews of such books are very predictable: these books receive glowing reviews.

There is now a community of Amazon reviewers who praise or criticize each other's work. The purpose of this aspect of the Amazon website was to provide useful feedback to book reviewers; however, some reviewers have transformed this aspect of the Amazon forums as a means to legitimize reviews by other like-minded individuals. Lappen is a contributor to such mutual public appreciation of others's reviews.

Edit Note 3
From the "reviews" section:


 * ", and they are most likely copied to other booksellers' websites, e.g., Barnes and Noble."


 * maybe, but that is speculative and doesn't really add much.


 * Similar raving reviews can be found for books by: Walid Phares, Habib C. Malik, Patrick Sookhdeo, Walid Shoebat, Anis Shorrosh...


 * the point of requiring references on articles is to allow reader to go straight to the supporting information. This statement is not referenced.--Bob Burton 02:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Edit Note 4
I have removed these from the "affiliations asection as they either weren't referenced or it is overstating the case to suggest that a website republishing an article or linking to it constitutes an "affiliation".--Bob Burton 20:34, 6 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Israel Hasbara Committee – contributor and her articles are republished on IHC's website. Note the meaning of hasbara.
 * JihadWatch.org – contributor
 * Americans For A Safe Israel
 * Center for Security Policy

Curious
What is the objective here with Alyssa Lappen? To discredit her or encourage her? The sites slogan says "Center for Media and Democracy" so I am a bit confused here. The U.S. was attacked by terrorists in 2001 and since then its been getting worse world-wide so why is a person who is try their best to expose these people being slammed and made to look like a idiot? I would have thought if anything something constructive would be here unless this place and PR Watch is run by terrorists which would explain a lot about the callus remarks about her. Are we not on the same side here ? Or out to promote Islamic terrorism ? --Sgrayban 07:13, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

And something else bothers me -- Quote "although she likes to describe herself as an "investigative journalist"" -- I think she is or has no one here bothered to google her ? Not one time is she credit for being a "former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance, and a former Associate Editor of Forbes" which are all main stream publications including Forbes which ranks and investigates corporations. I could understand the the remarks if she was a editor for say "High Times" or "Rolling Stones" but seriously a former editor for Forbes certainly suggests she has a serious journalism background right ? Or is everyone at Forbes also loony in the head ? --Sgrayban 07:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)