 :::::Avi. We have extensive sources for Jewish/Israeli points of view, far more than for the P of I/P. Some of them, like the Algemeiner and several others, look rather pointy, but I don't challenge them, except of course if the specific article is obviously questionable. As to Mondoweiss, I've asked RSN twice about using it with attribution recently, for specific contexts. Unfortunately the usual line-up on each side (some socks) disenchanted external advice, but on each occasion, one independent editor or so would say that it can be used in context, depending on the quality of the article and its editor. The same holds for +972 magazine (Mairav Zonszein is published by the New York Times, most of the contributors have worked on desks at Haaretz and Jerusalem Post etc.,) As Kingsindian noted, the idea that there is an absolute veto, and that editors who (caught out twice in my memory) never examined the article they removed from that source, but see 'Mondoweiss' or '+972' and revert, is peculiar. I certainly don't think once should consider them automatically RS but in borderline areas, a courtesy note on the page discussing the article and editor, and crosschecking to see if the claim is exceptional, or merely one of those things underreported by the mainstream, but not in itself  improbable, is what is required. At [[Skunk (weapon)|]Skunk] sometime back a now banned editor challenged the idea that that liquid was only used against Palestinians in the West Bank. He came up with an article in Hebrew in a non-RS source that had a photo that confirmed that Haredis had been at least once, in Israel (West Jerusalem). So, I re-edited that source back in. It looked, whatever RS rigourism might say, a fair  documentation of a fact otherwise difficult to establish in mainstream sources. Commonsense should be the rule.  